The petitioners sought a confirmatory faculty for the introduction into a Grade I listed church of a painting of the Baptism of Christ in a modern setting. There were no parties opponent but one letter of objection had been received. The diocesan advisory committee (DAC) did not recommend the proposal, advising that the style of the painting was not in keeping with the interior of the church and that it was too large for its intended location. Although the painting had been introduced unlawfully, it would not be right to allow that conduct to be determinative: the faculty jurisdiction was not exercised in a penal manner. The question for the court on a petition for a confirmatory faculty was whether, if the petition had been submitted prospectively, it would have been granted. Refusing the petition, the chancellor held that the petitioners had failed to discharge the burden of proof that lay on them. While there was a significant majority of the parochial church council and of the worshipping congregation who were in favour of the painting's introduction, the DAC's advice and the points raised by the objector militated against the grant of a faculty. The petitioners had failed to satisfy the court that ‘the visual intrusion of this unashamedly modern image into this fine historic church can be justified’. [Alexander McGregor]