The argument in the Ridsdale appeal case has been going
on all the week, Dr. Stephens and Mr. Shaw having replied at length to Sir James Stephen and Mr. Arthur Charles, and attempted to show that both "the Injunctions" and "the Advertisements" of Elizabeth's reign had the authority of law under the Uniformity Act, and that they were intended to make the surplice the only legal vestment of the priest, and not merely to enforce the use of the surplice. The most effective part of Dr. Stephens's argument was addressed to the question of the Eastern position in the prayer of Consecration, in which he brought a great deal of evidence to prove that during the whole of the Refor- mation the communion-tables was brought down into the church and set endways, so that "standing before the table " did not mean standing with the face to the east, but standing facing a line drawn from east to west. This Sir J. Stephen did not deny, but maintained only that, wherever the table is placed, the rubric justifies the priest in standing before it. As to the wafer-bread, it appears that Mr. Ridsdale really used ordinary bread, though cut in a circular shape, so that Sir J. Stephen had no occasion to argue the question of the legality of unleavened biscuit, though he did point out that the rubric only provides that "it shall suffice that the bread be such as is usual to be eaten ; but the best and purest wheaten bread that conveniently may be gotten." Judgment will probably be delayed.
