[169] This applies only to a church served by a distinct minister, and not where there are two churches in one parish. But even in such a case the incumbent has no right wholly to close one church and hold all the Sunday services in the other; Rugg v. Bp. of Winchester (1868) L. R. 2 P. C. 223; 38 L. J. Eccl. 23.
[170] (1838) 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 80.
[171] (1818) 58 Geo. 3, c. 45, ss. 65, 66.
[172] 7 Will, 4 & 1 Vict. c. 45.
[173] The appointment of such person rests with the incumbent or principal officiating minister; a clergyman in priest's orders is not a "fit" person to collect the offertory money. Cope v. Barber (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 393.
[174] Sm. Churchw. 80; Reg. v. O'Neill (1867) 31 J. P. 742; Howell v. Holdroyd (1897) P. 198. An incumbent often takes sole charge not only of money collected in church but of money collected by appeals within and outside the parish. He should in all such cases lodge it at a bank on a separate account, and notify in his appeal that this will be done. He cannot otherwise reasonably expect to be entrusted with money by strangers; and if the money is mixed with his own, it may be difficult or impossible to disentangle it in the event of his sudden illness and death.
[175] Moysey v. Hillcoat (1828) 2 Hag. Eccl. 30, at p. 56.
[176] As stated in ch. i. § 4, these decisions are part of our Church law, until reversed or altered by future judicial decisions or by legislation. As intimated in the Preface, no opinion is here expressed as to their correctness, or as to what the law ought to be on the points with which they deal. It has been questioned whether in the Ornaments Rubric and in the Act of Uniformity of 1559 (1 Eliz. c. 2), from which it is derived, the mention of such ornaments as were in the Church by authority of Parliament in the second year of Edward VI. refers to the ornaments sanctioned by the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., the use of which was enjoined by the Act of Uniformity of 1549 (2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 1), or to those previously in use. It may be observed that this Act is referred to as made in the second year of the reign in the later Act of Uniformity of 1552 (5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 1, s. 4), and the Book itself is associated with that year in the 36th Article. In the Bp. of Winchester's Case (1596) 2 Co. Rep. 40 a, the Payment of Tithes Act of the same session (2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 13) is referred to as made in the Parliament holden in the second year of Edward VI. See also Westerton v. Liddell (1857) Moore's Special Report, 156, 160; Martin v. Mackonockie (1868) L. R. 2 P. C. 365, at p. 390; Elphinstone v. Purchas (1870) L. R. 3 A. & E. 66, 94.
[177] Faulkner v. Litchfield (1845) 1 Rob. Eccl. 184; Westerton v. Liddell (1857) Moore's Special Report, 176-185. A variety of embroidered cloths is permissible; Ib.188. But the decision in Re St. Luke's, Chelsea (1904) P. 257, that marble is "stuff" within Canon 82, seems open to question.
[178] Phill. Eccl. Law, 733-5; Liddell v. Beal (1860) 14 Moo. P. C. 1, 14; Durst v. Masters (1876) 1 P. D. 373; Ridsdale v. Clifton (1877) 2 P. D. 276; Bradford v. Fry (1878) 4 P. D. 93, 106; Re St. Matthias, Richmond (1897) P. 70; Re St. Ethelburga (1900) P. 80; Re St. John Baptist, Paignton (1905) P. 111.