Coffins. Notice to be given of Burial. If such a custom have a reasonable foundation, it must at least be strictly proved. It would require very strong authority to show that a right to interment was consequent upon a reasonable fee being paid. (p) As to the use of coffins, "It is to be observed that in the funeral service of the Church of England there is no mention, indeed there is rather an apparently studious avoidance of any mention, of coffins. It is throughout the whole service the corpse' or 'the body.' Funerals were anciently coffined and uncoffined, and were charged for accordingly. From which (says Lord Stowell), I might venture to draw this conclusion, that even at that time (the year 1627, referring to a table of fees of that date), it was recognized as not unjust, that where the deceased, by the use of his coffin, took a longer occupancy of the ground, he should compensate the parish by an increased payment." (q) "In our own country the use of coffins is extremely ancient, although most probably by no means general, but they are not nominatim or directly required by any authority whatever." (r) The 68th Canon requires convenient warning to be given to the minister of the intended burial of a corpse, and it is for those proceeding against him for a refusal to bury to prove that convenient warning was given; consequently where in a suit against a clergyman for such an offence no satisfactory proof of such warning was given, the Court held that no canonical offence had been committed, and dismissed the defendant with costs. () SEVENTH.-THE REMAINING OFfices. The rest of the Prayer Book may be omitted almost entirely from consideration in the present work. It consists of "The (p) Rich v. Bushnell, 4 Hagg. Eccl. 164, 173. (q) Per Lord Stowell, Gilbert v. Buzzard & Boyes, 2 Hagg. Cons. 346, 347, 3 Phill. 351. (r) Ibid. 345. (s) Titchmarsh v. Chapman, 1 Rob. Eccl. 177. Thanksgiving of Women after Child-birth," "A Commination," and "The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." of women. The first of these was styled in the First Book, "The Order Thanksgiving of the Purification of Women." This observance is expressly enjoined by the rubric, but it is generally, not to say universally, omitted even by communicants. The precise time of performing it is not specified, and consequently it is for the ordinary to direct. (t) Service. The Commination is thus entitled in the first two Prayer Commination Books: found in the first Book, having been compiled in 1550. (1) See Jebb, "The Choral Service," 532; Sharp, "The Rubric," 72; Mant, "Hora Liturgicæ," 51. Service. (u) Ante, p. 56. Difficulty of discriminating between rite and ceremony. CHAPTER V. CEREMONIAL. SECTION I.-Explication of the term Ceremony. T the beginning of the last chapter has been pointed out the difficulty of determining the true import in Ecclesiastical Law of the connected terms, rite and ceremony, and the definition given by the present Dean of the Arches was there cited. To this definition, in so far as it relates to the word ceremony, viz. "gestures or acts preceding, accompanying, or following the uttering of certain words," little if any exception can be taken. Generally this will be sufficiently precise to discriminate a ceremony from any other fact, proceeding, or matter. It may nevertheless occasionally be inadequate. Thus, in reference to the use of lights in the Holy Communion, the Lights as cere- Privy Council, alluding to the case above mentioned, observed: (x) monies or orna ments. "The Dean of Arches seems to have considered that all the practices complained of before him, including this use of lighted candles, were ceremonies. The respondent, in the argument of his counsel at the bar, appeared to prefer to treat the question as one of ornament, and Mr. James said he considered the lighted candles' part of the symbolical decoration of the altar.' If it were necessary to decide which of these views is correct, (x) L. R. 2 P. C. 387. their lordships would feel disposed to agree with the Dean of the Arches, that however candles and candlesticks may per se be looked upon as a part of the furniture or ornaments of the church, taking the word 'ornaments' in the larger sense assigned to it by this committee in Westerton v. Liddell, yet the lighting of the candles and the consuming them by burning throughout, and with reference to a service in which they are to act as symbols and illustrations, is itself either a ceremony, or else a ceremonial act forming part of a ceremony, and making the whole ceremony a different one from what it would have been had the lights been omitted. . . . The learned Dean of Arches also, although at the earlier part of his judgment he had stated that the matters complained of before him must be considered as 'ceremonies,' appears ultimately to have applied to the use of the lighted candles the law or rubric as to orna ments." SECTION II.-The General Law Relating to Ceremonial. ceremonies. HE legality of any particular ceremony depends primarily Legality of and mainly, if not exclusively, upon Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity. (y) Section 4 makes it penal "If any manner of parson, vicar, or other whatsoever minister that ought or should sing or say common prayer mentioned in the said book, or minister the sacraments, from and after the feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist next coming, refuse to use the said common prayer or to minister the sacrament in such cathedral or parish church or other places as he should use to minister the same, in such order and form as they be mentioned and set forth in the said book, or shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same use any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of celebrating of the Lord's Supper, openly or privily, or matins, evensong, adminis (y) 1 Eliz. c. 2. Mutable cere. monies. The Privy Council as to "mutable" ceremonies. tration of the sacrament, or other open prayers than is mentioned and set forth in the said book (open prayer in and throughout this Act is meant that prayer which is for others to come unto or hear either in common churches, or private chapels or oratories, commonly called the service of the church)," he shall be subject to the penalties by the Act provided. In Martin v. Mackonochie, the Dean of the Arches Court laid down (z) "that, in addition to the ceremonies expressly directed or expressly forbidden to be observed, others there are, designated 'mutable,' the legality of which will depend upon other considerations; that the criterion of the legality of such ceremonies consists in their conformity with primitive and catholic use, and not in antagonism to Rome; that the mere fact of their identity with the ceremonies in use before the Reformation is not sufficient ground from which to deduce their unlawfulness, nor does the fact that a practice is novel prove that it is unlawful; and that things neither ordered nor prohibited expressly or by implication in the Prayer Book, are within the domain of the bishop of the diocese within which they occur, to deal with by monition." But the Privy Council in their judgment in the same case on appeal (a) threw very great doubts upon the accuracy of these opinions. In reference to the question of "mutable" ceremonies, they said: "It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the act complained of was one of those minute details which could be taken to be covered by the provisions of the rubric; that the rubric could not be considered as exhaustive in its directions, for no order could be shown in it requiring the celebrating minister to kneel while himself receiving the bread and wine; and that there was no charge or evidence against the respondent, that, in kneeling after the consecration, any adoration of the sacrament was intended. Their lordships are of opinion that it is not open to a minister of the Church, or even (2) See the footnote, L. R. 2 Adm. & Eccl. 116.7. |