ANGLICAN CHURCHES. 



19 



circumstance of bread, " such as is usually to be 

 eaten," being round and thin did not consti- 

 tute it wafer bread. It was not proved that 

 the appellant had used the wafer, properly so 

 called, and a change in the decree was advised 

 on this point. 4. That the erection of a cruci- 

 fix without a faculty was illegal ; that the con- 

 demnation of the crucifix by the court below 

 on the ground of its liability to be used in a 

 superstitious manner was correct ; and, there- 

 fore, the direction to remove this erection was 

 affirmed. Still the court desired to say that 

 they "thought it important to maintain, in re- 

 spect to the representation of sacred persons 

 and objects in the church, the liberty estab- 

 lished in ' Philpotts vs. Boyd,' subject to the 

 power and duty of the ordinary, so to exercise 

 his judicial discretion in granting or refusing 

 faculties as to guard against their being likely 

 to be abused for purposes of superstition." 

 The decision was received with satisfaction by 

 the evangelical party of the Church, although it 

 was not as completely in their favor as they 

 had hoped it would be, but was strongly op- 

 posed by the ritualistic party. Mr. Eidsdale 

 refused to obey it, and announced his inten- 

 tion of continuing the condemned ways in de- 

 fiance of it, stating that he was resisting the 

 monition because it was contrary to a plain 

 order of the Church. He was convinced that 

 the law of the Church commanded the use of 

 vestments, and the two lights on the altar were 

 likewise sanctioned by the rubric. On some 

 points on which there was no rubrical direc- 

 tion ho would yield. His reason for pleading 

 in the court was, that he sought, if possible, to 

 S3oure peace for the Church, in the hope that 

 the law of the Church would be legalized by . 

 the civil law, but, having failed, he was bound 

 to obey the Church. He suggested, however, 

 that if his diocesans should think fit to exert a 

 dispensing power as bishops, which he admit- 

 ted to exist, he would conform to the form of 

 service as defined by the court. Shortly after- 

 ward the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote to 

 him that, understanding that he was willing 

 to be guided by him as his bishop, his grace 

 would gladly take upon himself the whole re- 

 sponsibility of directing Mr. Ridsdale as to the 

 manner in which he should administer the com- 

 munion, and would grant him a complete dis- 

 pensation from the obligation under which he 

 believed himself to lie, to act upon what he 

 conceived to be the literal meaning of the Or- 

 naments Rubric. Mr. Ridsdale consented to 

 obey the archbishop's order as a temporary 

 measure until convocation should have a fit- 

 ting opportunity to deliberate on the question, 

 after which, if no decision were given, he should 

 not feel justified in using the dispensation any 

 longer. On the 2d of July, in the Convocation 

 of Canterbury, a petition was presented from 

 Mr. Ridsdale asking the convocation to decide 

 whether the bishops had such power of dis- 

 pensation as had been exercised by the arch- 

 bishop in his case, and whether they have 



power to require the clergy to accept such dis- 

 pensations in view of serious complications with 

 the state ; to set forth a law of ritual observ- 

 ance which will leave no room for doubts or 

 controversies ; and to constitute or indicate the 

 courts by which it would have the clergy tried 

 for ecclesiastical offenses. 



A declaration on the subject of the Ridsdale 

 judgment has been made by a large number of 

 ritualists to the following effect : 



1. Having considered the judgment delivered by 

 the judicial committee in the case of Ridsdale vs. 

 Clifton, although we are unable to concur in the 

 whole of the reasoning which it contains, yet we find 

 in it some grounds of satisfaction, in so far as it (a) 

 allows the eastward position of the celebrant, (b) 

 confirms the principle of a distinctive eucharistic 

 dress, (c) recognizes the full right of the Church of 

 England to the legitimate use of religious art in her 

 churches. 



2. Seeing that successive judgments have left 

 members of the Church of England free to hold and 

 teach her entire doctrine, we advisedly recommend 

 submission to the discretion of the ordinary in re- 

 gard to the points of ritual touched by the late judg- 

 ment, and we regard such submission as best calcu- 

 lated to promote the entire constitutional freedom of 

 the Church. 



3. We believe that the ultimate solution of our 

 present difficulties will be found in the exercise by 

 the Church of her legitimate right to deal with cere- 

 monial, through convocation, with consent of Par- 

 liament. 



The second case, which was tried by the 

 ecclesiastical courts under the Public Worship 

 Regulation Act, was that of the prosecution 

 of the Rev. Arthur Tooth, rector of St. James's,; 

 Hatcham, for violation of the rubrics in the' 

 celebration of the Holy Communion, which, 

 as was charged in the indictment, and appeared 

 in the evidence, the defendant had caused to 

 be accompanied with elaborateness of vest- 

 ments, ceremonial, and ornaments. A decision 

 was given by Lord Penzance, Dean of Arches, 

 on the 19th of July, 1876, condemning the 

 practices of Mr. Tooth which were complained 

 of, except as to those points on which an ap- 

 peal had been taken in the case of Clifton 

 against Ridsdale to the Privy Council, as con- 

 trary to the usages and discipline of the 

 Church, and admonishing him to refrain from 

 them. The defendant paid no attention to the 

 decree of the court, whose jurisdiction he de- 

 nied, but continued his ritualistic practices. 

 He was cited to appear and answer for con- 

 tumacy in December. Refusing to obey the 

 summons, he was inhibited for three months, 

 with an intimation that the suspension would 

 be continued if he did not abstain from the 

 objectionable practices. The Rev. Canon Gee 

 was appointed to take charge of the parish 

 during the inhibition, but Mr. Tootli refused 

 to admit him to the church, and he retired 

 from the attempt to serve. The services on the 

 succeeding Sundays, which were the last in 

 December, 1876, were characterized by greater 

 display than ever. On the 31st of December, 

 a disturbance occurred at the church, and a 

 force of police had to be organized to restore 



