Church music. one thousand years ago, was, that they should observe a plain and devout melody, according to the custom of the church. And the rule prescribed by Queen Elizabeth in her Injunctions was, that there should be a modest and distinct song, so used in all parts of the common prayers in the church, that the same may be as plainly understood as if it were read without singing. Of the want of which grave, serious and intelligible way, the Reformatio Legum had complained before. Hutchins v. In Hutchins v. Denziloe (x), Lord Stowell said the bishop might exercise a discretion as to ordering the psalms to be sung in parish churches as well as in cathedrals; he observed that, "In the primitive churches, the favourite practice of the Christians to sing hymns in alternate verses, is expressly mentioned by Pliny, in one of his epistles to the Emperor Trajan. The Church of Rome afterwards refined upon this practice;-as it was their policy to make their ministers considerable in the eyes of the common people; and one way of effecting that, was by appointing them sole officers in the public service of the church; and difficult music was introduced, which no one could execute without a regular education of that species. At the Reformation this was one of the grievances complained of by the laity; and it became the distinguishing mark of the reformers to use plain music, in opposition to the complex musical service of the catholics. The Lutheran Church, to which the Church of England has more conformed in discipline, retained a choral service. The Calvinistic Churches, of which it has sometimes been harshly said, 'that they think to find religion wherever they do not find the Church of Rome,' have discarded it entirely, with a strong attachment to plain congregational melody, and that perhaps not always of the most harmonious kind. "The reformation cf the Church of England, which was conducted by authority, as all reformations should be, if possible, and not merely by popular impulse, retained the choral service in cathedrals and collegiate chapels. There are certainly, in modern usage, two services to be distinguished; one the cathedral service, which is performed by persons who are in a certain degree professors of music, in which others can join only by ear; the other, in which the service is performed in a plain way, and in which all the congregation nearly take an equal part. It has been argued, that nothing beyond this ought to be (x) 1 Consist. R. 175. "permitted in ordinary parochial service; it being that which general usage at the present day alone permits. But that carries the distinction further than the law will support-for, if inquiries go further back, to periods more nearly approaching the Reformation, there will be found authority sufficient, in point of law and practice, to support the use of more music even in a parish church or chapel." and ritual. The judgments delivered in the Consistory of London, Modern cases the Court of Arches and the Judicial Committee of the on ornaments Privy Council, in the cases of Westerton v. Liddell, Liddell v. Westerton (y), and Liddell v. Beal (z), commonly called the Knightsbridge church cases, related to the ornaments and decorations of the church. The judgment of the Court of Arches and of the Privy Council in the cases of Martin v. Mackonochie (a), Flamank v. Simpson (b), Sumner v. Wix (c), Elphinstone or Hebbert v. Purchas (d), comprise the latest and fullest exposition of the law with respect not only to the ornaments and decorations of the church and the ornaments of the minister, to which reference has been already made, but also to the mode of performing divine service as regulated by the Statutes of Uniformity, the Canons and the general law of the Church. The points which were raised and decided in the cases of Mr. Mackonochie and Mr. Simpson were as toFirst, the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament, including kneeling during the prayer of consecration; Secondly, the use of incense during the administration of the Holy Communion; Thirdly, the mixing the water with the wine during the administration of the Holy Communion; Fourthly, the placing the alms upon a stool instead of the Holy Table; Fifthly, the use of lights during the administration of the Holy Communion. Matters de cided in Mackonochie and Simpson cases. The third of the articles in this suit charged that the Martin v. defendant had in his church, "during the prayer of con- Mackomochie. secration, in the order of the administration of the Holy Elevation of Communion, elevated the paten in a greater degree than by merely taking the same into his hands, as prescribed (y) Moore's Special Report, 4 W. R. 167; 5 W. R. 179, 470. (*) 14 Moo. P. C. 1. (a) L. R., 2 Adm. & Eccl. 116; 3 P. C. App. 52. (b) L. R., 2 Adm. & Eccl. 116, (c) L. R., 3 Adm. & Eccl. 58. (d) L. R., 3 Adm. & Eccl. 66; Bullock's Special Report; 19 W. R. 898. the sacrament. Martin v. Elevation of the sacrament. by the Book of Common Prayer, and in a greater degree Mackonochie. than is necessary to conform with the requirements of such book, and permitted and sanctioned such elevation; and taken into his hands and elevated the cup during the prayer of consecration aforesaid in a manner contrary to the said statutes, and to the said Book of Common Prayer, and permitted and sanctioned the cup to be so taken and elevated; and knelt or prostrated himself before the consecrated elements during the prayer of consecration." The defendant admitted that he did, during the prayer of consecration, kneel before the Lord's table; but denied that he did kneel or prostrate himself before the consecrated elements; and he admitted that he did elevate the paten and cup above his head, as in the said 3rd Article pleaded, yet that such elevation of the paten and cup has been wholly discontinued by the said defendant during the administration of the Holy Communion long prior to the institution of this suit. The Dean of the Arches observed that "The elevation of the Blessed Sacrament was not incorporated formally into the law of the Western Church before the beginning of the thirteenth century. The account given by Cardinal Bona is clear and concise (e): Latini peractâ consecratione, Græci paulo ante communionem, ut ex Liturgiis Jacobi, Basilii, et Chrysostomi 'manifestum est, corpus Dominicum et calicem elevant, ut a populo adoretur. Idque ab antiquo tempore fieri 'solitum indicant scriptores Græci.' He then cites a variety of authorities in support of this position, and mentions the introduction of the custom of ringing a bell at the time of the elevation, at first as it should appear in order to excite the devotions of the faithful, and not for the purpose of the worship of the Host (ƒ). "It was not till the year 1217, during the Papacy of Honorius III., that this peculiar doctrine of elevation became part of the canon law. "In lib. iii., tit. xlii., Decret. Greg. cap. x., the decree upon the subject is as follows: "Sane, cum olim (ut infra). Ne propter incuriam 'Sacerdotum divina indignatio gravius exardescat, districte præcipiendo mandamus, quatenus a Sacerdotibus Eucharistia in loco singulari, mundo et signato semper honorifice collocata, devote ac fideliter conservetur. Sacerdos vero quilibet frequenter doceat plebem suam, 6 ut, cum in celebratione missarum elevatur hostia salu'taris, se reverenter inclinet, idem faciens, cum eam defert Presbyter ad infirmum. Quam in decenti habitu superposito mundo velamine ferat, et referat manifestè ac 'honorifice ante pectus cum omni reverentia et timore, semper lumine præcedente, cum sit candor lucis æternæ, ut ex hoc apud omnes fides et devotio augeatur. Prælati autem hujusmodi mandati graviter punire non differant 'transgressores: si et ipsi divinam et nostram volunt 'effugere ultionem '(g). 6 "William, Bishop of Paris, soon after the beginning of the 13th century, made an order that, 'Sicut alias statu'tum fuit, in celebratione missarum, quando corpus Christi elevatur, in ipsâ elevatione vel paulo ante campana pul'setur, ut sic mentes fidelium ad orationem excitentur.' "And Archbishop Peccham, who was consecrated in the year 1278 and died in the year 1292, appears to have first introduced into England this custom by the following constitution (h): "Altissimus,' et infra. In elevatione corporis Christi ab una parte ad minus pulsentur campanæ, ut populares, qui celebrationi missarum non valent quotidie interesse, ubicunque fuerint, sive in agris sive in domibus, flectant genua, indulgentias concessas a pluribus episcopis 'habituri.' "Lyndwood (writing, it is to be observed about 1430) has this gloss: Elevatione, quæ fit ut populus illud 'adoret.' 6 "This passage appears to me to dispose of the argument addressed to me by the leading counsel for Mr. Simpson, ' that it had been the invariable practice of the Church of England not to connect adoration with elevation.' "Nor am I satisfied by the difference between the canon of the Sarum use and that of the Roman Missal upon this point, that at the time of the Reformation the adoration was separated from the elevation of the Host. The true proposition is that the original practice, in England as in other countries, had been to stir up the devotion of the (g) The title of the chapter is: "Eucharistia debet munde servari, et in ejus elevatione et delatione populus debet se inclinare: et cum defertur ad infirmum, debet deferri in decenti habitu, et cum lumine, transgressores vero graviter sunt puniendi." (h) The title of this constituP. VOL. II. tion is: "In elevatione corporis Martin v. Elevation of people to God by the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament, Mackonochie. until in this, as in so many other instances, the Church, or perhaps more strictly speaking the Curia, of Rome introduced an unwarrantable innovation upon an ancient and laudable usage. the sacrament. "The first prohibition of this custom, of elevating the Host in order that it might be adored, is to be found in the Order of the Communion of Edward VI., which was published in 1548, and preceded the first Book of Common Prayer. The last note' to that order, after providing for the case in which it has become necessary to consecrate more wine than had been originally consecrated, contains these words, and without any elevation or lifting up.' This prohibition would seem from the context to be limited to the case of an additional consecration of wine. In the first Prayer Book, after the prayer of consecration, follow these words: These words before rehearsed are to 'be said, turning still to the altar, without any elevation, or showing the sacrament to the people.' "The Council of Trent, by the 6th canon of the 13th session, passed the 11th of October, 1561, decrees: 'Si 'quis dixerit, in sancto eucharistiæ sacramento Christum ' unigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriæ, etiam 'externo, adorandum, atque ideo nec festiva peculiari 'celebritate venerandum, neque in processionibus secun'dum laudabilem et universalem ecclesiæ sanctæ ritum et consuetudinem solenniter circumgestandum, vel non 'publice, ut adoretur, populo proponendum, et ejus 'adoratores esse idololatras, anathema sit.' "The liberal mind and strong sense of Luther appear in his treatment of this question of elevation. In the 'Formula Missæ et Communionis' for the church at Wittemberg, he gives this direction: (IV.) Finitâ benedictione chorus cantet sanctus et sub benedictus elevetur panis et calix, ritu hactenus servato, vel propter 'infirmos qui hac repentinâ (mutatione) hujus insignioris in 'missâ ritus forte offendentur, præsertim ubi per conciones ' vernaculas docti fuerint quid eâ petatur elevatione' (i). 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 (i) Cod. Liturg. ii. 87, ed. Leipsic, 1848. |