I have quoted this at some length in order that the reader may judge for himself whether there is anything in this. service that can fairly be adduced as similar to the order of the Holy Communion in the Prayer Book of the Church of England. There are, indeed, a few analogous expressions and prayers; but the point that I would emphasise is this: that the substance, the essence, the intention, of the whole service is entirely different. In short, this is the Mass, pure and simple; as Latimer called it, altogether detestable. It is the making and adoring a priest-made god. The Lord's Supper, in the Church of England, is the Holy Communion, the simple and scriptural apostolic ordinance as our Lord ordained it. And, yet, some of the clergy of the Church of England have openly declared that this Sarum missal is the standard towards which the Church should work!

2. THE EASTWARD POSITION. (CHAP. IV., p. 52.)

Is it right for the clergyman, at the celebration of the Holy Communion, to stand in the centre of the chancel space, with his face towards the table and his back to the people; or, is it the intention of the Church of England that the clergyman should stand, during the Communion Service, on the north of the table, with his face towards the length of the table and his side to the people?

In other words, is the Eastward position sanctioned by the Prayer Book?

The question is of such grave importance that it is worth consideration, for with it is bound up the whole doctrinal position of the Church of England on one of the most vital of subjects. If the Church of England maintains the spuriouslycalled "Catholic" theory of Church teaching, that is, of a sacrificing priesthood and eucharistic worship, there can be no doubt that she must enjoin the Eastward position, for it is

inseparable from such theory. If the Church of England does not, in her standards and formularies, teach such doctrine, it is evident that she will, in her rubrics, guard against the introduction of any form and ceremonial that will tend to symbolically set it forth. It is, therefore, the duty of every Churchman to make diligent inquiry into the precise teaching of the Prayer Book on this matter.

Now, in the first or semi-reformed Prayer Book of the Church, the position of the Church was as clearly defined in one direction as it is now in another. In the First Book of 1549, the Eastward position is most clearly enjoined. There can be no doubt that it was the duty of every clergyman in the Church of England to assume the attitude universal in the Church of Rome, and to stand with his back to the people in the Communion Service. For here is the rubric :

"The priest, standing humbly afore the midst of the altar, shall say the Lord's Prayer, with this collect."

Observe the words.

They can have but one meaning. Even if there were no centuries of custom in the mediæval Church to guide, there could be no doubt that "standing humbly afore the midst of the altar," meant standing before the middle of the altar, with face towards it, and back towards the congregation. If such a direction as this were to be found in the Prayer Book to-day, objectors to the Eastward position would not have an inch of argument to stand on.

When the Second Book appeared, there was doubtless much expectancy with regard to the nature of the alterations; and certainly, as far as this rubric was concerned, the difference was most striking. In two most important particulars, it was intentionally changed. In the first place,

there was added a rubric with regard to the appearance and disposition of the Communion Table, which purposely and wholly subverted the mischievous "Catholic" theory of eucharistic sacrifice and mediating priest.

"The table having at the communion time a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel, &c."

No one could be so simple as to believe that the theory of "Catholic" worship could ever be carried out in a Church which authorized the Communion Table (not altar) to stand in the body of the church! Where the altar is against the east wall as a fixture, and the priest is commanded to stand in the middle before it, all is clear; but to perform the sacrificial service at a table, standing in the body of the church, is “confusion worse confounded.”

And next, and, if possible, still more important, instead of the words, "the priest standing humbly afore the midst of the altar," there were substituted the words which to-day stand unaltered in the Prayer Book as the Church's direction to her officiating ministers at the communion :

"And the priest standing at the north side of the table, shall say the Lord's Prayer, with this collect."

says," at the north."

The difference is complete. The one is Romish; the other is Protestant. The first says, "afore"; the other The first says, " afore the midst"; the other says, "at the north side." The first says, “afore the midst of the altar ; the other says," at the north side of the table." The distinction is thus radical and intentional.. According to the teaching of the Prayer Book, there can be no other position taken by the clergyman than that of standing on the left-hand side (looking from the body of the church) of the table, with his side, not his back,

to the people. Any clergyman who assumes any other position is acting contrary to the clear direction of the rubric.

But perhaps it will be argued that the alleged distinction between the north side and the north end is a valid ground for the assumption of the Eastward position, and that inasmuch as the table is not a square, but an oblong, the clergyman who stands at the left-hand side of the front of the table, that is, the side facing the congregation, is standing in the rubrical position.

The argument is worthless.

It is not based upon any fair interpretation of the plain meaning of the text of the rubric, but has been fabricated in the very face of the rubric for the purpose of supporting a novel system of doctrine.

For there is no doubt, as matters of historical fact, that

(1) The tables, in the time of Edward VI., were sometimes square, not oblong; so that the word "side" could not possibly, even upon the recently invented argument, be confounded with the "end." No shape has ever been prescribed for the table by law, and a square table is just as legal as an oblong.

(2) Even where the tables were oblong, the distinction between the "side" and "end" was utterly unknown in the Church. The distinction is a purely seventeenth century fabrication. The word side," at the time of the Reformation, was used to describe the ends of the altar; that is, the right and left-hand sides, as seen from the church.

66

(3) Both at the time of the Reformation, and at the time of later revisions in the reigns of James and Charles, the tables were often placed, not as they are now universally, across the chancel, with the longer side to the body of the church, but lengthwise, that is, with the longer sides parallel with the sides of the chancel; and few of the acts of

Archbishop Laud met with more bitter resistance than his attempts to alter the position of the Communion Tables and put them in a fixed position against the wall, in the place of the altar.

It was agreed at the Restoration, however, in spite of strong opposition, to leave in the rubric the old provision with regard to the table standing in the body of the church; and instead of inserting the words "north end,” or "north part," to simply employ a term which would specifically designate the position required, and yet suit every position of the holy table. There can be no doubt that the minds of all Churchmen were unanimous upon this point, no matter what their private opinions, that the position of the officiating priest should be at the left side of the table, with his side, not his back, to the congregation, and that the rubric should be clear, so as to prevent the priest standing with his face to the altar, as is the manner in the Church of Rome. There can be no doubt, also, that what would now be called the "High Church party would have preferred a rubric which would not have permitted the table to stand lengthwise, or in the body of the church; but for expediency's sake, the rubric was framed so as to permit this.

With tables lengthways and crossways, the need was felt for a word which would be applicable to both positions, and yet prevent the attitude of the Roman priest. The word "end was certainly open to objection, for, if the table was placed lengthwise, there was, grammatically speaking, no end at all to the north; for every side is not an end, though, in a table, each end is a side. In that case, the north end did not exist. The word "part" was equally open to objection, as being somewhat vague, and as possibly, when the table was placed altarwise, giving an opening for the adoption of the Eastward position.

But there was a word which was at once specific and