have been the ordinary position of the English Clergy during the Communion Service, from the time of the publication of the Second Prayer Book of King Edward VI. to that of Archbishop Laud's Innovations or Reforms.*

IV. The position of the Priest at the natural North side or end, when the Table began to be placed altar-wise, was allowed on all hands to be the one and only position prescribed by, or consistent with, the terms of the Rubric; the only question being whether the Table ought to stand East and West, and the priest at the broad or full side of the same, or whether the Table ought to stand North and South, and the Priest at the narrow side or end thereof.

V. The supposed precedents in favour of the position of the Priest with his back towards the people, afforded by the writings or example of certain Divines of the 17th century, as Archbishop Laud, and Bishops Andrewes, Cosin, and Wren, afford, upon examination, so many conclusive arguments in proof of the nonexistence, in their times, of any interpretation of the Rubric prescribing or permitting the adoption of the position in question.

VI. The Rubric directing the position of the Table, either in the Body of the Church or in the Chancel, has been proved to have been, not accidentally, but designedly, preserved at the final Revision of 1661; and the Rubric directing the position of the Priest "before the Table," in connection with the re-introduction of the manual actions, during the Prayer of Consecration, appears to have been introduced, not in opposition to, but in compliance with, the expressed desire of the Ministers in the Savoy Conference.†

VII. There is a continuous chain of evidence of the most diversified character, historical, ritual, and controversial, extending from the time of the publication of the second Prayer Book of King Edward VI. down to the nineteenth century, showing that whatever diversities may have existed, in theory or in practice, as to the position of the Table, and exceptionally as to that of the Priest, during the celebration of the Holy Com

We have not thought it necessary to refer to those exceptional cases, such as the Royal Chapels of St. James and Whitehall, which do not stand East and West, inasmuch as the position of the Priest at that part of the Table which corresponds to the North side in Churches where the orientation has been observed, though involving a deviation from the letter of the Rubric, serves only to confirm the view which we have adopted of its design.

Had there been the slightest foundation for the notion entertained by the Directorians of the nineteenth century, as by the Puritans of the seventeenth, as regards the "Celebrant," that the words of the Rubric "cannot be construed to command a Minister to kneel during the reception of the consecrated elements," (see Lathbury's History of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 144,) the argument employed in the preceding pages might be pressed still further.

munion, there appears to have been one uniform and consistent interpretation of the term "North side," as employed in the fourth Rubric of the Communion Office to denote the natural North side or end of the Holy Table; and consequently, that the theory recently introduced by certain modern Ritualists, who interpret" the North side of the Table " as meaning the N.W. by W. portion of the West side, appears to be a pure invention of the nineteenth century, destitute of all other claim to consideration than such as may be due to the ecclesiastical position or personal qualifications of those who have propounded it.

We think that we cannot be convicted of injustice towards our opponents in this controversy if we express our conviction that it is doctrine, not ritual only, for which they are contending. Let only the question of doctrine be made clear. Let the word "Priest" be either eliminated from our own, as it was from the Scotch Prayer Book of 1637 (and as its correlative "Altar' has been from the English Prayer Book), or, if retained, let it be defined to mean what our greatest divines have declared to be its meaning, viz., Presbyter, mрeoßúтepos, not iepeús; and then we care little, or nothing, whether the Holy Table stand in the church or in the chancel, table-wise or altar-wise, and whether the officiating minister stands at its North side, or at its South, Eastward or Westward.

But so long as the real battle is between what we believe to be the truth of the Gospel as it is in Christ Jesus, and the corruptions of a Church which introduces other priests and other mediators than "the man Christ Jesus" between God and the soul of the sinner,-so long we regard it as a matter of real importance whether the simplicity of our present forms of worship be retained, or whether forms of ritual be legalized which, whether rightly or wrongly, will infallibly be employed as instruments for the inculcation of what we believe to be false and dangerous doctrine.

Such appear to be the conclusions to which we are conducted by the facts and arguments which have been adduced in the foregoing pages.

Our readers will, for the most part, not need to be informed why it is that this subject-one, in itself, of comparative indifference -should have occupied so large a portion of the pages of the Christian Observer during the past and the present month. After making all due allowance for the motives of those who prefer the eastward position of the officiating minister during the celebration of the Lord's Supper, on the mistaken ground, as we think, of greater reverence, or of the clearer indication of a common participation in a common service, there can be little or no doubt existing in the minds of those who are, in any measure, acquainted with the true nature and design of the

present Ritualistic movement, that the real question at issue is whether the Holy Communion is to be regarded, as our Reformed Church of England teaches, as ordained "for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby;" or whether it is to be regarded, as that Church teaches against whose errors our forefathers protested in their lives, and by their death, as a renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross, in which the Priest offers Christ as a satisfaction for the quick and for the dead.

In conclusion, then, we desire to submit to the consideration of our readers generally, and more especially, should these pages catch their eye, of those in authority, such a solution of this vexed question as appears to us strictly in accordance both with the spirit and the letter of the existing ecclesiastical law.

It is admitted on all sides that, if by "standing before the Table" be meant standing at the part usually called the "side,” as distinguished from the "end," then, so long as the Table retains its present customary position against the East wall of a Church, in the construction of which the rule of Orientation has been observed, the officiating minister must stand with his face towards the East, and with his back towards the people.

It seems, however, to have escaped general observation that this "altar-wise" position of the Table, during the time of Celebration, is not only not enjoined either by Rubric or by Canon, but that it can with difficulty, if at all, be reconciled

with either.

The Rubric prefixed to the Communion Office prescribes either "the Body of the Church," or "the Chancel," "where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said " (the priority of position being assigned to "the Body of the Church"), as the place in which the Table is to stand at the Communion time;" the power being, by a previous Rubric, given to the Ordinary to determine whether Morning and Evening Prayer shall be "used" in the one or in the other of those two places. No direction is given whether the Table is to stand with its ends North and South, or East and West, i.e., "altar-wise " or "table-wise;" but it must be remembered (1) that it is invariably described in the Book of Common Prayer as a "Table," not as an "Altar;" (2) that there is historical evidence of the adoption of the "table-wise" position for many years after the introduction of the North side Rubric into the Prayer Book of 1552; and (3) that the arrangement of most Churches would determine that, when placed in "the Body of the Church," the Table must stand "table-wise" and not "altar-wise."

The 82nd Canon of 1604 A.D. is yet more explicit. That Canon, with tacit allusion, as it would seem in the English

Version, and clearer allusion in the Latin, to Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, in conformity with which the Table was "set in the place where the Altar stood, saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed"-directs that it shall "so stand" in time of Divine Service, saving when the said Holy Communion is to be administered,” at which time the Canon orders that the Table "shall be placed

good sort within the Church or Chancel" (the priority of position being again assigned to the Church) "as thereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his Prayer and Ministration, and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in more number, may communicate with the said Minister."

The Canons of 1604, when not inconsistent with any subsequent Act of Parliament, are, as is well known, binding upon the Clergy when enforced by any Court having jurisdiction. We submit, then, that the Ordinary is already invested with power sufficient to determine, so far as all practical difficulty can arise, the present controversy as to the position of the Minister during the celebration of the Holy Communion. Only let the Rubric and the Canon, which are in entire harmony with each other, be strictly observed; let the "Table" be placed at the Communion time, whether in the Body of the Church or in the Chancel, as the Ordinary may direct, in such position as the people may most conveniently communicate with the Minister, not be spectators of, or "assistants" at, a service in which they do not participate; and, whether "side" be or be not identical in meaning with "end," and whether the words "standing before the Table" refer only to the ordering of the elements, or also to the Prayer of Consecration, there will be no need of a costly suit to determine whether the position of an English clergyman during the Celebration of the Lord's Supper shall or shall not be identical with that of a Roman Priest at the celebration of the Mass, which "Popish practice," according to L'Estrange in 1661 A.D., it was the very object proposed in the "North side Rubric " to avoid.

ON THE EXTENSION OF THE DIACONATE.

A QUESTION has been mooted in one of our Midland Dioceses, and probably elsewhere, as to how far it would be advisable that the Diaconate should be extended to persons continuing to follow their lay callings. We are not aware that it is a notion which as yet has attained much prevalence: it may only be one

of those bubbles which come to the surface of water when it is agitated, and which speedily burst and disappear; but as it has so far attracted attention as to be brought forward at a Diocesan Conference, it may be deserving of some attention. The plea for this serious change in the condition of persons in Holy Orders is that it would tend to a better supply of Ministers, and in some degree to their support, if the restriction requiring Deacons as well as Priests to abstain from all secular callings and occupations were abrogated as regards Deacons. After due probation, and if found worthy to be promoted to the Priesthood, the trade or calling would then have to be relinquished.

Such is the proposition. It proceeds upon the assumption that there is not a due supply of Ministers. In this there is, no doubt, considerable truth. The supply does fall short of the demand, in consequence of the activity which now, whether for good or for evil, is prevalent in the Church. Yet we question whether it is the supply of Ministers that is so defective, and whether it is not competent Ministers who are the desideratum. Unquestionably the state of things is very different now to what it was thirty or forty years ago. Then a title for Orders had to be diligently sought, and was esteemed a prize, the fortunate possessor of which was an object of envy. Now, titles are freely offered, and young men of respectable character, even with moderate attainments, have no difficulty in procuring them. But on the other hand, Incumbents who have fair advantages to offer have no serious difficulty in procuring some sort of assistance. It is not, however, always of the right kind. Ordination. confers mission, but it does not confer brains; nor does it confer eloquence, common sense, discretion, tact, or experience. These faculties, although most essential for the work of the ministry, are often lacking, even in well-meaning and pious young men. Where they are manifestly deficient, candidates must be rejected by any Incumbent who values either his own peace or the welfare of the souls committed to his charge. By this process of elimination the number of eligible candidates is seriously reduced, and hence the difficulty. But it mainly arises from the responsibilities which, in large parishes more especially, are thrown upon young and inexperienced men, whether from the amount of duty to be overtaken, or not unfrequently from the feeble health and overtaxed energies of the Incumbent, often a man advanced in life, who needs effective help. Now, although there is no lack of candidates for vacant benefices, yet even for them the number of really qualified persons is usually small. We remember some years ago a small charge falling vacant of the value of about £100; there were eighty applicants for it, but out of that number there were only