Page images
PDF
EPUB

a regard to the Clergy who were behind him, and not with any regard to the laity who were before him.'*

'We certainly can get over many difficulties in such matters' by the expedient of ignoring the congregation;' and Mr. Beresford Hope may be said, on another side of the question, to make use of this expedient in his attempt to surmount a very serious obstacle. His candour obliges him to admit the historical fact, that the Communion Tables were not fixed altarwise at the Eastern extremities of our churches in 1662. Hence he takes refuge in the fallacious distinction which is made between 'end' and side;' and he suggests that the whole question is to be settled by the principle of length versus breadth. It is a great law of the Catholic Church, not, as others tell us, to pray towards the East, but to consecrate at the broad side of the Table; and the Tables having stood in 1662 East and West, the rubric directing consecration on the north side must now, when they stand North and South, be most properly fulfilled by consecrating on the west side. Now, here two questions arise, at which we must glance separately.

[ocr errors]

First, there is the assumption that in 1662, and for some years afterwards, the Lord's Table was systematically placed, at Communion times, lengthwise, or East and West. Probably this was frequently done in practice; and, as we shall see, it is important for Mr. Beresford Hope's theory that this should have been a rule to which the rubric concerning the North side' was adapted. But in truth there was no rule whatever to this effect. There was a rule that at Communion times the Table should be moved to some free position in the nave or the chancel. But these are two very different things; and we are persuaded that Mr. Beresford Hope is mistaken in this matter, and that the Bishop of Winchester, in his recent Pastoral Letter, and Archdeacon Harrison, in his Charge, are correct in believing that the Table at these times was very generally set North and South. It appears that among the chancels which have remained in their old condition till recent times, some had the Table set breadthwise and others lengthwise. It is contended by the Dean of Chester that this was an open question ;† and we see that the Archdeacon gives a curious illustration of this fact, when he tells us that, in the Church of the Walloon Congregation in the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral, the Table stands to this day across the Church, from north to south,' whereas it was the custom in the Cathedral itself, as we

[ocr errors]

'Position of the Celebrant,' p. 107.

† See his Preface, p. xiii, note, and p. 50, note.

‡ 'Charge,' p. 68.

know

know from Strype, to celebrate the Communion at a table placed along the church east and west.

Now we come to the second point, which is the strange notion that the north side of a table placed east and west became, for the purposes of obeying the rubric, the west side when the Table was placed north and south. Archdeacon Harrison joins with Dean Howson in regarding this theory with astonishment.* The theory, unfolded at length by Mr. Beresford Hope in the book which is named at the head of this article, is repeated with unabated confidence in his answer to the Dean. 'This identical north side became the west one as soon as the table was turned :' the west side was the actual north side turned round :''the position of the minister himself,' standing in a new position, remains unaffected:'† the legitimate mode of obeying the order to stand on the north of a long table, is to turn the table half round and to stand on the west the whole question depends on the relative number of inches in the different sides of the table. We ask, What is to happen if the table is square? Perhaps it is against the principles of the Catholic Church that a Communion Table should be square. But, to dismiss this extraordinary theory with a graver refutation, such reasoning is neither more nor less than ignoring the congregation, and hence it cannot be in harmony with the spirit of our Book of Common Prayer.

6

We must now take leave of objections. If our space were sufficient, we could reinforce the Dean's argument by some additions and one addition we must refer to in passing-for we apprehend it is of considerable weight. He has, indeed, himself touched the subject, both in the book‡ and in some subsequent correspondence.§ We allude to translations of the Prayer Book, which must supply important evidence concerning the sense of prepositions in rubrics, if only these versions satisfy two conditions: they must have been made very soon after the time when the last revision of the book was completed, and they must have been made under competent authority. We are not aware of the existence of any Latin versions which are really much to our purpose in this matter. The Greek Version, made by a Cambridge Professor, and dedicated to Sheldon, has from these circumstances great weight, though not precisely official weight; and this version, while leaving us in other respects precisely where we were, furnishes important confirmation by telling us that in the Communion the Bread was to be broken

* 'Charge,' p. 74.

t'Public Worship in the Church of England,' pp. 170, 171. 181, 190.

[ocr errors]

Before the Table,' pp. 62, 72. § See the Guardian' for last Nov. and Dec. Vol. 141.-No. 282. 2 P

ἐνώπιον

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ἐνώπιον τοῦ λαοῦ. Official weight belongs to the Welsh and French Versions. The former was made under the provisions of the Act of Uniformity; and in this same place it employs a preposition which always involves the idea of sight. Moreover, the same preposition is used in regard to the Priest's position, for the rendering of 'at' in the Rubric of the Prayer of Humble Access as that which renders 'before' in the Rubric of the Consecration Prayer, while a different preposition is employed to indicate the position of the man and woman in the Marriage Service, when, the Psalm ended' they kneel before the Table.' And precisely similar is the evidence of the French Prayer Book, which was made in 1662 by the King's orders for the French-speaking congregations of the Church of England, and was officially authenticated by one of Sheldon's chaplains.* This studiously varied rendering of the same English preposition in the Consecration Rubric and the Marriage Rubric† is of peculiar value, because it answers a very obvious objection. Even Archdeacon Harrison says that the meaning of 'before the Table' in the Consecration Rubric is put beyond all reasonable doubt' by this rubric in the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony. The words, he thinks, are as limiting' in one case as the other.‡ But surely we may say (and these Versions invite us to say), that in order to determine what is meant by 'standing before the Table,' we must know where the Table is, and who is standing there, and for what purpose.

[ocr errors]

The discrepancies of view which subsist among those who argue in favour of the Eastward Position constitute one of the most remarkable features of the controversy. Thus, in a recent debate in the Northern Convocation, the Dean of York urged that the phrase 'before the Table,' explained itself, in the very nature of things, to denote the western side; while, on the very same occasion, the Dean of Manchester proposed that it should be allowable for the Minister to stand before the Table on any side;' and they had both combined with the Dean of St. Paul's in a strong memorial in favour of liberty to the Clergy in this matter. Again, we have seen how some interpret 'before' in the Consecration Rubric as practically synonymous withat' in the previous Rubric; whilst others draw the sharpest contrast between them, and, indeed, rest their case upon the contrast.

*The authentication is in this form, 'Hanc Gallicam Domini Johannis Durelli Liturgia Anglicanæ versionem perlegi, eamque per omnia cum Originali Anglico concordem me reperisse profiteor.-G. Stradling, S. T. P.'

† In the one case the phrase is, 'se tenant debout à la Table;' in the other, 'estans à genoux devant la Table.'

Charge,' pp. 49, 50.

So

So again with the diversity of view which men on the same side of the controversy have held of the historical placing of the Table in 1662. It is enough to refer to the fact of such discord where we might have expected harmony. Error in such matters is variegated, whereas truth is consistent with itself.

6

But there is a further discrepancy, still more serious, among those who have written or spoken as partisans or apologists of the Eastward position. Are we to assign to this position a doctrinal meaning or not? Some say that it is to be maintained at all hazards, because of its high doctrinal significance; some say that it is to be freely permitted, on the ground that it can be denuded of all such significance. How are we to decide between these opposing views? And what practical course is it prudent to take in this dilemma? We all remember how gallantly Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Beresford Hope, though on different sides of the House, fought together against the Public Worship Regulation Bill. The former, writing specially on this subject, deprecates the practice of importing into questions concerning the externals of religion the element of devotional significance;' urges that we should steadily resolve not to annex to any particular acts of external usage a special dogmatic interpretation, so long as they will naturally and unconstrainedly bear some sense not entailing that consequence;' and says that the first condition of sanity is the expulsion from the controversies concerning certain rubrics of considerations which aggravate those controversies into hopelessness, and which seem to dwell in them, as demons dwelt in the bodies of the possessed till they were expelled by the beneficent Saviour." The second writer, in his recent answer to the Dean of Chester, says: "Communions involve ceremonies. Can those ceremonies be absolutely divorced from the expression of theological opinion? To my understanding, the affirmative answer to this question seems absolutely childish . . . Different sections of Christendom differ in their doctrine of this ceremony [the "Sacrament" of the Communion of the Lord's Supper] and according to that difference differ in the outward forms in which they invest it . . . To divorce that act and theological opinion is to divorce the sun from light, or water from the quality of wetness.' † How are we to decide between these diverse, yet equally enthusiastic, methods of defending the same position? And as with the Laity, so with the Clergy. We know that many of them have, within the last few years, changed their old customary attitude in the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

* 'Is the Church of England worth Preserving?'-' Contemporary Review' for July, 1875, pp. 196 and 201.

Church Quarterly Review' for Jan. 1876, p. 474.

[blocks in formation]

act of Consecration, and have accompanied this change with the most earnest and serious expressions of doctrinal and devotional opinion; and yet we see in our Convocations, at least in their Lower Houses, majorities deciding that this Eucharistic Orientation' ought to be permitted on the very ground that it neither has nor ought to have any theological meaning. What, again we ask, are we to say in the midst of this dilemma? We cannot suppose that honest men will seek to gain a victory, on the ground that it is unmeaning, while they are prepared to show that such a victory, if they can win it, is full of meaning. But is there not some considerable risk to the Church, if we have, under authority, the optional use of that which may be handled on such different methods?

After all, there is no doubt that this Eastward Position has, with its most serious advocates, a very definite meaning; otherwise the contention for it would not be so earnest. The evidence, too, for the fact is clear. A catena of authorities on the subject (and one extending over a considerable number of years) can very easily be produced. In 1858 a writer in the 'Ecclesiastic' said of the West-side position, that 'during the actual celebration it conveys more vividly to the lookers-on than any other position can do, the idea that it is the Lord's Table, the Christian Altar, the place of sacrifice, at which the priest is standing, and that the work he is engaged in is an act of sacrifice, a work which looks towards God before it looks towards the people' and we find Dr. Littledale, a few years later, telling us that the priest facing East, and turned away from the people, as in the ancient Jewish rites, 'represents Christ standing within the heavenly veil before the throne of the Father, pleading His death on behalf of sinners, in exact accordance with the ceremonies of the great day of atonement.' The same general view has been expressed by many persons on various occasions since. There is a book entitled 'The Ritual Reason Why,' written by Mr. Charles Walker, who was examined as an 'expert' to give information as to matters of Ritual before the Court of Arches in Mr. Purchass' case, and again in Mr. Mackonochie's case. The book professes to give ample explanation on the acts and dresses of the Ritualist system. On the subject of the Prayer of Consecration we find the following question and answer: Why is the Priest to say it before the Altar? Because this is the position of a sacrificing priest (Rev. v. 6; Heb. x. 11).'† The two senior Canons of St. Paul's distinctly gave doctrinal reasons for

*

[ocr errors]

* See these passages in Mr. Droop's pamphlet on 'The North Side of the Table,' pp. 44, 45. † Second Edition, p. 137.

the

« PreviousContinue »