service at the church; and that they had required him, in his official capacity of churchwarden, to take such legal measures as should be requisite and necessary, and he should be duly advised to adopt, for effecting the removal of the altar, altar-cloths, cross, candlesticks, and credence-table, from the district chapel, and substituting a decent communion-table, with a proper covering, instead thereof. Mr. Westerton further made oath that he intended applying to the Court to grant him a faculty for the purposes named. With regard to the matters complained of, he (Dr. Bayford) might be permitted to say that it was perfectly well known and of common reputation that the parish had been in a state of conflict on account of those things for a long time. Application had been made personally to the bishop, but he, of course, declined to interfere without this Court.

The Learned JUDGE inquired whether the bishop had said that he required the interference of the Court?

Dr. BAYFORD So understood. A book had been printed and circulated in the parish, which contained, among other things, the answer returned by the bishop to a memorial. It did not come formally before the Court.

The Learned JUDGE wished to have all the information that he could.

Dr. BAYFORD.—The bishop in his answer said, "The altar is not of stone, but of wood; not fixed, but moveable. When I consecrated the church, the disputes on this article of church furniture had not risen to such a pitch as they have since attained; and the height of the communion-table did not attract my notice. It is now a part of the goods of the parish; and, although the churchwardens, with my consent, and that of the vestry, might change it or replace it by another, I do not believe that I have authority, not acting as a judge in my court, to direct them so to do. If any persons think it to be the duty of the churchwardens to make such a change, they must proceed against them by a suit in the Consistorial Court." So in regard to other matters, his Lordship referred the parties, if they desired a decision on the subject, to the Court. With regard to the position in which the parties for whom he appeared stood, he might also state that their real object was to obtain an authoritative decision on all these points. In order that the conflict which was going on might be put an end to, it was thought better by all parties certainly by Mr. Westerton-that the matter should be brought before the Court, and receive a judicial decision. In the case of Mr. Faulkner's church, at Cambridge, the Learned Judge of the Arches' Court distinctly refused to come to the conclusion, that the structure proposed to be erected was an altar, but he decided that it was not a table, which it ought to be. In the judgment delivered by him a good deal was said as to what an altar was, because in the first Prayerbook of Edward VI., altars were mentioned, but the word was expunged from the second edition and from all subsequent editions. It seemed that some light might be thrown on what was a table, by considering what was an altar, but the Learned Judge merely determined that the structure referred to was not a table within the meaning of the canons and the Liturgy, and that it ought not to be in the church at the present

time. The structure at St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, was made of wood, but Sir H. J. Fust had laid it down, that an altar might be made of wood, stone, or any other material. He apprehended that in coming to the Court, and asking for the removal of the structure which had been erected, although it was made of wood, yet it fell under the purport of the decision in that case just as much as if it had been made of stone. The question still remained, whether the structure was a table or an altar? but, in applying for a decree only, perhaps the Court would not think it necessary to go into the question.

The Learned JUDGE said, he was very reluctant to let a decree of this kind issue without great consideration, and, therefore, he would not permit it to issue until he had satisfied his own eyes. He would like to know the points on which the Learned Counsel relied, because what should be allowed in a church and what not was a matter very incapable of definition.

Dr. BAYFORD then referred to the decision in "Faulkner v. Litchfield and Steane" (1, Robertson), and inquired whether, before the Court issued the decree, it was necessary that he should argue the case in extenso?

The COURT would not trouble the Learned Counsel to that extent, but he should deem it his duty to consider the question; it was not very usual to issue such a decree.

Dr. BAYFORD was not aware of any statute distinctly referring to the removal of crosses, but they were removed with all the paraphernalia belonging to the celebration of Divine worship in the Roman Church at the time of the Reformation, and were considered to fall within the principles of the 3d and 4th Edward VI., chap. 10. That statute was afterwards repealed by the 2d of Mary, chap. 2. At the beginning of her reign she repealed all the statutes made in reference to the Reformation, but that repealing Act was again repealed by the 1st of James I., chap. 25, sec. 48; the former statute, therefore, was revived, and now formed part of the law of the land. By the second section all the persons to whom was intrusted the administration of the law at that day conceived that the existing crosses and other things coming within the same category were to be removed. From what was forbidden, and what was to stand, the design was to sever between those matters which had been made objects of worship and superstition, and those which from their nature could not. He considered that clear, from the way in which the statute had been carried out by the bishops of that day.

The COURT inquired whether the statute applied to all churches and chapels ?

Dr. BAYFORD thought that it did.

The COURT.-Would it extend, in your view, to a picture of our Saviour carrying a cross, at the end of the communion-table?

Dr. BAYFORD apprehended not, because a picture of that kind stood on a different footing, inasmuch as it represented an act done, not an object present. If a picture of the Saviour on the cross were placed in such a position that it might be an object of adoration, then it would come within the statute, but if the picture represented an act done, or occupied such a position that it could not be applied to superstitious

purposes, there was a distinction.

In the present case the cross was placed upon the communion-table, and for the reason he had stated, that was the most objectionable place in the whole church. There were two or three homilies against the peril of idolatry, and he was not aware that the cross was there spoken of as an exceptionable thing; but the principle on which the homilies proceeded was, that images and so forth should be put out of churches on account of the improper use which had been made of them. The homilies discriminated between images and pictures which never could be applied to an improper use, and those which, from their situation, or the actual contents of the picture, might be. The homilies, therefore, were framed on a principle parallel to that of the statute. The cross in St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, being placed on the communion-table, brought it within the principle laid down in the homilies. The Learned Counsel then cited in support of his argument, from "Cardwell's Documentary Annals," the injunctions of Edward VI., 1567, a letter sent by him to Archbishop Cranmer, to be forwarded by him to all the bishops; the visitation articles of Archbishop Cranmer; Bishop Ridley's visitation articles for the diocese of London; Archbishop Parker's articles; Archbishop Grindall's injunctions for the diocese of York, and the articles issued by him when Archbishop of Canterbury. For some little time there was an attempt, on the part of Archbishop Laud, to re-introduce those things which had been forbidden, but it failed, and there had been no attempt, that he was aware of, to do so again until the present day. If the Court thought it requisite, he would pursue the subject further, but, perhaps, the synopsis which he had furnished would be sufficient for the present purpose.

The Learned JUDGE did not think it necessary to proceed further. He must be a little cautious in the course he followed, because it would embrace many questions beyond those appearing on the face of the proceedings. Whatever conclusion he arrived at as to church ornaments allowed by law, it would not apply to St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and St. Barnabas only, but to all churches in the diocese ; and if that decision was carried up to a higher Court, and affirmed, it would apply to the whole of England. If he determined to allow the decree to issue, he would intimate it to the registrar; if not, then he would state his reasons publicly.

BEAL V. LIDDELL AND THE CHAPEL-WARDENS OF ST. BARNABAS.

This was a similar proceeding. The facts were not detailed, but Dr. BAYFORD stated that it was a stronger case than the last; here there was a stone altar and a stone credence-table.

It was directed to stand over.*

THE "CATHOLIC DIRECTORY."

THE SO-called "Catholic Directory" for 1855, contains much calculated to startle those Protestants who look upon Popery as but

* If we receive intimation of the decree being issued, or refused, before going to press, a notice of it will be inserted at the end of the present number, under the heading "Intelligence."-ED. P. M.

another form of Christianity, and much also calculated to increase the alarm and stimulate the exertions of those who dread the progress of the insidious foe.

It was in 1845, the late Sir Robert Peel carried the Maynooth Bill. At that time England and Wales were divided into eight districts, presided over by vicars-apostolic. But now, in 1855, the land is divided into dioceses, with a regular establishment of bishops and cathedral chapters, presided over by a cardinal archbishop.

The following table will enable us to compare the state of the Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain, in the respective years of 1845 and 1855:

An increase in ten years of 229 upon 609 churches and chapels, and 367 upon 757 priests, is certainly alarming; especially if compared with the state of things at a period sixty years previous. It is estimated that at that time the number of priests was 359. The annexed statement will show the comparative rate of increase.

On page 28, of the "Catholic Directory," a table is given, headed "Catholic Hierarchy," with the bishops, date of consecration, dioceses, and population. It is to be observed, the whole of the Protestant population is included, thus,

and so on. The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill is thus treated by the

Romanists as a dead letter.

It seems as though the people were no longer startled at the word Popery, as though Popery were become a harmless thing, as though it were a matter of indifference whether men were Papists or Protestants. What would have been thought in 1829 of such a statement as the preceding? Where is the spirit of this once Protestant land? There was, it is true, à passing emotion in 1845, excited by the Maynooth Bill, and again in 1850-1, by the establishment of the hierarchy, but has it not to a great extent passed away, and left no trace behind? The ground taken by the martyrs in their opposition to Popery, was firm and good. It was, that Popery was anti-Christian. Hear John Philpot, archdeacon and martyr, just three hundred years ago. "We may not halt on both sides and think to please God. We must be fervent in God's cause, or else He will cast us out from Him. Let no man deceive you with vain words, saying, that you may keep your faith to yourselves, and dissemble with Antichrist, and so live at rest and quietness in the world, as most men do, yielding to necessity." Bishop Ridley says, "The Bishop of Rome is Antichrist himself, indeed. Rome is the mother of fornications, and with her all those kings, and princes, and nations of the earth do meddle who consent to her abominations, and use or practise the same. That is, (to rehearse some for example's sake,) her dispensations, her pardons, her invocation of saints, her false counterfeit religion in her monkery and friarage, her massing and false ministering of God's word, and the sacraments of Christ." He further declares that the doctrine of the Pope's Church is "as clean contrary to God's word as darkness to light, black to white, Belial to Christ." And further, that "all who do so meddle with her, who do drink of her cup of abominations, shall also, except they repent betimes, drink of the cup of the Lord's indignation and everlasting wrath."

An examination of the "Catholic Directory" proves that every abomination mentioned by Bishop Ridley as above stated, is still existing in full vigour. We ask all who have to this time considered modern Popery to be but another form of Christianity, to examine its doctrines and practices by the light of Scripture; for, so doing, they must agree with Bishop Ridley that Popery is as clean contrary to God's word as darkness is to light, as Belial is to Christ.

To commence with the Calendar, we find that a plenary indulgence may be gained on January 1st, another on the 6th, another on the 14th, and on the 23d another. On the 7th, attention is specially directed to the important fact, that, in the dioceses of Hexham and Liverpool, a plenary indulgence may be gained every Sunday. Indulgences are plentifully