18 



ANGLICAN CHURCHES. 



decision in the Ridsdale case, and praying the 

 House to assert the constitutional rights of the 

 Church to determine its own doctrine and cer- 

 emonial. The following form for a new rubric, 

 to be inserted in the Prayer- Hook, was adopted 

 and sent to the Upper House for its concur- 

 rence : 



In saying any public prayers, or ministering the 

 sacraments and other rites of the Church, the min- 

 ister shall wear a surplice with a stole or scarf, and 

 the hood of his degree ; and in preaching he shall 

 wear a surplice with a stole or scarf, and the hood of 

 hia degree ; or, if he think fit, a gown with hood and 

 scarf. Nevertheless, he that ministereth in the Holy 

 Communion may use, with the surplice and stole, a 

 cope : provided always, that such cope shall not be 

 introduced into any church, other than a cathedral or 

 collegiate church, without the consent of the bishop. 



The Ritualistic Controversy, under the influ- 

 ence of the judicial proceedings under the Pub- 

 lic Worship Regulation Act, has assumed the 

 character of a direct issue upon the question 

 of the jurisdiction of Parliament, and the courts 

 established by Parliament, over ecclesiastical 

 cases. 



On the 3d of April, a communication was 

 presented to the archbishops signed by about 

 eighty clergymen, who were for the most part 

 regarded as attached to the High Church par- 

 ty, reciting that, being anxious to retain the 

 existing relations of Church and state, they 

 felt great anxiety at the present position of 

 affairs. " On the one side," they said, "we see 

 coercive measures resorted to for enforcing 

 uniformity such as have been happily unknown 

 in this country for centuries ; and on the other 

 a determination to endure any suffering rather 

 than submit to a jurisdiction which, rightly or 

 wrongly, is regarded as purely secular." They 

 were also impressed with the unsatisfactory 

 character of the authority and arguments, to 

 which appeal was made in the controversies 

 distracting the Church ; for, while the Church 

 had the same authority it had always had in the 

 matter of rites and ceremonies, appeal was 

 made, not to the "living voice of the Church, 

 but to events and documents which have them- 

 selves always been matters of controversy." 

 The signers of the address were convinced that 

 not the mere interpretation of existing law was 

 required, " but the living voice of the Church 

 clearly laying down what the law shall be in 

 the future." They would, therefore, urge upon 

 the consideration of the archbishops " that, in 

 our opinion, no peace can be secured for the 

 Church, nor can her existing relations with the 

 state be long continued, unless laws for the 

 regulation of Divine service and for other spirit- 

 ual matters of primary importance are made 

 by an authority which both clergy and laity 

 <vould feel to be binding upon conscience ; and 

 we are equally satisfied that no authority will 

 be considered thus binding which does not 

 proceed from the synods of the Church as well 

 as from Parliament." The view was further 

 expressed in the address that the legislative 

 action of the Church was now paralyzed by 



the apprehension that, when its synodical acts 

 were submitted to Parliament, they would be 

 so altered as to be finally quite different from 

 what was intended. The Archbishop of Can- 

 terbury replied to this address, April 7th, that 

 its exact meaning was not quite clear to him, 

 and particularly that it did not seem to distin- 

 guish between judicial and legislative ecclesi- 

 astical matters, the former of which were con- 

 ducted in a regular gradation of ecclesiastical ^ 

 courts, culminating in the sovereign, advised by 

 the Privy Council, which were "jealously kept 

 distinct from the ordinary civil tribunals of 

 the realm." He presumed they desired some 

 alterations in these courts, but pointed out that 

 they did not specify with any accuracy the 

 character of the changes they sought. " But 

 I gather," he continued " that the main ob- 

 ject of the address is to nrge that matters of 

 legislation affecting the Church in its rites or 

 ceremonies and controversies of faith should 

 always be submitted to Convocation. It is not 

 alleged that this principle has in any specific 

 case been violated, and, perhaps, it has escaped 

 your attention that, for the last five years, since 

 Convocation adopted the Act of Uniformity 

 Amendment Act, in 1872, it has been engaged 

 in a task such as that which you rightly con- 

 sider to be its peculiar function, having been 

 called by the authority of the Crown to revise 

 the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, 

 a work which it has not as yet accomplished." 

 In conclusion, the archbishop promised that 

 the subject of the address should receive the 

 attention of the Episcopal bench. 



The case of Clifton against Ridsdale, the 

 first case tried under the Public "Worship Reg- 

 ulation Act, in Avhich Lord Penzance, of the 

 Court of Arches, in 1876, condemned the wear- 

 ing of certain vestments, the use of unnecessary 

 lighted candles, and certain practices at the 

 sacrament, as illegal (see ANNUAL CYCLOPAEDIA 

 for 1876), was carried by appeal to the Judicial 

 Committee of the Privy Council. The hearing 

 of the appeal was begun on the 23d of January, 

 and a judgment was given on the 12th of May, 

 sustaining the decision of the lower court, and 

 adverse to the appellant. The decision cov- 

 ered four points : 1. That the vestments worn 

 by the appellant in the eucharistic services, 

 the alb and chasuble, as distinguished from the 

 surplice, were illegal. 2. That it was the duty 

 of the minister to stand at the side of the table 

 in such a position that "he might in good faith 

 enable the communicants present, or the bulk 

 of them, being properly placed, to see if there 

 be breaking of bread, and the performance of 

 the other manual acts mentioned. He must not 

 interpose his body so as intentionally to defeat 

 the object of the rubric and prevent this re- 

 sult." In the present case the court were not 

 satisfied " that the evidence proved an inten- 

 tion to prevent the people seeing him break 

 the bread," and recommended an alteration to 

 be made in the decree in this respect. 8. That 

 the use of wafer bread was illegal, but the mere 



