Newman, which Mr. Hemans thinks "sufficient to justify the use of that symbol, if any argument were needed on its behalf." There are many other points as to which we must beg to differ from the author of this valuable work, e.g., that "the worship of saints," although confessedly "unknown to the Primitive Church," "may be considered a consequence of the belief in the Incarnation," &c. ; but it would be an ungracious and unwelcome task to select these for our special comment; and we mention them only by way of caution to our readers, not to accept without question some of the conclusions at which Mr. Hemans arrives on various subjects connected with the ritual and doctrines of the Church of Rome. As an illustration of the necessity of this caution, we select, in conclusion, a passage in which he sums up his opinions on her past and future history:

"Through superior organization, through higher aims and theories of ecclesiastical duty than elsewhere had root, did Rome succeed in establishing the most perfect system of spiritual government the world has ever seen. The persuasion that, under whatever modifications, the cause of Christianity is one, the jewel the same though set in different caskets, and that all the phases this religion has passed through have been subordinate to its ulterior advantages, and therefore to those of humanity-this, I believe, will be confirmed by the study of the Papal history, if entered into with calm, impartial spirit. "From that pursuit many may rise convinced that the ascendant so wonderfully attained and ably held by those crowned High Priests was, from the first and throughout, proportionate to their desertsnot as men, but as an institution; was more or less a potent reality in the degree required for the general good; and that its endurance in the future is guaranteed for so long as the Church shall derive benefit, or piety support from it." (pp. 566, 567.)

Believing, as we do, that the power which the Pope assumes over the Church is in direct violation of the prerogatives of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is "Head over all things to His Church," and that many of the doctrines held by the Church. of Rome are "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture," confess ourselves unable to foresee any prospect of "benefit" to be derived from her continuance; unless, indeed, she should arise and purge herself from the errors, abuses, and idolatries which have, one by one, crept into her creed and practice.

we

The evidence supplied by Mr. Hemans himself, whose work we commend to our readers' notice, with the caution already given, is sufficient to prove how far the Church of Rome is from deriving any support for her arrogant claims to supremacy, or for her blasphemous and unscriptural dogmas, from that antiquity whose monuments, when appealed to fairly and honestly, condemn both the one and the other.

THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TABLE.

The North Side of the Altar. A Liturgical Essay. By Richard Frederick Littledale, M.A., LL.D., Priest of the Church of England. 2nd Edition, Revised. London: Palmer. 1865. The Rubrical Determination of the Celebrant's Position. Considered in a Letter to the Rev. T. T. Carter, M.A., Rector of Clewer. By Henry Baskerville Walton, M.A., late Fellow of Merton College. London: Rivingtons. 1866.

The Annotated Book of Common Prayer. Edited by the Rev. John Henry Blunt, M.A. London: Rivingtons. 1866.

THE position of the officiating Minister at the time of the Celebration of the Holy Communion, or, in Ritualistic language, "the position of the Celebrant," has been already discussed, at some length, in the pages of the Christian Observer, in connexion with the decision given in the Purchas Case by the Final Court of Appeal.* Two reasons, however, have been urged why that Judgment should not be accounted as a final and conclusive determination of the law of the English Church-(1) because it was a Judgment given in an undefended suit; and (2) because it is alleged to be inconsistent with the terms of a previous Judgment, given by the same Court in the case of Martin v. Mackonochie.

It is altogether beside our present purpose to enter upon any discussion of the validity or invalidity of either of these grounds of objection to the decision in the Purchas Case; nor do we pronounce any censure upon those who, believing that that decision would be reversed, in the event of the disputed points of law being again raised, have recourse to any legitimate method of obtaining a final settlement of this vexed question.

At the same time we have no hesitation in expressing, without disguise or qualification, our astonishment that men of more than average ability, and of the highest reputation for integrity in the ordinary transactions of life, having voluntarily pledged themselves to administer the Sacraments, not only as "this Church," but also as "this Realm hath received the same," should not only persevere in a course of open and flagrant violation of the law, as it is now expounded by the highest tribunal of that Realm, but should-unless their words have been strangely misrepresented-have distinctly pledged themselves to continue in the same course of disobedience, should the decision already given be re-affirmed.

Vol. 73.-No. 439.

See Christian Observer, April, 1871.

3 U

Under these circumstances, it must be obvious to the most superficial observer that the question at issue, however trifling and indifferent in itself, becomes invested with a more than ordinary amount of importance; and we think we may fairly assume that whilst, on the one hand, the legality of the position of the Priest with his back to the people, if conceded, would not, by any logical necessity, involve the consistence of the sacerdotal and sacrificial theory with the formularies of the English Church, the illegality of that position, if finally determined, would, in the judgment of the advocates of the same theory, afford strong presumptive evidence against it.

Before, however, we proceed, as we propose to do in the course of this and a subsequent paper, to examine somewhat fully the arguments which have been adduced in support of that position, which has been pronounced by the Final Court of Appeal to be illegal, in the English Church, we must briefly direct the attention of our readers to the remarks of the present Lord Chancellor, in his speech in Committee upon the "Public Worship Regulation Bill," now before the House of Lords, as reported in the "Times" of Friday, June 5.

The part of the speech which we are about to quote relates to the two decisions of the Final Court of Appeal to which allusion has already been made, and the passage bearing upon our subject, as we find it reported, is as follows:

"If we look at the past history of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, we shall be able to find that certainly there is one case of great importance, in which a decision arrived at by the Judicial Committee was afterwards altered by the same tribunal. Suppose it should hereafter be decided by the final tribunal of the country that the proper position of the minister at the time of consecration is to stand in front of the people, looking towards the East. Remember that, if it should be so decided, that decision will be compulsory upon every clergyman of the Church of England."

We are very far indeed from assuming that the words of this distinguished lawyer are correctly reported; and still further from assuming, on the supposition that the report is substantially correct, that they convey an accurate representation of the Lord Chancellor's deliberate judgment. We refer to them, because there is no doubt that there are persons who hold the opinion, here ascribed to Lord Cairns, that if it should hereafter be decided by the Final Court of Appeal that the position of the Minister, not only whilst ordering the elements, but also whilst saying the Prayer of Consecration, is " before the Table," and, further, that the words "before the Table" mean at the broad side as distinguished from the narrow side or "end" of the Table, it follows, as a matter of necessity, that he is to turn his back upon the people, and, in the case of those

Churches in which the rule of orientation has been observed, that he is to "look toward the East."

Now, however strange it must appear that any one at all conversant with the Ritualistic controversy should have overlooked so important a matter, it is obvious that this inference depends altogether upon the retention of the "altar-wise" position of the Table at the time of the Administration of the Holy Communion. It is equally clear, we think, even on the most superficial examination of the Rubric and the Canons, that this "altar-wise" position of the Table during the Celebration of the Communion is neither enjoined nor implied by them, and it will be our endeavour to prove that this position can with difficulty, and only in particular cases, be even reconciled with them.

Before, however, we enter upon the formal examination of the existing law of the English Church on this subject, we propose to glance at some of the arguments which have been adduced by our modern Ritualists with a view to establish a prima facie case in favour of the adoption of the modern innovation of the officiating minister standing with his back to the people during any portion of the Communion Service.

One of the most plausible and elaborate attempts to defend this position is contained in a pamphlet put forth by Dr. Littledale, and which has passed through two or more editions, entitled "The North Side of the Altar, a Liturgical Essay," in which the writer attempts to prove that the position of the "chief officiant during the celebration of the Holy Communion" (we presume Dr. Littledale means during the first portion of the Service)" should be at that part of the West side of the Altar which is nearest to the North-in what would, in short, speaking in terms of the compass, be the N.W. by W. point.'

The same position is maintained in Mr. Blunt's "Annotated Book of Common Prayer," and, with some variations and modifications, by many other writers of the same school. These writers maintain that the practice of the Jewish Church, in regard to the accessories of Divine worship, being based on a Divine command, afforded a sufficient warrant for the introduction of a ritual, approximating to it as closely as the case permitted, into the Christian Church; that such an adaptation of the Jewish ritual was exhibited in the worship of the Christian Church in the earliest times; and that the same principle is recognised, both in the pre-Reformation and postReformation Service-Books of the English Church.

In conformity with the principle thus laid down, Dr. Littledale appeals, in support of the position of the Priest at the West side of the "Altar," (1) to Jewish precedent; (2) to early Christian practice; and (3) to the Rubrics and Ritual of the English Church, previously and subsequently to the Reforma

mation.

Now, with regard to the Jewish ritual and to that of the early Christian Church, it might be objected that until, in the face of opposing evidence, it can be proved that where that ritual can be shown to have been uniform and invariable, it was adopted, as well specifically as generally, by the Reformers of the English Church, the inferences which can be drawn from existing records as to (1) the position of the Jewish priest at the Altar of Burnt Offering, the Altar of Incense, and the Table of Shew-bread; and (2) that of Christian priests at the Holy Table in the earlier periods of Ecclesiastical history, can afford but a very slight and unsatisfactory clue to the correct solution of any difficulty connected with the ritual of the Reformed English Church.

Conceding, however, for the sake of argument, (1) that the terms of the Rubric which directs the Priest to stand at the North side of the Table during the celebration of the Holy Communion, need elucidation, and (2) that that elucidation may be fairly sought in Jewish precedent, and in the history and liturgies of the early Church, let us briefly inquire how far the conclusions which Dr. Littledale and others have drawn are fairly deducible from the premises which they have assumed.

The object proposed in the appeal to the usage of the Temple and the Tabernacle is to show that "in every instance the position of the Priest was normally in front of the Altar or Table at which he officiated," i.e., (1) at the broad side of the Altar or Table, where the sides were of unequal length; and (2) directly facing the most Holy Place, which, as is well known, was at the Western extremity of the Tabernacle or Temple.

As the Altars of Burnt Offering and of Incense were square, the only question for consideration in these cases is whether the normal position of the Priest was on the eastern side of the Altar, i.e., facing the Most Holy Place. And to this inquiry we believe the answer will be found in both cases directly opposed to the assertions which have been made.

I. With regard to the Altar of Burnt Offering.

Dr. Littledale asserts that this Altar "had a broad red line drawn across the midst of the front to mark the heights at which different sprinklings were to be made. It is sufficiently obvious," he continues, "that unless the Priest faced this line, he could not perform the rite accurately." In support of this assertion Dr. Littledale refers to Lightfoot's Temple Service (viii. 1.6). The paragraph to which reference is made does not refer to the position of the Priest who sprinkled the blood, but to that of the person, whether priest or offerer, who slew the victim.* In a

The position of the slaughterer is irrelevant to the subject in hand, inasmuch as a distinction is evidently made (see Lev.i. 5, and Patrick in loc.) between

the offerer who brought and killed the bullock and the priests who sprinkled the blood. It may be well, however, to observe that the argument would not