The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1869-03-10
RituaIistic CeremOnials con.
demned, with Costs.

I
Many of our readers will take interest
in the following summary of the case Of
Martin VS.. Mackonochie, which is copied
from the London Mail, of Dec. 18th. The
church. in which the ceremonials which
form the subject of the judgment, took
place. was st. Adams, Holborn, one of the
most advanced Ritualistic" churches.
Let 1t be remembered that the Church
of England is Church "by law estab-
ished = consequently, all the observances,
within the Church, are subject to the re-
vision of certain competent legal tribunals.
This case was commenced before the
Bishop of London, and by him sent to
the Court of the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, by virtue of the '' Clergy Discipline
Act" and having been fully heard before
| the Judge of the Court of Arches, de-
cree was rendered on the 2Sth of March,
lS6S,-from which decree an appeal was
taken to the Judiciary Committee of the
Privy Council. the Court of final appeal,
in such matters. The case was most elab-
orately argued, and the judgment, given
by Lord Cairns, is very full and the whole
NATTER though too yolumlnous for the
general reader, will well repay perusal to
those who are curious on the subject,
1t would seem to have set at rest the
whole matter, regarding the observances
complained of, SO far as they ought TO be
practiced in the Church of England
The case of +" Martin v. Mackonochie," in
which some most characteristic practices at
st. Adams, Holborn, were challenged, was
on Wednesday decided, and the result is that
Mr.. Mackonochie is condemned upon every
one of the points raised, and is required to
pay the costs both of the original suit and
of the present appeal. This decision is as
important as it viii be satisfactory to the
public. The case has brought to the test of
law some of the most prominent innovations
of the Ritualists. They were innovations
closely connected with their most character
istic doctrines-those, namely which relate
to the Holy Communion. To indicate their
peculiar belief respecting the Sacrament they
introduced q variety of novel gestures, cere-
monies, and ornaments. Though, in tine ag-
gregate, these produced change SO conspic-
uous as utterly 10 alter the character of the
service, it was as usual, very difficult to des-
cribe them with sufficient accuracy for le-
gal test At length, however, after the inge-
nuity of numerous lawyers has been exerted
on both sides, the question has been brought
to distinct issue, and on that issue Mr..
Mackonochie has been. without exception,
condemned. Ritualism, in short, has been
fairly challenged in the highest Court of Law,
and has been completely defeated. The is
sue, though limited, is of material signifi-
canoe, and the condemnation pronounced is
sufficient to prove that the position of the
Ritualists is wholly untenabe.
The case may be very simply explained
Mr.. Mackonochie was originally charged
first, with elevating the elements during the
Prayer of Conservation secondly, with
kneeling before them during the same pray
er; thirdly with using lighted candles on
the Communion Table during the celebra-
tion of the Holy Communion, when they
were not required for the purpose of giving
light; fourthly, with using incense in the
same service: and, filthy, with mixing
water with the wine. The elevation Mr..
Mackonochie discontinued before the suit
commenced, and was admonished not TO re-
sumo it. The judgement of the Court of
Arches condemned the use of incense and
water. 1t admitted, however, the lawfulness
of lighted candles, and considered the kneel-
ing 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
There remains, therefore. not single point
on which the defendant has sustained his
case. What is still more remarkable, there
is scarcely an argument on which the coun-
Bel for the Ritualists relied which has not
been rejected by the Court; and this mar
involve more important consequences than
the judgement itself With respect to the
kneeling. the Court observe that the posture
Of the officiating minister is prescribed by
various ways throughout the Communion
service. He is directed when to stand and
when to change bis posture for that of kneel-
ing. But it is expressly ordered that the
Prayer OF Conservation 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. In re-
ply, after one or two formal objections, it
was commended that this was one of those
minute details which the Rubric could not
be held to cover. To this the Court make
the important answer that it is not for any
minister of the Church, or even for them
selves. to assume that any departure from or
violation Of the Rubric is trivial. The pres
ent case, indeed, is conspicuous proof that
violations which in themselves might seem
very trivial may practically involve most ma
terial consequences II is as notorious his
torieaIly as 1t IS evident from the minute d.
fections Of the Prayer Book that variations
of gesture and posture during the Communi-
on were coEnnected al the Reformation with
important points of doctrine; and those who
put this plea upon the record, knew perfect