sub benedictus elevetur panis et calix, ritu hactenus servato, vel propter infirmos qui hac repentina (mutatione) hujus insignioris in missa ritus forte offendentur, præsertim ubi per conciones vernaculas docti fuerint quid ea petatur elevatione."-(Cod. Liturg, vol. ii. p. 87, ed. Leipsic, 1848.) Daniel, the learned German editor of the Codex Liturgicus, observes that the elevation was for a long time not only tolerated but approved of and defended by Luther. He thought it right that when the Sacrament was lifted up a bell should ring; for the priest and the bell spoke the same language, namely, "Hearken, ye Christians, and behold, then take and eat, take and drink, this is the body and blood of Christ." Afterwards Luther placed the elevation "inter adiaphora quæ possunt servari vel omitti ad habitum ecclesiarum," and discontinued it in the church at Wittemberg. The rite appears to have prevailed during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in the churches of Sweden and Denmark.

By the 28th of the Thirty-nine Articles which became part of the Statute Law in 1571, though passed in Convocation with the consent of the Crown in 1562, it is declared, "That the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

It is true that these words contain a declaration only, and no specific order; but looking to the spirit as well as to the letter of our present Prayer-Book, as well as to this Article, and to the documents which illustrate the early period of the Reformation, it appears to me clear that those who guided the Church of England through this process of restoration to primitive antiquity were of opinion that the elevation was so connected with the repudiated doctrine of Transubstantiation, as distinguished from the Real Presence, that it ought not to be suffered to remain. And I am confirmed in this opinion by the authority of some of the greatest divines in our Church, of whom I will only cite two; one, the learned Grabe; the other, who received the thanks of Christendom for his defence of the Nicene Creed, Bishop Bull.

The former says, "But if it should be asked, of what use the said form, with such annotations, can be at present, when it is out of use, I answer, that it will serve, at least, to show to the honour of our forefathers, the first reformers of this Church, how near they, concerning the celebration of that most holy Sacrament, kept to the primitive institution of it by our blessed Saviour, and to the practice of His Holy Apostles and the first Apostolical Churches, although they changed and threw out many abuses and corruptions of this sacred ordinance which were crept in afterwards, and at last established by

Popish decrees and councils of later ages. Such was, in the whole, the use of an unknown tongue in this holy office.

"And not to mention the elevation of the consecrated elements to be worshipped by priest and all people as Jesus Christ Himself, both God and man in person, whom the Church of Rome believeth to be substantially and wholly present under the outward figures of bread and wine."-(Grabe, M. S., Adversaria.)

Bishop Bull, in a portion of his answer to the Bishop of Meaux, who had expressed his surprise that he was not a Romanist as well as a Catholic, says, "Come we now to the principal part of the Christian worship, the holy sacrament of the Eucharist. How lamentably hath the Church of Rome vitiated the primitive institution of that most sacred rite. She hath taken from the laity the blessed cup, contrary to our blessed Saviour's express command as expounded by the practice of the apostles, and of the universal church of Christ for the first ten centuries, as hath been above observed.

"All the learned advocates of the Roman Church with all their sophistry, have not been able to defend her in this matter from manifest sacrilege, and a violation of the very essentials of the sacrament, as to the laity administered, nor can they prove it so administered to be a perfect sacrament. He that would see this in a short compass fully proved, and all the weak evasions of the Romanists obviated, may consult our learned Bishop Davenant. Besides, the whole administration of it is so clogged, so metaphorised and defaced by the addition of a multitude of ceremonies, and those some of them more becoming the stage than the table of our Lord, that if the blessed apostles were alive and present at the celebration of the mass in the Roman Church they would be amazed and wonder what the meaning of it was; sure I am they would never own it to be that same ordinance which they left to the churches.

"But the worst ceremony of all is the elevation of the Host to be adored by the people as very Christ himself under the appearance of bread, whole Christ, Oeávepwπos, 'God and man,' while they neglect the old sursum corda, the lifting up of their hearts to heaven where whole Christ indeed is."

The kind of elevation which it is charged that at one time Mr. Mackonochie practised, and as to which witnesses were examined before me, amounts upon the evidence to the following acts, that after the consecration, both of the bread and of the wine, he elevated the paten and the cup respectively for an appreciable time, after which there was a pause before the service was continued; this evidence was taken at the beginning 1 Works, ed. Oxford, 1827, vol. ii. p. 308.

of the cause; but during the progress of the argument, at the desire and with the consent of both counsel, Mr. Mackonochie was examined by me upon the single point, whether when the elevation was made his face was or was not towards the people, Mr. Mackonochie said, "I do not turn round to the people, and I never have done so during any time of the consecration prayer."1

This elevation Mr. Mackonochie asserts, and it is not denied, that he discontinued after conference with his diocesan, and upon the other grounds to which I have already referred, before the institution of this suit.

I am very glad that he did so, because in my judgment that kind of elevation was unlawful, and I must and do admonish Mr. Mackonochie not to recur to it.

His present practice is not complained of, and some elevation the rubrics of the present communion service must contemplate when they order as follows: "Here the priest shall take the paten into his hands;" that is, into both his hands; subsequently to which he is ordered to break the bread. So also when he is directed to take the cup into his hand there must be some elevation from the Holy Table.

Elevation; as to Mr. Simpson.

It is alleged in the 5th article filed against Mr. Simpson in the suit of Flamank v. Simpson, that he, Mr. Simpson, has, within two years last past, in the said parish of East Teignmouth, in the public celebration of the Holy Communion, after the Prayer of Consecration, raised the paten with both hands over his head, and the cup in like manner. And that such elevations of the paten and cup are unlawful additions to and alterations of the form and order prescribed and appointed by the said Book of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacrament, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, and are contrary to the said statute law, constitutions, and

canons.

Mr. Simpson, in the 4th answer filed by him, denies that he has, as in the said 5th article alleged, within two years last

1 I have said "with the consent and desire of both counsel," because such was the fact; but if Mr. Mackonochie was by law an incompetent witness their consent in a criminal case would not render his evidence admissible; but I venture to think that he was a competent witness, and am emboldened to hold this opinion, though it be at variance with that of my predecessor, in consequence of the observation made by the Lords of the Privy Council in Berney v. The Lord Bishop of Norwich, a case in which judgment was delivered on the 28th February 1867.

Vide infra, Bp. of Norwich v. Pearse,

past, so raised the paten with both hands over his head, and the cup in like manner. But he says that he has, within the time aforesaid, in the reading the Prayer of Consecration so raised the paten on pronouncing the words "Do this in remembrance of me;" and he has so raised the cup on pronouncing the words "This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins."

It clearly follows, from what I have said as to Mr. Mackonochie, that the elevation practised by Mr. Simpson is unlawful, and must be discontinued.

Kneeling.

With respect to the charge against Mr. Mackonochie of kneeling or prostration before the Eucharist, I observed during the course of the argument that no charge of adoration of the Holy Sacrament itself, or of our Lord's body, being present after a corporal manner in the Holy Sacrament, was contained in these articles; that if it was intended to charge Mr. Mackonochie with either kind of adoration, the rules of pleading in criminal cases in this Court would have required that such adoration should have been distinctly and plainly averred.

The argument before me was confined to the allegation of improper or excessive kneeling; the evidence as to the fact was very far from being clear; Mr. Mackonochie was asked no question himself upon the subject.

Mr. Beames said, that after the elevation of the cup, Mr. Mackonochie prostrated himself on his knees with his head to the ground, and then that he knelt immediately after the cup was replaced, and that there was the same kneeling after the elevation of the paten. It was clear, however, from the evidence of this witness that Mr. Mackonochie remained on his knees, and that his head did not touch the ground, and that he did not really prostrate himself, supposing such a gesture of devotion to be, which I do not pronounce it to be, illegal.

The only other witness, the Reverend Henry Malim, deposed that the clergy, already kneeling, threw their bodies forwards, and that the consecrating clerk knelt in the middle of the prayer, and then went on with the prayer. But on further examination he said that he was behind him all the time, that he could not in fact say that he prostrated himself, but to use his own words "there was a somewhat excessive bending forwards." He said he was kneeling himself at the time, and that it was his own practice, when not assisting, to kneel during the prayer of consecration.

It is true that the Rubric does not give precise directions

that the celebrant himself should kneel at the times when it appears that Mr. Mackonochie does kneel; but I am very far from saying that it is not legally competent to him, as well as to the other priests and to the congregation, to adopt this attitude of devotion. It cannot be contended that at some time or other he must not kneel during the celebration, although no direction as to his kneeling at all are given by the Rubric.

It is observable that at the Savoy Conference the Puritans asked to have it considered "Whether it will not be fit to insert a rubrick touching kneeling at the communion, that is, to comply in all humility with the prayer which the minister makes when he delivers the elements."

No notice of this request was taken by the bishops unless it be considered to be included in their concession, "That the general confession at the communion be pronounced by one of the ministers, the people saying after him, all kneeling humbly upon their knees."-(Cardwell's Conferences, pp. 275, 363.)

Moreover, in my opinion, 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 those cases which should be referred to the Bishop, in order that he may exercise thereupon his discretion, according to the Rubric to which I have already referred.

Incense.

The charge against Mr. Mackonochie as to the use of incense is twofold; the first part relates to what is technically called "censing persons and things," and is as follows:

7th Article.-The 7th article alleges, "that the said defendant has in his said Church, and within two years last past, to wit, on Sunday the 23d December, on Christmas Day last past, and on Sunday the 30th December, all in the year 1866, used incense for censing persons and things in and during the celebration of the Holy Communion, and permitted and sanctioned such use of incense."

Answer. And the defendant in answer to this article says, "that he admits that he (the defendant) on the Sunday the 23d December, on Christmas Day last past, and on Sunday the 30th December, used incense for censing persons and things in and during celebration of the Holy Communion, and permitted and sanctioned such use of incense;" but he alleges, "that ever since the 30th December 1866 he, the said defend