tioned, the said lighted candles were not placed on the Communion Table, or on a ledge or shelf immediately above the same, as therein alleged, but upon a certain other Table, called a Retable, the said Retable standing distinct and separate from, and not forming, or appearing to form, part of, and not being affixed, or appearing to be affixed, to the said Communion Table;' and he denies that the use of such lighted candles is an unlawful addition to, or deviation from, the forms prescribed by the Law. With respect to the charge in the 5th Article, the Defendant admits the fact to be true as stated, but makes a similar denial with respect to the Law. The charges with respect to the unlawful use of incense are contained in the following Articles : : '9th. That the said Richard H. E. Wix, in the said Church, on the following Sundays. February 7, March 28, April 18, and May 23, all in the year 1869, used incense for censing persons and things in and during the celebration of the Holy Communion, or as subsidiary thereto, and permitted and sanctioned such use of incense.' The Defendant, in his responsive plea, denies that he on the days in the Article mentioned, used incense for censing persons and things in and during the celebration of the Holy Communion, or as subsidiary thereto, or permitted or sanctioned such use of, incense as in the said Article alleged. And the Defendant further says, that he used, and permitted and sanctioned the use of incense on the days in the said Article mentioned, not for censing persons or things, nor in or during the celebration of the Holy Communion, nor as subsidiary thereto, but for other and lawful purposes. 6 11th. That the said Richard H. E. Wix, in the said Church, on the following Sundays-to wit, on February 7, on March 28, on April 18, and on May 23, all in the year 1869, used incense during Divine Service, or as subsidiary thereto, and permitted and sanctioned such use of incense.' As to this Article, the Defendant in his responsive plea (Art. 13) denies that he used or permitted or sanctioned the use of incense on the days in the said 13th Article mentioned, during Divine Service, or as subsidiary thereto, but he admits that he used incense in a proper and lawful manner on the said days. '15th. That the said Richard Hooker Edward Wix, in the said Church, on the following Sundays—to wit, on February 7, on March 28, on April 18, and on May 23, all in the year 1869, ceremonially used incense, and permitted and sanctioned such ceremonial use of incense.' MARTIN 27. MACKONO CHIE. Note F. MARTIN v. MACKONO CHIE. Note F. As to this Article, the Defendant in his responsive plea (Art. 15) denies that he on the days in the said Article mentioned used incense ceremonially, or permitted or sanctioned such ceremonial use of incense. It appears from the evidence that what is called the Retable is a separate and distinct piece of furniture from the Holy Table; that it is placed behind the Holy Table; and that the ledge or shelf of it, to use the words of the witness, 'appears like a mantelpiece' over the Holy Table; that on this Retable stood two large candles and twelve branch candles, and that on each side of the Holy Table there stood a large candlestick which rested on the ground. All these candles were lighted at the time and in the manner which I will now state. And I may remark, that the counsel for Mr. Wir admitted, very properly, that the evidence given by the witness Cooper was substantially correct, and did not cross-examine him. It appears from his evidence, that after the Third Collect for grace had been said, there was a Sermon; after which the remaining Prayers were said, concluding with the Apostolic Benediction. After this, the candles were lighted by a chorister; there was a procession by the Minister and choir then formed, and they went from the Church to the Vestry. After which, another procession came from the Vestry with censers and incense burning, went to the Holy Table, where the Priest stirred up the incense, and censed all the things on the Retable and Holy Table, while he himself was censed by a boy behind him. After which the censers and incense were carried by a boy into the Vestry, accompanied, it should seem, by one of the Priests, another Priest remaining at the Holy Table. After the Communion Service was over, the censers were again fetched from the Vestry; another procession was formed, and the lights were extinguished. There were no lighted candles on the Holy Table itself; there was no incense burning during the time of the celebration of the Eucharist. Between the close of the Morning Prayers and the beginning of the Communion Service, some of the congregation left the Church, and other persons came in, and a bell was rung to denote that the Communion Service had begun. These few facts which are proved in the case, are much relied upon by the counsel for Mr. Wix, as materially differing in the present case from that of Martin v. Mackonochie, so much so, as to make this case one of primæ impressionis. It has been forcibly contended that the two judgments of Martin v. Mackonochie and Liddell v. Westerton are irreconcilable in principle, and that I ought to follow the doctrine laid down in the former and not in the latter case. If, indeed, the duty were MARTIN v. MACKONO- cast on me of demonstrating that the two decisions were in every respect harmonious as to the principle on which they proceeded, I might, perhaps, though I do not say that I should, find the task a difficult one to execute, more especially with respect to the Note F. weight apparently given to the Injunctions of Edw. VI. in Liddell v. Westerton, and their entire rejection in Martin v. Mackonochie, when they were relied upon for the purpose of showing that the burning of two candles to represent the true light of the world was illegal. But I am happy to think that no such duty is imposed upon me in the present case. The lights which were burnt in this case were not upon the Holy Table or 'High Altar,' and therefore are unaffected by the Injunctions; and the lighting and burning of them in the manner and the circumstances proved, appears to me to fall under the category of ceremonies. Nor are they, in the language of the Privy Council in Martin v. Mackonochie (p. 387), 'inert and unused,' but things actively employed as a part of a ceremony, and are therefore illegal according to my own decision in the same case. It is not necessary that I should pass any opinion upon the legality of these things, if they were decorations, and neither ornamenta' nor ceremonies. It will be remembered that the candles were lit and burning during the whole of the Communion Service. 6 Now with respect to the use of incense, the principal defence is that it was employed during an interval between two services, and neither belonged to, nor was subsidiary to, either. I cannot take this view of the state of facts which is proved by the evidence. I think the fair result of that evidence is, that incense was used in the interval between two services which would otherwise have immediately succeeded each other; almost the same congregation was present at both services, and in the interval between them. It is true that after the incense had been removed, a bell was rung to signify that the second service was about to begin; but looking at all the circumstances, I think it would be unreasonable and unjudicial not to conclude that the burning of the incense was intended to be subsidiary and preparatory to the celebration of the Holy Communion. I am bound, therefore, to pronounce that the use of the incense, as well as the lighting and burning of the candles, according to the facts admitted to be proved in this case, were illegal acts, and that Mr. Wix ought to have obeyed altogether, as he did partially, the monitions of his Ordinary, which are set forth in the Articles, and I must admonish him to abstain from such practices for the future, and I must condemn him in the costs of this suit. HEBBERT v. PURCHAS. Note G. NOTE G. HEBBERT v. PURCHAS. Eucharistic Vestments. A FEW words of explanation as to the various ornaments referred to in the judgment, may be of use to such as have not been accustomed to attach much definite meaning to them. 1. The Albe, Alba (the white garment worn next the skin).— This Eucharistic vestment was a loose and long garment coming down to the feet, and having close-fitting sleeves reaching to the hands. Anciently it was usually made of linen, while in later times silks of different colours were used, sometimes ornamented with square or oblong pieces of embroidery called Apparels. The Rubric of 1549, by directing the use of a 'white Albe plain,' seems to discountenance the use of a highly ornamented vestment. A book called the 'Rationale' of ceremonies to be used in the Church, with an explanation of their meaning, published in 1541-42, says of the Minister, that 'he puts upon him the Albe, which, as touching the mystery, signifieth the white garment wherewith Herod clothed Christ in mockery when he sent him to Pilate. And as touching the Minister, it signifieth the pureness of conscience and innocency he ought to have, especially when he sings the Mass.' 2. The Chasuble, or Vestment (Casula, the little house, the Roman labourer's smock frock, which he put on when at work in bad weather; cf. coat, cotta, cottage).—This Eucharistic vesture was worn over the Albe; originally it was nearly or entirely a circular garment, having an opening in the centre through which the head of the wearer passed; it fell over the arms and shoulders, covering the entire person, and reaching nearly to the feet before and behind; at a later period it was made narrower at the back and front by reducing its circular form, and so it frequently terminated like a reversed pointed arch; the sleeve part also became shorter, reaching only to the hands, and thus avoiding the need of gathering it up on the arms. Ultimately the sleeve parts were cut away to the shoulder in the Latin Communion. It was ornamented by embroidering the collar and outer edge, and attaching to it what was called the Y Orphery; though commonly the Latin cross was variously embossed on the back, only the perpendicular Orphery (or Pillar, as it is called) being affixed to the front. The Rationale, in the book already referred to, is thus given :-" -The Overvesture, or Chesible, as touching the mystery, signifieth the purple mantle that Pilate's soldiers put upon Christ after they had scourged Him. And as touching the Minister, it signifies charity, a virtue excellent above all other.' 3. The Cope, cappa (also called 'pluviale,' the waterproof), is a full long cloak, of a semicircular shape, reaching to the heels, and open in front, thus leaving the arms free below the elbows. Most commonly it has a hood, and is ornamented with embroidery. It was fastened by a Band, to which was attached an ornament called the Mosse. It was worn over either the Albe or Surplice. 4. The Tunicle, Tunica also called, as worn by the Deacon and Gospeller, Dalmatic, was a kind of loose coat or frock, reaching below the knees, open partially at the lower part of the sides; it had full, though not large, sleeves, and in material and colour corresponded with the Chasuble. It was ornamented with Orpherys and embroidery. (Annotated Book of Common Prayer, p. 587.) NOTE H. HEBBERT v. PURCHAS. Report of Ritual Commissioners as to Vestments. HEBBERT บ. PURCHAS. THE first Report of the Ritual Commissioners, dated August 19, 1867, dealt with the question of vestments, and is as follows:'We, your Majesty's Commissioners, have, in accordance with the Note H. terms of your Majesty's Commission, directed our first attention to the question of the vestments worn by the Ministers of the said United Church at the time of their ministration, and especially to those the use of which has been lately introduced into certain Churches. We find that whilst these vestments are regarded by some witnesses as symbolical of doctrine, and by others as a distinctive vesture, whereby they desire to do honour to the Holy Communion as the highest act of Christian worship, they are by none regarded as essential, and they give grave offence to many. We are of opinion that it is expedient to restrain in the public Services of the United Church of England and Ireland all variations in respect of vesture from that which has long been the established usage of the said United Church.' (Signed by all the Commissioners.) |