ANGLICAN CHURCHES. 



Privy Council. The decree of the Judicial 

 Committee reversed the decision of the Dean 

 of Arches so far as it denied the jurisdiction 

 of the bishop over the structure and fabric of 

 the cathedral, but affirmed it so far as related 

 to the lawfulness of the representations upon 

 the reredos. The doctrine of the Church of 

 England, it held, with regard to images, was 

 clearly set forth in the twenty-second article 

 of religion: "The Romish doctrine concern- 

 ing purgatory, pardons, worshiping, and adora- 

 tion, as well of images as of relics, and also in- 

 vocation of saints, is a fond thing vainly in- 

 vented, and grounded upon no warrantee of 

 Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of 

 God." The distinction must be between images 

 which were likely to be abused and those which 

 were not, and in that view they must consider 

 the character of the new reredos at Exeter, the 

 purpose and end for which it was set up, and 

 its tendency or otherwise to be abused. The 

 structure depicted historical subjects with 

 which the minds of people were all quite fa- 

 miliar ; it was not erected for superstitious 

 reverence of any of the figures upon it ; and 

 it in no way differed from similar sculptures 

 or representations in many parish churches 

 throughout the kingdom to which had never 

 been attached any idolatrous or superstitious 

 use whatever. Its position in the cathedral 

 made it no infringement of the ecclesiastical 

 law. Their lordships desired it to be clearly 

 understood that nothing decided in this case 

 affected in any way that superstitious regard 

 or worship of things which are or might be 

 set up in churches, and to which the twenty- 

 second article referred. The law would always 

 be sufficiently strong to control and correct 

 any such abuses as they arose ; the sculpture 

 in question was not liable to be impugned in 

 that respect. 



Martin vs. MackonocTiie. The Dean of Arch- 

 es pronounced a decision December 7, 1874, 

 in the case of Martin vs. Mackonochie. This 

 case was a prosecution against the incumbent 

 of St. Alban's Church, Hoi born, for ritualistic 

 practices, and was defined in several specifi- 

 cations. The Dean of Arches, in his judg- 

 ment, condemned, as proved against the defend- 

 ant, the practices of the use of lighted can- 

 dles for ceremonial purposes; taking -part in 

 processions in the church, with representa- 

 tions of the Virgin Mary on a crescent ; the 

 singing of the hymn "Agnus Dei ;" the making 

 of the sign of the cross before the congrega- 

 tion ; the use of wafer bread ; the wearing of 

 the cope, chasuble, and alt, and the position on 

 the west side in the communion service. The 

 dean held that Mr. Mackonochie had disobeyed 

 the judgment of the Court of Arches and of 

 the Privy Council ; his offense was no moral 

 offense or doctrinal charge, but an access of 

 ritual observance. The defendant was bound 

 to obey the law, and was not to select what 

 portion he would obey or disobey what he 

 pleased. It was the duty of the court to con- 



demn him for his disobedience, and admonish 

 him as to his future conduct. Mr. Mackono- 

 chie was sentenced to a suspension of six weeks 

 and the payment of the costs of the proceed- 

 ings, with the admonition that, if the offenses 

 were repeated, greater severity would be used. 

 Mr. Mackonochie took an appeal to the Privy 

 Council, and thereby delayed the execution of 

 the sentence. The appeal was afterward with- 

 drawn, and the sentence went into operation 

 June 13th. Mr. Mackonochie maintained a de- 

 fiant attitude during the period of his suspen- 

 sion, and at its expiration returned to the per- 

 formance of the services in his church without 

 discontinuing or abating the ritualistic prac- 

 tices for which he had been condemned. 



The Right to the Title Reverend. In May, 

 1874, the Rev. Henry Keet, Wesleyan minister 

 at Owsten Ferry, ordered a tombstone set up 

 over the grave of his deceased daughter in the 

 parish churchyard, on which was an inscrip- 

 tion containing the words, "In loving memo- 

 ry of Annie Augusta Keet, the younger daugh- 

 ter of the Rev. H. Keet, Wesleyan Minister." 

 The rector of the parish objected to the use of 

 the term " Reverend " as applied to a Wesleyan 

 minister, and for that reason refused to allow 

 the stone to be set up. Mr. Keet complained 

 of the rector's action to the Bishop of Lincoln 

 and besought him to overrule the prohibition. 

 The bishop in reply informed Mr. Keet that 

 "it is the duty of an incumbent to examine the 

 epitaphs which it may be proposed to inscribe 

 on gravestones in the churchyard of his parish, 

 and that he is required by law to make objec- 

 tions to anything in them which in his judg- 

 ment is liable to exception." Mr. Keet then 

 wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, asking 

 him " whether the vicar has the right to ob- 

 ject to a stone bearing a title which is ac- 

 knowledged by the Government of the king- 

 dom, and in accordance with general usage." 

 The archbishop replied that, without deciding 

 whether the rector had gone beyond the law, 

 he considered his objection as one that ought 

 not to be made. Mr. Keet submitted the let- 

 ter of the archbishop to the Bishop of Lincoln, 

 and appealed to him again for permission to 

 ' set up the tombstone. The bishop replied that 

 the point at issue was whether the title of 

 " Reverend " should be conceded to the pe- 

 titioner on a tombstone by ministers of the 

 Church of England, who are the responsible 

 guardians of their churchyards, and continued : 

 " It is not easy to determine what is the exact 

 meaning of the title " Reverend " as claimed by 

 a Wesleyan preacher. If the title is to be 

 taken to imply that he is a person in holy ord- 

 ers, duly qualified to minister the Word of God 

 and sacraments in a church, then I am bound 

 to say the law to which I am subject would 

 not allow me to recognize him in that capaci- 

 ty." The bishop then quoted some injunctions 

 of John Wesley and ancient customs of Wes- 

 leyan connection against the improper assump- 

 tion of titles by their ministers, and said, in 



