The New Orleans crescent., 1869-01-17
Rit1alism Importan, Decision on Church
Practices.
From the London Times. Dec "A i

4 DeCislOn Churc
Practices.
From the London Times, Dec 24l
The case of Martin vs.. Makonocbie. ~ in vbicl
some OF the most characteristic practices at ST
Al0ans, Holborne. were challenged was yester
Gay decided, and the result is that Mr.. Msckono
cnle IS condemned upon every one of the point
raised: and Is required to pay the costs both OF
the original suit and the present appeal. This de
esion s as important il will be satisfactory &c
the public. The case has brought to the test OF
! law some or the most prominent innovations Of
Ine lliuaisls. Ihey were Innovations closely con,
| necied with their most characteristic doctrines
these, namely, which relate 10 the Holy Comm.
mon. To indicate their peculiar belief respecting
this sacrament, they introduced variety of novel
gestures, ceremonies and ornaments. Though, in
| tne aggregate, these produced q change so con-
spicuous as utterly to alter the character of the
service, IL was. as usual very difficult to describe
them with sufficient accuracy for q legal test At
ieDeth' however, after the ingenuity of numerous
lawyers has been eXerted on both sides the oues-
| ton has been brought to a distinct issue, and on
that issue MIR. Mack0nochie has been, without ax-
| ceptoD, condemned. Rituslism, in short, has
been fairly challenged 10 the highest court ofIaw,
and has been completely defeated The issne
though limited, is OF material significance. and the
condemnation pronounced is sufficient TO prove
that the position Of the ritualists is wholly nm
tenable. -
=, The case may be very simply explained. Mr..
MacAohochie was originally charged-frst, with
elevatng the elements during the PRAYER of con.
secration; secondly, with kneeling before them
1urlng the came prayer; thirdly, with using
nghted candles on the communion table during
tne celebration OF the holy communion when thew
were not required for the purpose of giving Iiyhf.
fourthly, with using incense In the same service
and, hfthly, with mixing water with the wine
The elevation by Mr.. Mackonochie discontinned
before the suit commenced, and he was admon-
Isneu not 10 resume 1t. The judgment Of the
Arphpo nodf f,a
OF water. IL admitted, however, the lawfuIness
oinghted candles and considered the kneeling a
minor point OF order, which, if raised at ALL sho1ld
De referred to the discretion of the bishop. The
Judicial committee have now ruled that kneelino
during the prayer Of conservation is contrarv to
the ruDrlc and that lighted candles are not adms-
slble. There remains, therefore not a sinOle
point on which the defendant has sustained Ris
case. Nhat IS still more remarkable there is
scarcely an argument on which the counsel for
rituslist relied which has not been rejected the
court; and this may involve more important con-
sequences than the judgment itself. With respect
70 ihe kneeling, the court observed that the pos
ture OF the officiating minister is prescribed hv va
rlous directions throughout the communion ser.
wee. de Is directed when to stand and
when 10 change this posture for thar
OF kneelinP. But it is expressly ordered that the
prayer OF consecration is to be said by the priest
standing before the table," and there ia no in.
oicatlon that be is intended to change his pos.
lure during the prayer. In reply, after one ortvo
formal objections, IL was contended that this was
one OF nose minute details which the rubric |
eould not be held 10 cover. To this the court |
make the important answer that il is not for anv
minister OF the church, or even for themselves 10
assume that any departure from or violation Of |
1ne IuDrlc IS trivial The present case. indeed |
+ conspicuous proof that violations which in
themselves might seem very trivial NAV practi.
cany involve most material consequences IL jsas
notorious historically as it is evident from the
nlhute directions OF the prayer book that varia.
and
non were connected at the Reformation with i'm.
,ornnt points OF doctrine and those who put
his plea upon the record knew perfectly well that
ne gesture which they described as trivial sim.
Heu On lher own part equally important opin.
ons. Ibis consideration has a further bearing
pom tne equally questionable plea that there was
o evidence TO show that alteration was intended !
y kneelng. The court would, in any case. fiBd
very elffcult to judge strictly Of outward move.
lents." Ga this point in short Mr.. Mankonocaia |
ad violated a distinct rubric, and the onssi;nr
quo not therefore be referred to the Discretion
the bishop.
The use of lighted candles raised a question of
ven greater Significance and Importance Thev
30 been treated either as a ceremony or as an |
neeheht, ana on either alternative they had been
stlhed by an argument which has been extensive
used by the ritualists, and on which, in fact.
ey base their whole system of innovation They |
I'VE alleged that they are justified in adopting
~ praeuce which the prayer book does not ex.
WnafnUnr ]
not expressly abolished is retained as lawful.
this instance they appeal to certain iDjunctions
sued IN the first year Of Edward VI and their
unsel eVens went so far as TO quote a constitu.
n n maoe by cou1tl he'd under the Archbishop
Canterbnry IN 1872. The court, we rejoice to
y, dismissed those antiquarian references as | I
teriy irrelevant. They lay il down. in direct op- {
'sltlon TO the principal of the rit1asts that all
remonles are abolished which are not expressly i
aned IN the prayer book. This is plainly i'm. {
led IN the preface, but it is placed beyond doubt
Ebzaheth's act of uniformity, now applicable Z
the present prayer book, which prohibits any {
9, ceremony, order or form which is not
snuoned in the prayer book, and de. \
lres void all prior usagss and ordinances. q
e opening rubric, agsn, orders that j.
such ornaments Of the Church and of the /
nisters thereof shall be retained, and be in d
{, las as were 10 this Church of England, by al. d
1rty OF Parliament, 10 the second year OF the. Il
gn Of King Edward VI" The rit1slists haze | b
2ued from this that whatever was lawful In the | D
slgnsted year Of Edward VI is lawful now and 81
.oueh thls loophoie. as the reader has already Of
IN they have introduced into the controversy d
only the shifting usages of that confused fc
flooi but the endless and antiquated cauons Of | u
dievsl ecclesisstics. Anything, of course. | p
ght be built on such foundation. The court nI
Sever, nave now distinctly explained that those sc
ogs only possess The authority of Parliament al
zen are expressly in the named PRAYER book pl
erred 10. II Is nothiog to the point that the W
ldles were lawful at the time when the praver eT
* was issued; They are not prescribed in it, ce
they are therefore abolished. The rubric. tr
y observe, might have said that such orna. 50
ats should be retained as were then lawful, or
as were then in use bat in fact it says such is
? as were then In use by authority of Psrlia. en-
II, and that ls now decided TO mean such "a are III
ressiy prescribed in the first prayer book, or TO
re consistent with and subsidiary 10 them. on
matter OF fact, the of lighted candles was
ost universally discontinued after the Refor- co
ion' Which affords strong confirmation Of the Of
' thus taken OF the law. ce
DO
ENTIFYNG HUSBAND AND FATHER-The ar,
(Csl) Crescent relates the following: tb,
mother with four I;t.Ia ohftSran raoobo5 De- of