ANGLICAN CHURCHES. 



29 



report to the Queen. The commissioners say 

 that although there have been candlesticks 

 with candles on "the Lord's table" during 

 a long period in many cathedrals and collegiate 

 churches and chapels, and also in the chapels 

 of some colleges, and of some royal and episco- 

 pal residences, the instances that have been 

 adduced to prove that candles have been light- 

 ed as accessories to the Holy Communion are 

 few and much contested; but no sufficient 

 evidence has been adduced to prove that at 

 any time, during the last three centuries, have 

 lighted candles been used in parish churches as 

 accessories to the celebration of the Holy Com- 

 munion, until within the last twenty-five years. 

 The use of incense, too, in the public services 

 of the Church, during the present century, is 

 very recent, and the instances of its introduc- 

 tion very rare ; and, so far as the commission- 

 ers have any evidence before them, it is at 

 variance with the Church's usage for 300 

 years. They are, therefore, of opinion that it 

 is inexpedient to restrain in the public services 

 of the Church all variations from established 

 usage in respect of lighted candles, and of in- 

 cense. The "speedy and inexpensive remedy," 

 which the commissioners suggest should be 

 provided for parishioners aggrieved by the in- 

 troduction of incense and candles, is as fol- 

 lows : " First, that whensoever it shall be 

 found necessary that order be taken concern- 

 ing the same, the usage of the Church of Eng- 

 land and Ireland, as above stated to have pre- 

 vailed for the last 300 years, shall be deemed 

 to be the rule of the Church in respect of 

 vestments, lights, and incense ; and, secondly, 

 that parishioners may make formal application 

 to the bishop in camera, and the bishop, on 

 such application, shall be bound to inquire into 

 the matter of the complaint; and if it shall 

 thereby appear that there has been a variation 

 from established usage, by the introduction of 

 vestments, lights, or incense, in the public ser- 

 vices of the Church, he shall take order forth- 

 with for the discontinuance of such variation, 

 and be enabled to enforce the same summarily." 

 The commissioners also think that the deter- 

 mination of the bishop on such application 

 "should be subject to appeal to the archbishop 

 of the province in camera, whose decision 

 thereon shall be final ; provided always, that 

 if it should appear to either party that the de- 

 cision of the bishop or archbishop is open to 

 question on any legal ground, a case may be 

 stated by the party dissatisfied, to be certified 

 by the bishop or archbishop as correct, and 

 then submitted by the said party for the deci- 

 sion of the court of the archbishop without 

 pleading or evidence, with a right of appeal to 

 the Privy Council, and with power for the 

 court, if the statement of the case should ap- 

 pear to be in any way defective, to refer back 

 such case to the bishop or archbishop for 

 amendment." Precautions are suggested to 

 prevent "frivolous applications" from being 

 brought before the bishop. The commission- 



ers intimate that their intention in making 

 these recommendations is simply to provide a 

 special facility for restraining variations from 

 established usage, without interfering with the 

 general law of the Church as to ornaments or 

 the ordinary remedies now in force. No ac- 

 tion of importance on the subject was taken by 

 the convocations, but trials were instituted 

 against several prominent ritualists. In the 

 most celebrated of these cases, that of the Rev. 

 Mr. Mackonochie (Martin vs. Mackonochie "), 

 the decision was against the ritualists. This 

 decision by the Judicial Committee of the 

 Privy Council is not only the most important 

 which has yet been made in the Church of 

 England on the subject of ritualism, but it is 

 expected to involve grave consequences for the 

 future of the Church. Mr. Mackonochie was 

 originally charged: 1. "With elevating the ele- 

 ments during the prayer of consecration. 2. 

 With kneeling before them during the same 

 prayer. 3. With using lighted candles on the 

 communion-table during the celebration of the 

 holy communion, when they were not required 

 for the purpose of giving light. 4. With using 

 incense in the same servica 5. With mixing 

 water with the wine. The elevation by Mr. 

 Mackonochie discontinued before the suit com- 

 meoced, and he was admonished not to resume 

 it. The judgment of the Court of Arches con- 

 demned the use of incense and of water. It 

 admitted, however, the lawfulness of lighted 

 candles, and considered the kneeling a minor 

 point of order, which, if raised at all, should 

 be referred to the discretion of the bishop. 

 The Judicial Committee have now ruled that 

 kneeling during the prayer of consecration is 

 contrary to the rubric, and that lighted candles 

 are not admissible. While giving its decision 

 in this particular case, the Court also gave its 

 opinion on several important general principles. 

 With respect to the kneeling, the Court observe, 

 that the posture of the officiating minister is 

 prescribed by various directions throughout the 

 communion service. He is directed when to 

 stand and when to change this posture for that 

 of kneeling. But it is expressly ordered that 

 the prayer of consecration is to be said by the 

 priest "standing before the table," and there is 

 no indication that he is intended to change his 

 posture during the prayer. To the objection 

 made by the defence, that this was one of those 

 minute details which the rubric could not be 

 held to cover, the Court make the important 

 answer, that it is not for any minister of the 

 Church, or even for themselves, to assume that 

 any departure from or violation of the rubric 

 is trivial. The use of lighted candles raised a 

 question of even greater significance and im- 

 portance. They alleged that they are justified 

 in adopting any practice which the prayer-book 

 does not explicitly condemn in other words, 

 that whatever is not expressly abolished is re- 

 tained as lawful. In this instance they appeal 

 to certain injunctions issued in the first year of 

 Edward VI., and their counsel even went so 



