The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-01-12
RTTUALISM.

Important Decision Against Ritualistic
Innovations.
From The London T;,oeS, Dec. "a
The case of ''Martin VS.. Mackonochie,' in
which some of the most characteristic practices
at st. Adams, Holborn, were challenged, was
yesterday decided, and the result is that Mr..
Mackonochie is condemned upon every one of
the points raised, and is required to pay the
costs both of the original suit and of the
present appeal. This decision is as important
as 1t will be satisfactory to the public. The
case has brought to the test of law some of
the most prominent innovations of the ritual
lists. They were innovations closely con-
neoted with their most characteristic
doctrines - those, namely, which relate
to the Holy Communion. To indi-
cate their peculiar belief respecting this
sacrament they introduced a variety of novel
gestures, ceremonies, and ornaments. Though,
in the aggregate, these produced a change so
conspicuous as utterly to alter the character
of the service, it was, as usual very difficult
to describe them with sufficient accuracy for
legal test. AT length, however, after the
Ingenuity of numerous lawyers has been ex-
erted on both sides, the question has been
brought to distinct issue, and on that issue
issue Mr.. Mackonochie has been, without ex-
ception, condemned. Ritualism, in short, has
been fairly challenged in the highest court of
Law, and has been completely defeated. The
issue, though limited, is Of material signif-
canoe, and the condemnation pronounced is
sufficient to prove that the position Of the
Ritualists is wholly untenable.
The case may be very simply explained.
Mr.. Mackonochie was originally charged
First, with elevating the elements during the
Prayer of Consecration; secondly, with kneel-
ing before them during the same prayer;
thirdly, with using lighted candles on the
communion table during the celebration of
the Holy Communion, when they were not
required for the purpose of giving light;
fourthly, with using incense in the same SER
vice; and filthy, with mixing water with the
wine. The elevation Mr.. Mackonochie dis
continued before the suit commenced, and
was admOnished not to resume it. The
judgment of the Court of Arches condemned
the use of incense and of water. 1t ad-
mitted, however, the lawfulness OF lighted
candles, and considered the kneeling q minor
point of order, which, il raised at all, should be
referred to the discretion of the Bishop. The
Judicial Committee have now ruled that
kneelipg during the prayer of conservation is
contrary to the Rubric, and that lighted can
dies are not admissible. There remains,
Therefore, not single point on which the de-
fendant has sustained his case. What is still
more remarkable, there is scarcely an argu-
ment on which the counsel for the ritualists
relied which has not been rejected by the
Court; and this NAV involve more important
consequences than the judgment itself. With
respect to the kneeling, the Court observes
that the posture of the officiating minister is
prescribed by various directions throughout
the Communion service. He is directed
when to stand and when to change this
posture for that OF kneelng. But il
is expressly ordered that the PRAYER of
conservation is to be said by the priest
standing before the table, and there ia no
indication that he is intended to change his
posture during the prayer In reply, after one
or two formal objections, it was cOntended that
this was one of those minute details which
the Rubric could not be held to cover. To this
the Court make the important answer that il
Is not for any minister of the Church, or even
lor themselves, TO assume that any departure
from or violation of the Rubric is trivial, The
present case, indeed, is conspicuous proof
that violations which in themselves might
seem very trivial may practically involve most
material consequences 1t is as notorious his.
torlcally as 1t ls evident from the minute direc
lions OF the Prayer-boOk that variations OF
gesture and posture during the Communion
We're connected at the Reformation with
important points of doctrines and those who
put this plea upon the record knew perfectly
well that the gesture which they described al
trivial implied on their part equally importan
opinions. This consideration has a furthe
bearing upon the equally questionable pie
that there was no evidence to show that ado
ration was intended by kneeling. The coul
would In any case, find 1t very difficult
Judge OF Intentions and sentiments, and col
seauently II Is all the more necessary ths
il should Judge strictly of "outward move
ments." On this point, in short, Mr.. Ma
k0uoohie had violated distinct RubTic, an