New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-04-14

be EMPLOYED a. an architectural decoration OF
churches. being in such cases aot an object Of SUI
perstitious reverence, but mere emblem Of the
Christian faith.
Regarding the wooden cross on the chancel screen
Of ST. Barnabas as mere architectural ornament,
their Lordships reversed that part OF the decision
snnesled from which ordered its removal. But,
having conceded thus much to the Puseyites-and,
a. .nnesrs 70 MS from careful consideration OF the
onipion. upon solid grounds both Of common sense
and the clear intention as we'll as letter OF the law
their LordshiIs, as to the crosses affixed TO the
communion tables, come over TO the side oil inc
complsinants The view which they tooh vi the
Churchs understanding Of the communion service
was decidedly Protestant In referring 10 Tue use
BIZ the appellants Of the word altar as synony-
nous with communion table they suggest that
however the name may be OF little consequence
where the same thing is meant yet that the DIS
tincton between an altar and communion 1aoie
involves, in fact the whole difference between
Professionals and Romansts. The Romanists
consider the communion IS sacrifice OF the
body aud blood of Christ. The clements are
and blood Of the victim the altar being the
place on which the sacrifice is TO be made.
In the Protestant communion, on the other
hand. the bread and wine are still bread and
vine placed not ON an altar, but on table not as
a sacrifice 10 be offered, but as supper to be
eaten: and il is table, movable, of wood, ca
pable Of being covered-in every respect a table,
~,r.o +ha and
rubric Of the Church require.
Their Lordships agree. therefore with the
Courts below that the table or altar of ST. Barna-
has, being Of stone and being fixed is Objectionable
in both respects. They also agree in condemning
the crosses fixed in the super-altare" in both
churches as being sppurtenances rather of an
altar than table, and they confirm the order for
their removal. But as to the credence tables
so called, they go with the defendants, and
reverse the order made in the Courts below Tor
their removal. The rubrc directs that at
certain point in the course of the cOmmu'
Mon service, the minister shall place the
bread and wine on the communion table. As to
where they shall be placed previously nothing is
said. They are usually placed on the communion
table before the service commences; but this is
cer,s;uly not according to the rubric. Nothing
soons MIN, unobjectionable than small side table,
from which they my be conveniently reached and
transferred at the proper time to the communion
table, and credence table is in spite OF It's name
precisely that and no more.
As to the question of altar cloths, the Puseyites
also carry the day, at least in part. The canon
directs covering of silk or other decent stuff
when the table is not in use fair white linen
cloth to be employed at the time of the communion
service The Courts below concluded that as only
one covering was required only one could be used.
Their l. rdships think that the object OF the canon
was to secure a covering sufficiently handsome,
NOT to guard against too much splendor. The
Puseyites are, therefore, to be INDUCED in black
coverings during Lent white coverings at Christ
mas, and coverings of any color they may choose
at any other time provided the Bishop of the
diocese sees fit to approve them as suitable and
decent. But the luxury of lace and embroidery
during the communion service they are Obliged to
forego. These were held in the Courts below to
be inconsistent with the idea of fair white linen
le-cloth and that decision their Lordships with
some hesitation sustain.
The case, however, winds up with a tidbit for
the Puseytes. The award of costs made by the
Court below against the appellants is reversed, and
each party is required to bear his own expenses,
not merely Of the appeal, but from the beginning
a decided hint to evangelical psrishioners to be
cautious how they bring their Puseyte pastors into
court.