New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-01-21

We gave some time ago an account Of the trial in
the Consistory Court Of London Of curious case
involving the legality of certain ornaments intro
duced into two of the churches Of that diocese.
That trial had resulted in q decree of DR.. Lushing
ton ordering the removal Of the ornaments objected
to- The church waIdens, however-unwilling to
give up these as they regarded them, helps to de-
votion, however others might stigmatze them as
,avorpg of idOlsty and superstitiOn-carried the
case up by appeal to the Arches Court in which
Court deciiiOn has just been pronounced BY Sir
J. DodsOn. The ornaments condemned by DR..
LushDgtOn were crosses placed on or over the
communion table; credence tables placed beside
il; variety Of divers c0lored altar coverings some
of them ornamented with lace and embroidery;
and in one of the churches a fixed stone cOmmun-
movable wooden table 10 be substituted He also
directed the removal of the crosses and credence
tables and that in place of the above mentioned
variety of altar coverings, there should be substi
tu'ed during the celebration Of divine service
single cover of silk or other decent stuff, and
"whte linen cloth, without lace or embroidery or
other ornament
The argument on the appeal, and ;ae opinion de-
lvered BY Sir j. Dodson, turned mainly on the use
OF the cross as church ornament, it being merely
in that character, and not as possessing any nhe
rent power Of sanctfCatiOn or ed6catiOn, that it's
use was maintained by the appellant church war
dens. The rubric of the Prayer Book, admitted on
both sides to be of Parliamentary authority, directs
the retaining in use of such ornaments % as were in
"use by the authority CT Parliamen. in the second
"year of the reign of King Edward VI" The
question, therefore, was at once carried back to
that period. During the life OF Henry VIII. sew
eTa acts Of Parliament had been passed authorizing
him TO constitute commission of thirty-twO per-
sons to examine sll canons, constitutions and ordi-
nances, synodical and provincial and to designate
such as ought TO be retained, with provisO tina.
until that should be DONE all such canons, ordi-
nances and other laws accustomed and used in
"the Church of England" as were not contrary 10
the law of the land and the Kings prerogative, and
(Which were necessary or convenient or requisite
:" to be in use and execution" should continue in
force. No such commission was ever appointed by
Henry, and the power to appoint it expired with
him. Not 80, however, as it was commended, and
as Sir j. DodsOn admitted, the proviso, which in
some Of the statutes took on an enactng FORM
1t was upon the strength of this proyiso that .
Parliamentary sanction was claimed for using the
cross as an ornament for though the advocates Of
crosses had not been able to point out any specific
or sutha rizip tha
use of crosses in churches, or explaining how they
might be used yet the terms Of the proviso relied
on seemed broad enough to embrace not merely
ecclesiastical laws made by synodics or provincial
authority, but the common ecclesiastical Law of the
realm and that crosses had been commonly admit.
ted and used in the English churches down to the
period Of the Reformation could not be denied.
Sir John DodsOD, however, Inclined to the Opn-
ion that the acts of Henry VIII above cited, pro-
visos and all, had been repealed BY statute of the
first of Edward VI. entitled IAN Act for the repeal
"of certain statutes concerning treasOns, feloneS,
"&c," which &c. embraced, beside great variety
of other important acts, the law Of the six articles
"and all and every other act or acts of Parliament
concerning doctrine or matters Of religion"
of opinion that far as crosses were concerned the
above cited proviso had been superseded BY proc.
lamation issued in May, l647, two or three months
after Edwards accession, setting forth number of
iDjunctions on the subject of religion, and based
upon an act of Henry Will, according to which
royal proclamatiOns, or in case the King were a
minor, proclsmatOns put forth in the name of the
Council, or majority Of it. were TO have the effect
Of law.
Some objections had indeed, been raised to the
authority of this proclamation on the ground that
Il did not appear that the signers of it included a
msjOrity Of the Council-OhjectiOns Of which DR..
Huntington, in the Court below, had admitted the
force. But as the irjunctiOns contained in this
proclamation bad never been denied to be law by
any body but Bishop Gardiner, who, being inpris-
Oned therefor, had offered 10 withdraw his obiec-
tons which, in fact, did not embrace the point now
relied upon, and as they had been enforced at the
time, and bad ever since been acted upon Sir J.
DOdson must regard them having the force of law
Their object was to Danish and drive away all
superstition and ide'atry. Persons were forbid
dt n in them 20 set up images, relics OF miracles;
to wsrder on pilsriusges; TO pray TO- offer to, or
ki:s re les; or TO pray on beads. Such images as
osd been abused by pigrmages, offering or Gems.
rpg were to be taken down and destroyed. No
torches, candles, tapers or images Of wax were
10 be set bere any image or picture, but only two
ights upon the high altar before the Sacrament,
whcb, FOR the s'gni6cst'on that Christ is the very
trre ligt, Of the world were 70 be suffered to re-
usn. La. orders were gwen 70 the propsr