Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-01-19
RETUALESM.
Important Decision Against
Ritualisiic Innovations.
90 ths London Times. peeemeer 2l.l


practices al st. Alban's, HolbOrn, wer'
challenged, was yesterday decided, anC
the result is that Mr.. MackOnOchle !,
condemned upon every one Of the points
raised, aud Is required to pay the costs
both Of the original suit and OF the pres
ent appeal. This decision Is as impor'
tsut Is it will be satisfactory ID the pub
lie. The case has brought TO the test ol
law some OF the most prominent innOvs.
tions OF the Rltualists. They were innO-
vations closely connected with their
most Characteristic doctrines-thOse,
namely, which relate to the Holy Com
muuiOD. To indicate their peculiar be-
lief respecting this sacrament they intro
duced variety OF novel gestures, cere-
monies, and ornaments, Though, In the
aggregate, these produced q change go
. CONSPICUOUS ss utterly to alter the char
actar Of the service, it was, as usual, very
q fiieult to describe them with sufficient
accuracy for a legal test. At length,
however, after the ingenuity of numer-
Gus lawyers has been exeTted on both
sides, the question has been brought to
a distinct issue, and on that issue Mr..
! MackonOehie has been, without eXcep-
/ ton, eondem ned. Rituslism, in short,
/ has been fairly challenged in the highest
1 Court of Law, and has been completely
I defeated The issue, though limited, is
/ OF material significance, and the con-
I demnstion pronounced is sufficient to
prove that the position Of the Rttuali5ts
is wholly untenable.
The case may be very simply explained
SIR. Msckoncchie was originally
charged first, with elevatiDg the ele-
ments during the Prayer of Consecra-
ton secondly, with kneeling before
them during the same prayer; thirdly,
with using lighted candles on the COM
muniOB Table during the celebration OF
the Holy Communion, when they were
rot REQUIRED for the purpose of giving
light; fourthy, with using incense 10
the same service; and filthy, with mix
ing water with the vine. The elevation
Mr. MaekonOchie discontinued before the
suit commenced, and was sd-
m0uishsd not 20 resume 1t. The judg-
ment Of the Court OF Arches condemned
the Use Of i1sCeEse ana OF water. It
admitted, however, the laWiuiness Of
lighted candles. and considered the
kneeiing a minor point OF order, which,
II raised at all, SHOULD be referred to the
discretion Of the Bishop. The judicial
Committee have now ruled that kueeling
during the Prayer OF Conservation is
contrary to the Rubric, and that lighted
candles are not admissible. There re-
msiUs, therefore, not a single point on
which the defendant has sustained his
case. What is stu more remarkable,
there is scarcely an argument on which
the counsel for the Rtualists relied
which has net besn rejected by the
Court; and thi. may involve more i1a-
pOEtant consequences than the Judgment
Itself With respect to the kneeiing the
~ FaCarTzuu Of t-nN NF
fici2ting minis .er IS prescribed by vaFiops
directions throughout the Communion
service. He is directed when to stand
znd when to change this posture
for that of kneeliGg. But sit is
expressly OsjeTsd that the Pfsyer
Of Conservation is to be said By the Priest
/" standing before the table" and there
Is no Indication that he Is intended to
change his posture during the prayer.
In reply, after one or two formal Objac-
tiOns, IL was GOBtended that this was one
Of those minute details which the EubTic
could net he hell t1 cover. To this the
court make the important answer that
il is not FOR any minister OF the church,
or even fer themselves, to 2ssums that
any departure from or violation OF the
RUbric is trivial. The present case, in
deed, is 3 conspicuous proof that viola
ti0ns which in themselves might seem
very trivial, asv practically involve
most material consel Ieuces. It is as no.
toTiog5 historically as il Is evident from
the minute directions OF the Prayer book
that variations Of gestuTe and posture
during the Communion were connected
at the Reform alton with mp3rtant points
Of doctrine; and these who put this plea
ugOn the record knew perfectly well that
the gegtGre which they described as
trivial implied Oa their own part equally
important opinions. fhis consideration
u4s further bearing upon the equally
questionable Plea that there wes no evil
dencs 10 eh0a that alteration was in
tended by kneelinR. The court would,
in s0y case, fad it very diff cult to judge
OF lutenticRs and sentiments, and con-
sequently IL IL sil tie rlore necessary
that it should Judge strictly OF 60 outward
movements" 0d this point, in short,
Mr.. MackOnOcbie mad violated & distinct
RubTic, ana the question could not there
fore be referred TO the discretion of the
Bishop.
The use Of lighted candles had raised
a question Of even greater significance
snC Importance. They had been treated
either as q ceremony or as an ornament,
and on either alternative they had been
justified by an argument which has
Oeen extensively used by the Ritualists,
and on which, in fact, they base their /
whole system Of innovation. They have I
alleged Ihsl they sse justified in adopting
any practice which the prayer book does .
not explicitly c0Ddemn-in other words, I
that whatever Is not expressly abolished .
is retained as lawful. Ia this instance
they sppeel t1 certain iDjuuctiOns issued (
in the first year Of + lWsrd vi, and their .
counsel even went so far as to quote a
made by s Council held
under the Archbishop Of Canterbury in
1922. The Court, we rejoice to say, dis
missed these antiquarian references as
utterly irrelevant. They lay it down in
direct opposition TO the principle Of the
that sll ceremonies are abOl.
ished which are not specially retained 10
the prayer book. This is plsiDly implied
in the preface but it is placed beyond a
doubt BY EGZ sEeth's Act OF UnifJrmity,
now applicable to the present prayer
book, and prohibits Suy rite, ceremony
order or form which is not mentioned in
the prayer boJk, and declares void all
prior u5ages and ordinances. The RU-
brio, again, orders that such ornaments
OF the church and OF the ministers there.
Of shall he retained, and be in use. as
were in this Church of Z gland, by au-
thOEity of Parliament, IN the second
year Of the reign Of King E iward VIZ
The Ritualists have argued from
this that whatever was lawful in the
year of Edward VI, is lawful
now; and through this lOophole, as the
reader has already seen, they have in
into eicOntroveFsy bot only
the shifting usages of that confused
periOd, but the endless and sntiquated
canons Of MEDIEVAL eecIesisstics. any
thing, OF course, might be built on such
The court, however, have
now distinctly explained thst those
thiBgs only possess the authority of Par
lament which sFe expressly named in
the Prayer book referred to. II is moth
ing to the point that candles were lawful
at the time when the Prayer book was
issued. They are not prescribed In ii,
and they are, therefore, abolished. The
Rubric, they observe, nisht have said
tnat such ornaments shogid be retained
as were then lawful, or such only as were
then In use but ia fact 1t says such only
as were in Use by authority o. P4rlia-
ment, and this is now decided TO mean
such ss are expressly prescribed in TIE
first Prayer hook, or as are consistent
with and subsidiary to them, Is mat
ter of fact, the use Of lighted candles was
n ~, ost T1nfVeFsaiIv digo0pff,,,o-1 . g.. a..