north side of the altar; that he performed the manual acts whilst standing in such a posi tion that he could not be seen by the com municants; that he permitted the hymn "Agnus Dei" to be sung immediately after the prayer of consecration; that he made the sign of the cross during the absolution and the benediction. The case came before the court of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is understood that the Ritualistic party would have agreed to be bound by the decision of this tribunal, which was practically revived for the purpose of trying the case, but that the prosecutors declined to assent to this proposi tion. If they had done so, they would have put the Ritualists in a cleft stick. Either they must accept the Archbishop's decision or they must incur the odium of appealing to a secular tribunal. As it was, they were enabled to say that the Archbishop's court was under the circumstances a mere secular court of first instance, of no higher authori ty than the Privy Council, before which the Bishop of Lincoln, as a good High Church man, did not put in an appearance. The Archbishop decided in Dr. King's favor as regards the lighted candles, the westward position, and the "Angus Dei," and against him in regard to the mixing of water and wine in and as part of the service, the per formance of the manual acts so as not to be seen by the communicants, and the sign of the cross in the absolution and the benedic tion, and the Privy Council substantially af firmed this judgment on appeal. It is inter esting to observe that the singing of the
"Agnus Dei " had been admitted to be unlaw ful in Ridsdale v. Clifton, but that, following Lord Cairns' "fresh light" theory, the Privy Council declared it legal in the Lincoln case. The Anti-Ritualists have rather shunned legal proceedings since their attack on the Bishop of Lincoln. One hears from time to time rumors of a crusade against the eccle siastical vestments which are now in regular use in the Church. But probably the "fresh light" theory will be sufficient to keep the crusaders at bay. Moreover, the modern High Church school, under the able guid ance of men like Canon Gore and Canon Scott Holland, is so conciliatory and mag nanimous in spirit, that the possibility of at tacking it with success is becoming every day more remote, and the very desire to make such an attack is disappearing from our midst. There has recently been an interesting controversy, however, as to whether the bishops are bound to issue licenses for the remarriage of divorcees. Dr. Tristram, the Chancellor of the diocese of London, made an interlocutory statement on the subject last May, maintaining the affirmative of this proposition. But an opinion by Sir Richard Webster and Mr. Digby Thurnam was pub lished immediately after, denying the accu racy of Dr. Tristram's law; and the taste and the propriety of the Chancellor's "judgment at large," as it was cleverly styled by the "Times," have been sharply criticised in legal circles. The matter will doubtless be settled by legislation.
