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

have at last been decided by the court of final ap-
peal-the Judicial Committee of the Privy Coun.
Gil Their decision evidently aims at splitting the
difference between the Puseyites and the evangelical
party between whom quite as much as between
the nominal contestants these suits must be con-
sidered as having been litigated.
The matter in dispute was certain decorations
and ornaments employed in and about the COM
munion table and the celebration Of the COM
munion service in the district church or chapel of
st. Pauls, Knightbridge, London. and in the
chapel of ease Of ST. Barnsbas, PimcO, within the
district chapery Of St. Paul and under the controlof
the same rector who was defendant in both cases.
In the chapel Of st. Pauls the communion table
as appeared from the pleadings and evidence, was
of wood placed according to custom at the east end
of the church or chancel not attached to the plat
FORM but standing upon it, having at the end or
side nearest the wall a narrow ledge raised above
the rest of the table upon which ledge-called the
super-altare' stood two movable gded candle
sticks. and between them wooden cross let into
and permanently fixed in the 'super-atare. In
the chapel of ST. Barnabas screen of carved wood,
to the summit of which wooden cross was affixed,
separated the chancel from the nave. Behind
this screen stood the communion table, thick
marble slab standing apart from the wall sup
ported upon stone carved arches, the arches resting
upon stone plinth let into and imbedded IN the
pavement. This table had upon the side nearest
the wall "super-altare," in which was fixed
metal cross. ornamented with jewels, having on
either side large candlestck with a candle
therein. In each church there stood near the COM
munion table side table, called preparatory altar
or credence table, which in ST. Barnabas was also
of stone; and in both churches dyerse-coored
cloths were used az different seasons for covering
the communion table or altar, and in st. Barna-
bas. during the communion service an embroidered
white linen covering deliberately wrought and high
Is ornamented with lace.
The citations originally sued out complained OF
all this paraphernalia and called for the substtq'
ton instead Of men;d t5agrna It deems, TT and
convenient table and decent cloth for the cover
ing thereof such as the canOns and rubric and the
law required for that purpose. The cases we're
first heard in the Consistory Court of London
before Dr. Washington. whence they were carried
BY appeal to the Arches Court before Sir j. bod
son, and finally thence to the Priyy Council of
whose decision We have now to speak.
DR.. Washington could find no ground for con-
demning the candlesticks even the candles, re-
gardng them as mere symbols that Christ is the
light of the world; but to all the other matters
he went with the compliments, ordering the re-
moyal of the crosses both that affixed to the
"A a1 70 tho communion fables Tho
removal also of the credence tables and the disuse
Of the diverse .colored and embroidered cloths was
ordered and also of the stone table of ST. Barnabas;
which decision had been sustained in oil its points
BY Sir John Dodson in the Court of Arches.
The grand controversy and augmentation in all
the Courts to the crosses. The rubrlc of
the Prayer Book prescribes the use of "such Orna
"ments Of the church and Of the ministers there
of as were in use by the authority of Para-
ment in the second year Of King Edward vi. DR..
Lushingtor considered this rubric decisive of the
case, and as no Parliamentary authority for the use
of crosses could be shown, he held their use in or
about church to be illegal.
Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee held,
on the other hand, that plain and manifest dis
tincton existed between the crosses whether with
or without the image of the Savior, used in the
Roman Catholic ritual-altar crosses, professional
crosses, funeral crosses, and Others-and merely
painted or carved representations of crosses not
used in the church services, but set mp architec
tura decorations to which sort of decorations the
rubric according to their Interpretation of it, had
no reference whatever. In ecclesiastical law, the
term ornaments is not confined, and has no ex
elusive reference to mere decorations, but is used
in the sense of the Latin word ornamental, to in
Guide any and every article employed in the per-
fornancc Of the rites and services of the Church;
and il is to such articles and to such articles alone
and not at all TO architectural decorations that the
rubric, in speaking Of ornaments of the church and
its ministers, was understood BY their Lordships
to refer.
Sir John Dodson, though he confirmed the judg-
ment of Dr. Washington, placed his condemnation of
crosses on different ground. He relied principally
upon certain royal injunctons and acts of Parlia.
ment against the use of images, among which he
considered crosses to be included. Their Lord.
ships Of the Priyy Council, however, upon an
elaborate review Of these njunctiOns and acts,
come TO the conclusion that they did not include
crosses as distinct from crucifxes-which latter
term applies to crosses having an image of the
Sayior-and that there is no law which forbds the
use of simple crosses as embems of faith, or as
architectural decorations for churches. They
admit that many English Bishops objected as
well TO crosses as to crucfxes, and either ordered
or sanctioned their removal from the churches
within their dioceses and that in many other cases