Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

kneel. For the absolution and the sentences which follow the priest is directed to stand up, and to turn himself to the people; for the words 'It is very meet,' &c., and the 'prefaces,' he is to turn to the Lord's table, and he is then to kneel down at the Lord's table, and, in the name of all the recipients, say the prayer, We do not presume,' &c. The Rubric before the Prayer of Consecration then follows, and is in these words: When the priest, standing before the table, hath so ordered the bread and wine that he may with more readiness and decency break the bread before the people, and take the cup into his hands, he shall say the Prayer of Consecration as follows.' Their Lordships entertain no doubt on the construction of this Rubric, that the priest is intended to continue in one posture during the prayer, and not to change from standing to kneeling, or vice versâ; and it appears to them equally certain that the priest is intended to stand, and not to kneel. They think that the words 'standing before the table' apply to the whole sentence; and they think this is made more apparent by the consideration that acts are to be done by the priest before the people as the prayer proceeds (such as taking the paten and chalice into his hands, breaking the bread, and laying his hand on the various vessels) which could only be done in the attitude of standing. This being, in their Lordships' opinion, the proper construction of the Rubric, it is clear that the respondent, by the posture or change of posture which he has adopted during the prayer, has violated the Rubric, and committed an offence within the meaning of the 13th and 14th of Charles II., c. 4, s. 2, 17, 24, taken in connexion with the 1st of Elizabeth, c. 2, and punishable by admonition under section 23 of the latter statute. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the act complained of was one of those minute details which could not be taken to be covered by the provisions of the Rubric; that the Rubric could not be considered as exhaustive in its directions, for no order could be shown in it requiring the celebrating minister to kneel while himself receiving the bread and wine; and that there was no charge or evidence against the respondent that in kneeling after the consecration any adoration of the Sacrament was intended. Their Lordships are of opinion that it is not open to a minister of the Church, or even to their Lordships in advising her Majesty, as the highest ecclesiastical tribunal of appeal, to draw a distinction in acts which are a departure from or violation of the Rubric, and between those which are important and those which appear to be trivial. The object of a Statute of Uniformity is, as its preamble expresses, to produce an universal agreement in the public worship of Almighty God,' an object which would be wholly frustrated if each minister on his own view of the relative importance of the details of the service, were to be at liberty to omit, to add to, or to alter any of those details. The rule upon this subject has been already laid down by the Judicial Committee in Westerton v. Liddell,' and their Lordships are disposed entirely to adhere to it: In the performance of the services, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the Prayer Book, the directions contained in it must be strictly observed; no omission and no addition can be permitted. There would, indeed, be no difficulty in showing that the posture of the celebrating minister during all parts of the Communion Service was, and that for obvious reasons, deemed to be of no small importance in the changes introduced into the Prayer Book at and after the Reformation. The various stages of the service are, as has already been shown, fenced and guarded by directions of the most minute kind as to standing and kneeling, the former attitude being prescribed even for prayers, during which a direction to kneel might have been

expected. And it is not immaterial to observe, that whereas in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. there was contained at the end a Rubric in these words, 'As touching, kneeling, crossing, holding up of hands, knocking upon the breast, and other gestures, they may be used or left, as every man's devotion serveth, without blame,' this Rubric was in the second Prayer Book of Edward VI. and in all the subsequent Prayer Books omitted. The argument against the completeness of the directions as to posture, derived from a supposed absence of any order that the celebrant shall kneel while himself receiving, does not appear to their Lordships to be well founded. In the Rubric as to the reception of the sacramental bread and wine, the words 'all meekly kneeling' apply, as their Lordships think, to the celebrant, as well as to other clerks and to the people; and this is made more clear by the Rubric termed the Black Rubric added at the end of the service. It is true, as was contended, that there is no charge against the respondent that the kneeling complained of was intended as an act of adoration of the sacramental elements. Such a charge, involving as it would an inquiry into sentiments and feelings, of which no tribunal can adequately judge, would be difficult of proof; and the Rubrical enactments appear to have been wisely confined to prescribing an order of service free from those outward movements which had become more or less associated with errors in doctrine which, at the Reformation, were renounced. If this order is departed from, it is, as their Lordships think, unnecessary to inquire into the motive by which the departure has been occasioned. Another argument urged on behalf of the respondent should also be noticed. It was contended with great ability that the charge as to kneeling during the Prayer of Consecration was made in connexion with the charge as to the elevation of the sacrament, and the charge of kneeling was only an aggravation of that of elevation, which had been discontinued. This, no doubt, is so; but the kneeling under the circumstances described, being itself, as their Lordships think it is, a violation of the Rubric, they do not think that the judgment of the Court should the less be passed upon it because the other part of the charge-namely, that as to the elevation-is no longer resisted. It only remains on this part of the case to advert to the very learned and elaborate judgment of the Dean of the Arches. That learned Judge states that the Rubric does not give precise directions that the celebrant should kneel at the times. when it appears that the respondent does kneel; that he is far from saying it is not legally competent to him to adopt this attitude of devotion; and that it cannot be contended that at some time or other he must not kneel during the celebration, although no directions as to his kneeling at all are given by the Rubric. Their Lordships, however, think, as they read the Rubric, that directions as to the celebrant kneeling at a particular time of the celebration-namely, when he himself receives the Sacrament—are given, and at the time when it appears that the respondent kneels-namely, during the Prayer of Consecration-the directions in the Rubric are precise that he should stand and not kneel. The learned Judge further observes that if Mr. Mackonochie has committed any error in this respect, it is one which should not form the subject of a criminal prosecution, but belongs to the category of cases which should be referred to the Bishop. This category the learned Judge had previously defined to be 'Things neither ordered nor prohibited expressly or by implication, but the doing or use of which must be governed by the living discretion of some person in authority.' And as to cases in this category, the learned Judge considered that, according to the Preface to the Prayer Book, 'the parties that doubt or diversely take

any thing should always resort to the Bishop of the diocese.' Their Lordships do not think it necessary to consider minutely the cases to which, or the manner in which, this direction in the Preface to the Prayer Book is applicable, inasmuch as in their opinion the charge against the respondent, with which they are now dealing, involves what is expressly ordered and prohibited by the Rubric, and is, therefore, a matter in which the Bishop could have no jurisdiction to modify or dispense with the Rubrical provisions. On the whole, their Lordships are of opinion that the charge against the respondent of kneeling during the Prayer of Consecration has been sustained, and that he should be admonished, not only not to recur to the elevation of the paten and the cup as pleaded in the 3rd article, but also to abstain for the future from kneeling or prostrating himself before the consecrated elements during the Prayer of Consecration, as in the same article also pleaded. The other charge involved in this appeal is that of using lighted candles on the Communion-table during the celebration of the Holy Communion when such candles are not wanted for the purpose of giving light. This charge is contained in the 5th and 6th articles, which are as follow:

"5. That the said Alexander Heriot Mackonochie has in his said church, and within two years last past-to wit, on Sunday the 23rd day of December, on Christmas-day last past, on Sunday, the 30th day of December, all in the year of our Lord 1866, and on Sunday, the 13th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1867, used lighted candles on the Communion-table during the celebration of the Holy Communion at times when such lighted candles were not wanted for the purpose of giving light, and permitted and sanctioned such use of lighted candles. 6. That the use of such lighted candles is an unlawful addition to and variation from the form and order prescribed and appointed by the said statutes, and by the said Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, and is contrary to the said statutes and to the 14th, 36th, and 38th of the said constitutions and canons.'

66

The responsive plea of Mr. Mackonochie on this head is as follows:"5. Whereas it is pleaded in the 5th article that the said Alexander Heriot Mackonochie has in his said church, and in within two years last-to wit, on Sunday the 23rd day of December, on Christmas-day last past, and on Sunday, the 30th day of December, all in the year of our Lord 1866; and on Sunday the 13th of January, in the year of our Lord 1867, used lighted candles on the Communion table during the celebration of the Holy Communion at times when such lighted candles were not wanted for the purpose of giving light, and permitted and sanctioned such use of lighted candles. Now, the same is in part untruly pleaded, for the party proponent alleges that on the said three Sundays and Christmas-day, in the said 5th article mentioned, the said lighted candles were not placed on the Communion-table, but upon a narrow movable ledge of wood resting on the said table, and that the said candles were so placed and kept lighted, not during the celebration of the Holy Communion only, as falsely suggested in the said 5th article, but also during the whole of the reading of the Communion Service, including the Epistle and Gospel, and during the singing after the reading of the Nicene Creed, and during the delivery of the sermon. 6. That he denies that the use of such lighted candles is an unlawful addition to and variation from the form and order prescribed and appointed by the said statutes, and by the said Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, and is contrary to the said statutes, and to the 14th, 36th, and 38th of the said constitutions and canons, as in the said 6th article alleged.'

"The facts, therefore, on this part of the case appear to be that the respondent uses two lighted candles during, with reference to, and as an accompaniment of, the Communion Service, and not for the ordinary purpose of giving light, and that these candles are placed on a ledge of wood which is placed on the Communion-table. The Dean of the Arches seems to have considered that all the practices complained of before him, including this use of lighted candles, were ceremonies. The respondent, in the argument of his counsel at the bar, appeared to prefer to treat the question as one of ornament, and his counsel said he considered the lighted candles 'part of the symbolical decoration of the altar.' If it were necessary to decide which of these views is correct, their Lordships would feel disposed to agree with the Dean of the Arches that, however candles and candlesticks may, per se, be looked upon as a part of the furniture or ornaments of the church, taking the word ornaments in the larger sense assigned to it by this Committee in Westerton v. Liddell' (Moore, p. 156), yet the lighting of the candles and the consuming them by burning throughout, and with reference to a service in which they are to act as symbols and illustrations, is itself either a ceremony or else a ceremonial act forming part of a ceremony, and making the whole ceremony a different one from what it would have been had the lights been omitted. The Council of Trent (22nd Session, 5th chapter), De Missæ Ceremoniis et Ritibus, says, 'Ceremonias item adhibuit ut mysticas benedictiones, lumina, thymiamata, vestes, alique multa.' Dr. Donne also in his 'Sermons (p. 80, fol. ed. 1640), writing in support of the use of these lights, calls it a ceremony. He says, 'It is in this ceremony of lights as it is in other ceremonies.' There is a clear and obvious distinction between the presence in the Church of things inert and unused, and the active use of the same things as a part of the administration of a sacrament or of a ceremony. Incense, water, a banner, a torch, a candle and candlestick, may be parts of the furniture or ornaments of a church; but the censing of persons and things, or, as was said by the Dean of Arches, the bringing in incense at the beginning or during the celebration, and removing it at the close of the celebration of the Eucharist, the symbolical use of water in baptism, or its ceremonial mixing with the sacramental wine; the waving or carrying the banner; the lighting, cremation, and symbolical use of the torch or candle; these acts give a life and meaning to what is otherwise inexpressive, and the act must be justified, if at all, as part of a ceremonial law. If the use of lighted candles in the manner complained of be a ceremony or ceremonial act, it might be sufficient to say that it is notnor is any ceremony in which it forms a part-among those retained in the Prayer Book, and it must therefore be included among those that are abolished; for the Prayer Book, in the Preface, divides all ceremonies into these two classes-those which are retained are specified, whereas none are abolished specifically or by name, but it is assumed that all are abolished which are not expressly retained. Passing, however, from this, the use of lighted candles, if a ceremonial act or part of a ceremony, would be prohibited by Queen Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity, section 4, which is now applicable to the present Prayer Book, and which makes it penal to use any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper . . . than is mentioned and set forth in the said book; and any prior authority for the practice, from usage or otherwise, would be avoided by section 27, which enacts that all laws, statutes, and ordinances whereby any other service, administration of sacraments, or common prayer is limited, established, or set forth to be used within this realm,

6

shall from henceforth be utterly void and of none effect.' As to the argument that the use complained of is at most only part of a ceremony, their Lordships are of opinion that when a part of a ceremony is changed the integrity of the ceremony is broken, and it ceases to be the same ceremony. The learned Judge of the Arches' Court was of opinion that these lights were ordered by injunctions having statutable authority, which injunctions had not been directly repealed; that they were primitive and Catholic in their origin, Evangelical in their proper symbolism, purged from all superstition and novelty by the very terms of the injunction which ordered their retention in the church, and that, therefore, it was lawful to place them on the Holy Table during the time of the Holy Communion for the signification that Christ is the very true Light of the world.' The authorities cited show beyond all doubt the very ancient and general use in the Church of these symbolical lights; and the injunction to which the learned Judge refers is the third of those issued, A.D. 1547, in the first year of the reign of King Edward VI. By this it was ordered that images should be taken down and destroyed, and that spiritual persons should suffer no torches or candles to be set afore any image or picture, but only two lights upon the high altar, before the sacrament, which, for the signification that Christ is the very true Light of the world, they should suffer to remain. It would deserve consideration how far under any circumstances this injunction could now be held operative, having regard to the words, upon the high altar, before the sacrament,' and to the distinction pointed out by this Court in Westerton v. Liddell' (Moore, 176, 184), and Parker v. Leach' (2 Moore, N. S., 199), between the sacrificial altar and the Communion-table. But without dwelling on this, and without stopping at this place to inquire into the nature of the authority under which the injunctions of 1547 were issued, their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the injunction in question, so far as it could be taken to authorize the use of lights as a ceremony or ceremonial act, was abrogated or repealed by the Act the 1st of Elizabeth, c. 2, particularly by section 27 already mentioned, and by the present Prayer Book and Act of Uniformity, and that the use of lighted candles, viewed as a ceremony or ceremonial act, can derive no warrant from that injunction. Reference was made in the argument for the respondent to a constitution of the Council of Oxford, under Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 1322. That constitution is in these words :- Tempore quo missarum solennia peraguntur, accendentur duæ candelæ vel ad minus una;' and is apparently a repetition of the earlier constitution of A.D. 1222 (Wilkins' Concilia, Vol. i., p. 595):-'Tempore quo missarum solennia peraguntur, accendentur duæ candelæ, vel ad minus una cum lampade.' As to these constitutions it is sufficient to say that, in their Lordships' opinion, they must be taken, if of force at the time of passing of any of the Acts of Uniformity, to have been repealed by those Acts. It remains to be considered whether the use of these two lighted candles can be justified as a question of ornaments' according to the definition of that term already referred to. It was in this sense that the argument for the respondent appeared to prefer to regard them; and the learned Judge of the Arches' Court also, although, at the earlier part of his judgment, he had stated that the matters complained of before him must be considered as 'ceremonies,' appears ultimately to have applied to the use of the lighted candles the law or Rubric as to ornaments. The Rubric or note as to ornaments, in the commencement of the Prayer Book, is in these words :-'And here it is to be noted that such

[ocr errors]
« ÎnapoiContinuă »