1870. MARTIN v. MACKONO- PART III. Result of evidence as whole Cup: to raise any part of the Cup above the forehead is to raise the Cup above the forehead.' Now, the conclusion to be drawn from this state of facts is, that Mr. Mackonochie, having determined to yield the merest literal obedience to the precise letter of the Monition, had resolved that neither he nor his Curates should elevate the Paten or the Cup above their heads during the to elevation. Prayer of Consecration; but, in consequence of keeping the exact degree of elevation intended, the officiating Clergyman unconsciously and unintentionally elevated the wafer and the Cup to the extent mentioned in the affidavits. But if Mr. Mackonochie has been (as he admitted) 'carefully scanning the Monition and the Order in Council to see how he could keep exactly within them,' and has been acting upon his understanding that legal judgments should be interpreted according to their letter,' he has no right to complain if the letter of the Monition is applied against him, and he is made accountable for an actual noncompliance with its terms, whatever his intentions to obey it may have been. The act of elevation to the prohibited degree was witnessed; the secret intention could not be known. That the elevation charged took place during the Prayer of Consecration appears from the evidence of Mr. Mackonochie, that the raising of the wafer and of the Cup takes place after the words of institution in each kind; consequently, the wafer, at least, must be raised as the Prayer is proceeding. Kneeling or The remaining charge to be considered against Mr. prostration. Mackonochie is, his sanctioning kneeling or prostration before the Consecrated Elements during the Prayer of Consecration. Their Lordships (as already mentioned) having upon the former occasion, when Mr. Mackonochie was charged with disobedience to the Monition, decided that the genuflection which he practised amounted to kneeling, Mr. Mackonochie, with the same object he always had in view, to pay only the closest literal obedience to the Monition, gave notice to his Curates that he intended thenceforth to bow without bending the knee at the part of the Prayer of Consecration where he had previously knelt. This intention he and his Curates carried out, according to the description given in the affidavits, by bowing down towards the Table after replacing the wafer upon it, and remaining some seconds in that position, and adopting the same course with respect to the Cup. Mr. Mackonochie stated that on some of these occasions his forehead may have touched the Table, but that this was no part of the act of bowing, his object being merely a low bow. Their Lordships do not regard a reverential bow in the light of an act of prostration, as contended for by the learned Counsel for the Appellant; but the posture assumed and maintained for some seconds by Mr. Mackonochie is certainly not a mere bow, but an humble prostration of the body in reverence and adoration. Their Lordships consider that the charge against Mr. Mackonochie of sanctioning the prostration before the Consecrated Elements, is therefore fully proved. Their Lordships cannot refrain from expressing their great regret at the course which Mr. Mackonochie has thought himself justified in adopting in his proposed submission to the authority of the Monition. He has (as he admitted in his cross-examination) 'carefully scanned the Monition, and the Order in Council, to see how nearly he could preserve the prohibited ceremonies, or,' as he expressed it, 'how far he could obey the Law of the Church' (or what be chooses to consider the Law of the Church) 'without disobeying the Law of the State.’ Mr. Mackonochie must be reminded that the right of the Church of England to ordain ceremonies is asserted by the thirty-fourth of the Articles of Religion, to which he has given his assent, and that none of the ceremonies which he practices are prescribed by the Church. 1870. MARTIN v. MACKONO CHIE. PART III. Judgment. motion. In the attempt to satisfy his conscience, and to shelter Result of himself under the narrowest literal obedience to lawful authority, Mr. Mackonochie has been a second time foiled. Upon the former occasion their Lordships, after expressing their opinion judicially that the Monition had been disobeyed, did not think it necessary to do more to mark their disapprobation of Mr. Mackonochie's course of proceeding 1870. MARTIN v. MACKONO CHIE. PART III. Judgment. Order. than by directing that he should pay the costs of the application. Upon this repetiton of the offence, their Lordships think that they ought to proceed further. They, therefore, declare that Mr. Mackonochie has not complied with the Monition in respect of the elevation of the Paten or wafer, nor as to abstaining from prostration before the Consecrated Elements. And they order that he be suspended for the space of three calendar months from the time of notice of the suspension from all discharge of his clerical duties and offices, and the execution thereof-that is to say, from preaching the Word of God, and administering the Sacraments, and celebrating all other clerical duties and offices-and, further, that he pay the costs of this application. The following Order, dated November 25, 1870, was drawn up and issued in pursuance of their Lordships' judgment : The Lords of the Committee, having maturely deliberated, pronounced that the Reverend Alexander Heriot Mackonochie, Clerk, Incumbent, and Perpetual Curate of the new Parish of Saint Alban's, Holborn, in the County of Middlesex, Diocese of London, and Province of Canterbury, the Respondent, had not obeyed the Monition, which had been duly served upon him, bearing date January 19, 1869, more especially in not having abstained from the elevation of the Paten during the Prayer of Consecration in the Order of the Administration of the Holy Communion, and from prostrating himself before the Consecrated Elements during the Prayer of Consecration, and their Lordships accordingly ordered that for such his disobedience he, the said Reverend Alexander Heriot Mackonochie, be suspended for the space of three months, from and after this day, from the discharge and execution of all the functions of his clerical office that is to say, from preaching the Word of God, and administering the Sacraments, and performing all other duties of such his clerical office—and their Lordships directed that a Decree of Suspension be issued, suspending him accordingly, and that the same be published by affixing a copy thereof on or near the door of the Church of the said new Parish of St. Alban's, on Sunday next, November 27, 1870, as also by personally serving it upon said Reverend Alexander Heriot Mackonochie. Their Lordships did further condemn the said Reverend Alexander Heriot Mackonochie in the costs incurred by the Appellant in these proceedings. 1870. MARTIN v. MACKONO CHIE. PART III. Judgment. Construction of the Notice termed 'The Ornaments Rubric' prefixed to The Order for Morning and Evening Prayer,' which provides That such Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI.; and of the Rubric prefixed to The Order of Administration of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion,' which describes the Priest standing at the north side of the Table,' with that which precedes the Prayer of Consecration,' and enjoins when the Priest, standing before the Table, hath so ordered the Bread and Wine, that he may with the 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 well as that appended to the same service regarding the Sacred Elements ; and of the Rubric appended to the service for the Holy Communion-that 'to take away all occasion of dissension, and superstition, which any person hath or might have concerning the Bread and Wine, it shall suffice that the Bread shall be such as is usual to be eaten ; but the best and purest Wheat-Bread that conveniently may be gotten.' * Present: The Lord Chancellor (Hatherley); the Archbishop of York (Dr. Thomson); the Bishop of London (Dr. Jackson); and Lord Chelmsford. |