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


the discretion Of the bishop.
The use of lighted candies raised question
OF even greater significance and Importance.
They had been treated either as a ceremony
or as an ornament, and on either alternative
they had been justified by an argument which
has been extensively used by the Ritualists,
and on which, in fact, they base their whole
system of innovation. They have alleged that
they are justified in adopting any practice
which the prayer book does not explicitly con-
demn-in other words, that whatever is not
expressly abolished is retained as lawful. In
this instance they appeal to certain injunctions
issusd in the first year of Edward vi, and
their counsel even went so far as to quote
constitution made by council held under
the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1922.
The Court, we rejoice to say, dismissed
those antiquarian references as utterly
irrelevant. They lay it down, in
direct opposition to the principle of the
Ritualists, that all ceremonies are abolished
which are not specially retained in the Prayer
book. This is plainly implied in the preface
but it is placed beyond doubt by Ezabeth's
Act of Uniformity, now applicable to the pre-
| sent prayer-book, and prohibits any rite, cere
mony, order, or form which is not mentioned
in the prayer book, and declares void all prior
usages and ordinances. The rubric, again,
orders that "suoh ornaments of the church
and Of the ministers thereof shall be retained,
and be in use, as were in this church of Eng
land by authority Of Parliament, in the
second year of the reign of King Edward W."
The Ritualists have argued from this that
whatever was lawful In the designated year Of
Edward vi Is lawful now; and through this
loophole, as the reader has already seen, they
have introduced into the controversy not only
the shifting usages of that confused period, but
! the endless and antiQuated canons OF medigeyal
ecclesiasties. Anything, Of course, might ba
built on such foundation. The Court, how
! ever, have now distinctly explained that those
things only possess the aushoity OF taIis
meut which are expressly named in the
| prayer book referred 80, /. is nothing 81 the
| point that candles were lawful 3. the tms
| when the PRAYER book WAS issued. They are
/ not prescribed in IL, aud they are, therefore,
] ab0lishsd. The rabTic, they observe, nigh.
/ have said that such ornaments should 10 re-
/ tanned as were then lawful, or such only rs
| were Their in use; bu. in fact il says such only
| as were in use by authority OF Parliament,
| and this is now decided to mesu such rs are
| expressly prescribed in the first prayer book,
| or as are consistent with and subsidiary to
| them. As matter of fact the use of lighted
! candles was almost universally discontinued
! after the Reformation, which affords a strong
| confirmation of the view thus taken OF law.
The public may be heartily congratulated
| upon such plain decision. 1t is most salts
factory point in this lucid judgment that any
Englishman may understand it from beginning
| to end, and may distinctly apprehend the law
| by which his Church is regulated. In this
respect it offers favorable contrast to the
| judgment of the Dean of Arches, which con-
| Quoted US through perfect body of divinity to
| King Edward WIS injunctions, and to "Primi-
tive and Catholic customs. From these mys-
terious authorities, and from the subtleties for
which they afforded occasion, we are now COM
| pletely relieved. All the ornaments that are
lawful in the Church are to be found men
toned in a single book, and that the first
Prayer book of Edward vi. AS to ceremonies,
not hing is lawful which is not prescribed in
our present Prayer-book. After all, it is
proved that Parliament, acting with the
concurrence of the clergy, is the real
authority for our forms of worship, and
that it has, in fact, expressly prohibited
all ecclesiastical customs which it has not
itself expressly approved. If this principle
is relief to the general public it ought, we
think, equally to be relief to the clergy. The
other principle would have plunged them into
an endless controversy and would have been
equally fatal to uniformity and to peace. We
trust, since a decision has thus been pro-
nounced by final Court of Appeal, that the
Ritualists will accept the result with content
ment. Generations OF clergy have been very
good chuIchmen, and have done both Church
and State good service, while acquiescing in
the practice which has been reduced to a
principle. If, indeed, as body, they have
definitely set themselves to "unprotestanize''
the Church of England, this decision must
convince them that the task is impracticable
and their position upjustifable; but II they
were only in doubt what was the law of the
Church, and simply desired to 60 to the ut
most limits compatible with the lsw-as they
we're fully justified in doing-we may hope
they will frankly acquiesce in an adverse de-
cision. In other words, we hope they will be
content, like all other Englishmen, to accept
the arbitrament of law, and to do their best
within the limits assigned to them.