%• *« 

 
 Prospects of Peace for the Church in the 
 Prayer Book and its Rules 
 
 A CHARGE 
 
 DELIVERED TO THE 
 
 CLERGY OF THE ARCHDEACONRY 
 OF MAIDSTONE 
 
 at t&e Drtrinarp Visitation 
 
 IN APRIL, MDCCCLXXV 
 WITH AN APPENDIX ON THE DOUBTFUL RUBRICS 
 
 BY 
 
 BENJAMIN HARRISON, M.A. 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF MAIDSTONE 
 
 lonUon 
 
 RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE 
 
 HIGH STREET 
 
 SDjcforti 
 
 TRINITY STREET 
 
 elambrtDge 
 
 CANTERBURY ; A. GINDER, ST. GEORGE S HALL ; HAL DRURY, MERCERY LANE ; 
 MAIDSTONE, WICKHAM AND SON 
 
 IB75
 
 TO THE REVEREND THE 
 
 EUEAL DEANS AND CLERGY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ARCHDEACONRY OF MAIDSTONE; 
 
 AND TO 
 
 THE CHURCHWARDENS AND SIDESMEN 
 €I;t'$ Cljargr, 
 
 PUBLISHED IN CONFORMITY WITH THEIR UNITED REQUESTS, 
 
 IS 
 
 WITH FEELINGS OF BROTHERLY ATTACHMENT, 
 AND SINCERE RESPECT AND REGARD. 
 
 PRECINCTS, CANTERBURY, 
 
 MAT IV, MDCCCLXXV

 
 A CHARGE 
 
 My Reverend Brethren, 
 
 It is with great satisfaction that I meet you 
 again, assembled in your several deaneries for the 
 accustomed duties of the Visitation ; and under cir- 
 cumstances less full of anxiety and disquiet, I think 
 we may justly feel, than when we met last year. 
 There is, at the same time, enough in the present 
 position of things, and in the prospect before us 
 of the next few months, to give rise to serious 
 thought ; and I shall be turning to the best ac- 
 count, if I mistake not, the opportunity which the 
 Visitation offers me, in fulfilment of the duties of 
 my office among you, if I invite your attention to 
 matters which have doubtless at this moment a 
 prominent place in the minds of all, both of our- 
 selves the Clergy, and of our brethren of the Laity ; 
 and which, within the narrow limits, which I do
 
 6 A CHARGE. 
 
 not wish to exceed, of the customary Address on 
 these occasions, I desire to touch upon, in no other 
 interests than those of truth and peace, in the 
 spirit of Christian charity and brotherly love. 
 
 But first, in regard to a primary object of the 
 Archdeacon's office, and one which the duties of the 
 Visitation have special regard to — I mean, the care 
 of the sacred fabrics devoted to the worship and 
 service of God — I would briefly refer to what has 
 been done in the course of the past year, or is now 
 in hand, in the work of restoration and improve- 
 ment within the Archdeaconry. Of churches con- 
 secrated by the Archbishop last summer, I may 
 mention Christ Church, Erith, erected with great 
 individual liberality x to supply a large amount of 
 church accommodation, the whole free, in a populous 
 and increasing parish ; the church of Leysdown, 
 in the Isle of Sheppy, entirely rebuilt upon the 
 old site, in the place of a miserable fragment of 
 the original church, fitted up in the most wretched 
 manner ; and the parish church of Murston, re- 
 built on a central site, in the midst of the popula- 
 tion which had been brought together by the 
 opening of brickfields ; the new structure having 
 carefully wrought into it the ancient columns and 
 arches, and whatever else was of interest, and 
 worth preserving, of the old church. Later in the 
 
 1 I cannot refrain from expressly acknowledging the earnest zeal and 
 bounty shown by the founder, the Rev. Robert Wood, and by the 
 Goschen family ; as also by the donor of the site, Colonel Wheatley.
 
 A CHARGE. 7 
 
 year the Archbishop officiated and preached at tho 
 reopening of the church of Sidcup, where a modern 
 building, of somewhat peculiar character, has been 
 enlarged and improved by throwing certain side 
 corridors into the body of the church, and reseating 
 it within. I would mention with special satisfac- 
 tion — I may rather say, admiration — the skill and 
 success with which the church of Sutton Valence, 
 erected some fifty years ago, in the worst days of 
 church building, on the ruins of the old church, 
 which had been condemned — somewhat summarily 
 it would seem — as hopelessly dilapidated, and to be 
 pulled down, has been converted, by the insertion 
 of a pointed arcade, and other alterations, from a 
 cold and bare parallelogram into a fabric bearing 
 the character of a house of God, fitted for the pur- 
 poses of worship and the celebration of holy rites. 
 I must now briefly enumerate works of sub- 
 stantial repair, restoration, and internal rearrange- 
 ment, — in some cases finished, in others still in hand, 
 or about to be undertaken, or resumed or carried 
 on to full completion, — at Little Chart, Great Chart, 
 Hollingbourne, West Farleigh, Sandhurst, and 
 Tudely ; the restoration of the chancel at Iwade ; 
 enlargement of the church at Paddock Wood ; an 
 important addition and essential improvement in 
 Ashford Church ; alteration which would give 
 much better accommodation for worship in Trinity 
 Church, Maidstone ; internal rearrangement at 
 Cranbrook ; and like designs in other places more or
 
 o A CHARGE. 
 
 less matured ; as, for instance, at Rodmersham, and 
 Upchurch, and, in the case of Addington church, 
 Surrey, by the addition of a north aisle. The new 
 church of St. Paul, Sheerness, already requires and 
 will speedily receive, I anticipate, the like addi- 
 tion, to complete the original design. I might 
 mention also improvements made, repairs effected, 
 or adornments added in the way of windows, or 
 other internal decoration, in the churches of Ber- 
 stead, Bickley, Christ Church, and St. Saviour's, 
 Croydon, and Shoreham. With renewed acknow- 
 ledgment of the great munificence shewn by an 
 individual parishioner, 1 I would report that the 
 great enlargement in hand of the church of Bough- 
 ton Monchelsea, — in fact its almost rebuilding, — is 
 now nearly approaching completion ; while at the 
 same time steps are taking for the better supply of 
 the spiritual wants of the outlying portion of the 
 parish. 
 
 In connexion with this, I desire to speak of the 
 attention which is now being given, in an especial 
 manner, to the necessities of scattered populations, 
 in hamlets remote from the parish church, or where 
 new lines of railway communication have created 
 fresh settlements — a demand scarcely less impor- 
 tant, or less pressing, than that of the overgrown 
 population of our great towns and cities. I may 
 refer to the erection, now in hand, of a church at 
 Matfield Green, in the widely extended parish of 
 
 1 William Moore, Esq., of Wierton.
 
 A CHARGE. 9 
 
 Brenchley ; and I would report with special satis- 
 faction that there is a prospect now, I hope, of 
 securing the building of a church, and the forma- 
 tion of a consolidated chapelry, at Four Elms, in the 
 parish of Hever, to provide for the outlying por- 
 tions of that parish, Brasted, Chiddingstone, and 
 perhaps Edenbridge. Still more heartily do I re- 
 joice to think, in regard to that other great duty 
 incumbent upon us of supplying the growing 
 wants of our principal towns, that, the complicated 
 difficulties which beset the case having been happily 
 overcome, as I was able to report last year, preli- 
 minary arrangements now satisfactorily adjusted, 
 and amended plans prepared, there is good hope at 
 length of seeing speedily rising, in the West 
 Borough of Maidstone, a new church for the parish 
 of St. Peter's, more adequate to supply the spiritual 
 wants of that populous district than the small fabric 
 which, some five-and-thirty years ago, was re- 
 covered from desecration and consecrated anew, 
 the old Pilgrims' Chapel. Together with the free 
 gift of a site — two sites, indeed, were offered, one 
 by the late lamented Earl of Eomney — large dona- 
 tions have been made by individuals, bountiful, I 
 may truly say, after the manner of Maidstone 
 Churchmen, towards the building; gifts which, 
 1 trust, will be aided by grants as liberal as their 
 funds will allow, from the Diocesan and the Incor- 
 porated Church Building Societies ; and that these 
 will be supplemented by general contributions
 
 10 A CHARGE. 
 
 sufficient to complete the amount required, to give 
 to the town of Maidstone, on the western side of the 
 Med way, an essential ornament, and a great blessing 
 to a growing neighbourhood; conducing to the 
 strength and increase of the Church amongst us, 
 and to the glory of Almighty God. With regard to 
 another important place in the Archdeaconry, Tun- 
 bridge, I feel constrained to say that, although the 
 erection, some years ago, of St. Stephen's Church, 
 at the southern extremity of the town, supplied 
 the religious wants of the population which had 
 sprung up in the neighbourhood of the railway 
 station, there is now an urgent — indeed, I may 
 say, a crying — need for an adequate supply of 
 regular pastoral visiting, church accommodation, 
 and all the spiritual ministries of the Church, to the 
 numerous families that have been drawn to Tun- 
 bridge by its excellent and flourishing school, and 
 that will probably be settling there in increasing 
 numbers. It is a claim which has long been felt, 
 and will, I trust, now speedily be satisfied, by the 
 complete rearrangement of the parish church, a 
 work which ought not to be longer delayed ; and, 
 at all events, by the erection, in the northern part 
 of the parish, of a new church or chapel, under such 
 conditions as, on full consideration now in hand of 
 all the circumstances of the case, may be found to 
 be most expedient, in justice to those immediately 
 concerned, and with due regard to the permanent 
 welfare and best interests of the parish.
 
 A CHARGE. 11 
 
 With works in hand like these — and I have 
 specified only those, it will be borne in mind, 
 which have been going on during the past year, 
 or are at the present moment in progress — it is 
 superfluous for me to urge, how important it is, in 
 the first place, to strengthen the hands and re- 
 plenish continually the resources of the Society 
 which Archbishop Longley bequeathed, I may say, 
 as a sacred legacy to the diocese ; established as it 
 was by his own great personal exertions and in- 
 fluence, with the large experience derived from the 
 like efforts in the populous dioceses which he had 
 administered in succession, of Kipon, Durham, and 
 York. I trust that the endeavour, by the agency 
 of a travelling Lay Secretary, lately appointed, to 
 enlist in the Society's behalf a body of small 
 subscribers in our chief towns, will produce satis- 
 factory results ; and that the Clergy will not fail, 
 in their several parishes, in compliance with the 
 Archbishop's Pastoral Letter, given yearly to this 
 and the sister Society, the Diocesan Board of Edu- 
 cation, in turn, to make their appeal in a cause for 
 the successful carrying on of which — for the sake 
 of Christ and His Church, " for His sheep that are 
 scattered abroad," or lacking a shepherd's care " in 
 the midst of this naughty world," 1 and for the 
 lambs of His flock, whom He so earnestly com- 
 mended to the tender love of His true-hearted 
 Apostle — our active efforts, united, steady, and per- 
 
 1 Exhortation in the Ordination Service.
 
 12 A CHARGE. 
 
 severing, if we truly love our Divine Lord and 
 Master, ought by all the members of His Church to 
 be made, in their respective positions, and according 
 to their individual ability. I earnestly hope that, 
 in future Reports of either of the two Diocesan 
 Societies, having these objects in view, there may be 
 no single parish against the name of which, in the 
 lists of the several Local Boards, no return is made. 
 I am well aware, my Reverend Brethren, that in 
 many cases the collection is mainly indebted to the 
 contribution of the clergyman : and our right- 
 minded laity would not less clearly see, and fully 
 acknowledge, that, however willingly the Clergy 
 may recognise it as their duty and privilege to 
 assist, according to their means, in such good 
 works, the Societies ought essentially to be regarded 
 as the channel through which the Lay members of 
 the Church may cast into the treasury of God, or 
 present on His holy Table, their gifts for the service 
 of His temple, for supplying to their poorer 
 brethren the means of grace, and fulfilling that 
 which " the Lord" hath " ordained, that they which 
 preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel." 1 
 The incumbent of a small parish need not, there- 
 fore, I think, feel ashamed to send though it were 
 but a few shillings, as the proceeds of the appeal 
 made to his parishioners, in obedience to the 
 Pastoral Letter. Such appeals, in like manner as 
 has been experienced in the case of those which 
 
 1 1 Cor. ix. 14.
 
 A CHARGE. 13 
 
 are made for foreign missions, for our countrymen 
 scattered in other lands far from the means of 
 grace, and for the heathen in their darkness, may 
 be found to react profitably on those who are led 
 thereby more fully to estimate their own blessings ; 
 and above all, the offerings, humble though they 
 be, we know will be graciously accepted of Him 
 who once, as He " sat over against the treasury," 
 saw and commended the gift which the poor widow 
 cast in, of her poverty, " into the offering's of 
 God." 1 And in regard to those of our lay brethren 
 who are blest with this world's abundance, it is to be 
 hoped that the organisation of the Diocesan Societies, 
 extending, as it does, into every part of the diocese, 
 and combining the laity with the clergy, may be 
 so turned to account as to bring before those who 
 come into the county, and occupy some of its 
 fairest heritages, its " pleasant places," claims upon 
 their Christian bounty which, I am persuaded, in 
 many cases, need only to be made known to them 
 to obtain a willing and liberal response. 2 
 
 And this leads me on, my Reverend Brethren, 
 to the wider and larger view of the paramount 
 importance, at the present time, of that mutual 
 confidence, that cordial co-operation, that brotherly 
 unity, without which it is impossible that the 
 Church amongst us, " the body of Christ," should 
 accomplish the work, or attain the ends for which 
 
 1 St. Mark xii. 41-44 ; St. Luke xxi. 1-4. a See Note (A).
 
 14 A CHARGE. 
 
 it was ordained by Him who is its Divine Founder 
 and Head. I alluded, in my opening words, to the 
 circumstances of our meeting in Visitation at this 
 time last year. I may freely express to you that 
 T felt some degree of embarrassment, in preparing 
 words with which I might fitly and seasonably 
 address you then, inasmuch as the day on which I 
 entered on my Visitation was the very day 1 on 
 which, according to notice duly given, our Most 
 Reverend Diocesan was to call the attention of the 
 House of Lords to the present state of the laws 
 regulating Divine Service in the Church. Whe- 
 ther any, and, if any, what precise measure was to 
 be grounded on that notice, I had not thought it 
 proper to inquire, and therefore was altogether in 
 the dark. But this I felt was clear — that, in the 
 temporary lull, as it seemed, of external attacks, 
 under the then circumstances of the political 
 world, it was our duty, and would be our wisdom, 
 to devote our special attention to dangers which 
 seemed more threatening than those which beset 
 us from without. With this view I was desirous 
 of considering with you — for on these occasions, as 
 I have expressed to you before now, it is the 
 opening of subjects like these, not the pronouncing 
 any final conclusion or individual judgment upon 
 them, which befits the address of him whose duty 
 it is to preside in this our solemn gathering for 
 the accustomed Visitation, — the " measures and 
 
 1 April 20, 1874.
 
 A CHARGE. 15 
 
 means of unity in the Church at the present 
 time." There seemed to me grounds of union, and 
 tokens of brotherly co-operation, which it was 
 highly important to recognise and improve ; scope 
 for the free action, without mutual suspicion, of 
 " Evangelical Truth " and " Apostolical Order " — 
 to adopt terms which have often been used, in no 
 party sense — within the due limits of the Church 
 of England ; within the landmarks which our 
 fathers had set, at the time when, by God's mercy 
 and under His overruling providence, they re- 
 formed that branch of the Church Catholic which 
 had been planted from early times in this island ; 
 restoring it from the corruptions, and emanci- 
 pating it from the usurpations of Rome, with 
 careful reference, at every step, to primitive prac- 
 tice as witnessed in Holy Scripture, and embodied 
 in the Creeds and Liturgies,' the framework and 
 order of the Church Apostolic, " according to the 
 pattern shown in the mount " Sion. 1 "Within the 
 limits of the Church of England, as defined in her 
 formularies and exemplified by her wisest and 
 most faithful sons, standing " fast in the liberty 
 wherewith Christ" had made them "free," 2 there 
 seemed " ample room and verge enough the cha- 
 racters of" Heaven "to trace;" one phase of 
 Divine truth, perhaps, appearing most conspicuous 
 at one period of her history and a different one at 
 another ; but all alike component elements, how- 
 
 1 Heb. viii. 5 ; xii. 22. 2 Gal. v. 1.
 
 16 A CHARGE. 
 
 ever the prism of the finite human mind might 
 sever or distinguish them, of the One pure, 
 perfect light of heaven, the Sun of the spiritual 
 system, casting His " bright beams of light upon " 
 His Church, 1 in manifold hues, in the midst of the 
 darkest, most threatening sky, the sure pledge of 
 steadfast hope, "the bow in the cloud in the day 
 of rain." 2 
 
 But, on the other hand, it was clear that there 
 were limits to this freedom of individual minds, 
 this comprehensiveness of the Church's system ; 
 lines of truth aud order fixed, beyond which liberty 
 becomes license, with all the attendant evils of 
 division, mutual suspicion, heart-burnings, and 
 alarm. And with these mischiefs would come the 
 danger of provoking legislation in a hostile spirit, 
 narrowing, too probably, the liberty which the 
 faithful and soberminded of the Church's sons, 
 clergy and laity, had highly prized, and would 
 never desire to abuse. Amidst these perils, it 
 seemed to be more than ever necessary to have re- 
 course, in the spirit of dutiful loyalty, to the Church's 
 rule, laid down in the Preface to the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, that, " forasmuch as nothing can be 
 so plainly set forth, but doubts may arise in the use 
 and practice of the same ; to appease all such di- 
 versity (if any arise) and for the resolution of all 
 doubts, concerning the manner how to understand, 
 
 1 Collect for St. John the Evangelist's Day. 
 
 2 Ezek. i. 28 ; compare Rev. iv. 3, x. 1.
 
 A CHARGE. 17 
 
 do, and execute the things contained in this book ; 
 the parties that so doubt, or diversely take any- 
 thing, shall alway resort to the bishop of the dio- 
 cese, who by his discretion shall take order for the 
 quieting and appeasing of the same ; so that the 
 same order be not contrary to anything contained 
 in this book. And if the bishop of the diocese be 
 in doubt, then he may send for the resolution thereof 
 to the archbishop." How sadly this rule had been 
 lost sight of, and its provisions set at nought and 
 nullified, when men declared that they, individually, 
 had no " doubt," and therefore were at liberty to 
 reject any reference to the bishop, — entirely forget- 
 ting, meanwhile, that the rule provided not less 
 distinctly for the case where parties '' diversely 
 take anything," — I thought it well, my Reverend 
 Brethren, to notice on a former occasion, at my 
 Visitation four years ago ; and the condition in 
 which we found ourselves last year seemed to make 
 still more urgent the duty of recurrence, before it 
 was too late, to the Church's wise and well-consi- 
 dered rule. And the reason why, I think, we 
 may regard with increased hopefulness, and with 
 no little thankfulness to an overruling Providence, 
 the prospect before us at the present moment, as 
 compared with the unknown and threatening legis- 
 lation which seemed looming in our horizon at this 
 time last year, is that the Public Worship Regula- 
 tion Act, in the form which it finally assumed, lent 
 its penal sanctions to the Church's own rule of 
 
 B
 
 18 A CHARGE. 
 
 Episcopal judgment and discretion, as embodied in 
 the Preface to the Prayer Book, rather than to 
 some novel machinery, of doubtful principle and 
 dangerous working, such as had at one time been 
 not obscurely shadowed out, the first intimation of 
 a Bill supposed to be in hand — by what authority 
 communicated, or on what grounds resting, no one 
 knew — in the organs of popular opinion. 1 
 
 It was to me, I need hardly say to you, my 
 Reverend Brethren, a subject of deep satisfaction 
 when I heard the Archbishop, in his address to the 
 clerical and lay delegates assembled at the Diocesan 
 Conference which he had called together, held at 
 Maidstone on the 27th of January last, enforcing, 
 with all the sanction of his high authority, in 
 grave, deliberate, and weighty words, the same 
 principles of action and line of conduct which I 
 had endeavoured more feebly, in my humbler 
 office, to commend to you, as that which I thought 
 the sacred laws of the Church, and the special cir- 
 cumstances of the times, seemed alike to impress 
 upon us as our duty and our only safety. I need 
 not remind you how carefully and earnestly the 
 Archbishop set himself to dissipate the apprehen- 
 sions abroad of an ecclesiastical campaign which 
 would open with the present session of Parlia- 
 ment, and to reassure the minds of Churchmen, 
 clergy and laity together, by shewing the actual 
 impossibility of any legislation this year affecting 
 
 1 See Note B.
 
 A CIIARGE. 19 
 
 the Prayer Book, by reason of the necessarily late 
 meeting of Convocation, postponed as it was by an 
 early Easter to the 13 th of this present month of 
 April ; how strongly he repelled, in the behalf of 
 the great body of the clergy — absolutely in regard 
 to the clergy of his own diocese, and generally with 
 respect to the whole body — the sweeping charge 
 of "lawlessness" which had, I may remind yon, 
 in a speech delivered at Birmingham a day or two 
 before, been broadly cast upon them, but which, 
 in his Grace's opinion, rested only on a misguided 
 few ; how, while he declared plainly that the lines 
 of truth which our Church at the Reformation had 
 laid down could not with impunity be crossed, he 
 maintained that within those limits there was room 
 for large-hearted, brotherly concord. " I do hope and 
 trust," said the Archbishop, " that an exaggerated 
 mode of viewing questions that ought to be looked 
 at calmly will disappear from amongst us. There 
 ever have been," said he, " and to the end of the 
 world there ever will be, diversities of opinion ; 
 but there are also united ideas of love towards our 
 Lord and Saviour, and the souls for which He 
 died." The Archbishop urged, finally, upon all 
 who heard him, " the importance of the time at 
 which we are arrived. It is an important thing," 
 said his Grace, " to maintain this Established 
 Church of England in its integrity in this realm. 
 It is perfectly true," he went on to observe, " as 
 has been said by many, that there is no danger to 
 
 b 2
 
 20 A CHARGE. 
 
 this Church Establishment, if its sons are true, and 
 if the great parties which have ever existed in it 
 will allow each other to judge according to the 
 dictates of conscience, and serve heartily their 
 common Lord. There will be no danger," said he, 
 " from without, if we resist disunion from within ; 
 and I fully believe there is amongst us this real 
 and hearty union." 
 
 It was impossible not to recognise in the Arch- 
 bishop's words, as they fell, calmly but earnestly, 
 from his lips, a kind and fatherly desire to do 
 what in him lay to heal the wounds which might 
 have been inflicted, beyond the design of those 
 who uttered them, by words spoken or feelings 
 called forth in the parliamentary conflict of the last 
 session, or elsewhere ; an unmistakeable anxiety, 
 on his Grace's part, that any such words should 
 not be taken up and turned into weapons against 
 the clergy, and against the Church — nay, I may 
 say, against the Crown itself, and the nation, con- 
 secrated and sanctified as they are by that sacred 
 union between the Church and the State which it 
 is the object of the Liberationists to destroy. They 
 tell us, indeed, when they take up these weapons, 
 wholesale charges of " lawlessness " — than which, 
 they well know, they could find nothing more 
 fitted to stir up the passions of a people, happily 
 so full of reverence and regard for law as are the 
 people of England — thanks be to God for it — they 
 tell us, in their speeches, having " disestablish-
 
 A CHARGE. 21 
 
 ment " for their sole object, the absorbing topic on 
 occasions when, even to popular journalists, it 
 seemed a subject altogether out of place, that they 
 are " not going to make any ill-natured or unfair — 
 indeed," they " would say, not any attack at all 
 upon the Church." 1 There are those surely, my 
 Reverend Brethren, of whom, whatever be their 
 personal dispositions, however amiable and benevo- 
 lent, it must be said, so far as their public and 
 political principles and proceedings are concerned, 
 that their " tender mercies are cruel." They are 
 fully aware, and profess, that "it is one of the 
 gravest questions," so they say, " which a people 
 ever had to consider " — this question of " the 
 abolition of the Established Church. " It is a 
 question," say they, " far more important and far 
 more difficult than the question of the extension of 
 the suffrage, or the redistribution of seats. It is a 
 question," they admit, " that goes down deep into 
 the hearts" — most truly said — "that goes down 
 deep into the hearts of hundreds of thousands of 
 good men and women in this country, and" that 
 "you cannot by a wrench make a great disturbance 
 of this kind. I am not asking you," said the 
 orator, " or your constituencies, or any party or 
 section of a party, to plunge into a violent agita- 
 tion for the overthrow of the Established Church 
 of England. I think it would be a great calamity 
 indeed, that a great change like that should come 
 
 1 See the Times, January 25, 1875.
 
 22 A CHARGE. 
 
 of violent hatred and discussion, 1 and that it should 
 be accomplished in a tempest which is almost like 
 the turmoil of a great revolution. ... It is not 
 for me to join in any crusade against the Church. 
 I have offered to you to-night my humble con- 
 tribution to the discussion of the greatest question 
 of our time. If I am able to form any just judg- 
 ment upon it," it was thus the speaker concluded 
 his oration, " I should say, that will be a great day 
 for freedom. in this country, and for Protestantism 
 and Christianity, which shall witness the full 
 enfranchisement of the Church within the realm 
 of England." 
 
 We shall not, I think, my Reverend Brethren, 
 be apt to be allured by these offers : 
 
 ". . . . timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." 2 
 
 We know what is the meaning of this " free- 
 dom " and this " enfranchisement :" " Protestant- 
 ism" will gain nothing by it, nor " Christianity ;" 
 but Romanism may, and, still more surely, Scep- 
 ticism and Atheism, Irreligion and Vice. Rome 
 would gladly see, and so would Infidelity, the over- 
 throw of the Established Church of England. 
 But those who, in this professedly friendly spirit, 
 desire to rob England of what is her richest and 
 dearest inheritance, have no such likely way of 
 attaining their object as if they can succeed in 
 infusing mutual suspicion and distrust into the 
 
 1 Qu. " dissension." 2 Virgil, JEn. ii. 49.
 
 A CHARGE. 23 
 
 minds of Churchmen, whether of the clergy or of 
 the laity, or of the one against the other. It be- 
 comes us, therefore, I think, my Reverend Brethren, 
 in the spirit of the earnest admonitions which our 
 Archbishop has addressed to us, in the representa- 
 tive assembly of the clergy and laity of his diocese, 
 to beware of the designs of those who would desire 
 nothing better than to see us at variance. It is 
 an unwelcome assemblage, — odious even in the 
 view of men, when exhibited nakedly in the 
 pure light, and set forth in the plain language of 
 Holy Writ, — of the " six things " which the Lord 
 doth hate, and the " seven " which " are an abo- 
 mination unto Him." There is the " proud look," 
 and the " lying tongue, and hands that shed inno- 
 cent blood, an heart that devise th wicked imagi- 
 nations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a 
 false witness that speaketh lies ;" but the crowning 
 offence, the most grievous transgressor in His 
 sight whose name is Love, is " he that soweth 
 discord among brethren." 1 
 
 Of the bonds of union which are among the 
 most powerful to hold true Churchmen together at 
 a time like the present, and one which gives tokens 
 of daily increasing strength, is the Book of Common 
 Prayer, in its integrity. The deliberations of the 
 Clergy in our own diocese, held by the Diocesan's 
 express desire, with the request for a distinct 
 
 1 Prov. vi. 16-19.
 
 24 A CHARGE. 
 
 reply, and in other dioceses in like manner, have 
 resulted for the most part, and so far as the great 
 body of the clergy are concerned, in the expression 
 of an earnest desire that the Prayer Book may 
 remain intact. And the same feeling has been 
 shown on the part of the laity, especially of com- 
 municant members of the Church, by the vast host 
 of signatures attached to petitions embodying the 
 like desire, which have been recently presented to 
 Convocation. It is thought, I know, by some 
 persons, that this is a merely temporary and 
 accidental agreement between persons and parties 
 of very different sentiments ; that it is grounded 
 on the conviction of both parties that the laws of 
 the Church, embodied in the Prayer Book, as they 
 stand at present, are on their side; and, therefore, 
 that this concurrence or coalition will soon come 
 to an end. I venture, my Reverend Brethren, 
 to express a different opinion. I believe that, the 
 more men turn their calm and deliberate attention 
 to the subject, the more highly they will estimate 
 the wisdom which, by the gift and blessing of 
 God, has been shown in our Church's formularies, 
 as preserved to us amidst the struggles through 
 which she has passed ; and the more strongly 
 they will feel how great a peril we should incur 
 in tampering in any way with them. And the 
 more so, inasmuch as no alteration could be made 
 in our Prayer Book without the concurrence and 
 sanction of Parliament ; and few true Churchmen, I
 
 A CHARGE. 25 
 
 think, in their thoughtful hours, could contemplate, 
 without alarm and dismay, the casting the most 
 holy mysteries of our faith and ritual upon the 
 stormy waters of parliamentary discussion. And 
 I think it important to notice, that in some cases 
 there has been, I conceive, a little misapprehension 
 in regard to what by some persons has been sought. 
 It was not, for the most part, I think, as has been 
 supposed in these cases, an alteration of the law, 
 that is, of the Rubrics of the Prayer Book, that 
 was wished for ; but rather a peaceful solution of 
 present difficulties, whether by more satisfactory 
 and final decisions of doubtful points of law, or 
 by authoritative interpretations put forth by the 
 Church herself; explanations of her mind and 
 meaning, guarding from misapprehension any 
 liberty already existing, or any rule which had 
 given rise to objection ; in some such way as in the 
 thirtieth Canon respecting the use of the Cross in 
 Baptism, or in the Synodical Declaration not long 
 ago agreed upon in regard to the Athanasian 
 Creed. Even, however, if the indisposition for 
 change in the Prayer Book could be altogether 
 accounted for by the persuasion entertained by 
 opposite parties that the law of the Church, rightly 
 interpreted, or finally pronounced, would be found 
 to be on their side, or in favour of the liberty 
 which they claimed as their rightful heritage, 
 even on this supposition there would be the 
 same ground for satisfaction and hope as when, at
 
 26 A CHARGE. 
 
 a former troublous period in our Church's history, 
 when doctrines on other points than those which are 
 now debated, divided greatly men's minds, it was 
 said, in the Declaration prefixed, by the royal au- 
 thority of King Charles the First, to the Book of 
 Articles ; " That for the present, though some differ- 
 ences have been ill raised, yet we take comfort in 
 this, that all clergymen have always most willingly 
 subscribed to the Articles established, which is an 
 argument to us that they all agree in the true, 
 usual, literal meaning of the said Articles ; and that 
 even in those curious points in which the present 
 differences lie, men of all sorts take the Articles of 
 the Church of England to be for them, which is an 
 argument again, that none of them intend any 
 desertion of the Articles established." Mutatis 
 mutandis, applying to the Liturgy what is here 
 said specially of the Articles, this source of comfort 
 and assurance would, at any rate, be ours now. 1 
 
 If, indeed, there be any so misguided and un- 
 faithful that their heart is not with the Church to 
 whose service they had devoted themselves, and 
 whose sympathies are with another, a foreign com- 
 munion ; greatly as we must deplore their error, 
 and unwilling as, for their own sakes, in common 
 charity, we must feel, that they should drink more 
 deeply of the cup of the enchantress, and put their 
 necks hopelessly under the yoke of bondage which 
 " neither our fathers nor we," of this Church of 
 
 1 See Note C.
 
 A CHARGE. 27 
 
 England, "were able to bear," in search of an 
 infallibility which seems still, amidst all its towering 
 and transcendent pretensions, to be as difficult to 
 define as it ever was, and of a unity which is 
 found, in fact, to be a vain shadow ; yet if this be 
 the mistress whom they desire to serve, we must 
 sorrowfully say, Let them go ; we crave not the 
 presence of any who cannot be to us " an help or 
 profit, but a shame and also a reproach." * And if, 
 again, on the other hand, there be any whose 
 sympathies are all with that platform the favourers 
 of which, in past days, first cavilled at, and then 
 rebelled against our " ecclesiastical polity," and at 
 length triumphed in its overthrow ; if there be 
 those who are not content with our Prayer Book 
 as it is, but would seek to reform it further, as they 
 think it needs, after the principles and maxims of 
 Geneva, of Calvin and Zuingle, with the fearful 
 developments of unevangelical truth which have 
 followed, in other lands, on the casting away of 
 apostolical order, the rejection of the due authority 
 of Christ's holy Church ending in "even denying 
 the Lord that bought them;" 2 or again, if there 
 be any who would be found extending so wide, as 
 they think, their comprehensive charity as to break 
 down the fences of the sacred vineyard, sacrificing 
 " the Catholic faith " to what they would call " a 
 truly catholic spirit ;" we have no harsh or un- 
 charitable words for them either, if only they will 
 
 1 Isaiah xxx. 5. 2 2 Peter ii. 1.
 
 28 A CHARGE. 
 
 leave us and our Church alone. Let them go and 
 " plant the tabernacles of their palaces" 1 as they 
 see fit, if they think scorn of the " tents " of Jacob 
 and the " tabernacles" of Israel, 2 spread forth in the 
 valleys in due order, by their several signs, under 
 the old sacred banners, in the holy warfare of 
 Christ and of His Church. 
 
 And now, before I conclude, I would briefly 
 advert to the latest action of the Church in the 
 province of Canterbury, in the sessions of Convo- 
 cation which terminated, for the present, ten days 
 ago, to be resumed at the end of June. There was 
 a very large attendance of members of the Lower 
 House, including the Prolocutor, a hundred and 
 seven in all ; and the proceedings were charac- 
 terised, I may truly say, in an eminent degree by 
 the spirit which befits such an assembly of Christian 
 clergy; the spirit which they had solemnly in- 
 voked in their united prayers, the"spirit which the 
 holy Apostle commends to us, " of power and love 
 and soberness." 3 At the opening of the proceedings, 
 the two Houses of Convocation had joined in partak- 
 ing of those holy mysteries which Christ Himself 
 ordained to be the sacred and special bond of union 
 between His disciples : that which had been long 
 desired was now for the first time obtained, and 
 the Holy Communion was administered in West- 
 
 1 Dan. si. 45. 2 Num. xxiv. 5-6. 
 
 3 2 Tim. i. 7. Compare the Form of Consecration of Bishops.
 
 A CHARGE. 29 
 
 minster Abbey, in Henry the Seventh's Chapel. 
 There was a full discussion, calm, careful, and 
 patient, in the temper of earnest men, restrained 
 by mutual respect, and united by brotherly love. 
 The time allowed of the consideration of one only 
 of the two subjects which had been under the 
 immediate view of the Committee whose Report was 
 before the House ; and the result come to, with an 
 unanimity which would hardly have been thought 
 possible beforehand, was : " That this House, 
 having regard to the fact of the existing wide- 
 spread diversity of practice with regard to the 
 position of the celebrant in the administration of 
 the Holy Communion, is convinced that it will be 
 most for the welfare of the Church that such 
 diversity be not disturbed ; provided that, in cases 
 where changes are made and disputes arise, it be 
 left to the Ordinary to determine which practice 
 shall be adopted. And further this House declares, 
 that by this Resolution no sanction is intended to 
 be given to any doctrine other than what is set 
 forth in the Prayer Book and the Articles of the 
 Church of England." Such a result, I need hardly 
 say, could not have been arrived at, in such an 
 assembly of earnest-minded men, representing so 
 many shades of opinion within the Church's limits, 
 except by means of much friendly communication 
 of different parties, and free interchange of thought 
 and feeling, of men ready to yield personal ]3refer- 
 ences, where it could be done without sacrifice of
 
 30 A CHARGE. 
 
 principle, while maintaining what they severally 
 regarded as sacred and important truth, or lawful 
 and harmless liberty. 
 
 The Upper House, meanwhile, had adopted with 
 the like unanimity the report of a Committee of 
 the whole House, which, having gone through the 
 Report of the Lower House of the last Convocation, 
 upon the Fourth Report of the Rubrical Commis- 
 sion, left the Rubric prefixed to the Prayer of Con- 
 secration untouched. The unanimous resolution of 
 the Lower House, it may, I think, without pre- 
 sumption be confidently anticipated, will strengthen 
 greatly the hands of their lordships the Bishops of 
 the province of Canterbury, if they desire, as we 
 have reason to believe they do, to discourage strife 
 and division, while they exercise the due authority 
 of their office, recognised in the Act, and strength- 
 ened by its provisions, to take order by their dis- 
 cretion "for the quieting and appeasing of any 
 diversity " in regard to which complaint may arise. 
 It is a matter, assuredly, of great thankfulness, 
 that the discretion of the Diocesan, though more 
 than once, in the course of the Bill through Par- 
 liament, it appeared to be seriously threatened, was 
 preserved intact ; and it is, I think, extremely 
 improbable that bishops generally, in their several 
 dioceses, will, amidst the difficulties of the case, be 
 at all disposed to rule authoritatively points in 
 regard to which any reasonable doubt exists, or on 
 which diversity of practice has, not unnaturally,
 
 A CHARGE. 31 
 
 arisen. The order to be taken by the bishop is 
 limited, in the Church's rule, as laid down in the 
 Preface to the Prayer Book, by the express pro- 
 vision, " so that the same order be not contrary to 
 anything contained in this Book." The bishop 
 would, assuredly, on principle and from policy 
 alike, abstain from any order which might possibly 
 be found at variance with the true meaning of any 
 rubric. The case of a doubt is further provided 
 for by the provision, that "if the Bishop of the 
 Diocese be in doubt, then he may send for the 
 resolution of it to the Archbishop;" and we may 
 feel tolerably sure, that our Archbishop would not 
 authoritatively determine a doubtful point for the 
 bishops of his province, while there was any room 
 for question whether the Prayer Book had posi- 
 tively determined it. The Archbishop set himself 
 to dispel the apprehensions of an ecclesiastical 
 campaign to be opened this session in Parliament ; 
 and I may venture to say, in like manner, that I 
 do not anticipate an ecclesiastical raid to commence 
 on the first of July. Time is a great healer ; the 
 twelvemonth which was granted before the Act 
 was to come into operation has been an essential 
 benefit. I do not expect that there will be set 
 on foot a systematic prosecution, undertaken in a 
 harsh spirit, or a desire of reprisals ; or any general 
 attempt to do what a right reverend prelate desig- 
 nated as what would be simple " madness," rigidly 
 " to enforce the rubrics all round."
 
 32 A CHARGE. 
 
 I ventured, my Reverend Brethren, when I 
 addressed you last year, having this and another 
 case — that of the " Ornaments Rubric " — in mind, 
 to observe that there were certain " rulings of the 
 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which," 
 I apprehended, it was " simply impossible for the 
 utmost legal ingenuity to reconcile satisfactorily 
 with each other " ; and, I must confess, it was 
 with some satisfaction that, being present in 
 the House of Lords, through the kindness of his 
 Grace the Archbishop, throughout the long and 
 anxious debates on the re-committal of the Bill, 
 I heard what fell from the noble Lord on the 
 woolsack in regard to these decisions. His lord- 
 ship was referring to matters to which the amend- 
 ments of which notice had been given by the 
 Bishop of Peterborough were directed, proposing 
 as they did what the Lord Chancellor described 
 as " a neutralisation of a certain area of arguable 
 ground." He observed, that "the rubrics" had 
 " been found to accommodate themselves so much 
 to the habits of the people, that there would 
 be considerable difficulty in interfering by legal 
 proceedings for the purpose of putting a stop to 
 them." He declared further, that he was " bound 
 to express " his " firm conviction that, whether 
 they looked to Convocation, or whether they 
 looked to Parliament, or whether they looked to 
 the Church outside of Convocation, and outside of 
 Parliament, the idea that in our days it would be
 
 A CHARGE. 33 
 
 possible to arrive at any alteration for the settle- 
 ment of the rubrics appeared to him to be out of 
 the range of probability." Upon the subject im- 
 mediately before us, as lately dealt with by Con- 
 vocation, Lord Cairns went on to say, " As to the 
 position of the minister in the Communion Service 
 during the time of Consecration, that is a subject 
 on which it will not be expected, nor would it be 
 proper, that I should give any expression of 
 opinion as to what the law on the subject may be. 
 But I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the 
 consideration of the question. I think," said his 
 Lordship, " that there are in the Church of Eng- 
 land a great number of persons, a large number of 
 clergymen, who have no sympathy whatever with 
 ritualists — I use a familiar expression — or ritual- 
 ism, who have no sympathy with those extrava- 
 gancies and those departures from the law which 
 have been referred to in this House, and who yet 
 feel themselves much distressed and disquieted by 
 the present law on the subject of the position of 
 the minister during the time of Consecration. 
 Upon that subject," the Lord Chancellor went on 
 to say, " there have been two decisions, more or 
 less final, by the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
 Council. I do not desire," said his Lordship, " to 
 say one word as to the law of the question ; but 
 every one knows how extremely difficult it is for 
 any person — for any layman, perhaps for any 
 lawyer — to be satisfied that those two decisions 
 
 c
 
 34 A CHARGE. 
 
 are reconcileable with each other. Moreover, in 
 one of those cases no defence was made, and only 
 one side was heard. Those decisions," said his 
 Lordship, " I think, cannot be regarded as final." 
 
 It should further be borne in mind, I would add, 
 to how great an extent the existing variety of 
 practice arose out of those very decisions, rather 
 than out of the practice of individual clergy in 
 past times, or any continuous tradition, the satis- 
 factory jDroof of which appears to me to be 
 wanting. There are those who adopted the east- 
 ward position on finding it ruled, in one case, that 
 the words " standing before the Table " applied to 
 the whole Rubric, and who were placed in an 
 embarrassing position when, in another case, it 
 appeared to be ruled that the preposition "before" 
 did not so apply, though the word " standing " 
 did ; unless, indeed, the words " before the Table " 
 were taken in a not very obvious sense. 1 It was 
 impossible, evidently, to anticipate what a third 
 decision might be ; the ground — the only ground 
 — upon which an application for a rehearing in 
 the undefended suit was refused, though it had 
 been powerfully pleaded for by the present Lord 
 Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (Lord Cole- 
 ridge), and though the then Lord Chancellor (Lord 
 Hatherley) had stated precedents in favour of 
 such rehearing, was " the grave public mischief 
 which, in the view of the Judicial Committee, 
 
 » See Note D.
 
 A CHARGE. 35 
 
 would arise on any doubt being thrown on the 
 finality of the decisions of the Committee ;" and 
 "their lordships" were accordingly, as they 
 stated, " of opinion that expediency required that 
 the prayer of the petition to the Judicial Com- 
 mittee should not be acceded to, but be refused 
 with costs." I can easily understand how a sensible 
 man, a churchwarden, consulted by the incumbent, 
 in such a condition of things, might wisely and 
 well recommend that no change should for the 
 present be made : it would seem to such an one, 
 perhaps, not a desirable thing that the minister 
 should be seen veering round to different points of 
 the compass, in his ministrations at the holy Table, 
 in conformity with the " divers winds," not " of 
 doctrine " — for whatever sense he might intend 
 by different positions, or others might put upon 
 them, the " doctrine " of the Church would remain 
 the same — not of doctrine, therefore, but of the 
 varying views of expediency in Judicial Com- 
 mittees of the Privy Council, bodies continually 
 changing in their composition. And it is to be 
 borne in mind, also, that it is not only one school 
 of thought in the Church which, by varying 
 judgments of the Courts, was liable to be exposed 
 to the charge of undutifulness or disobedience. A 
 recommendation of the surplice for preaching, 
 with a view to uniformity of practice, — particularly 
 in the Metropolis and its neighbourhood, — put 
 forth by the joint authority of the Bishop of 
 
 c 2
 
 36 
 
 A CHARGE. 
 
 London and the late Bishop of Winchester, was 
 rejected at a large meeting held in London, on 
 the ground — intelligible enough in this case also 
 — that the matter had not yet been determined 
 by any final decision of law. Only let us take 
 care in these matters, my Eeverend Brethren, that 
 we weigh things in equal scales. The Wise Man, 
 in his inspired wisdom, hath said, " Divers weights, 
 and divers measures, both of them are alike abo- 
 mination to the Lord." x And " a greater than 
 Solomon," even our Divine Master and Lord, 
 gave the commandment to the men of His time, 
 and hath given it not less to us, " Judge not 
 according to appearance, but judge righteous 
 judgment." 2 
 
 There remains only one point in reference to the 
 provisions of the new Act to which I think it im- 
 portant to call attention, in connection with the 
 archdeacon's office, and also with the office of the 
 churchwarden. In the bill, as "first brought in, 
 the originator of proceedings under the Act might 
 be the archdeacon, or the rural dean, or any single 
 parishioner, " if he were of opinion, as regards the 
 fabric and furniture of the Church, that any altera- 
 tions in, or additions to, the fabric, ornaments, or 
 furniture had been made without a faculty from 
 the ordinary, authorising or confirming such 
 
 1 Prov. xx. 10. Compare chap. xvi. 11. "A just weight and 
 balance are the Lord's ; all the weights of the bag are his work." 
 8 St. John vii. 24.
 
 A CHARGE. 37 
 
 alteration or addition ;" and similarly in regard to 
 ornaments of the minister, services, rites, and cere- 
 monies. It was felt by many, that a provision like 
 this would put the rural dean in an unpleasant and 
 invidious position ; that the office of the church- 
 warden was absolutely ignored, as was observed 
 by a churchwarden, at my "Visitation gathering at 
 Sevenoaks last year, whose remarks I referred to 
 in my place in Convocation, and reported also to 
 the Archbishop ; and further, that the archdeacon 
 also was put into a false position ; converted from 
 a subordinate and concurrent Ordinary into an ac- 
 cuser ; put into the same category with a single 
 aggrieved parishioner ; and all the authority which 
 he is accustomed to exercise in lesser matters taken 
 away, by the requirement of a faculty for the most 
 trifling alteration made in the fabric, or the smallest 
 piece of Church furniture suj)plied. The objections 
 prevailed to the extent of leaving out the rural 
 dean, inserting the churchwardens, or three parish- 
 ioners ; and specifying that the ground of complaint 
 in regard to the church should be, that alterations 
 or additions had been, made " without lawful au- 
 thority ." The archdeacon remains as one who may, 
 under the provisions of the Act, make a rej>resenta- 
 tion to the Bishop : but this is altogether voluntary ; 
 he is not required to take any such part unless he 
 thinks fit ; or if he prefer to use the legitimate in- 
 fluence of his office in another way. The Act is 
 understood to be simply supplementary, and not to
 
 38 A CHARGE. 
 
 supersede, or interfere with, any existing authority 
 or jurisdiction. The Archdeacon, we know, has 
 commonly been designated, in ecclesiastical lan- 
 guage, the " eye" of the Bishop : but he is such, I 
 take leave to observe, not in the sense of a spy or 
 informer, but as one entrusted with an important 
 function in the administration of Church discijDline ; 
 by whose assistance, in his auxiliary and at the same 
 time independent office, the BishojD may be relieved 
 of lesser matters ; specially in regard to the sacred 
 fabrics, the care of the churches and churchyards, 
 and all the vessels and furniture, and other arrange- 
 ments for public worship. I do not anticipate or 
 apprehend any interruption of the friendly and 
 brotherly relations at present subsisting between 
 the clergy and their archdeacons ; and both they 
 and the clergy, and their parishioners, will, I feel 
 assured, increasingly recognize the office of the 
 churchwardens as one which constitutes them the 
 fitting representatives, in each parish, of the lay 
 members of the Church ; specially qualified by their 
 appointment, the one by the incumbent, the other 
 by the parishioners, to act together in the interests 
 of both, to the maintenance of good order, harmony, 
 and peace. 
 
 Let me conclude the words which I have spoken 
 to you now, my Reverend Brethren, — speaking with 
 undoubting confidence in the kindness with which 
 you have ever received whatever suggestions the 
 circumstances of the times, or the dangers which
 
 A CHARGE. 39 
 
 beset us, or the hopes which, amidst them all, we 
 seemed warranted in cherishing, have called forth, 
 — let me conclude with the encouragement with 
 which the holy Apostle wound up his affectionate 
 exhortations to the Church at Corinth. The trials 
 and difficulties amidst which we are called to 
 fulfil our high commission are not greater than theirs 
 were then ; there were divisions to be healed, errors 
 to be corrected, offences to be removed, matters of 
 conscience to be more charitably treated, the weak 
 not condemning the strong, nor the strong setting 
 at nought the weak ; false claims and rival preten- 
 sions to apostolical authority, or to the possession 
 of the Spirit of Christ, to be put down, and true 
 apostolical authority to be reasserted and vindi- 
 cated ; discipline to be enforced, yet " in love, and 
 in the spirit of meekness ;" 1 matters of controversy 
 between brethren, which had been carried to the 
 outer courts of the heathen, but which ought to be 
 settled rather by the fatherly judgments of those 
 whom' Christ had appointed to rule in His Church 2 
 — "the Church" to which He had bidden them 
 refer their differences and disputes, with the solemn 
 promise given, " Yerily I say unto you, Whatsoever 
 ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : 
 and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be 
 loosed in heaven." " Where two or three are 
 gathered together in My name, there am I in the 
 midst of them." 3 Amidst all that there was, on 
 
 1 1 Cor. iv. 21. 2 1 Cor. vi. 1-6. 3 St. Matth. xviii. 15-20.
 
 40 A CHARGE. 
 
 every side, to perplex and distress — for to the great 
 Apostle also " without were fightings, within were 
 fears," 1 — yet even then, as "a helper of" their 
 "joy," 2 he had words of comfort and hope for them, 
 of holy confidence and calm rejoicing. " Finally, 
 brethren," said he, " farewell" — x a W eTe — g° on 
 your way rejoicing ; or, as he said in a later epistle 
 to others of his brethren, even from his prison at 
 Rome, " Finally, brethren, rejoice in the Lord ;" 
 " Rejoice in the Lord alway ; and again I will say, 
 Rejoice." 3 The holy Apostle felt assuredly what 
 had been expressed in the words of Nehemiah, the 
 pious governor of Judah, in earlier days of trouble, 
 to his brethren who, in the face of bitter opposi- 
 tion, or craft and subtlety of the adversaries leagued 
 against them, were holding their weapons in one 
 hand, while with the other they were building up 
 the walls of their Jerusalem — " the joy of the Lord 
 is your strength." Even so spake the Apostle to 
 his brethren at Corinth : " Finally, brethren, fare- 
 well. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one 
 mind, live in peace ; and the God of love and 
 
 peace shall be with you The grace of the 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the 
 communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. 
 Amen." 4 
 
 So be it now with us, my Reverend Brethren ; and 
 " To God only wise be glory, through Jesns 
 Christ, for ever. Amen." 
 
 1 2 Cor. vii. 5. 2 Chap. i. 24. s Phil. iii. 1 ; iv. 4. 
 
 4 2 Cor. xiii. 11-14. 

 
 NOTE A. 
 
 In the enumeration given in the Chargo of works completed, 
 or in hand, dining the past year, reference has been made only 
 to Churches built, enlarged, or restored. " The Canterbury 
 Diocesan Church Building and Endowment Society," however, 
 includes within its objects not only, as its title implies, the 
 Endowment of small benefices, but also the building, purchase, 
 or improvement of Parsonage Houses. In the Pastoral Letter 
 issued by his Grace the Archbishop in behalf of the Society in 
 January of last year, it is stated that in the nine years which 
 have passed since its institution in January, 1865, in the course 
 of which it has expended the sum of 20,424Z., " it has assisted 
 to build, restore, or enlarge 61 Churches ; to erect 7 Temporary 
 Churches ; to build, purchase, or improve 40 Parsonage Houses ; 
 and to increase the very small endowments of 19 Benefices — in 
 the Diocese of Canterbury. It has also contributed annually a 
 portion of its funds to the Incorporated Church Building 
 Society, which Society continues to make liberal grants towards 
 Church Building in the Diocese. In the Churches which have 
 received the Diocesan Society's aid, additional accommodation 
 has been provided for 16,842 persons. " For many years," the 
 Archbishop's Pastoral Letter goes on to state, " there is little 
 prospect of any diminution in the number of Applications for 
 the Society's help. ... It appears that at the present time 
 there are at least 8 New Churches and 8 Mission Chapels 
 urgently required in the Diocese. In addition to these, there 
 are 25 Parishes in which the Churches are situated at a remote 
 distance from a large proportion of the Parishioners. There 
 are 79 Churches needing restoration or enlargement, besides 
 many others in which the internal arrangements are very incon- 
 venient and objectionable. In 60 Parishes there are no Par- 
 sonage Houses; in consequence of which the Incumbents live 
 at a distance of from 1 to 9 miles from their Parishioners ; and 
 there are 16 Parsonage Houses which are, from their bad state 
 of repair or inadequate accommodation, unfit for residence ; 
 whilst others are situated at a very inconvenient distance from
 
 42 A CHARGE. 
 
 the Church and people. There are still 44 Benefices under 200Z. 
 a year ; including 7 under 100Z. a year, 19 above 100Z. and 
 under 150Z., and 18 above 150Z. and under 200Z." 
 
 " With undiminished appreciation," says his Grace the Arch- 
 bishop, " of the value of the Society to the Diocese, and un- 
 lessened confidence in the wise and impartial administration of 
 the funds placed at its disposal, I commend it to your support." 
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 In the Times of Tuesday, March 10, 1874, appeared a lead- 
 ing article, which informed its readers of a " remedy " for 
 the evils arising out of " the licence which now " prevailed in 
 the Church in respect to the mode of celebrating Divine 
 Service. " The nature of the remedy," it was said, " would 
 appear obvious, though the practical development of it will be 
 difficult. It was suggested by the Eitual Commission six years 
 ago ; but the form in which it was proposed was open to excep- 
 tion, and the recommendation was never acted upon. The 
 Bishops, however," the article goes on, " have recurred to the 
 idea in substance, and are of opinion that a remedy for pressing 
 evils can only be provided by some simple, summary, and inex- 
 pensive process for securing obedience to the law. The Eitual 
 Commission proposed that the Bishop, acting alone, should have 
 power summarily to enforce established usage on certain 
 matters then especially in dispute. It is now proposed to give 
 the new authority a more general scope, but at the same time to 
 establish it on a broader basis than the mere discretion of the 
 Bishop. What is needed, indeed, is to render real the execu- 
 tive and discretionary power that the Prayer Booh intended 
 should reside in the Ordinary ; but the Bishops very wisely 
 consider it would be more in accordance with the feelings, in 
 the present age of the Church and nation, if such a power were 
 exercised on the advice of, and in co-operation with, a diocesan 
 board, composed in equal proportions of clergy arid laymen, to 
 be elected by the churchwardens of each diocese. They think that 
 the monition of the Ordinary, issued on the notice of such a 
 committee, ought to have summary effect, and to be capable of
 
 A CIIAKGE. 43 
 
 being enforced by sequestration of tbe benefice, as in tbe case of 
 illegal non-residence, subject only to an appeal to tbe Arch- 
 bisbop of tbe province. Sucb a proposal," so tbe leading organ 
 of popular opinion pronounced, " will in principle commend 
 itself to tbe public, tbougb tbe Bisbops must be well aware of 
 tbe clanger tbey will bave to avoid in carrying it into effect. 
 Tbe great difficulty will be to define tbe limits of tbe proposed 
 discretion, and to prevent its operation being rendered vexatious. 
 Tbe Bisbop would not be likely to attempt any interference 
 witb barmless departures from tbe rubrics, but it would be ad- 
 visable for tbem to give some security for tbeir intentions by 
 special clauses in the bill. Tbe proposal, bowever, is so moderate 
 tbat tbe effort to promote it will be generally welcomed, and in 
 the present Parliament it will not fail to receive full discussion. 
 It offers means for a more cordial co-operation between clergy 
 and laity ; and it bas at least become imperative to try wbetber tbe 
 disagreements caused by rasb innovations, wbicb must otherwise 
 destroy tbe peace of parishes and greatly impair tbe influence 
 of tbe parochial clergy, cannot be prevented by some simple 
 legislation." 
 
 The " simple legislation " thus mildly suggested, was on the 
 very face of it, when looked into, what amounted to a complete 
 revolution of the Church of England ; and to whomsoever be- 
 longed the credit of the conception of the bill thus skilfully 
 to be draughted, or of putting forth this feeler of the pulse of 
 the English public, no more effectual method could by any 
 ingenuity have been devised of exciting the apprehension of 
 Churchmen, wbetber clergy or laity, than such an announce- 
 ment of coming legislation. " The present Parliament," so 
 hopefully looked to, had met, it will be borne in mind, on the 
 preceding Thursday, the 5th of March. The Convocation of the 
 Province of Canterbury, which, according to established custom, 
 met on the day following (Friday, March 6), had been prorogued 
 at once by the Bishop of London, acting for His Grace the Presi- 
 dent, to the 28th of April ; tbe postponement of its usual 
 meeting being in consequence of the Archbishop's indisposition. 
 
 The Guardian of March 11, observed, in reference to tbe 
 sermon preached by tbe Dean of Ely at the opening of the 
 Convocation, " It must be confessed tbat certain proposals which
 
 44 A CnAROE. 
 
 are announced in the Times yesterday, as about to emanate from 
 the Episcopal Bench, for the formation of a new tribunal to 
 regulate the services of the Church, are likely to attract more 
 attention than decanal utterances and admirable Latin." In its 
 number of April 1, it informed its readers that the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury had given notice that he would " on Monday 
 the 20th of April, call the attention of the House of Lords ' to the 
 present state of the laws regulating Divine Service in the 
 Church.' In the meantime," the Guardian went on to say, " we 
 are informed that no detailed measure has as yet received the 
 sanction of the Bishops ; and the particulars of the proposals, 
 when submitted to and approved by them, cannot be authoritatively 
 known until a Bill is laid before the Legislature." 
 
 NOTE C. 
 
 I have quoted, in a preceding Note, from a leading article in 
 the Times of March 10, 1874, in reference to anticipated legis- 
 lation. I would add here an extract or two which I copy with 
 satisfaction from a leading article in the same journal, of 
 August 14, 1874, looking back on the legislation which had 
 taken place, as dealt with by his Grace the Archbishop in a 
 speech which had just been delivered by him at Canterbury 
 (August 12) at the Annual Meeting of the Diocesan Church 
 Building Society. The Archbishop, it was observed, had 
 "doubtless accepted with pleasure an opportunity of ... . 
 pleading for that mutual toleration between Clergy and Laity 
 which can alone enable the Church to work harmoniously. It 
 is only just to remember," it was said, " as the Archbishop 
 reminds us, how much of what is most satisfactory in the 
 present position of the Church is due to efforts on the part of 
 the Clergy which were in great measure misunderstood, and 
 also in some measure misguided. "Where you have zeal, you 
 have errors. As human nature goes, the two things are insepa- 
 rable, and in this case it is more than usually natural that they 
 should be combined. Few movements have been marked by so 
 much energy, or have been more advantageous than that which, 
 as the Archbishop says, has transformed within his lifetime the
 
 A CHARGE. 45 
 
 character of English Church Services and English Public 
 Worship. Nothing would he more interesting than to know the 
 mere amount of money which, within a generation, has heen 
 lavished on the restoration of Churches and the improvement of 
 Services. ' I suppose,' says the Archhishop, ' there is no one 
 of my age here hut looks hack with a kind of shame to the sort 
 of sermons which were preached, the sort of Clergymen that 
 preached them, the sort of building in which they preached 
 them, and the sort of psalmody with which the service was 
 accompanied ; and, remembering these, I am perfectly astonished 
 the whole attachment of the people to the Church did not 
 evaporate.' English people, indeed, are not quite so much in- 
 fluenced by externals as this statement implies ; and justice is 
 now rarely done to the vigour as well as piety of the Evangelical 
 School, which at the commencement of the century maintained 
 religious life in the Church. Men like Cecil and Simeon, who 
 surrounded Wilberforce, were the representatives of a manly, 
 even if a one-sided, theology to which it is often refreshing to 
 recur amid the antiquarianisms and sentimentalisms of tho 
 present clay. The first part of this century was far from being 
 an age of intellectual decadence in England ; and the Church 
 was by no means excluded from the prevalent energy. It is a 
 total delusion to imagine that theological and practical earnest- 
 ness was dormant in the Church of England from the days of 
 the Caroline Divines to those of the Oxford movement. Nor is 
 it entirely to the Oxford movement that the improvement to 
 which the Archbishop refers is due. Churches are not the only 
 things in country villages which have felt the spur of recent 
 progress. Every interest and every profession has been stirred 
 by the diffusion of knowledge, the increase of locomotion, and 
 the general spread of intelligence, which have marked the last 
 quarter of a century. Just at the moment when this was 
 beginning, a variety of influences, including that of a powerful 
 school of theological thought, encouraged an ecclesiastical 
 revival. If this age has been an innovating and reforming one, 
 it has not less, in England, been an age for reviving and doing 
 justice to the past. The men most interested in the future have 
 been reviving every relic of old times, and endeavouring to 
 make old stories, old rubrics, and old words live again with
 
 46 A CHARGE. 
 
 their former significance. It is Dr. Newman himself who at- 
 tributes no little influence in this respect to the novels of Sir 
 Walter Scott. But Sir Walter did but represent the spirit of 
 an age which, in this country at least, sought the means of a 
 wholesome revolution in the revival of all the elements of its 
 historic life. It is this impulse which has been restoring 
 Churches, reanimating Formularies, and reviving old forms of 
 devotion throughout the kingdom. Of course, it has led to 
 abuses and excesses; it has been injudiciously indulged, and 
 sometimes offensively intruded. It was moulded in great 
 measure on an ecclesiastical theory, which itself was a revival, 
 and has taken narrow forms. But, one thing with another — 
 modern life with old principles, advance with retrogression, 
 new things combined with old — the very face of the Church has 
 been changed, and changed incalculably for the better. There 
 is justice more especially in the Archbishop's statement that 
 ' an immense amount of energy has been infused into the efforts 
 of the Clergy, such, perhaps, as no other generation ever wit- 
 nessed.' While doing justice to this zeal, the Archbishop at 
 once appeals to the Clergy themselves to exert it with more 
 consideration for the wishes of the Laity, and to the Laity to 
 regard with tolerant consideration the exuberance of a well- 
 intended impulse. . . . The improvement of which we have 
 spoken has been made, to a vast extent, in the face of violent 
 opposition from men who did not understand its meaning ; and 
 the contrast between an ordinary village church at the present 
 day and one fifty years ago should undoubtedly be a plea for 
 mutual consideration. 
 
 " It should dissipate misapprehensions on both sides that the 
 Archbishop has thus done justice to the motives of each. But 
 all that he has recently been doing is to insist that there must 
 be a limit to the kind of restoration of which we have spoken. 
 We reformed the Church three centuries agowith discretion ; 
 and, while we revived some old things, there were some which 
 were also old which we definitely abandoned. The Archbishop 
 has expressed, as we have seen, his astonishment that the Church 
 should have survived some things which prevailed fifty years 
 ago. There have been worse times than that ; and it may be 
 profitable to ask what it can be which kept the Church alive
 
 A CHARGE. 47 
 
 through every period of neglect and decay. There is, however, 
 one thing which has survived all changes, and has asserted its 
 supremacy over all schools of thought, and that is the Book of 
 Common Prayer. In that volume, or rather in those devotions, 
 Englishmen of all schools have found the solace of their 
 troubles, and the encouragement of their doubts ; it has been the 
 bond of family life, and the key-note of private feeling. No 
 such achievement, perhaps, is recorded in modern history as 
 that which has attuned the hearts of a whole nation for ten 
 generations to one spirit and tone of thought. It is this which 
 has been too strong for bad Sermons and dull Services, and has 
 always insured a spiritual and mental food for congregations. 
 It is this, too, which recent innovation threatened, above all 
 things, to obscure ; and if the law just passed be effective, it 
 will have no more valuable result than that of insuring the 
 more general observance of the book which is the best embodi- 
 ment of English traditions and sentiments. Within its limits 
 no revivals are to be feared, and the greatest service which can 
 be done to the Church in this emergency is to increase our 
 familiarity with its wise and manly temper." 
 
 NOTE D. 
 
 In the Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry 
 of Maidstone last year (" Measures and Means of Unity in the 
 Church at the Present Time "), I ventured to say, that it had 
 " come to pass, by a strange sort of fatality, that rubrics touching 
 on points for delicate treatment, and which, by the light of history 
 carefully studied, may be proved, perhaps, to have been left designedly 
 in some degree open, and therefore in a like degree ambiguous, have 
 been submitted to the hard handling of courts of law, when they 
 were intended rather for the gentle ' discretion ' of Fathers in 
 Christ ; while, on the other hand, the spirit of private judgment 
 has been let to have free scope in the wholesale substitution of 
 services and ceremonial which by no possibility of interpreta- 
 tion could be brought under the provisions of our own Prayer 
 Book" (pp, 31, 32). Of the latter part of this statement it is, un- 
 happily, quite unnecessary, I conceive, to bring proofs or give
 
 48 A CHARGE. 
 
 instances : the former part it is only proper, I think, under the 
 peculiar circumstances of the present time, to endeavour, as 
 briefly and summarily as may be, to substantiate or illustrate. 
 
 It will be borne in mind that, by the provisions of the recent 
 Act (" Public Worship Eegulation Act"), section 8, " the arch- 
 deacon of the archdeaconry," as also " a churchwarden of the 
 parish, or any three parishioners," may make a representation 
 to the Bishop, with a view to proceedings under the Act," if he 
 shall be of opinion (inter alia) 
 
 " (3.) That the incumbent has within the preceding twelve 
 months failed to observe, or, to cause to be observed, the directions 
 contained in the Book of Common Prayer relating to the per- 
 formance of the services, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the 
 said book, or has made or permitted to be made any unlawful 
 addition to, alteration of, or omission from such services, rites, and 
 ceremonies." 
 
 The Archdeacon, as has been observed in the body of the 
 preceding Charge (p. 37), is simply empowered by the Act thus to 
 proceed ; it is not obligatory on him to do so ; but it is obvious 
 that, under very conceivable circumstances, he might feel himself 
 strongly called upon, and, in fact, obliged to act, one. way or 
 another ; and in order thereto, to make up his mind, to form an 
 " opinion," whether such and such things were, or were not, " un- 
 lawful." He might also, not unnaturally, be called upon by a 
 churchwarden to assist him in forming liis " opinion :" the 
 " three parishioners " are, perhaps, in many places, less likely 
 to have any doubts, or to desire any help to make up their 
 opinion on points of Church law. But even they might possibly 
 seek, in matters where different parties " diversely take " any- 
 thing, to have an opinion to aid them, before they publicly de- 
 clare their own in a formal representation to the Bishop. And 
 in any case, amidst the present "confusions" in regard to the 
 apparently conflicting decisions of courts of law, and with the 
 liability to proceedings being taken against any clergyman any 
 day after the 1st of July, now instant, the clergy have something 
 like a rightful claim — I feel as if I must fairly admit, in regard 
 to the clergy of my own Archdeaconry — to know what the 
 " opinion " of their Archdeacon — as to the course he ought to 
 take on these questionable points, would be. I should not, I
 
 A CHARGE. 40 
 
 trust, appear guilty of any presumption in the eyes of legal 
 authorities, if I endeavoured to mark out for myself, as best 
 I might, and make known to those concerned, the lines of what 
 seemed to me the course of duty. I wish to encumber the 
 matter as little as possible with details or elaborate arguments, 
 and to state, as concisely as may be, what I conceive to be the 
 salient points. 
 
 1. In regard to the position of the celebrant during the Prayer 
 of Consecration. The Eubric runs thus : 
 
 " When the Priest, standing before the Table, hath so ordered 
 the Bread and Wine, that he may with the more readiness and 
 decency break the Bread before the people, and take the Cup 
 into his hands, he shall say the Prayer of Consecration, as 
 followeth." 
 
 The question to be determined, obviously, is, whether the 
 words " standing before the Table " apply to the whole Eubric, 
 including, that is, the saying of the Prayer, or whether they 
 apply only to the ordering the Bread and Wine, with which they 
 are immediately connected. It may, perhaps, tend to make the 
 question clearer if the Eubric be resolved into its two portions, 
 thus : 
 
 " The Priest, standing before the Table, shall so order the 
 Bread and Wine, &c, and then he shall say the Prayer of Con- 
 secration, &c." 
 
 This is clearly the same thing. The first question is, what is 
 meant by " standing before the Table." This, I think, is put 
 beyond all reasonable doubt by a Eubric in the Form of Solem- 
 nization of Matrimony. The Minister or Clerks are in a pre- 
 vious Eubric directed to say or sing a certain Psalm, " going to 
 the Lord's Table : " then follows this Eubric : 
 
 " The Psalm ended, and the Man and the Woman kneeling 
 before the Lord's Table, the Priest standing at the Table, and 
 turning his face towards them, shall say," — 
 
 Here kneeling " before the Lord's Table " clearly means kneel- 
 ing in front of the Table, looking towards it ; the Priest is stand- 
 ing " at the Table," which by the light of other Eubrics means 
 at the North side : only in this case, as the prayers that follow 
 are of the nature of a Blessing, he is directed to say the prayers, 
 " turning his face towards them," and not, as he naturally would 
 
 D
 
 50 A CHARGE. 
 
 do, if not bo directed, when " standing at the Table," turning 
 towards it. 
 
 There is no other instance, that I am aware of, in which the 
 expression " standing before the Table " occurs : and its meaning 
 here is sufficiently distinct. It is elsewhere said, " The Priest 
 standing at the North side of the Table, shall say the Lord's 
 Prayer," &c. " Then shall the Priest, turning to the people, re- 
 hearse," &c. " Then shall follow one of these two Collects for the 
 Queen, the Priest standing as before," that is, clearly, standing 
 as before on the North side, and turning to the Lord's Table. 
 After the Confession, " Then shall the Priest .... stand up, and 
 turning himself to the people, pronounce this Absolution " — just as 
 in the Marriage Service. — " Then shall the Priest say " the " com- 
 fortable words," of course still turning to the people, and in the 
 words addressed to them, "Lift up your hearts," &c. "Then 
 shall the Priest turn to the Lord's Table and say, — It is very 
 meet," &c. " Then shall the Priest, kneeling down at the Lord's 
 Table, say, — We do not presume," &c. ; the " Prayer of humble 
 access" which follows being emphatically a prayer that is 
 said in the name of all them that shall receive the Communion. 
 But it is to be said " kneeling down at the Lord's Table," not 
 " before the Table ;" the preposition " before" being distinctively 
 used only in the first clause of the Eubric in question, and in 
 the Eubric in the Marriage Service. The conclusion seems to 
 me, I must confess, abundantly clear. The Priest is to stand not 
 " at " but " before," i. e. in front of the Table, while he orders the 
 Bread and Wine. By the light of the other Eubric, as I conceive 
 it, and comparing these two with all the rest, I cannot think it 
 can possibly be maintained, " that the words ' before the Table ' 
 do not necessarily mean ' between the Table and the people,' 
 and are not intended to limit to any side.' " The words are, 
 surely, as limiting as those in the Marriage Service. 
 
 If any further illustration were necessary, it would be supplied 
 by the Coronation Service. We find there the Eubric, " At the 
 commencement of the Anthem, the Queen rising from her devo- 
 tions goes before the Altar, 1 attended by her supporters," for 
 
 1 The use of the word Altar makes obviously no difference; the 
 position of the Archbishop is the same ; the expression, " the Lord's 
 Table," is also used in the same Service.
 
 A CHARGE. 51 
 
 the Anointing. After that " the Queen kneeleth down at the 
 Faldstool, and the Archbishop standing on the North side of the 
 Altar, saith this Prayer or Blessing over Her." We could not 
 have a more perfect illustration of the Rubric in the Marriage 
 Service, and of the other Rubric by implication. 
 
 In a later Rubric, at " the putting on of the Crown," it is 
 said, " The Archbishop, standing before the Altar, taketk the 
 Crown into his hands, and laying it again before him upon the 
 Altar, saith ; — God, who crownest thy faithful servants with 
 mercy and lovingkindness ; Look down upon this Thy servant 
 Victoria, our Queen, who now in lowly devotion boweth her 
 head to Thy Divine Majesty ; " &c. 
 
 There can, surely, be no doubt as to the meaning of this : the 
 Queen was kneeling " before " — in front of — the Altar or Lord's 
 Table ; the Archbishop, now " standing before the Altar, takes 
 the Crown into his hands," and then " laying it again before him 
 upon the Altar" — placing it "before him," in his appointed 
 place for supplication and blessing, — says the Prayer — the 
 solemn Prayer, as it may be termed, of Coronation. The 
 Crown had been placed, no doubt, in the middle of the Altar : 
 this Rubric provided for the more conveniently placing it 
 immediately before the Archbishop in connexion with the 
 words of the Prayer, and, at the same time, in sight of the 
 Queen and her assembled people. 
 
 The precise point, however, now before us is the true inter- 
 pretation of the words " standing before the Table." And that, 
 as used in the Prayer of Consecration in the Communion 
 Office, the word " before" means " in front of" (as that expression 
 would be commonly understood) seems to me to be put beyond 
 the reach of legitimate doubt. I purposely abstain from using 
 the phrase, " the eastward position," because of the confusion 
 wdiich it creates, in speaking of churches, like St. Peter's at 
 Rome, where the Altar stands westward ; and also because there 
 is no such special significance in the idea of turning to the east 
 in this Service, as there was from the earliest times undoubtedly 
 in connexion with the saying of the Creed. 
 
 The question, then, that remains is — Do the words " standing 
 before the Table " apply to the whole Rubric, or simply to the 
 act of ordering the elements for Consecration ? Grammatically 
 
 D 2
 
 52 A CHARGE. 
 
 the participial clause " standing before the Table " would seem 
 to qualify, and belong to, the direction concerning the ordering 
 of the Bread and Wine ; and the traditional interpretation has, 
 till of late, so regarded it. Wheatly, who published his 
 " Eational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer " in 1710, 
 and who till recent times was a prime authority in these matters, 
 says, " As to those words ' standing before the Table,' I am of 
 opinion that they only relate to the posture of the Minister, 
 whilst he is ordering the Elements." "If it be asked, whether 
 the Priest is to say this Prayer standing before the Table, or at 
 the North-end of it ; I answer, At the North-end of it : for 
 according to the rules of grammar, the participle ' standing ' 
 must refer to the verb ' ordered,' and not to the verb ' say.' 
 So that whilst the Priest is ordering the Bread and Wine, he is 
 to stand ' before the Table : ' but when he says the Prayer, he is 
 to stand so as ' that he may with the more readiness and 
 decency break the bread before the people,' which must be on 
 the North-side. For if he stood ' before ' the Table, his body 
 would hinder the people from seeing : so that he must not stand 
 there ; and consequently he must stand on the North-side ; 
 there being, in our present Eubric, no other place mentioned for 
 performing any part of this Office." 
 
 This point is treated, in the decision in the Purchas case, as 
 " not the most important, but the most difficult question. Our 
 opinion is that of Wheatly, &c." So the judgment has been 
 printed, repeatedly, even in the third edition of the Six Judgments, 
 by Mr. W. G. Brooke ; but it appears that it ought to have been, 
 " One opinion is that of Wheatly " ; and it is added that " this " 
 (moving to the West-side for this special purpose) " would be 
 needless, if the elements were so placed on the Table as that 
 the Priest could ' with readiness and decency ' order them from 
 the North-side, as is often done." This, however, is what I 
 believe, as matter of fact, has never been done. 
 
 Where the Eubric has been duly observed which directs 
 that, after the offering of the Alms, "when there is a Communion, 
 the Priest shall then place upon the Table so much Bread 
 and Wine as he shall deem sufficient," the sacred Elements 
 have, naturally and of course, been placed, where the Alms had 
 been placet!, in the middle of the Table ; and in churches of less
 
 A C11AUOE. 53 
 
 rubrical practice — I describe them thus, iu the desire to avoid 
 any party designations — where the Elements have been placed, 
 by the clerk or sexton, on the Holy Table before the beginning 
 of Morning Prayer, they have been placed, as naturally and as 
 a matter of course, in the middle of the Table, covered with a 
 fair linen cloth. It was done so in a church which migbt be 
 taken as a " representative " one in the neighbourhood of London, 
 and the usages of which I can recollect more than fifty years 
 ago, and which so continued for five and twenty years ; and this 
 was, I believe, the usual practice in such churches. If this is 
 to be regarded as " the most difficult question " in the case, I 
 must confess that this, the traditional, solution of the Eubric, 
 in regard to " standing before the Table " seems to me to meet 
 all difficulty in the matter. 
 
 But a "difficulty" was introduced into the question by the 
 decision in the case of Martin v. Mackonochie (1868). It was 
 one of the charges in that case, " that the Eespondent, after 
 commencing the Prayer of Consecration standing, paused in the 
 middle of the Prayer, knelt down, inclining, or prostrating, his 
 head towards the ground, and then, rising up again, continued 
 the Prayer standing." In dealing with this charge it was said, 
 " Their Lordships entertain no doubt on the construction of this 
 Rubric, that the Priest is intended to continue in one posture 
 during the Prayer, and not to change from standing to kneeling, 
 or vice versa ; and it appears to them equally certain that the 
 Priest is intended to stand, and not to kneel." This decision 
 might well have been maintained, if necessary, on the ground 
 that, if any such a special act of genuflection, or adoration, had 
 been intended to take place in the midst of the Prayer, a direc- 
 tion, we might undoubtedly have expected, would have been in- 
 serted, in the same way as with regard to the manual acts ordered 
 in the course of the Prayer. And, again, that the posture of the 
 Priest while saying this Prayer was to be standing and not 
 kneeling, might have been maintained on the ground taken by 
 Wheatly, against Dr. Nicholls' " opinion that it ought to be 
 said by the Minister on his knees, because it is a prayer " ; 
 Wheatly's arguments being drawn not from the rubric in 
 qucstiou, which he is of opinion does not determine it, but from 
 the consideration of the whole Service, and from the manifest
 
 54 A CHARGE. 
 
 impropriety of the posture of kneeling for the Priest while per- 
 forming an act of authority, as the consecrating of the elements 
 must be allowed to be." 
 
 But the Keport of the Judicial Committee went on to say, 
 " They think that the words ' standing before the Table ' apply 
 to the whole sentence ; and they think this is made more apparent 
 by the consideration, that acts are to be done by the Priest before 
 the people as the Prayer proceeds (such as taking the paten and 
 chalice into his hands, breaking the Bread, and laying his hand 
 on the various vessels), which could only be done in the act of 
 standing." Whether this was a conclusive argument or not, the 
 Judicial Committee thus ruled, " that the words ' standing before 
 the Table ' apply to the whole sentence," and therefore to the 
 whole time of saying the Prayer of Consecration. 
 
 Upon the strength of this decision, many of the Clergy, with 
 the late Bishop Wilberforce, then Bishop of Oxford, at their head, 
 adopted the practice of " standing before the Table " through 
 the whole Prayer, and not simply while ordering the elements. 
 And when the case of Hebbert v. Purchas came before the Arches 
 Court, the learned Judge, as is said in the latest Report of the 
 Judicial Committee (1871), briefly observed, " The question 
 appears to mo to have been settled by the Privy Council in the 
 case of Martin v. Mackonochie." 
 
 The Judgment in this case had been pronounced on March 
 28, 1868. On February 3, 1870, two years after, the Judge of 
 the Arches Court, by an Interlocutory Decree, gave sentence in 
 the case of Hebbert v. Purchas, condemning the Defendant in 
 costs ; but not in regard to certain charges, one of these being 
 in reference to the position of the Celebrant. On this point, 
 therefore, the Clergy might naturally have concluded that, in 
 the view of the Archbishop's Court, as well as in the view of the 
 Judicial Committee which it adopted, it was ruled that the words 
 " standing before the Table " were to be understood as referring 
 to the whole Rubric ; or in other words, that the Priest was to 
 stand before the Table, not simply while he ordered the ele- 
 ments, but while he said the whole Prayer. 
 
 But when, on February 23, 1871, the Judgment of the Judicial 
 Committee was delivered, it appeared to rule the question quite 
 otherwise. With reference to what the Dean of the Arches had
 
 A CHARGE. 55 
 
 said, the Committee went on to say, that " The question before 
 their Lordships in that case was as to the posture, and not as to 
 the position of the Minister." The passage in the Judgment, it is 
 said, " refers to posture or attitude from beginning to end, and 
 not to position with reference to the sides of the Table." " The 
 question of position was not before their Lordships ; if it had 
 been, no doubt, the passage would have been conceived dif- 
 ferently, and the question of position expressly settled." But 
 however the passage was conceived, it must be admitted that, 
 when it was ruled that the words of the Rubric " standing before 
 the Table" applied to the whole sentence, and an argument in 
 support of this view was drawn from the consideration of the acts 
 to be done by the Priest as the Prayer proceeds, it is extremely 
 difficult to comprehend that the question of position was not 
 involved. To the simple understanding of plain Englishmen it 
 would undoubtedly appear, that the least that could be said on 
 the matter was what was said by the learned Head of the Law in 
 his place in the House of Lords, as quoted in the preceding 
 Charge : " Every one knows how extremely difficult it is for 
 any person — for any layman, perhaps for any lawyer — to be 
 satisfied that those two decisions are reconcileable with each 
 other." It is very conceivable, that whoever drafted the 
 passage might have drawn it somewhat differently, if he had had 
 in view the application which would be made of it : but this is 
 another question. In the one Judgment it was held that the 
 words " standing before the Table " applied to the whole Rubric, 
 regulating the posture throughout the whole Prayer; in the 
 other Judgment, that they did not ; that the Priest was to be 
 " standing " throughout, but not " before the Table." Only, it 
 seems, we may adopt what must surely be regarded as a not very 
 natural interpretation of the words " before the Table." " Their 
 Lordships," it would appear, " incline to think, that the Rubric 
 was purposely framed so as not to direct or insist on a change 
 of position in the Minister which might be needless ; though it 
 does direct a change of posture from kneeling to standing"; and 
 as before quoted, they think " that the words 'before the Table ' 
 do not necessarily mean ' between the Table and the people,' 
 and are not intended to limit to any side." Then neithor do 
 they necessarily mean, it may bo argued, on the North-side, any
 
 56 A CHARGE. 
 
 more than on the West-side : they would simply direct that the 
 Priest is to stand, having been kneeling before. It is some- 
 what difficult, on this showing, to see why the Rubric was 
 altered at all at the last Review. It stood before : " Then the 
 Priest standing up shall say as followeth." 
 
 But there are yet further data for determining the true inter- 
 pretation of the Rubric. The Rubric was clearly the work of 
 Bishop Cosin. The former Rubric, as we have seen, was, " Then 
 the Priest, standing up, shall say as followeth." Among the 
 alterations suggested by Cosin was this : " When the Priest 
 standing before the Table, hath so ordered the Bread and Wine 
 that he may with the more readiness and decency break the 
 Bread before the people, and take the Cup into his hands, he 
 shall say as followeth." The Bishops adopted this suggestion 
 with this ouly alteration, that the last clause should stand thus : 
 " he shall say the Prayer of Consecration as followeth." 
 
 Now, it may be asked, what was the object of this more pre- 
 cise and elaborate Rubric ? Evidently, on the face of it, to 
 secure " the more readiness and decency." What, then, was the 
 hindrance of readiness, and lack of decency, which it was to pre- 
 vent ? The previous history of Bishop Wren, of Archbishop 
 Laud, and of Bishop Cosin himself, seems, clearly enough, to 
 give the answer. 
 
 " When Bishop Wren was impeached in the House of Lords 
 (a.d. 1636), for consecrating the elements on the West-side of 
 the Table, he answered that he stood at the North-side at all 
 the rest of the Service, except at the Prayer of Consecration. 
 ' He humbly conceiveth it is a plain demonstration that he came 
 to the West-side only for the more convenieney of executing 
 his office, and no way in any superstition, much less in any 
 imitation of the Romish priests ; for they place themselves 
 there at all the service before, and at all after, with no less 
 strictness than at the time of consecrating the bread andwine.' " 
 Still more explicitly speaks Archbishop Laud, on Ms trial. 
 He had been charged with the part he had taken in regard to 
 the Scottish Prayer Book, which had introduced a provision for 
 more " ease and decency " in ministering. "And I protest," said 
 he, " in the presence of Almighty God, I know of no other in- 
 tention herein than this." It was because it was " hard for the
 
 A CHARGE. 57 
 
 presbyter to avoid the unseemly disordering of something or other 
 that was before him, perhaps the very Elements themselves." 
 Whatever was the " part of the Holy Table " indicated in the 
 Scottish Eubric, this was its special object and end, that the 
 presbyter consecrating might " with the more ease and decency use 
 both his hands." Bishop Cosin himself, as Archdeacon of the 
 East Riding, in his Visitation Articles long before (in 1627), 
 had distinctly recognised the North-side as the place where the 
 Minister would be standing, and therefore liable to this incon- 
 venience, or indecency. He had inquired concerning the "Parson, 
 Vicar, or Curate," " Doth he stand at the North side of the Table, 
 and perform all things there, but when he hath special cause to 
 remove from it, as in reading and preaching upon the Gospel, 
 or in delivering the Sacrament to the Communicants, or other 
 occasions of the like nature ? " For in regard to the elements, 
 where they would be placed the next question clearly shows. 
 The Bishop asks, " Doth he carefully see to the preparation 
 of the Bread and Wine before every Communion, that they be 
 pure and wholesome, that they be decently presented and placed 
 upon the Table," &C. 1 
 
 The intention of the Rubric, as proposed by Bishop Cosin, is 
 now, I think, sufficiently plain ; viz. to provide for the Priest's 
 so ordering the Elements, placed as they would be at the time 
 of the Offertory in the midst of the Table, as that there should 
 be no inconvenient or unseemly leaning over from the North- 
 side so as to reach them, at the time of Consecration. There can 
 be no manner of doubt that, in 1660, the position of the Holy 
 Table North and South was distinctly contemplated, and ex- 
 pressly provided for. In his Articles of Inquiry, as Bishop of 
 Durham, in 1662, Bishop Cosin asks: "Is there a partition 
 between your Church and your Chancel, a comely fair Table 
 there, placed at the upper part thereof, for the administration of 
 the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper?" There is no doubt what 
 this means, viz the position of the Table against the East wall 
 of the Chancel, North and South : the new Rubric had obviated 
 the inconvenience, before felt, in regard to the placing of the 
 Elements ; and the Rubric which Bishop Cosin had enforced, as 
 Archdeacon, before the Troubles would now with greater " readi- 
 
 1 Bishop Cosiu's Correspondence, vol. i., p. 118.
 
 58 A CHARGE. 
 
 ness and decency" be observed. It is worthy of remark that, 
 whereas, in the Diocese of Durham, as was observed by Arch- 
 deacon Sharp, the universal practice, in the diocese, of wearing 
 the surplice in preaching was the result of Bishop Cosin's rule 
 and practice, there is not a trace, in the history of the Diocese 
 of Durham, of any usage of saying the Prayer of Consecration 
 otherwise than on the North-side. 
 
 I know it has been argued that Bishop Cosin's words, " on 
 other occasions of the like nature," might include the whole time 
 of saying the Prayer of Consecration. I cannot think this is a 
 natural inference from the words. Surely the words referred 
 to such exceptions, — of a few moments only in duration, — as 
 offering the alms, and placing the elements on the Holy Table ; 
 the same sort of " special cause " for removing from the North 
 side as would be the going to the usual place to read the Gospel, 
 to preach the Sermon, or to administer the elements to the 
 Communicants. 
 
 If any further evidence were necessary — which I hardly 
 think it can be — as to the sense in which Bishop Cosin under- 
 stood the words in the Bubric of which he was himself the 
 author, " standing before the Table" it would be supplied by 
 other Kubrics which he suggested, but which were not adopted, 
 such as the following : " If any of the Bread or Wine remain, 
 
 &c the Priest and such other of the Communicants 
 
 as he shall then call unto him before the Lord's Table, shall 
 there .... reverently eat and drink the same." On the other 
 hand, in the Order of Confirmation, " Then shall they all kneel, 
 and the Bishop standing at the Lord's Table shall proceed and 
 say, Our help, &c." Again, in the Service for the Churching of 
 Women, " The woman .... shall kneel clown in some con- 
 venient place, appointed unto her by the Minister, before the 
 holy Table; at which he standing shall thus direct his speech 
 unto her. Forasmuch, &c." Here we have the two combined ; 
 putting beyond all doubt what Bishop Cosin meant by " standing 
 before the Table," as contradistinguished from standing " at the 
 North-side." (It may be observed here that the 127th Psalm 
 was inserted at Bishop Cosin's suggestion.) So again, in the 
 Order of Consecration of Bishops, " Then the Archbishop and 
 Bishops present shall lay their hands upon the head of the
 
 A CHARGE. 59 
 
 elected Bishop, humbly kneeling before the Lord's Table, the 
 Archbishop saying," &c. It stands, in our present Prayer 
 Book, " kneeling before them." 
 
 With Bishop Cosin's Bubric, which, as we have seen, was 
 adopted, it may be well to compare Bishop Wren's suggested 
 Rubric, which closely resembled it. But it must first be observed 
 that Bishop Wren had proposed that, before the " Prayer of 
 humble access," the Bread and Wine should " be presented by 
 the Churchwardens, or some other for them, to the Priest, who," 
 it was added, " shall with due reverence set as much thereof .... 
 as he shall conceive there will then be use of upon the Lord's 
 Board .... and then he kneeling down before the Table shall 
 in the name of all present say, We do not presume," &c. The 
 form of Rubric which Bishop Wren suggested to stand before 
 the Prayer of Consecration was this : " Then the Priest standing 
 before the Table shall so order and set the Bread and Wine that, 
 while he is pronouncing the following Collect, he may readily 
 take the Bread and break it, and also take the Cup to pour into 
 it (if he pour it not before), and then he shall say " — This, it 
 will be observed, hardly differs from Bishop Cosin's — our present 
 Rubric — save that it resolves the whole Rubric into its two con- 
 stituent clauses, as was done in the opening of this Note ; the 
 object of the Rubric being equally clear with Bishop Cosin's, 
 viz. to prevent an inconvenience which they had both in their 
 earlier troubles experienced. And, as in regard to Bishop Cosin's 
 suggestions, so in regard to Bishop Wren's, conceived in pre- 
 cisely the same spirit, there is like evidence corroborative of his 
 mind and meaning in the distinctive phrases employed. Thus, 
 in the Marriage Service, he proposed this Rubric : " When the 
 Psalm is ended, the Priest, as he stands at the Holy Table, but 
 turning his face towards the married couple, shall say," &c. 
 And, in the Churching of Women, " The woman, decently veiled, 
 shall at the beginning of the Communion Service be appointed 
 where to kneel, not far from the Holy Table ; at which the 
 Priest standing shall thus direct his speech to her: Foras- 
 much," &c. The final Rubric there he proposed should stand 
 thus : " The Priest here proceedeth to the Communion Service, 
 And if there be a Communion," &c. There cannot, I think, be 
 a doubt what Bishop Wren and Bishop Cosin mean by standing
 
 60 A CHARGE. 
 
 or kneeling " before the Table," and, on the other hand, standing 
 at the Table, clearly on the North-side, whether his face were 
 turned to the Holy Table in prayer, or to those who were 
 kneeling before the Table in blessing. 
 
 It has been supposed that the Bishops and the Convocation, 
 at the last Review, anticipated that it would be a long time 
 before the " altarwise " position could be obtained ; but I confess 
 I find no signs of this. There might be country Churches 
 where the Table remained standing in the midst of the 
 Chancel, or at its " hither end," and even standing east and 
 west ; but I cannot believe that the Rubric, newly introduced, 
 was intended to provide for such cases, to the injury, in fact, 
 of others, the great majority. It seems to me most clearly 
 to contemplate such a position of the Holy Table as that the 
 Elements, placed where they naturally would be placed upon it 
 in an act of oblation, might require some special provision, in 
 regard to the Priest, in order to an unimpeded and seemly — 
 a " ready and decent " — action in the act of Consecration about 
 to follow. 
 
 From the time when this Rubric was enacted, during the last 
 two hundred years, down to the days of the present generation, 
 the North-side position of the Priest, with the qualifications 
 above noticed, has been, I believe, the constant and unvarying 
 usage in all our Cathedrals and College Chapels, till within the 
 last few years. While, however, this was the undoubtedly pre- 
 vailing practice, and that which was, as I conceive, in most exact 
 accordance with the intentions of the Revisers, I am disposed — 
 reverting now to what I began with, in regard to the Rubric 
 and its two component parts — to think that the second clause 
 was left designedly open, so as not absolutely to exclude, on 
 occasion perchance arising, another interpretation. The Rubric, 
 I conceive, unmistakeably directs the Priest to be standing 
 before the Table, that is, in front of it (as the words would 
 commonly be understood), while he orders the Bread and Wine, 
 and then " he shall say the Prayer of Consecration ; " but, I 
 think, it is not distinctly said what his position shall be while 
 he says it ; though at the same time I Lave no doubt that what 
 was contemplated and intended was that he should stand " as 
 before," in other acts of prayer in the course of the Communion
 
 A CHARGE. 61 
 
 Service, and especially in the solemn form of supplication and 
 intercession which was to he said immediately after the gifts 
 were laid on the holy Table — I mean the Prayer for the Church 
 Militant. For that Prayer is, in fact, part of the same Prayer 
 of Consecration, for certain wise and sufficient reasons, as it 
 appeared to our Reformers, placed where it is — an arrangement, 
 for good reasons, doubtless, in like manner not disturbed at the 
 last Review. The Judicial Committee, as has been already 
 observed, " incline to think that the Rubric was purposely 
 framed so as not to direct or insist on a change of position in the 
 minister, which might be needless." I venture to think, in a 
 somewhat similar sense, that the Rubric was purposely framed 
 so as not absolutely to require a change of position after the 
 ordering of the elements, and before the saying of the Prayer of 
 Consecration. Bishop Cosin, and his fellow-revisers, were cer- 
 tainly in favour of uniformity: they would, I cannot doubt, 
 have deprecated and discouraged a diversity of practice which 
 was capable of being made a badge of party, or a symbol of 
 division. They were, also — however men may sometimes have 
 regarded them, and their counsels and acts — dealing very con- 
 siderately and tenderly with men's consciences and feelings. 
 
 In regard to the position of the celebrant during the Prayer 
 of Consecration, the usage of other Churches would doubtless 
 greatly influence them, in like manner as it has mainly influ- 
 enced men in these days, against a prohibition which might 
 seem condemnatory of other branches of the Church Catholic, 
 or of any insulating effect in regard to our own, in matters 
 where no erroneous doctrine was concerned. It has been in 
 other things, as it is in regard to " the lawful use of the Cross 
 in Baptism," as " explained " in the 30th Canon. " It must be 
 confessed," as is there said, " that in process of time the Sign 
 of the Cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome, espe- 
 cially after that corruption of Popery had once possessed it. 
 But the abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful use of 
 it. Nay, so far was it from the purpose of the Church of Eng- 
 land to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, 
 Germany, or other such like Churches, in all things which they 
 held and practised, that, as the Apology of the Church of Eng- 
 land confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies
 
 62 A CHARGE. 
 
 which do neither ondamage the Church of God, nor offend the 
 minds of sober men; only departing from them in those par- 
 ticular points, wherein they were fallen both from themselves in 
 their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolic Churches which 
 were their first founders." Those who, under the influence of 
 such a feeling, in regard to the position of the celebrant in other 
 Churches, wished that position to be at least uncondemned, 
 would have it to plead that there was in the Eubric no absolute 
 direction forbidding it ; while the considerations already brought 
 forward would rather justify those who adhered to the generally 
 received and established custom. The recent Resolution of the 
 Lower House of Convocation reflects faithfully, as I am thankful 
 to feel, this principle of procedure ; the security against division 
 at home — a paramount duty, assuredly, even when we are 
 thinking of foreign Churches, in the spirit of brotherly unity — 
 being secured by the provision that wherever, in consequeuce of 
 any change that is made, a dispute arises, " it shall be left to the 
 Ordinary to determine what practice shall be adopted." 
 
 In the case of Hebbert v. Purchas, as has been already stated, 
 no defence was made. " In default of argument on the Respon- 
 dent's side," the Judicial Committee say, " they have been some- 
 what aided by a large mass of controversial literature, which 
 shows how much interest this question excites, and which has 
 probably left few of the facts unnoticed." A very undue impor- 
 tance, however, as was not unlikely in a " mass of controversial 
 literature," has been attached to certain facts, which on careful 
 consideration appear to affect the question very little. Of this 
 character is the fact that, by Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, at 
 the time of Communion the Table was to be " so placed in good 
 sort within the chancel as thereby the Minister may be more 
 conveniently heard in his prayer and ministration, and the 
 communicants also more conveniently, and in more number 
 communicate with the said Minister." It has been supposed 
 that this necessarily implied a placing of the Table East and 
 West, so that the Minister, standing on the North-side, would 
 be " before the Table," i. e. in front of the longer side of the 
 Table ; and that the wording of the Rubric was grounded on this 
 fact. But, as has already, I conceive, been sufliciently proved,
 
 A CHARGE. 63 
 
 the words, " before the Table " have no reference to tho longer or 
 shorter side of the Table ; nor does it follow that, because the 
 Table, in time of Communion, was brought from the place where 
 the altar stood, at the East end of the Chancel, it was therefore 
 necessarily placed lengthwise having its shorter sides East and 
 West. Moreover, as the Judicial Committee observe, " before the 
 time of the Eevision of 1662, the custom of placing the Table 
 along the east wall was becoming general ; and it may fairly be 
 said that the Eevisers must have had this in view." It is out 
 of the question to suppose, that the Bishops and Divines of the 
 Eestoration contemplated for a moment any but a North and 
 South position of the Table. It may also be observed, that 
 the old Communion Tables were, commonly, nearly as wide as 
 they were long ; in fact, not far from being square ; at all events, 
 oblong, in form such as we are acquainted with in the definitions 
 and diagrams of the familiar friend of our early days, Euclid, 
 who talked of " an oblong " as " that which has all its angles 
 right angles, but has not all its sides equal ; " while the " square " 
 was " that which has all its sides equal, and all its angles right 
 angles." In fact, whether these Tables, and especially Tables 
 so shaped, were placed lengthwise or crosswise " within the 
 chancel," or even in the body of the Church, if so it were, would 
 make very little difference, in appearance, to the congregation ; 
 the Minister would be seen " standing on the North-side," 
 whether it were a little longer or a little shorter than the other 
 side ; and perhaps not many would know which side of the 
 Table was turned to them, it being simply a question of con- 
 venience and space. 
 
 But to interpret standing " before the Table " — or, in front 
 of the Table, which is clearly the same thing — to mean standing 
 sideways to the eye of the congregation, and at what they 
 would more naturally call the side of the Table, and this simply 
 because that side of the Table was a few inches longer than the 
 other, is a thing which has not in its favour a particle of 
 authority derivable from the language of any Rubric, and as 
 little — it would, I think, be generally pronounced — from the 
 common language of Englishmen. Queen Elizabeth's Injunc- 
 tion, it will be observed, directed the Table at Communion 
 Service to be placed in the Chancel — not, as has been very com-
 
 64 A CHARGE. 
 
 monly supposed, in the body of the Church, where, it is 
 imagined, — owing to pews, I presume, — the Table could not stand 
 north and south. What the Puritans so vehemently objected to, 
 in the " altar-wise " position, was the Priest's being placed at the 
 furthermost end of the chancel, close to the East wall, and out 
 of the hearing of the congregation, — for this point the Injunc- 
 tion specially refers to ; it was an arrangement associated in their 
 minds with the " solitary masses " of the priest, so unlike the 
 act of Communion, now happily restored, of the congregation 
 communicating with the Priest. But the position of the Table 
 itself, in regard to its longer and shorter sides, was less im- 
 portant when there was nothing, either in the shajje of the 
 Table or in its position — I mean, in other words, its place — in 
 the chancel to suggest, in any painful or dangerous way, the 
 idea of Eomish masses. 
 
 It was a far wider and deeper controversy that was in hand. 
 The Puritans' feeling is plainly and graphically set before us 
 by Cartwright, as referred to by Hooker. 1 " There is a third 
 fault," says T. C. (lib. i. p. 134), " which likewise appeareth 
 almost in the whole body of this service and liturgy of England ; 
 and that is that the profit which might have come by it unto 
 the people is not reaped ; whereof the cause is, for that he 
 which readeth is in some places not heard, and in the most 
 places not understanded of the people, through the distance of place 
 between the people and the minister, so that a great part of the 
 people cannot tell whether he hath cursed them or blessed them, 
 whether he hath read in Latin or in English ; all the which 
 riseth upon the words of the Book of Service, which are that 
 the minister should stand ' in the accustomed place.' For there- 
 upon the minister in saying morning and evening prayer sitteth 
 in the chancel with his back to the people, as though he had 
 some secret talk with God, which the people might not hear. 
 And hereupon it is likewise, that after morning prayer, for 
 saying another number of prayers he climbeth up to the further 
 end of the chancel, and runneth as far from the people as the wall 
 will let him, as though there were some variance between the 
 people and the minister, or as though he were afraid of some 
 infection of plague. And indeed it reneweth the memory of the 
 
 1 Ectfesiastical Polity, v. 30. 4.
 
 A CHARGE. 65 
 
 Levitical priesthood, which did withdraw himself from the 
 people into the place called the holiest place, where he talked 
 with God, and offered for the sins of the people. 
 
 " Likewise for marriage he cometh hack again into the body 
 of the church, and for baptism unto the church door. What 
 comeliness, what decency, what edifying is this ? Decency, I 
 say, in running and trudging from place to place : edifying, in 
 standing in that place, and after that sort, where he can worst 
 be heard and understanded. S. Luke sheweth that in the 
 primitive Church both the prayers and preachings, and the 
 whole exercise of religion, was done otherwise. For he sheweth 
 how S. Peter, sitting amongst the rest, to the end he might be 
 better heard, rose, and not that only, but that he stood in the 
 midst of the people, that his voice might, as much as might be, 
 come indifferently to all their ears ; and so standing both 
 prayed and preached. Now if it be said, for the chapters and 
 litany there is commandment given that they should be read in 
 the body of the Church, indeed it is true ; and thereof is easily 
 perceived this disorder, which is in saying the rest of the 
 prayers partly in the hither end, and partly in the further end of 
 the chancel. For seeing that those are read in the body of the 
 Church, that the people may both hear and understand what is 
 read ; what should be the cause why the rest should be read 
 further off? unless it be that either things are not to be heard of 
 them, or at least not so necessary for them to be heard as the 
 other, which are recited in the body or midst of the Church." 
 
 The brevity of Hooker's reply, it may in passing be well to 
 observe, would perhaps surprise some persons in these days, who 
 have Hooker's name often on their lips. He speaks of the oppo- 
 nents as " finding great fault that we neither reform the thing 
 against the which they have so long sithence given sentence, nor 
 yet make answer unto that they bring, which is that S. Luke 
 
 declaring, etc that the custom which we use is Levitical, 
 
 absurd, and such as hindereth the understanding of the people ; 
 that if it be meet for the minister at some time to look towards 
 the people, if the body of the Church be a fit place for some part 
 of divine service, it must needs follow that whensoever his face is 
 turned any other way, or anything done any other where, it hath 
 absurdity. ' All these reasons ' they say have been brought, and 
 
 E
 
 66 A CHARGE. 
 
 hitherto were never answered ; besides a number of merriments 
 and jests unanswered likewise, wherewith they have pleasantly 
 moved much laughter at our manner of serving God. Such is 
 their evil hap to play upon dull-spirited men. We are still per- 
 suaded, that a bare denial is answer sufficient to things which 
 mere fancy objecteth ; and that the best apology to words of 
 scorn and petulancy is Isaac's apology to his brother Ishmael, 
 the apology which patience and silence maketh. Our answer, 
 therefore, to their reasons is no ; to their scoffs nothing." 
 
 This passage of Hooker shows plainly enough what was the 
 real point at issue between the Church party and the Puritans. 
 The " altarwise " arrangement which they objected to was the 
 position of the Table at "the further end of the Chancel," 
 against the East wall. He further recognises the saying of the 
 other prayers "in the hither end," still of the Cbancel, not "in 
 the body of the Church," like the lessons and litany. And 
 Hooker's controversy derives illustration from a curious account 
 given by Strype of the conflict in an Essex parish. The parish 
 minister concerned was one Eichard Kechyn; and the parish 
 was Stisted, one of the Archbishop's Peculiars in the deanery 
 of Booking. "The Dean of Booking, who, I think, was Mr. 
 Cole," says Strype, in his Life of Parker (i. 304), " having 
 some jurisdiction over Kechyn and some other ministers there- 
 abouts, had charged him and the rest not to turn their faces to the 
 high altar in service-saying ; which was a new charge and not 
 given before. . . . Upon this occasion, the said minister thought 
 convenient to acquaint Pearson, the Archbishop's Almoner and 
 Chaplain, with these things, to impart them to the Archbishop, 
 that he might have his counsel and direction. He told the 
 Almoner, in a letter to him, what his practice was ; that, though 
 he turned his face upward" — that is, of course, eastward, 
 towards the upper part of the Chancel — " as he had done hitherto, 
 yet his Church was small, and his voice might be heard. The 
 Litany he said in the body of the Church ; and when he said 
 the service, he kept the chancel, and turned his face to the east ;" 
 (the Archbishop, it appears, " upon his admission had charged 
 him to follow the orders and rules appointed and established by law, 
 and to make no variation, whatsoever others should or might do, 
 or persuade him to the contrary ") ; " and that he was not zealous
 
 A CHARGE. 67 
 
 ia setting forth predestination. And for these matters they 
 were much offended with him. He beseeched the Almoner, 
 therefore, to let him understand his Grace's mind in the opinions 
 above rehearsed. . . . That he would do nothing against his 
 lawful Ordinary's mind. . . . That in such cases he depended 
 upon them that had authority to alter ceremonies ; and not upon 
 the new brethren that seemed and would be thought to have 
 authority, but had none. Further that he would gladly learn 
 what articles his Grace caused to be inquired of in his Visita- 
 tion ; because the Dean, their visitor, had every year a new 
 scroll of articles. And this, of charging all men not to turn 
 their faces to the high altar, was one ; which he called a ' new 
 charge.' " 
 
 This little piece of history throws light on the passage of 
 Hooker, just quoted ; and gives a good idea of the contrast and 
 conflict, in those days, between the "conformable" and the 
 "non-conformist" mind. Mr. Kechyn would entirely have 
 agreed with Hooker's principles and practices. And these two 
 passages may help to explain what seems somewhat difficult of 
 interpretation in the Rubric respecting the position of the Holy 
 Table. " The Table," it is ordered, " at the Communion-time 
 having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the Body 
 of the Church, or in the Chancel ichere Morning and Evening 
 Prayer are appointed to be said" The Morning and Evening 
 Prayer were appointed to be said in the Chancel ; and this 
 wording of the Rubric would seem to have been intended to 
 harmonise usages and preferences at variance with each other 
 having in view the convenience of the worshippers, and their 
 more easy taking part in the Service, yet without upsetting the 
 established order, for the Chancels to " remain as they have 
 done in times past." 
 
 When the Puritans obtained their will, and triumphantly 
 carried it out, in the sense of the Genevan Reformation, it was 
 not a simple turning of the Communion Tables East and West, 
 instead of North and South, that they desired and effected. In 
 Hooker's parish of Bishopsbourne, when a Puritan got posses- 
 sion of his parsonage, " it was not long," says Izaac Walton, 
 " before this intruding minister had made a party in and about 
 the said parish, that were desirous to receive the Sacrament as 
 
 E 2
 
 68 A CHARGE. 
 
 in Geneva : to which end the day was appointed for a select 
 company, and forms and stools set about the Altar or Communion- 
 Table for them to sit and eat and drink." This was what was in 
 view, in the Puritan objection to the " altar-wise " position ; 
 but, meanwhile, which point of the compass, or which direction 
 in the Church the Table took, was with them a very sub- 
 ordinate matter. And indeed, as I conceive, it is an entire 
 mistake to identify the Genevan doctrine and system with the 
 lengthwise — or east and west — position of the Table. In the 
 Church of the Walloon congregation in the crypt of Canterbury 
 Cathedral, there is, to this day, the table at the West end of the 
 church, with a bench all round it for the communicants to sit 
 at ; but the table stands across the church, north and south. In 
 John a Lasco's order of service, the minister, if I mistake not, sat 
 in the middle of the table, with the communicants on either hand, 
 the table being placed across. And I believe this has been the 
 usual arrangement in the places of worship of congregations 
 following the Genevan rite, or other systems of a kindred 
 character. The Communion pew, I believe, contained a table 
 set across the building, not lengthwise between the seats. 
 
 Of the symbolical import, the natural fitness, of different 
 positions and postures in Divine worship and the ministry of 
 the Word and sacraments, as it was appointed in the truly 
 Catholic-minded order of his mother, the Church of England, as 
 distinguished from Papal and Puritan innovations, none had a 
 deeper sense than the "judicious" Hooker. 
 
 " When we make profession of our faith," said he, " we stand ; 
 when we acknowledge our sins, or seek unto God for favour, we 
 fall down : because the gesture of constancy becometh us best in 
 the one, in the other the behaviour of humility. Some parts 
 of our liturgy consist in the reading of the word of God and the 
 proclaiming of his law, that the people may thereby learn what 
 their duties are towards him ; some consist in words of praise 
 and thanksgiving, whereby we acknowledge unto God what his 
 blessings are towards us ; some are such as, albeit they serve to 
 singular good purpose even when there is no Communion 
 administered, being devised at first for that purpose, are at the 
 Table of the Lord for that cause also commonly read ; some are 
 uttered as from the people, some as with them unto God, some 
 as from God unto them, all as before his sight whom we fear,
 
 A CHARGE. 69 
 
 and whose presence to attend with any the least unseemliness 
 we would be surely as loth as they who most reprehend or deride 
 that we do." 
 
 We find, at the same time, Hooker prefacing these words of 
 Christian piety and Catholic wisdom with others not less pious 
 or less wise, when he said, " The next question whereunto we 
 are drawn is, whether it be a thing allowable or no that the 
 minister should say service in the chancel, or turn his face at 
 any time from the people, and before service ended remove 
 from the place where it was begun. By those who trouble us 
 with such doubts we would now willingly be resolved of a greater 
 doubt ; whether it be not a kind of taking God's name in vain 
 to debase religion with such frivolous disputes, a sin to bestow 
 time and labour upon them. Things of so mean regard and 
 quality, although necessary to be ordered, are notwithstanding 
 very unsavoury when they come to be disputed of: because 
 disputation presupposeth some difficulty in the matter which is 
 argued, whereas in things of this nature they must be either 
 very simple or very froward who need to be taught by disputa- 
 tion what is meet " 
 
 " To let go this " kind of question " as a matter scarce worth 
 the speaking of; whereas," said Hooker, "if fault be in these 
 tilings anywhere justly found, law hath referred the whole dis- 
 position and redress thereof to the Ordinary of the place ; they 
 which elsewhere complain that disgrace and ' injury ' is offered 
 even unto the meanest parish minister, when the magistrate 
 appointeth him wbat to wear, and leaveth not so small a matter 
 as that to his own discretion, being presumed a man discreet 
 and trusted with the care of the people's souls, do think the 
 gravest prelates in the land no competent judges to discern and 
 appoint where it is fitting for the minister to stand, or which way 
 convenient to look praying. From their Ordinary, therefore, they 
 appeal to themselves. ..." It were well if the Puritans of 
 Hooker's time had no followers now-a-days in this resj>ect — an 
 unapostolical " succession," if not of doctrine, at least of practice ; 
 reappearing sometimes amongst us in a garb which strangely 
 resembles the mantle of their Puritan predecessors, though not 
 always cut after the same precise shape, or reflecting exactly 
 the same colour. 
 
 It may appear, perhaps, to the reader of these Notes, as well
 
 70 A CHARGE. 
 
 as to the writer, that enough has now been said on the " altar- 
 wise " and " tablewise " position ; but so much elaborate argu- 
 ment has been grounded on the presumed state of the case and 
 its important bearings, setting aside, to all intents and purposes, 
 the present Rubric and its traditional — and, I must think, its 
 natural and right — interpretation, that we are compelled to 
 follow on the discussion from Hooker to the next generation. 
 
 Before, however, we take leave of the days of Hooker and 
 the reign of Elizabeth, a few words must be said, in regard to 
 the Cathedral of Canterbury, in explanation, if so be, of a usage 
 which appears perhaps, at first sight, not easy of interpretation. 
 It has been said, in reference to Queen Elizabeth's Injunction, 
 that " the varieties of ritual to which it gave rise were even 
 more salient than those which have disturbed public opinion in 
 our own time. At one extremity stood the Queen's Chapel, in 
 which there can be no doubt that the altar ever maintained 
 its position at the east end of the building. Canterbury Cathe- 
 dral came next, with a combination," so it is said, " nothing less 
 than ludicrous of the higher and the Puritan ceremonials, as we 
 find in a description in Strype's Memorials of Parker, of the 
 state of things there at the commencement of 1565 : 
 
 " ' The Common Prayer daily through the year, though there 
 be no Communion, is sung at the Communion Table, standing 
 north and south, where the high altar did stand. The Minister 
 when there is no Communion, useth a surplice only, standing on 
 the cast side of the table with his face toward the people. 
 
 " ' The Holy Communion is ministered ordinarily the first 
 Sunday of every month throughout the year. At which time 
 the table is set east and icest. The Priest which ministereth, 
 the Presbyter and Gospeler, at that time wear copes.' 
 
 " Next came the churches," we are told, " in which atten- 
 tion was paid to the Injunction, but in which no vestment was 
 iised • and lastly those in which the Lord's Table was never 
 placed ultarwise. So matters dragged on through the reign of 
 Elizabeth." 
 
 Antecedently, however, it would appear somewhat improbable, 
 or at least extraordinary, that there should have been a " com- 
 bination, nothing less than ludicrous," of the Puritan with the
 
 A CHARGE. 71 
 
 higher Church ceremonial, in the metre-political church of the 
 province, at the very time when Archbishop Parker, having 
 received the Queen's letters on which the book of Advertise- 
 ments was founded, had entered vigorously upon the work of 
 seeming Church order and uniformity everywhere. The 
 " description " which we find in Strype is, in truth, nothing less 
 than the " certificate, official and formal, made to the Arch- 
 bishop's Commissary " in answer to a letter from the Arch- 
 bishop. " It was mentioned above," says Strype, " how that in 
 January last, upon the Queen's letters to our Archbishop for 
 establishing the uniformity, he had required of every Bishop a 
 certificate to be sent him up concerning their respective Clergy's 
 manners and behaviour, their doctrine, and conformity to the 
 rites and Ceremonies of the Church. He also sent his letter to 
 his own cathedral church for that purpose. And this was the 
 certificate made to the Archbishop's Commissary thereupon. 
 
 " Christ's Church, Cant. The certificate of the Vice-Dean of 
 the cathedral and metropolitical Church of Christ in Canter- 
 bury, and the Prebendaries of the same here present. After 
 due consultation had upon the copy of a letter directed from the 
 Most reverend Father in God, Matthew, Lord Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, unto you his Grace's Commissary, containing the 
 Queen's Highness pleasure and commandment for special regard 
 to be had to the Clergy, within the province for their conformity 
 in doctrine, and uniformity in rites and ceremonies of the Church, 
 and for their private manners, usages, and behaviour, according 
 to the tenor of the said letters : we do make our Certificate for 
 the state of our Church touching the premises in the manner and 
 form following : 
 
 " First, we do certify that there is no doctrine taught, etc. 
 
 " The Common Prayer, etc., as above. 
 
 " The holy Communion is ministered, etc. (as above). And 
 none are suffered then to tarry within that chancel but the 
 Communicants. 
 
 " For the ministering of the Communion we use bread by the 
 Queen's Highness Injunctions." 
 
 " Which was to resemble the singing-cakes, which served 
 formerly for the use of private Masses," says the marginal note 
 in Strype.
 
 72 A CHAKGE. 
 
 It would seem clear that everything in the Metre-political 
 Cathedral was, professedly and actually, according to the duly 
 appointed order of the "higher ceremonial." The " second 
 service," as it was afterwards called, appears to have been 
 " sung " daily ; only the Minister stood on the East side of 
 the Table ; meeting, so far, apparently the difficulty of being 
 heard by the whole congregation in the long and large choir of 
 the Cathedral ; yet guilty therein of no " Puritan " usage of a 
 table in the midst, but rather following, if anything, the primitive 
 basilican arrangement which has of late been somewhat pressed 
 upon us, and which is the usage of S. Peter's at Eome ; the 
 table standing north and south ; not close to the eastern wall, 
 indeed, but in the place " where the high altar stood." At the 
 time of Communion, at the monthly celebration, there was, as 
 it would appear, no bringing of the Table down, in conformity 
 with Puritan practice : the Table was only turned east and west, 
 the Priest, be it observed, standing in the accustomed place in 
 regard to the Table, and on the North side, in conformity with 
 the rubric. The Cathedral authorities were acting, apparently, 
 on the liberty given by the Queen's Injunctions in regard to 
 the placing of the Table, yet without moving it or bringing it 
 down from the upper end of the chancel ; the Celebrant also 
 turning to the Table ; and the communicants according to the 
 rubric placed conveniently, and near at hand, so that the 
 Minister so standing might be well heard. This, I apprehend, 
 is the true interpretation of the usages reported in the Dean 
 and Chapter's certificate. There is not the slightest reason to 
 suppose that Parker had anything to correct therein, in regard 
 to due order and ivniformity. All was manifestly in conformity 
 with the " higher ceremonial." The certificate went on to say, 
 
 " The Evening Prayer in the winter is between three and four ; 
 in summer between four and five of the clock in the afternoon. 
 At which prayers Mr. Dean, when he is here, and every of the 
 Prebendaries, are present every day once at the least, appareled, 
 in the choir. And when they preach, with surplice and silk hoods. 
 
 " The preachers being at home, come to the Common Prayer 
 on Sundays and holydays, wearing surplices and hoods." 
 
 And in like manner of " the Petty Canons, the Lay Clerks, 
 and Choristers, wearing surplices in the choir daily," etc.
 
 A CHARGE. 73 
 
 The certificate bears the signature of seven prebendaries, the 
 last being " Andrew Peerson," the Archbishop's own Almoner 
 and Chaplain, already named in the Stisted story. In the 
 following year, the Archbishop himself visited Canterbury, at 
 Whitsuntide, the Dean and Clerks administering the holy Com- 
 munion on Whitsunday ; on Trinity Sunday " the Archbishop 
 himself administered the mystic bread unto the people." There 
 was, therefore, really no combination of Puritan practice in the 
 celebration at the Holy Table in the choir of Canterbury Cathe- 
 dral ; the foreign Protestants meanwhile, as has been already 
 shown, setting their Table across, not lengthwise, in their church 
 in the crypt. Thus much as regards the Metropolitical Cathedral. 
 It is hardly just, or true, meanwhile, in regard to Archbishop 
 Parker and Whitgift, to speak of matters as "dragging on 
 through the reign of Elizabeth." The very next chapter — the 
 third book — in Strype's Life of Parker begins thus : " The 
 Archbishop was now arrived to the sixty-first year of his age ; 
 and all the remainder of his days from hence to his grave was 
 imbittered by the labours and pains he had with such as would 
 not comply with the established rites and orders of the Church." 
 
 Much, of course, depended upon the tendencies of the indi- 
 vidual Primates and Bishops ; Grindal would relax, where Whit- 
 gift again would be more strict. But what is important to 
 observe is, that the disorder arose out of a misuse of the liberty 
 which was given ; there was no order of the Church, as seems 
 now very commonly supposed, for a lengthwise position of the 
 Table in the body of the Church. The Church's order was that 
 if, for convenience sake, it were removed at the time of Com- 
 munion, it should be carried back to its place. It would easily 
 happen that idleness or carelessness would neglect this ; and so 
 there came to be too generally the practice which rested mean- 
 while upon no law or order of the Church. We find Bishop 
 Middleton, of St. David's, in 1583, while he enjoins that, " for 
 the better edifying and hearing of the people in the ordinary ser- 
 vice, the Minister shall always stand, either in the body of the 
 Church, or at the least in the lower end of the Chancel (where 
 commonly the seat of the Minister is), with his face always 
 turned down unto the people, and thence reverently, distinctly,
 
 74 A CHARGE. 
 
 and with a loud voice, reading the said service," has, amidst all 
 his anti-Romish cautions, another injunction ordering, "when 
 there is a Communion to be ministered, that the Communion 
 Table be placed as near unto the people as may be convenient, 
 and ichen the ministration is done, remove it to the upper end of the 
 said Chancel." 
 
 To proceed now with the history. The greatest stress has 
 been laid by parties differing very much from each other, on the 
 fact, or supposed fact, already referred to, that the Rubric con- 
 templated, or applied to, a totally different state of things from 
 that now existing, inasmuch as the Table stood, and was ordered 
 to stand, lengthwise in the church, east and west. To one 
 writer this appears to " make some slight alteration " of the Rubric 
 necessary ; others think it supersedes, or, in fact, nullifies practi- 
 cally, the mention of the North-side ; so that the nearest 
 approach to an observance of the Rubric now is to stand on the 
 West-side ! We find ourselves meanwhile, carried back into the 
 midst of the controversy in the reign of Charles I. in regard to 
 Altar and Table, " side " and " end." The history, stated as 
 briefly as may be, of the paper controversy, is this. The Vicar 
 of Grantham had set the Table in his church against the East 
 wall. This produced a " Letter written to the Yicar of Gr. (sic.) 
 against the placing of the Communion Table at the East-end of 
 the chancel." This, as has already been observed, was the gist 
 of the question. The letter was anonymous, but was written 
 by his Diocesan, Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, and Dean of 
 Westminster. He began by telling the vicar, " When I spake 
 with you last, I told you that the standing of the Communion 
 Table was with me a thing so indifferent that, unless offence 
 and umbrages were taken by the town against it, I should never 
 move it, nor remove it." However, an alderman did complain ; 
 and thereupon the Bishop gave directions to the churchwardens. 
 He commends the vicar, so far, that he " presidents " himself with 
 the form in his Majesty's Chapels and the quires of Cathedral 
 Churches ; adding the qualification, " if your quire, as those 
 others, could contain the whole congregation." Here, as before, 
 we see that the hearing was a main point in view. " These 
 things," says Bishop Williams, " I do allow and practise. But 
 that you should be so violent and earnest for an altar at the 
 upper end of the quire ; that the Table ought to stand altarwise :
 
 A CHARGE. 75 
 
 that the fixing thereof in the quire is canonical, and that it 
 ought not to be removed to the body of the church ; I conceive 
 to be in you so many mistakings." First he speaks about Altar 
 and Table; and then proceeds. " For the second point, that your 
 Communion Table is to stand Altar-wise, if you mean in that place 
 of the chancel where the Altar stood, I think somewhat maybe said 
 for that; because the Injunctions, 1559, did so place it ; and I 
 conceive it to be the most decent situation, when it is not used ; 
 and for use too, where the quire is mounted up by steps, and 
 open, so that he that officiates may he seen and heard of all the 
 congregation. Such an one, I hear, your chancel is not. But 
 if you mean by Altar-ioise, that the Table should stand along close 
 by the tvall, so as you be forced to officiate at one end thereof 
 (as you may have observed in great men's chapels;) I do not 
 believe that ever the Communion Tables were (otherwise than 
 by casualty) so placed in country churches. For besides that 
 the country people would suppose them dressers, rather than 
 tables ; and that Queen Elizabeth's Commissioners for causes 
 Ecclesiastical directed that the Table should stand, not where 
 the Altar, but where the steps of the Altar formerly stood 
 (Orders, 1561) ; the Minister appointed to read the Communion 
 ... is directed to read the Commandments not at the end but at 
 the North-side of the Table, which implies the end to be placed 
 towards the East great window. (Rubric before the Communion.) 
 . . . What you saw in chapels or Cathedral Churches is not the 
 point in question ; but how the Tables are appointed to be placed 
 in parish Churches. In some of the chapels and Cathedrals, 
 the altars may be still standing, for ought I know ; or, to make 
 use of their covers and ornaments, Tables may be placed in their 
 room of the same length and fashion the altars were of. We 
 know the altars stand still in Lutheran Churches . . . and 
 it seems the Queen's Commissioners were content they should 
 stand, as we may guess by the Injunctions, 1559. But how is 
 this to be understood ? The sacrifice of the altar abolished, 
 these (call them what you will) are no more altars, but tables of 
 stone or timber. . . . And so may well be used in kings' and 
 bishops' houses, where there are no people so void of under- 
 standing as to be scandalised. For, upon the orders of breaking 
 down altars, all Dioceses did agree upon receiving Tables, but 
 not upon the fashion of some of the Tables. (Acts and Monu-
 
 76 A CHARGE. 
 
 ments, p. 1212.) Besides that, in the Old Testament, one and the 
 same thing is termed an altar and a table ; an altar in respect 
 of what is there offered unto God, or table in respect of what is 
 there participated by men. So you have God's altar, the very 
 same with God's table in Malachi i. 7. The place is worth 
 the marking. . . . 
 
 " Lastly, that your Table should stand in the higher part of 
 the Church, you have my assent already in opinion : but that it 
 should be there fixed is so far from being canonical, that it is 
 directly against the Canon. For what is the rubric of the 
 Church but a Canon ? And the rubric saith, it ' shall stand in 
 the body of the Church, or of the Chancel where Morning 
 prayer and Evening prayer be appointed to be said.' If there- 
 fore Morning prayer and Evening prayer be appointed to be 
 read in the body of the Church (as in most country Churches 
 it is), where shall the Table stand most canonically ? And so 
 is the Table made removable, when the Communion is to be 
 celebrated, to such place, &c. (Injunctions, 1559.) And so saith 
 the Canon in force. . . . (Can. 82.) . . . The sum of all is 
 this : 
 
 " 1. You may not erect an altar, where the Canons only 
 admit a Communion Table. 
 
 " 2. This Table must not stand altarwise, and you at the 
 North end thereof, but tablewise, as you must officiate at 
 the North side of the same. 
 
 " 3. This Table ought to be laid up (decently covered) in the 
 Chancel only, as I suppose, but ought not to be officiated upon, 
 either in the first or second Service (as you distinguish), but in 
 that place of the Church or Chancel where you may be seen 
 and heard of all. Though peradventure you be with him in 
 Tacitus, master of your own, yet are you not of other men's ears, 
 and therefore your parishioners must be judges of your audible- 
 ness in this case. 
 
 " Whether side soever (you or your parish) shall yield to the 
 other, in this needless controversy, shall remain, in my poor 
 judgment, the more discreet, grave, and learned of the two. 
 And by that time you have gained some more experience in the 
 cure of souls, you shall find no such ceremony as Christian 
 charity, which I recommend unto you, and am ever, etc."
 
 A CHARGE. 77 
 
 This is the outline of Bishop Williams' Letter ; it is not very- 
 easy to describe its views and principles. There must be no 
 " altar " erected ; yet " altar " and " table " were, in fact, per- 
 fectly reconcileable terms : the Table might stand against the 
 East wall, if only it stood East and West ; for the North end 
 must by no means be treated as the North side; the Table 
 might stand at the upper end of the Chancel, if the officiating 
 minister could be seen there, and the Service be heard from 
 thence ; the controversy ought to cease, and the side that 
 yielded woidd be not only " the more discreet, and grave," but 
 the more " learned, of the two." 
 
 The Bishop of Lincoln and Dean of Westminster, already 
 holding the office of Lord Keeper, to which he had been 
 appointed in 1621 (July 10), had been living in the atmosphere 
 of the courts of law and special pleaders, rather than in that of 
 the Episcopal administration of Church order. It is in the 
 capacity of Lord Keeper, as has been well observed, " that he is 
 known to us in his portraits, with his official hat on his head, 
 and the Great Seal by his side ; " l and " the astonishment pro- 
 duced by this unwonted elevation — his own incredible labours 
 to meet the exigencies of the office — must be left," says the 
 Dean, " to his biographer." To the office of Lord Keeper was 
 added in a few months (Nov. 16, 1621) that of Bishop of 
 Lincoln, " the largest diocese in the land." " Nor did he only 
 keep the bishoprick of Lincoln and the deanery of Westminster,'' 
 says Heylyn, " but also a residentiary 's place in the Church 
 of Lincoln, the prebend of Asgarve (sic), and parsonage of 
 Walgrave [in Northamptonshire] ; so that he was a whole 
 diocese in himself, as being Parson, Prebend, Dignitary, Dean, 
 and Bishop ; and all five in one." So that " in the eyes of his 
 enemies," as has been said, " he was a kind of ecclesiastical 
 monster." His Episcopal utterances were of a somewhat 
 remarkable kind. We have seen what was his first semi-official, 
 and at the same time anonymous, Letter to the Vicar of Grantham. 
 This produced, some time afterwards (1636), from the cloisters 
 of Westminster, from the pen of Peter Heylyn, A Coal from 
 the Altar, or, An Answer to a Letter not long since written to the 
 
 1 Dean Stanley's Westminster Abbey, p. 427.
 
 78 A CHARGE. 
 
 Vicar of Grantham against the Placing of the Communion Table 
 at the East-end of the Chancel ; and now of late dispelled abroad to 
 the disturbance of the Church. First sent by a judicious and 
 learned Divine for the satisfaction of his private Friend, and by 
 him commended to the Press for the benefit of others. It came out 
 with the imprimatur of Dr. Samuel Baker, domestic chaplain to 
 the Bishop of London, dated May 5, 1636. It was written, as 
 Heylyn's son-in-law and biographer informs us, at the instiga- 
 tion of Dean (afterwards Bishop) Towers, of Peterborough, and 
 " approved by the King, and by him given to the Bishop of 
 London, to be licensed and published." It filled sixty-six pages, 
 and treated Williams' arguments somewhat unsparingly. About 
 the Altarwise position he says, " Quo teneam nodo ! This is 
 just fast and loose ; and I know not what ; the reconciliation of 
 two contradictions. The Queen's Injunctions," Heylyn goes on 
 to say, " were set out for the reiglement and direction of all the 
 Churches in this kingdom. . . . If in the place where the altar 
 stood, then certainly it must stand along close by the wall, 
 because the altars always stood so ; and that as well in country 
 churches as in great men's chapels, all being equally regarded 
 in the same Injunctions. . . . Whereas in case the Table were to 
 stand with one end toward the East great window .... it could 
 not possibly stand in the place where the altar did, as the 
 Injunctions have appointed." (Laud, whose chaplain and friend 
 Heylyn was, it may be observed, used the same argument : to 
 set the Table east and west, he said, " had been across the place 
 where the altar stood, and not in it.") " And would the people, 
 Heylyn goes on to ask, " take the Table, if placed altarwise, to be 
 a ' dresser,' not a Table ? I now perceive," he says, " from 
 whom Mr. Prynne borrowed so unmannerly and profane a 
 phrase. . . . Just in that scornful sort, Doctor Weston, the 
 then Dean of Westminster, did in a conference with Bishop 
 Latimer call the Communion Tables .... by the name of 
 oyster boards. . . . The like did Doctor White, the then Bishop 
 of Lincoln, in a conference with Bishop Eidley." " A slovenly 
 and scornful term, as before was said, and such as doth deserve 
 no other answer than what the marginal notes in the Acts and 
 Monuments give in the one place to the Dean of Westminster, 
 viz. ' The blasphemous mouth of Doctor Weston, calling the
 
 A CHARGE. 79 
 
 Lord's Table an oyster board,' (page 85), or wbat they give in 
 the other place to the Bishop of Lincoln ; viz. ' Bishop White 
 blasphemously called the Board of the Lord's Supper an oyster 
 table ' (page 497). I would there were no worse notes in the 
 Acts and Monuments." Heylyn, no doubt, with no small satis- 
 faction, exhibited these names to the anonymous letter writer. 
 
 The argument about North-side and North-end he fully 
 answers, and goes through the letter to the Vicar of Grant- 
 ham ; adding the Order in Council (Nov. 3, 1633) in the case 
 of S. Gregory's Church (near S. Paul's), which, he shows, 
 simply sanctioned the action of the Ordinary ; pronouncing, as it 
 did, that " for so niuch as concerns the liberty given by the 
 said Common Book or Canon, for placing the Communion 
 Table in any Church or Chapel with most conveniency, that 
 liberty is not so to be understood as if it were ever left to the 
 discretion of the parish, much less to the particular fancy of 
 any humorous person, but to the judgment of the Ordinary, to 
 whose place and function it doth properly belong, to give 
 direction on that point, both of the thing itself, and for the 
 time and how long, as he may find cause." Subjoined was- A 
 Copy of the Letter written to the Vicar of Grantham. 
 
 This letter of Heylyn's produced in the year following, from 
 Bishop Williams' pen, a volume of two hundred and forty pages 
 — his biographer, Hacket, calls it " a little tractate " — Tlie 
 Holy Table, Name and Thing, etc., written long ago by a Minister 
 in Lincolnshire, in answer to D. Goal, a judicious Divine of 
 Q. Mary's days. . . . Printed for the Diocese of Lincoln, 1637. 
 And the book appeared with the following extraordinary 
 imprimatur : " I have read and thoroughly perused a book 
 called The Holy Table, Name and Thing, etc., written by some 
 Minister of this Diocese ; and do conceive it to be most 
 orthodox in doctrine, and consonant in discipline, to the Church 
 of England ; and to set forth the King's powers and rights, in 
 matters ecclesiastical, truly and judiciously ; and very fit to be 
 printed ; and do allow and approve of the same treatise to be 
 printed and published in any place or places where as Ordinary 
 I am enabled and licensed so to do. And in writing hereof I 
 have subscribed my name, the last day of November, Jo. Lincoln, 
 Deano of Westminster."
 
 80 A CHARGE. 
 
 The imaginary D. Coal, the "judicious Divine of Q. Mary's 
 days," it will be borne in mind, was intended to call up the 
 memory of the Dr. Cole who preached the Sermon at Cranmer's 
 death, and held divers offices, and took a prominent part on the 
 Papist side, through Queen Mary's reign, and in the first days 
 of Elizabeth. Williams' biographer, Bishop Hacket, has at 
 great length " cleared the rise of the controversy " which he 
 lamented. " This the Colleges of Eome would have," he says, 
 — fully alive as he was to all that might be felt and pleaded on 
 either side of the controversy, — " to see us warm in petty 
 wrangliDgs, and remiss in great causes. . . . "Woe be to the 
 authors of such Cadmaean wars. ... A most unnecessary gap 
 made in the vineyard, through which both the wild boar, our 
 foreign enemy, and the little foxes at home may enter in to 
 spoil the grapes. Plutarch * tells me of a contention between 
 the Osyndrites and Cynopolites, who went to war for the killing 
 of a fish, which one of the factions accounted to be a sacred 
 creature ; and when they were weakened with slaughter on both 
 sides .... in fine, the Romans overrun them, and made them 
 their slaves. Let the story be to them that hates (qu. hate) us, 
 and the interpretation fall upon our enemies." 
 
 Some twenty pages of his book Bishop Williams occupies 
 with argumentation on the North side and North end question, 
 of which this may serve as a sufficient specimen : " A side in the 
 English tongue is a long length (as the side of a man, from 
 whence the word is derived, is the longest length of a man), and 
 the two sides of a long square, the two long lengths of that 
 square ; which to the world's end will never be proved to be 
 that square's end" 
 
 " No sooner the King heard of this new book, but he sent a 
 command to Dr. Heylyn to write a speedy answer to it, and not 
 in the least to spare the Bishop." " And he obeyed the royal 
 command, in the space of seven weeks presenting it ready 
 printed, .... and called it Antidotum Lincolniense." It ap- 
 peared with his name, as Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty, 
 to whom it was dedicated, with a " Preface to the grave, learned, 
 and religious Clergy of the Diocese of Lincoln," dated " West- 
 
 1 Lib. De Is. ct Osyr.
 
 A CHARGE. 81 
 
 minster, May 10, 1637." " And though the Bishop's book was 
 (from the dissatisfaction of the times, the subject-matter of the 
 book itself, and the religious esteem of the author, who was held 
 in high veneration) looked upon as unanswerable, and sold for 
 no less than 4s., yet upon the coming out of the answer, it was 
 brought to less than one." 
 
 Bishop Hacket, Archbishop Williams' faithful friend and 
 biographer, has brought forward all that wit, or charity, or 
 ingenuity could suggest in behalf of his patron's anonymous 
 publications ; but ends it by saying, " So far, if not too far, upon 
 the Bishop's Letter and his book The Holy Table, .... and I 
 will listen to Sidonius ' : ' Post mortem non opuscula, sed opera 
 pensanda.' We are to consider after a good man's death his 
 works of bounty and mercy, rather than his books of con- 
 troversy." 2 He repeats the quotation in the last page of the 
 Life (p. 230). He had told us that, when the Antidotam appeared, 
 the Bishop, he knew, " was making his notes ready to vindicate 
 his book, and was resolved, as the Italian proverb runs, to give 
 his adversary cake for bread." But " he was prevented by his 
 cause in Star Chamber, which was brought to hearing in the 
 same month that the Antidotum came abroad. His imprisonment 
 lasted three years (1637-1640). Soon after followed his second 
 committal to the Tower (1641), with twelve other Bishops, on 
 their " protest against their violent exclusion from the House of 
 Lords," which he had drawn up hastily, " in a state of fury " at 
 the insults of the mob. He " had just received from the King 
 the prize so long coveted, but now too late for enjoyment, of the 
 see of York. . . . The Chapter Book " at Westminster " contains 
 only two signatures of Williams as Archbishop of York : one 
 immediately before his imprisonment, Dec. 21, 1641 ; one im- 
 mediately after his release, May 18, 1642. This must have 
 been his last appearance, in the scene of so many interests and 
 so many conflicts, in Westminster. He left the capital to follow 
 the King to York, and never returned." 3 
 
 He survived not many months the beheading of the King, of 
 whose " conscience " it had once been his office to be the 
 " keeper ; " and who, in the case of Lord Strafford, had sad 
 
 1 Lib. viii. c. i. 2 Life, p. 110. 3 Stanley's Westminster, p. 481. 
 
 F
 
 82 A CHARGE. 
 
 experience of what Clarendon calls " the argumentation of that 
 unhappy casuist, who truly it may be did believe himself," in the 
 refined distinctions which he drew between the king's " public " 
 and " private conscience ; " telling him " it would be very 
 strange if his conscience should prefer to surrender the right of 
 one single private person, how innocent soever, before all those 
 other lives and the preservation of his kingdom." l Williams 
 had already seen the execution of the brother Archbishop, to 
 whom he had been so vehemently opposed. He had lived also to 
 see the carrying out, in Westminster Abbey, of the full results 
 of that which alone — as has already been said — would satisfy 
 the Puritan faction, to whom he had lent the support of his 
 name and dignity, when they talked of the " tablewise" position. 
 "In July 1643," says Dean Stanley, "took place the only 
 actual desecration to which the Abbey was exposed." But, it 
 must be observed, it was a desecration tolerably complete. " It 
 was believed in Eoyalist circles," says the Dean — and I must say 
 I think it was believed on good grounds — " that soldiers were 
 quartered in the Abbey " — " Some soldiers," says the Dean, in 
 a note, " of Washborne and Cawood's companies, perhaps because 
 there were no houses in Westminster," 2 — who burnt the altar- 
 rails, sate on benches round the Communion Table, eating, drinking, 
 smoking, and singing; destroyed the organ, and pawned the 
 pipes for ale in the alehouses; played at hare and hounds in 
 the Church, the hares being the soldiers dressed up in the sur- 
 plices of the Choir ; and turned the Chapels and High Altar to 
 the commonest and basest uses." 3 
 
 We learn that " whilst the monuments and the fabric received 
 but little injury, the ornaments of the Church suffered materially. 
 The Altar, if indeed it ever had been since the Reformation at the 
 east end of the Choir, had in Williams' time been brought into the 
 centre of the Church for the Communion of the House of 
 Commons." I confess to some surprise at this sweeping doubt 
 
 1 History of the Rebellion, book iv. 
 
 2 It does not appear from whom this is quoted. It suggests irre- 
 sistibly tbe questions — " What ? have ye not houses to eat and to drink 
 in ? Or despise ye the Church of God . . . ? " 
 
 3 " Critll, vol. ii. App. ii. p. 14; Mercurius Rusticus, February 1643, 
 p. 153." 

 
 A CHARGE. 83 
 
 on the part of the Dean. 1 If the Abbey is a Royal Peculiar, 
 Queen Elizabeth would certainly not have allowed of any 
 Puritan arrangement there. Further than this, it was admitted 
 on all hands that the " altarwise " position was all but the 
 universal practice in Cathedrals and Royal chapels, etc. ; and 
 not only so, but what gave especial offence to Heylyn in 
 Williams' proceedings was, that all the while " the Communion 
 Table was placed altarwise, not only in the cathedral church of 
 Lincoln, whereof he was Bishop," but also " in the Collegiate 
 church of Westminster, of which he was Dean." Andrewes, it 
 will be borne in mind, had been Dean from 1601-1605 ; and was 
 succeeded by Neale, who was Dean for another five years ; and 
 he by Monteigne, for seven years more ; and Monteigne by 
 Tounson — all of the same school of religious opinion and eccle- 
 siastical principles. It cannot be doubted that it was " in 
 Williams' time," and in his time alone, " that the Table had 
 been brought into the centre of the Church, for the Communion 
 of the House of Commons." The House of Commons had put 
 forth an order, without the concurrence of the Lords (Sept. 8, 
 1611), that the Tables should be removed iuto the body of the 
 Church, and that the rails should be taken away." " The 
 Commons had for some time before communicated in the middle 
 of the church at Westminster Abbey, with the willing permission 
 of the Dean, Bishop Williams." 2 
 
 Heylyn himself, surviving the Troubles, was at hand in 
 
 1 There is another story in regard to the Abbey which, we are told, 
 "Mr. Forster (Statesmen, vol. i.) doubts." "Henry Marten," — such 
 was the story, — " with the malicious humour for which he was noted," 
 — Anthony Wood had said, " with a scorn greater than his lusts and 
 the rest of his vices," — " broke open the huge iron chest in the ancient 
 Chapel of the Treasury, and dragged out the crown, sceptre, sword, and 
 robes, consecrated by the use of sis hundred years ; and put them on 
 George Wither the poet, ' who did first trail about the town with a stately 
 garb, and afterwards, with a thousand apish and ridiculous actions, 
 exposed those sacred ornaments to contempt and laughter.' " (Wood's 
 Ath.) It certainly appears a strange story ; but not so incredible, when 
 we restore the original reading in Anthony Wood, which is, that George 
 Wither " did first inarch about the room with a stately garb," etc. With 
 this modification, I confess I see no reason to doubt the story. 
 
 2 See Nahon, i. 563. 
 
 F 2
 
 84 A CHARGE. 
 
 his prebend at Westminster, when, in 1661, that " Convocation 
 was called by his Majesty's writ," which he had been a prime 
 agent in bringing about, according to the constitutional practice, 
 which he strongly urged ; " and during the time of their sitting 
 (while the Doctor lived) he seldom was without visitors from 
 them, who constantly upon occasion came to him for his advice 
 and direction in matters relating to the Church, because he had 
 himself been an ancient clerk in the old convocations. I hap- 
 pened to be there," says his son-in-law, Dr. Barnard, " when the 
 good Bishop of Durham, Dr. Cosins, came to see him." And 
 among the Bishops there was llacket also, now promoted to the 
 see of Lichfield ; who, with all his regard for his old master, 
 Archbishop Williams, did not, as we have seen, much differ 
 from Archbishop Laud's old chaplain, Heylyn, in regard to the 
 former points of dispute, and the importance to be attached to 
 them. 
 
 The canon, meanwhile, which, in 1641, had lately passed 
 in that elder Convocation, which met and continued its sessions 
 under circumstances so unfortunate, yet in this respect at least 
 with excellent design, will illustrate the history as it has now 
 been traced, and also, by anticipation (it may be added), the 
 latest action of Convocation in the matter. The " declaration " 
 — forming canon 7, of 1640, — " concerning some rites and cere- 
 monies," began thus : 
 
 " Because it is generally to be wished that unity of faith were 
 accompanied with uniformity of practice in the outward worship 
 and service of God ; chiefly for the avoiding of groundless sus- 
 picions of those who are weak, and the malicious aspersions of 
 the professed enemies of our religion ; the one fearing the inno- 
 vations, the other flattering themselves with the vain hope of 
 our backsliding unto their popish superstition, by reason of the 
 situation of the Communion table, and the approaches there- 
 unto, the Synod declareth as followeth : 
 
 " That the standing of the Communion Table sideway under 
 the east window of every chancel or chapel, is in its own nature 
 indifferent, neither commanded nor condemned by the Word of 
 God, either expressly or by immediate deduction, and therefore 
 that no religion is to be placed therein, or scruple to be made 
 thereon. And albeit at the time of reforming this Church from
 
 A CHARGE. 85 
 
 that gross superstition of popery, it was carefully provided that 
 all means should he used to root out of the minds of the people 
 hoth the inclination thereto and memory thereof; especially of 
 the idolatry committed in the mass, for which cause all popish 
 altars were demolished : yet notwithstanding it was then ordered 
 hy the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory, that 
 the Holy Tables should stand in the place where the altars 
 stood, and accordingly have been continued in the royal chapels 
 of three famous and pious princes, and in most cathedral and 
 some parochial churches ; which doth sufficiently acquit the 
 manner of placing the said Tables from any illegality, or just 
 suspicion of popish superstition or innovation. And therefore 
 we judge it fit and convenient that all churches and chapels do 
 conform themselves in this particular to the example of the 
 cathedrals or mother churches, saving always the general liberty 
 left to the bishop by the law, during the time of administration 
 of the Holy Communion. And we declare that this situation of 
 the Holy Table doth not imply that it is, or ought to be 
 esteemed, a true and proper altar, where Christ is again really 
 sacrificed ; but it is, and may be called, an altar by us, in that 
 sense in which the primitive Church called it an altar, and in 
 no other." 
 
 The canon goes on to provide for the decent railing in of 
 Communion Tables in all chancels or chapels, " to preserve them 
 from such, or worse, profanations " as experience had shown 
 they were exposed to from the irreverent behaviour of many 
 people in many places ; " some leaning, others casting their hats, 
 and some sitting upon, some standing, and others sitting under 
 the Communion Table in time of Divine Service. It goes on 
 further to declare that "because the administration of holy 
 things is to be performed with all possible decency and 
 reverence, therefore " the synod judged it " fit and convenient, 
 according to the word of the Service Book established by Act of 
 Parliament, ' Draw near,' etc., that all communicants, with all 
 possible reverence, shall draw near and approach to the holy 
 table, there to receive the divine mysteries, which have hereto- 
 fore in some places been unfitly carried up and down by the 
 minister ; unless it shall be otherwise appointed in respect of 
 the incapacity of the place, or other inconvenience, by the bishop
 
 86 A CHARGE. 
 
 himself in his jurisdiction, and other ordinaries respectively in 
 theirs." 
 
 It may be observed, in regard to this canon, that it gives us a 
 summary view, in the retrospect, of the whole case in regard to the 
 Church's order under the existing .Rubric. Altai's had been 
 taken away, under the conviction that the errors in doctrine 
 and practice which had been connected with them could not be 
 effectually removed, and the Holy Communion, according to 
 Christ's ordinance, be restored, while they existed ; and there- 
 fore Tables were to be put in their place. These were moveable, 
 and the power of moving them seemed necessary in some cases, 
 arranged as the churches and chancels so often were ; and this 
 was to be decided in each case by the bishop, as became an 
 Episcopal Church. There had been made thereby, doubtless, a 
 great opening for individual opinion and various practice ; but 
 however general a departure from what the Church desired had 
 taken place in parish churches, still there had been no order of 
 the Church, as seems now-a-days to be very commonly supposed, 
 requiring a change of place, still less " insisting on " a position 
 lengthwise. The canon, meanwhile, carefully avoided any men- 
 tion of an " altarwise " or " tablewise " position ; it recognised 
 a " sideway " position, obviously north and south, under the East 
 window ; it deprecated a party-spirited interpretation of any 
 position of the Holy Table, or any undue attaching a doctrinal 
 importance to it, or any use of the name " altar " save in the 
 sense of the primitive Church. What was assuredly true and 
 wise and charitable then, and in the interests of peace, — though 
 "the son of peace " was seldom to be found in the house at that 
 disastrous period, — in regard to the position of the Holy Table, 
 is not less true and wise and charitable now, in regard to that 
 which is so closely connected with it, the question of the posi- 
 tion of the Minister. In the resolutions of the synod of 1640, 
 had the times been less " out of joint," there were the principles 
 of unity for those who would " love the truth and peace ; " 
 prospects of peace for the Church, as I would say, in the Prayer 
 Book and its rules, not misused in the liberty they gave, under 
 the lawful authority and fatherly discretion of the Church's 
 appointed rulers.
 
 A CHARGE. 87 
 
 I could wish that we might have passed on at once to the con- 
 clusion of this historical summary, under the aspects of the 
 present time, having already considered the only change, made 
 in the Rubric at the last Review, affecting the question before 
 us, but that there has been started lately a theory taking an 
 entirely novel view of what happened then. Singularly at 
 variance with all established notions in regard to the character 
 of that Review, it has been supposed that the principles of Church 
 order, after a hard conflict, underwent a signal defeat ; and that 
 the results of the triumph of Puritanism are to be traced in the 
 existence of our present Rubric, then unaltered, with inextricable 
 difficulties apparently arising out of it. 
 
 We have the somewhat remarkable circumstance, meanwhile, 
 in the present condition of things, that among those who, it 
 might have been supposed, would be on the side of Laud and 
 Heylyn and Cosin, are found resolute supporters of the argu- 
 ments of Williams, and Peter Smart of Durham. While on the 
 one side, then, some would set aside the present Rubric as, on 
 their hypothesis, inapplicable, their opponents have been found 
 holding out something like a threat g that, if any decision were 
 given in such a sense, they would take in hand to enforce the 
 present Rubric, as they interpret it, and insist on placing the 
 Lord's Table lengthwise in the body of the Church. It becomes 
 necessary, therefore — as briefly as may be — to examine the 
 grounds of this theory as to the proceedings at the last 
 Review. 
 
 It is pronounced very positively that our altars now "have 
 no 'North side':" that "they have a North and South end, 
 and an East and West side " : that " a literal obedience to the 
 Rubric is therefore impossible. To reply to this objection 
 by quoting the definition of a parallelogram " — as Laud and 
 Heylyn did against their antagonists — it is pronounced, " is mere 
 trifling." For that " we may be sure that the compilers of the 
 Prayer Book of 1552, when they prescribed the North side, 
 were thinking in the ordinary language of the day, and not in 
 the language of mathematical definitions ; and " that " the ordi- 
 nary language of their day, as of our own, recognises two sides
 
 o» A CHARGE. 
 
 and two ends in an oblong table." Upon which it may be suffi- 
 cient to observe, that whereas, by the Prayer Book of 1549, it 
 had been ordered that the Priest should be " standing humbly 
 afore the midst of the altar," in other words, in front of the 
 altar, by the Prayer Book of 1552 he was ordered to be stand- 
 ing at the side — and that side the North side of the Table. 
 " The ordinary language of the day " would make this perfectly 
 intelligible, whatever were the exact shape of the table. 
 
 " The state of the case as regards the revisionists of 16G2," 
 we are told now, by another contributor to the " mass of con- 
 troversial literature," with undoubting positiveness of assertion, 
 " was as follows : They were quite clear, as their answer to the 
 Puritans shows, that the right position for the altar was at tho 
 East end of the church, and that the Priest ought to be in front 
 of it. But on this question, as on vestments, Puritanism was 
 then in possession. The altars were all table-wise in the body 
 of the church, and their restoration to the ancient position would 
 be a work of time. The Bishops, therefore, left the ' North-side ' 
 Rubric untouched, but they made alterations in the Rubrics 
 where they implied the eastward position of altar and Priest. 
 While the altars were in the body of the church, the North side 
 was still the front ; and the Bishops, being sensible men, pro- 
 bably thought that, when the front was turned to the West 
 instead of to the North, the common sense of the Priest would 
 teach him to follow the front, instead of placing himself at the 
 end — a position which is extremely inconvenient, and which has 
 nothing to recommend it," so we are told, " but an unreasoning 
 prejudice." In answer to this, it is scarcely necessary to repeat 
 that the Bishops' answer to the Puritans does not prove the 
 eastward position of the Priest at the Lord's Table ; that the 
 Bishops, undoubtedly, contemplated and provided for a general 
 adoption of the altarwise position, i. e. against the East wall ; 
 and that the common sense, according to what is plainly to be 
 proved was their view of the matter, would direct the Priest to 
 take his place at the North side, or end (if anyone chose to call 
 it so) ; the "front" of the table being that to which the congrega- 
 tion looked, the back the East wall, and two sides, of the table 
 as of the Chancel, the North and the South. And it is equally 
 clear that they thought they were specially consulting "con-
 
 A CHARGE. 89 
 
 venience" in the arrangements they were making by these 
 Rubrics. 
 
 But it is re-asserted very confidently, that "the North-side 
 cannot be the North-end, for this obvious reason, that the 
 sides and the ends of such a Table are two entirely different 
 things. It is true " — thus much is admitted — " that if one were 
 speaking, mathematically, of a parallelogram, one might say 
 that it had four sides. But speaking practically, and in ordinary 
 language, of an oblong table, we can only say that it has two 
 sides, with two ends." And further, it is argued tLat when, in 
 1552, the Table was ordered to stand, in Communion time, "in 
 such place ... as the people might best hear," " we know from 
 contemporary practice, that this place was supposed to be right 
 down among the congregation, . . . where, of course, it could 
 only stand with its two ends East and West, and with its sides 
 North and South." We are told, " there can be no doubt that 
 the Revisers of 1552 intended by these alterations to symbolise 
 a complete and radical change in the very substance and mean- 
 ing of the Communion Service itself. ... It was scarcely to 
 be wondered at, therefore, that those who held higher views on 
 this subject should do their utmost to get this order of things 
 reversed. And this was attempted," it is said, " by means of 
 Royal and Episcopal Injunctions, and by such devices as 
 inclosing the Holy Table with rails." " There can be little 
 doubt," so it is represented, " that the justice and force of the 
 distinction," which the Puritans had pressed, between the sides 
 and the ends of the Table, " was felt by the High Church party 
 themselves. For we have proof," it is said, " that they did their 
 best to obviate its practical effect by means of new and amended 
 Rubrics." First, we are reminded, there was " the Scottish 
 Prayer Book (1637), probably at the instigation of Archbishop 
 Laud, having manifestly this object in view. It enjoins that 
 ' the Holy Table . . . shall stand at the uppermost part of the 
 Chancel or Church ; where the Presbyter, standing at the 
 North-side or end thereof, shall say,' etc. And then afterwards," 
 it is said, " we find an unsuccessful attempt made, at the last 
 Revision of the Prayer Book (1662), to get the corresponding- 
 rubric of our own Communion Service altered in the same sense. 
 The history of this attempt," we are told, " is exceedingly
 
 90 A CHARGE. 
 
 curious and interesting. The evidences of it," it would seem, 
 " are to be found in that copy of the Prayer Book of 1604 (printed 
 in 1636) which was used by the Revisers of 1662, as the basis of 
 their revision. ... In that Prayer Book are to be found, in the 
 margin, opposite the old rubric on the position of the Altar ' at 
 Communion-time,' the following words, in MS., by way of sug- 
 gestion for a new rubric : 
 
 " ' The Holy Table . . . shall stand in the most convenient 
 place in the upper end of the Chancel (or of the body of the 
 Church where there is no Chancel).' 
 
 " But a pen was afterwards drawn through these words, as 
 they do not seem " — so it is supposed — " to have met with the 
 approval of Convocation, and the old rubric was allowed to 
 stand as it was before. 
 
 " But further," it is added, " in the text of another part of the 
 same rubric, there is a very significant erasure and MS. correc- 
 tion, which, no doubt," so we are told, " contemplated the same 
 object, and which had also to be cancelled for the same reason. 
 In the clause ' standing at the North-side of the Table,' the 
 word ' side ' is erased with the pen, and the word ' end ' is 
 written above it. But this change also seems to have been dis- 
 approved of ; as we find the word ' end ' is afterwards cancelled, 
 and the word ' side ' reinserted in MS. over it." Still further, it 
 appears that " in Bishop Cosin's own annotated Prayer Book 
 (preserved at Durham), which is, no doubt, the original source 
 of the MS. corrections and suggestions contained in the Prayer 
 Book here referred to, there is a proposed emendation, which is 
 even more significant than the one just described. After having 
 erased the word ' side,' and substituted ' end,' the Bishop altered 
 it afterwards to ' side or end ; ' and then, ultimately, both emen- 
 dations had to give place to the original word 'side,' as Con- 
 vocation would not agree " — so it is asserted — " to any alteration 
 whatever in the Rubric. 
 
 " There can be little doubt," thus we are assured, " that the 
 chief opposition to all these suggested alterations arose from 
 the Puritan party ; though I can quite imagine," says the writer, 
 " that it may not have been altogether discouraged by the more 
 decided members of the opposite school. But at all events " — 
 this is the conclusion arrived at — "the whole proceeding serves
 
 A CHARGE. 91 
 
 to show very clearly the importance, as well as the reality, 
 which was attached by both parties to the distinction between 
 the sides and the ends of the Holy Table. And it seems, more- 
 over," as it is supposed, " to show, quite as clearly, that, while 
 the High Church party felt most keenly and painfully the force 
 of this distinction, and did their utmost, at the Revision of 1662, 
 to get rid of its practical and legal effect, yet they found them- 
 selves, after all, utterly unable to do so, either by securing the 
 substitution of ' end ' for ' side,' or even by obtaining the admis- 
 sion of ' end ' as an alternative with ' side.' And hence " — so we 
 are told, in somewhat solemn language — " it has come to pass, 
 that we have now the phrase ' North-side ' standing in our 
 authorised Communion Service, with this particular meaning 
 stamped upon it, and stamped on it, too, all the more definitely 
 and indelibly from the very efforts that were so strenuously 
 made to obviate it." 
 
 It is certainly " an exceedingly curious and interesting " 
 history that is thus made out. But, unfortunately, it is nothing 
 but imagination throughout. There was no such conflict in 
 Convocation, no such opposition, no such Puritan party there. 
 All was settled, in Committee, at Ely House, among the Bishops. 
 They had Bishop Cosin there, and Sancroft as their Secretary, 
 with all his carefully prepared notes, assisting Cosin and Wren, 
 and other chief Bishops. Bishop Cosin's suggestions were, for 
 the most part, adopted, save where they would have introduced 
 considerable change ; and there " my Lords the Bishops at 
 Elie House ordered all in the old method." Cosin had not 
 forgotten his former troubles, nor the old controversy between 
 Williams and Heylyn, and would shut the door on any such like 
 arguments and objections ; he would, probably enough, propose 
 to change " side " into " end," or to use " side or end," as in the 
 Scottish Book, as terms indifferent ; and finally might think, or 
 find his brother Bishops thought, that the best course was to 
 leave the old word unaltered. 
 
 In one of the recent contributions to the " mass of contro- 
 versial literature " on this subject (July 12), it is said : " The 
 position of the priest at this moment of the service, in refer- 
 ence to the congregation, depends on the previous placing of 
 the Holy Tabic. Now for this previous placing of the table,"
 
 92 A CHARGE. 
 
 the writer goes on to say, " we have most distinct rules. Both 
 the Eighty-second Canon and the last of the rubrics which 
 precede the beginning of the Service, draw a sharp distinction 
 between ' the Communion time ' and other times, and they direct 
 that { at the Communion time ' the table is to . be so placed, 
 either in the body of the Church or in the Chancel, as to be in 
 convenient contiguity with the congregation. This Canon and 
 the rubric," we are told, " are not now observed ; and it is 
 almost entirely because of this desuetude that ' orientation ' has 
 a plausible case. The argument involved in this statement," 
 thus the writer proceeds, " is made much stronger (and here 
 historical evidence begins to be singularly important) by the 
 fact that, just before 1662, which year must of necessity be our 
 chronological starting- point, attempts were made (unsuccessfully) 
 to procure official sanction for the permanent placing of the 
 table against the East wall at the upper end of the Chancel. 
 An attempt of this kind, vigorously made and decisively 
 defeated, becomes a strong testimony to the mind of the Church 
 in favour of the rule that remains "■ — a " clear and well-attested 
 rule," as it is described, " for the placing of the Table." 
 
 This argument rests on the presumed correctness of the 
 history just now referred to, and falls through, if that presumed 
 history have no warrant in fact. It is to be observed, that 
 neither the Eighty-second Canon, nor the fourth rubric of the 
 Communion office, says anything about " convenient contiguity 
 with the congregation." The rubric simply provides, that the 
 Table at the Communion-time " shall stand in the body of the 
 Church or the Chancel," not requiring it to stand otherwise, in 
 regard to East and West, North and South, than it stood at all 
 other times. It made provision, in fact, for the case of deep 
 chancels, or chancels closely shut in, and not large enough to 
 admit of " the Communicants being conveniently placed therein 
 for the receiving of the holy Sacrament," in conformity with 
 another rubric and with the ordinary practice then ; it enabled 
 the communicants to " draw near," so meeting the difficulty which 
 arose out of the construction of many of our old Churches, and 
 securing more effectually the observance of the order that " the 
 Chancels shall remain as they have done in times past." The 
 Canon, meanwhile, presumes the Table to be in the accustomed
 
 A CHARGE. 93 
 
 place, " and so stand," as it is expressed, " saving when the said 
 Holy Communion is to be administered. At which time " 
 according to words already quoted, but which it is necessary 
 here to recall to mind, " the same shall be placed in so good 
 sort within the Church or Chancel " — it is not defined which ; 
 it is left to be decided by the circumstances of the case — " as 
 thereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the 
 Communicants in his prayer and ministration, and the Commu- 
 nicants also more conveniently and in more number communicate 
 with the Priest : and that the Ten Commandments be set upon 
 the East end of every Church and Chapel, where the people may 
 best see and read the same." Neither of the Canon nor of the 
 rubric, as it appears to me, can it be said that they " are not 
 now observed." Churches built since the dates of the Canon and 
 rubric have very commonly been built with short chancels, or 
 simple apses, or no chancels at all. But the rubric and Canon 
 say nothing about "contiguity with the congregation;" and 
 there may be cases, such as Canterbury Cathedral, where the 
 more remote position of the Communion Table for the last half 
 century is found, as matter of fact, more favourable for hearing 
 than the nearer place in which it formerly stood. And it must 
 be repeated that there is no such sharp distinction, in rubric or 
 Canon, as requires necessarily a moving of the table, the para- 
 mount objects of convenient order and of good hearing being 
 secured. Nothing, in the nature of a " rule " of the Church 
 required a change in the accustomed position of the Table, in 
 regard to North and South. 
 
 We have already considered fully Bishop Cosin's Eubric, by 
 the light of other Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, or 
 Rubrics of his own suggestion, or Bishop Wren's. We must, 
 however, before we take leave of him, notice what has been 
 justly called " a document of much interest," viz. " the Order 
 which Bishop Cosin used for the Consecration of Churches and 
 churchyards." l And it is formally entitled, " The Form and 
 Order of Direction or Consecration of Churches and Chapels, 
 together with the Churchyards or places of Burials, according 
 
 1 Correspondence, vol. ii. p. xiv.
 
 94 A CHARGE. 
 
 to the Use of the Church of England." " This form of prayer, 
 as we learn from a note in Archdeacon Basire's hand, was used by 
 Bishop Cosin at the Consecration of Christ Church, Tynemouth, 
 on Sunday, the 5th July, 1668." It appears further, that " on the 
 22nd of March, 166- (the seventy-first Session of Convocation), 
 there was a consultation aboiit a Form of Consecration of Parish 
 Churches and Chapels, which was committed to the sole care of 
 Bishop Cosin." This is the more remarkable, as it was the 
 Bishop of Durham, in the province of York, to whom the Bishop 
 of London, presiding in the Convocation of Canterbury, by and 
 with the consensus of his brethren, thus committed the matter. 
 It has been justly presumed that " the form which he used in his 
 own diocese was probably identical with that which he prepared 
 for general adoption." " Some of the rubrical directions " in this 
 Service, it has been observed, " are worthy of remark, as illus- 
 trating Bishop Cosin's practice as regards ritual. It is clear 
 that a celebration of the Holy Communion was intended to be 
 an inseparable adjunct of the Service ; and the rubric at the com- 
 mencement of that office contains very specific directions as to 
 the position of those who were engaged in the celebration. 
 ' Then shall the Bishop ascend towards the Table of the Lord, 
 and there kneel down at his falstoole before it, his Chaplains 
 following him, and placing themselves at each end of the Table, 
 where he that is at the North shall begin the Communion Ser- 
 vice,' &c. Yet from a subsequent rubric," it has been thought, 
 " we may certainly assume that the Bishop was the celebrant ; for 
 it provides that he shall reverently offer upon the Lord's 
 Table the Deed, or Act of Consecration, the Bread and Wine, 
 and his own alms and oblations." It is asked then, " Was the 
 position occupied by the Bishop at the commencement of the 
 Service maintained throughout ? " And the reply given 
 is, " It can scarcely be an unfair inference that it was so." 
 But this inference will be found, I think, to have no good 
 grounds. 
 
 The office which the Bishop was to fulfil is most clearly 
 marked, viz. that of making the solemn offering and dedication 
 of the building to the service of God ; but he was, I think, as 
 clearly not regarded as the celebrant in the administration of 
 the Holy Communion.
 
 A CHARGE. 95 
 
 For the Bishop it was ordered, in the first place, as follows : 
 
 " Kneeling down in the midst of the Church (or Chapel) the 
 place being duly prepared for him, he shall say, 
 
 " I will call unto the most high God : even the God which 
 shall perform the work which I have in hand. 
 
 " Hear the voice of thy servant, Lord, when I hold up my 
 hands towards thy mercye's seat of thy temple." 
 
 This the Bishop would say, of course, kneeling, with his face 
 towards the Chancel ; yet, let it be observed, placed so to be 
 heard by all the congregation. 
 
 " Then shall he speak unto the Founder and the people 
 present, and say, Let us offer up and dedicate this place unto God 
 with the words and prayers which he most graciously accepted 
 from King David and King Solomon," etc. 
 
 This the Bishop would say, of course, turning to the people. 
 
 " Then, turning and kneeling down, he saith (1 Chron. xxix.) 
 Blessed be thou," etc. — a very full and long prayer. 
 
 " Then the Bishop standing up shall say, The Blessed and 
 Glorious Trinity, .... sanctify and bless this place, to the 
 end whereunto we have ordained it," etc. This he would say, 
 no doubt, turning to the people, it being of the nature of a 
 Blessing. " Then going to the Font," etc. 
 
 " Then going up to the Chancel and the Table of the Lord, 
 and reverently placing thereupon the plate prepared for the 
 Holy Communion, then presented to him by the Founder, or 
 Donor, he shall kneel down before the Table and say, Grant, 
 Lord," etc. 
 
 There can be no doubt, after the evidence we have had, where 
 it was the Bishop would kneel, viz. in front of the Table. 
 
 The prayer ought to be given in full, as expressing most 
 distinctly the view taken of the Eucharistic offering in the Holy 
 Communion, distinct, and clear from Romish corruption of the 
 Catholic doctrine and rite, and reflecting faithfully the careful 
 language and duly appointed order of the Church of England. 
 
 " Grant, Lord, that this place may be hallowed, together 
 with all things prepared in it for thy holy service ; and that 
 thy faithful and devout people, approaching with pure hearts 
 and clean minds unto this Holy Table, here to present and offer 
 up themselves, their souls and bodies, as a reasonable, holy, and
 
 96 A CHARGE. 
 
 lively sacrifice unto thee, together with their sacrifice of praise 
 and thanksgiving for that blessed Sacrifice which thy Son our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ once offered upon the Cross for the sins of 
 the whole world, may by the religious partaking of his most Holy 
 Sacrament obtain remission of their sins, and all other benefits 
 of his Passion, and be endued with thy grace and heavenly 
 benediction, through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth 
 and reigneth with thee, O Father, and thy Blessed Spirit, one 
 God, world without end. Amen." 
 
 " Then, returning into the body of the Church, he shall kneel 
 down at his [? faldstool] and say, 
 
 " Grant, blessed Lord, that this House, being now separated 
 from all other common uses, and dedicated unto thee by our 
 office and ministry, may be favourably accepted by thee as an 
 humble oblation from our hands, through thy mercy," etc. 
 
 One of the petitions that follows is this : 
 
 " And when they shall make any offering unto thee, let their 
 oblations and offerings come up as a memorial before thee, and 
 be acceptable in thy sight, who hast said by thy holy Apostle, 
 that with such sacrifices thou art well pleased. Amen." 
 
 " Then shall the Bishop there, in the midst of the Church, 
 place himself in his chair, being attended by the Founder on 
 the right hand, and on the left by his Chancellor, Archdeacon, 
 and Chaplains, and shall publish and read this Act of Dedica- 
 tion, fairly written, and sealed with his Episcopal seal : 
 
 " In Dei Nomine, Amen. Cum dilectus noster in Christo 
 N." etc. 
 
 " Then shall the Bishop give order to his Chaplains, or 
 other Ministers there present, to say the Morning Service," etc. 
 
 " Immediately after the Collect for the Day, this special 
 Collect shall be added and said by the Bishop." 
 
 " Then shall one or both the Chaplains, or other Ministers 
 then present, and duly habited, descend to say or sing the 
 Litany in the midst of the Church or Chapel." 
 
 After the Litany stands the Eubric already given ; a Bubric 
 which is in exact accordance with all others in its use of 
 the words " before " the Table, and " at each end of the Table " ;
 
 A CHARGE. 97 
 
 the words " end " or " side " being manifestly, in Bishop Cosin's 
 view, equivalent and identical in meaning. 
 
 " Then shall the Bishop reverently offer upon the Lord's 
 Table, first, the Act of consecrating the Church or Chapel, .... 
 then the Bread and Wine for the Communion, and then his own 
 Alms and Oblations," etc. 
 
 " Then one of the Priests shall receive the Alms and Ob- 
 lations. 
 
 " Then the chief Minister shall say, 
 
 "Blessed be thou, Lord, for ever and ever; and now, 
 O Lord, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious Name, [we] 
 have seen with joy thy people which are here present and 
 have offered all these things willingly unto thee. 
 
 " Then shall they go on in the Service of the Communion ; 
 and after the last Collect and immediately before the Benedic- 
 tion, these two Collects following shall be said by the Bishop. 
 s " Blessed be thy Name, etc. 
 
 " Prevent us, Lord, etc. 
 
 " Then the Bishop, rising up and turning himself towards the 
 people, shall give the Benediction, and say, 
 
 " The peace of God," etc. 
 
 It is clear, I think, that the Bishop was not, according to this 
 order of Service, the Celebrant : the part he takes is distinguished 
 from that of the "chief Minister," who was standing at the North- 
 side or end of the Table. Every possible objection, meanwhile, 
 was met in regard to the people hearing what was said ; at the 
 same time that religious propriety was observed throughout, in 
 regard to what was addressed to God in prayer, or addressed to 
 the people in exhortation or blessing. 
 
 Bishop Cosin's friend and Archdeacon, Dr. Basire, has 
 observed in a note, that this. Form of Consecration agreed with 
 that of Bishop Andrewes. " Consonat cum Forma, Beverendi 
 in Christo Patris Lanceloti Andrewes, edit, anno 1659." " But 
 it is only a general agreement," says the Editor of Bishop 
 Cosin's Correspondence. " Cosin has given it the impress of his 
 own hand." 
 
 The Form is, however, in all its main features, in close agree- 
 ment with that of Bishop Andrewes, as used by him at the 
 
 a
 
 98 A CHARGE. 
 
 consecration of Jesus Chapel, Southampton. The long prayer 
 of dedication is said by the bishop and the founder, with the 
 chaplains, within the door of the chapel, " kneeling where 
 they may conveniently be seen and heard by the people " with- 
 out ; with the like petitions said " kneeling before the Holy 
 Table " (" Grant that this place," etc.) One chaplain, first 
 " bowing before the Holy Table," says the Morning Prayer, the 
 Bishop adding a special Collect ; then the other chaplain, with 
 like reverence first made, says the Litany, the Bishop adding a 
 prayer ; then after the Sermon, the Order of Holy Communion 
 is proceeded with, one chaplain being at the south, and the 
 other at the north side (ad septentrionalem partem) of the Holy 
 Table ; one chaplain, standing before the Holy Table, reads the 
 Epistle, the other — the first ("prior") — standing in like manner 
 and reading the Gospel. The Bishop then, going from his seat, 
 bows himself down before the Holy Table and says : " Let us 
 pray the prayer," etc. " Then follows the promulgation of the 
 sentence of Consecration," etc. The prayer ended, the Bishop 
 takes his seat apart where he was before ; and the non-com- 
 municants being dismissed, and the door closed, the first 
 chaplain goes on to read the sentences for the Offertory, whilst 
 the other chaplain collects the alms. Everything else being 
 duly performed, the Bishop then returns to the Holy Table 
 (both chaplains receding a little), and after washing his hands, 
 and breaking the Bread, and pouring out the Wine into the 
 chalice, and mixing water with it, says standing : 
 
 " Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of His great 
 mercy, hath," etc. 
 
 This, I apprehend, is a slight error in printing, and should 
 be, as in the beginning of the Prayer of Consecration : 
 " Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of Thy tender mercy 
 didst give," etc. 
 
 After the administration, by the Bishop, the first chaplain 
 following him with the cup, it is said : 
 
 " The Bishop at the north side of the Holy Table (' ad sacra? 
 mensas septentrionem ') says the Lord's Prayer kneeling," with a 
 concluding collect, "and then, standing, dismisses the people 
 with the Benediction." 
 
 The only difference observable between this form and Bishop
 
 A CHARGE. P9 
 
 Cosin's is, that the Bishop consecrates, and, it would rather 
 appear, standing before the Table. This would tend to confirm 
 the conclusion already drawn from the wording of the Rubric 
 before the Prayer of Consecration introduced by Bishop Cosin at 
 tl e last Review, that this point was designedly left open ; the 
 chief Minister all through the rest of the Service, both before 
 and after, standing at the North side of the Table. The absence, 
 meanwhile, of any direction as to an eastward position will 
 appear the more observable, when we find that at the Consecra- 
 tion of the burial ground, in the afternoon, the Bishop is 
 described as standing on the eastern part of the ground, " ad 
 orientalcm ccemeterii partem stans." 
 
 The Bishop's chaplains in attendance on this occasion were 
 Matthew and Christopher Wren. The Rubric which Bishop 
 Wren himself, some forty years afterwards, proposed at the last 
 Review, for insertion before the Prayer of Consecration, has 
 been already considered, in its close resemblance to Bishop 
 Cosin's. Throughout the rest of the Service he, like Bishop 
 Cosin, following Bishop Andrewes, specifies the North side of 
 the Table as the place of the officiating Priest. He proposed, 
 as amended Rubrics, the following : 
 
 " And the Priest, standing at the North of the Table, the 
 people all kneeling, shall begin with the Lord's Prayer. . . . 
 
 " Then the Priest, turning his face towards the people, shall 
 rehearse," etc. 
 
 " Then the Priest, at the Holy Table, where he stood at first 
 .... shall say .... 
 
 " When the Distribution is ended, the Priest, standing at the 
 Table as he did at the first, shall begin the Lord's Prayer. . . ." 
 
 The Bishop of Chester, who recently, in his Fragmentary 
 Illustrations, etc., published these suggested Rubrics of Bishop 
 Wren, " in his prefatory matter merely says : ' Standing at the 
 north of the table is directed, p. 74, and recognised, pp. 75 and 
 81.' " An explanation has been suggested, which, it is thought, 
 had not occurred to the Bishop, viz. that "Bishop Wren was, as 
 a compromise, simply giving up the eastward position for the 
 earlier part of the service " only. It has been forgotten, I 
 think, that the last of Bishop Wren's proposed rubrics (p. 81) 
 distinctly ordered the return of the Priest to the North side for 
 
 G 2
 
 100 A CHARGE. 
 
 the later part of the Service, after the Consecration and distribu- 
 tion of the elements. 
 
 It has appeared already how prominent a place oblations at 
 the Altar occupied in Bishop Andrewes' view ; and the Notes 
 written by him in his Prayer Book seem fully to illustrate the 
 description of the arrangements of his Chapel. After the 
 Litany there go up to the Altar the " two Priests, the one at 
 the one end, the other at the other," — this to the good Bishop's 
 eyes — so it was, we find — " representing the two Cherubim at 
 the mercy-seat." The Nicene Creed read, the Priest " removes 
 the basin from the back of the Altar to the forepart. The 
 Bishop ascends with triple adoration, and lastly kneels down at 
 the Altar." Into his hands the Priest, from the " bystanding 
 table on the south side," reaches the sacred elements ; and these 
 the Bishop offers, in the name of the whole congregation, upon 
 the Altar. Then he offers into the basin for himself, and after 
 him the whole congregation, " and so betake themselves to their 
 proper and convenient place of kneeling ; Bishops and Priests 
 only within the septum . . . the Priest meanwhile reading the 
 peculiar Sentences for the Offertory." 
 
 The arrangements of Bishop Andrewes' chapel, and his 
 practice as illustrated thereby, are, I cannot but think, clear 
 beyond dispute, though somewhat novel interpretations of 
 them have been offered. The plan of the chapel, with descrip- 
 tive notes, was published, it will be remembered, by Prynne, 
 having been found by him among Laud's papers, endorsed in 
 the Archbishop's own hand. Bishop Andrewes' chapel was 
 avowedly the pattern of Laud's, and so illustrates the usages 
 of Laud himself, of Wren, and Cosin, and others of that age. 
 There was, it appears, at the back of the altar, " a cushion," and 
 in front of the cushion " the basin for oblations." The cushion 
 placed before " the two candlesticks," I cannot doubt, was for 
 the alms basin to rest upon : the cushion and the basin, it is to 
 be observed, appear close together ; and in the list of " Plate 
 for the Chapel " we find two round basins, one " for offerings," 
 and another " for alms." There was a "cushion for the service- 
 book " at the north side or end of the Table, and on the north 
 and south sides there were " the kneeling stools," clearly for 
 the two officiating chaplains. Between the " two patens " in
 
 A CHARGE. 101 
 
 the middle of the Table in front, there is a cross marked ; and 
 this, it appears from the description, indicates the place of " the 
 tricanale, being a round ball with a screw cover, whereout issued 
 three pipes, and is for the water of mixture." " What does all 
 this show ? " says an ingenious commentator ; " I should say," 
 he replies, " that it showed that the north end was intended as 
 the place of official dignity for the Bishop to kneel at, aud in 
 general to follow the bulk of the service (whether said by self 
 or chaplain) with his book, which would rest upon the cushion ; 
 but that the centre was reserved for the consecration itself." 
 An entirely arbitrary supposition ! Yet, in support of it, it is 
 argued, " Surely this inference stands to reason ; for if Andrewes' 
 Practice had been to consecrate at the north end, he never would 
 have hampered that particular part of the table with a cushion, 
 which would make the decent performance of the rite on his 
 part so very difficult ; nor would he have so emphatically shown 
 the sacred vessels ranged exactly in the middle. It is somewhat 
 curious," the writer goes on to say, " that while in the key he 
 employs letters, Greek or capital Eoman, for reference to the 
 other articles," Andrewes " uses a cross to indicate the place of 
 the vessel of admixture, and that this happens to stand in the 
 exact centre of the Holy Table ; I cannot help surmising," says 
 the writer, " that this exceptional use of the cross as a mark of 
 reference in the key was intended as a sort of private note that 
 that central point of the Table was to be used as the place of 
 consecration." It is rather a recondite surmise ; and I must 
 confess I cannot see the slightest ground for it ; the cross seems 
 clearly, in the paper of description, to be a reference for " the 
 tricanale," and nothing else. The cushion for the service-book 
 is represented as small, and it need not have been any hindrance. 
 And the place of official dignity for the Bishop is definitely 
 marked in the plan, just within the rails, the chair on which 
 he sat " at the communion time." 
 
 There is one place only, in the Service, in which Bishop 
 Andrewes distinctly contemplates the Minister as kneeling at 
 the head of the people, and thus, it may be said, symboli- 
 cally representing them. Before the Prayer of humble access 
 " We do not presume," on the words — " Then shall the priest, 
 kneeling down," he inserts his note — [" Descendit, repetit solus." I
 
 102 A CHARGE. 
 
 Then on the rubric before the Prayer of Consecration as it then 
 stood — " The Priest standing up shall say the Prayer of Conse- 
 cration " — he describes fully the preparations made for the act 
 of consecration ; with this clause subjoined, " postremo omnibus 
 rite et quam fieri potest, decentissime atque aptissime compositis, 
 starts pergit et peragit. In rariore solemnitate hie pergit Epis- 
 copus et consecrat." At the end of the Service, according to 
 Bishop Andrewes' suggestion, the congregation leave the Choir, 
 and " go towards their seats for a little private Devotion." " In 
 their way, at the foot of the Choir, stands the cippus pauperum, 
 into which every man puts a small piece of silver ; whilst the 
 Priest, standing still at the altar, readeth the exhortatory sentences 
 for alms," and " when all are composed in their seats, he pro- 
 ceeds to the Blessing." 
 
 Bishop Wren, in like manner in his draft of rubrics, already 
 referred to. The Bread and Wine being presented by the 
 Churchwardens, or some other for them, the Priest " kneeling 
 down before the Table, shall in the name of all present, say, 
 We do not presume," etc. There is nowhere else this direction 
 given in regard to kneeling before the Table during prayer. 
 
 Our view, however, of Bishop Andrewes' order of ritual will 
 not be complete without reference to " the Forme used by him 
 in consecrating the new Church plate of the Cathedral Church 
 of Worcester," first printed in the edition of his works in the 
 Anglo-Catholic Library (vol. xi.). It is worthy of attention, 
 because " this Form of consecrating Communion Plate seems to 
 have been regarded as a model, and is frequently alluded to : 
 e. g. such consecration was charged against Archbishop Laud 
 at his trial : his answer was, ' All that I used was according to 
 the copy of the late Eeverend Bishop of Winchester, Bisbop 
 Andrewes, which I have by me to be seen, and which himself 
 used all his time.' " l 
 
 The principal points in the order of Service are as follows. 
 
 " The plate to be consecrated is placed upon a Table about 
 the middle of the quire before the beginning of Divine 
 Service. 
 
 " Immediately after the Nicene Creed, and the pronouncing of 
 this sentence, Let your light, etc., the Presenter of the plate 
 
 1 Bishop Andrewes' Works, vol. xi. p. 159.
 
 A CHARGE. 103 
 
 being in his choral habit (if he be a Churchman) comcth forth, 
 and standing by the said Table, after obeisance first to God, and 
 to the Bishop, saith 
 
 " Presenter. Reverend Father in God, in the name of the Dean 
 and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Worcester, I humbly 
 beseech your Lordship that some vessels prepared for the use of 
 that Church here ready may be presented unto the Lord, and 
 by your sacred office may receive an holy dedication unto godly 
 divine service. 
 
 " The Bishop. We are ready to do what you desire, etc 
 
 First, therefore, let us begin with prayer. O Eternal God, 
 Lord of all power and glory, etc. 
 
 " The said Presenter taketh in his hands 
 
 " First, the paten, and (after obeisance) cometh up to the Bishop 
 standing before the midst of the Altar, and kneeling down saith, 
 
 " I offer this unto thee, and thy holy service, O Lord God 
 Almighty. 
 
 " The Bishop receiveth them and turneth to set them on the 
 Altar, his chaplains standing on each side of the Altar .... 
 and in the meantime saying alternatim 
 
 " (a) He rained down manna, etc. 
 
 " (b) So man did eat angels' food, etc. 
 
 " In the meantime the Presenter is ready with the chalices 
 covered, and kneeling down, saith (ut prius). 
 
 " Whiles the Bishop sets them on, the chaplains pronounce 
 
 " (a) That he may bring food," etc. 
 
 In like manner with the flagons, the candlesticks, and the 
 censer; the two chaplains, in each case, reciting alternately 
 appropriate verses. 
 
 " Then the Bishop layeth his hands upon every piece again, and 
 standing saith, 
 
 "O Lord, heavenly Father, we most meekly beseech thee 
 favourably to accept these holy offerings now presented unto 
 thee," etc. 
 
 This was a prayer, in its manual acts and general character, 
 corresponding in some sort with the solemn Prayer of Con- 
 secration, in the Communion Office ; with the like absence of 
 any absolute direction in regard to the position of the Bishop, 
 while yet his part in the service is distinct from that of the 
 principal minister, or celebrant, throughout the Service.
 
 104 A CHARGE. 
 
 Then follows " The Benediction." 
 
 " We bless thee, Lord, for thy blessings upon us, and for that 
 it hath pleased thee," etc. 
 
 " This done, they proceed to read the other sentences, for the 
 ordinary offerings, and so go on with the rest of the Com- 
 munion." 
 
 The chaplains would here be officiating in like manner as in 
 the form of Consecration of a Church, the principal Minister at 
 the North side. There is here one consistent usage and order 
 throughout. 
 
 " In the Life of Kettlewell ; .... is an account of the conse- 
 cration of a new set of Communion plate for the Church at 
 Coleshill, by Archbishop Sancroft. . . . The words of the prayers 
 are given, and evidence that it was Andrewes' form which was 
 used." " The service is substantially the same as this of Bishop 
 Andrewes, which was indeed, as it now appears, in Archbishop 
 Sancroft's possession. Thus it is sanctioned by the use of these 
 two Archbishops." * In the account given in Kettlewell's Life, 
 the solemn offering of the sacred vessels and then, afterwards, 
 " the Prayer of Consecration," as it is called, appear in all their 
 distinctness. The several vessels, viz. a paten, two chalices, a 
 flagon, and a basin — were presented by the Vicar, in the name 
 of the patron, Lord Digby, the donor. The Archbishop, we 
 are told, " standing before the midst of the Altar, did receive, in 
 the name of God, from the hands of the Presenter kneeling, each 
 piece of plate severally, and place it upon the altar decently 
 spread ; several sentences of Scripture, adapted to the offering 
 of each of them, being alternately repeated, as he was thus placing 
 them, and praying over them. Which being ended, there fol- 
 lowed the Prayer of Consecration, which was after this form; viz. 
 ' Unto thee, O ever blessed Lord and Saviour, and to thy most 
 holy worship and service do I here offer up and dedicate these 
 oblations [Here he laid his hands upon every piece of the plate] 
 which .... thy pious and devout servant hath here presented 
 unto thee. But who is he, Lord, etc. 
 
 " After which the Archbishop added this Benediction following, 
 'And, now, blessed be thou,' etc. Then the Archbishop went 
 1 Bishop Andrewes' Works, sup. cit. p. 160.
 
 A CHARGE. 105 
 
 on to read some other sentences in the Offertory ; anil Bread and 
 Wine upon, and in, the vessels now consecrated were set upon 
 the Communion Table, etc., and the Order for the administration 
 of the Holy Communion was, according to the use of the Church 
 of England, proceeded in, with which the solemnity ended." 
 
 These various forms of Consecration Services give valuable 
 illustration — the more so by reason of their variety — of the 
 usages of Bishop Andrewes, and those who followed him in the 
 next generation and onwards, in regard to the Communion 
 Office. They show, for instance, that, because a solemn oblation 
 was made " before " the Holy Table, it cannot safely be inferred 
 that the rest of the Service was performed in the same position. 
 Again, there is found in these forms just the amount of variety 
 which has been already noted in regard to the position of the 
 priest daring the Prayer of Consecration in the Office for the 
 Holy Communion. The volume already referred to in the Lam- 
 beth Library contains, in the same handwriting, the " Service 
 for the Consecration of the Church of Dore, in Herefordshire, 
 by Theophilus (Field), Bishop of St. David's, acting for Bishop 
 Wren, March 22, 1634." After the like preparations for the 
 Consecration of the elements as in Bishop Andrewes' forms, 
 we find this direction for the bishop, — ■" standing with his face 
 to the Table about the midst of it, he saith the Collect of Con- 
 secration." Whether this Order of Service was drawn up by 
 Bishop Field or by Bishop Wren, does not distinctly appear. 
 If, as is supposed, it was by Bishop Wren, we know, from what 
 has been already quoted from his defence, the view he took 
 of the matter ; and that, in what he did on the occasion referred 
 to in his trial, he was guided simply by considerations of con- 
 venience and decency. 
 
 A few words, however, must here be said on this point, 
 because, by the like fatality to which I have alluded before, there 
 has been conduct attributed to him, as well as to Archbishop 
 Laud and Bishop Cosin, which hitherto none of their bitterest 
 enemies ever laid to their charge. Bishop Wren's defence must 
 be quoted rather more fully than it was given before. " He 
 declares that he doth use the consecrating form the Church of 
 England hath appointed, and no other : viz. he doth it standing 
 at the Lord's Tabic, with the Bread and Wine placed openly
 
 106 A CHARGE. 
 
 before him. . . . He acknowledgetk that for the better taking 
 of the Bread, and for the easier reaching both of the flagon and 
 the cnp (because they stood upon the Table further from the 
 end thereof than he, being but low of stature, could reach over his 
 book unto them, and yet still proceed on in reading of the words 
 without stop or interruption, and without spilling the Bread and 
 Wine) he did in Tower Church, in Ipsivich, anno 1636, turn unto 
 the west side of the Table ; but it was only while he rehearsed 
 the forementioned Collect, in which he was to take the Bread 
 and the Wine, and at no other time. And he humbly con- 
 ceiveth that, though the rubric says that the Minister shall 
 stand at the north side of the table, yet it is not so to be meant 
 as that upon no occasion during the Communion time he shall 
 step from it. . . . Insomuch, therefore, as he did stand at the 
 north side all the while before he came to that Collect, wherein 
 he was to take the Bread and Wine into his hands, and as soon 
 as that was done, thither he returned again ; he humbly con- 
 ceiveth it is a plain demonstration that he came to the West 
 side only for more conveniency of executing his office, and no 
 way in any superstition, much less in any imitation of the 
 Bomish priests; for they place themselves there at all the 
 service before and at all after, with no less strictness than at 
 the time of their consecrating the Bread and Wine." Thus 
 much in regard to that one occasion — the only one, as the 
 Bishop's words imply. Meanwhile, without any exception, in 
 regard to the charge of elevating the sacred elements, he says, 
 " This defendant is ready to pronounce anathema to any super- 
 stitious or idolatrous usages or intentions by him in that kind 
 ever had, and to profess that he doth faithfully and totally 
 adhere to the Articles of the Church of England, that the 
 Sacrament is not to be carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." 
 Bishop Wren, it will be observed, raises no question as to the 
 North " side " of the Table ; and felt no difficulty whatever 
 about it. 
 
 Thus much in regard to Bishop Wren. Archbishop Laud 
 had laid to his charge the Bubric in the Scottish Prayer Book, 
 which, in the language of the indictment, might " seem to be 
 no great matter," yet " being tried, it importeth much." " The 
 Rubric profcsseth," said the Archbishop in his defence, " that
 
 A CHARGE. 107 
 
 nothing is meant by it, but that he may use both his hands 
 with more ease and decency about that work. And I protest in 
 the presence of Almighty God, I know of no other intention 
 herein than this." 
 
 In reference to this subject, I must say I would rather not 
 copy what I have read in divers writers, or heard spoken by one 
 speaker in Convocation, — for I heard it, and have read it, with 
 great regret, — that Archbishop Laud and Bishop Wren had 
 really all the while ulterior reasons, but, being desirous of 
 saving their lives, in fact solemnly denied it. Archbishop 
 Laud had his faults of temper, and committed great errors in 
 prudence and policy ; and " grievously " he " answered it " : but 
 cowardice and falsehood were not among them. And the like 
 may be said of Bishop Wren. The death of the one, and the 
 long caj)tivity of the other, as well as the known and tried 
 character of them both, ought to have defended them effectually 
 from any such unworthy suspicions. A man on his trial is not 
 bound to volunteer a statement of all his opinions : it is another 
 thing solemnly to call God to witness that, on a certain point 
 laid to his charge, there is nothing behind. Laud and Wren, it 
 will moreover be remembered, were both members — and promi- 
 nent members — of the Convocation which laid down the prin- 
 ciples stated in the Declaration above cited, of 1640, respecting 
 the position of the Minister, and its doctrinal non-importance. 
 
 We find Cosin, in like manner, in answer to the charge of 
 " officiating towards the east, with his back to the people," in 
 Durham Cathedral, " denieth that he ever did officiate with face 
 purposely towards the east. But he constantly stood at the 
 north side, or end, of the Table, to read and perform all parts of 
 the Communion Service there ; saving that, the Bread and Wine 
 being usually placed in the middle of the Table, which is about 
 seven feet in length, he might haply do as others did there 
 before him (though he remembereth not to have so done these tux-Ice 
 years), and step to the former part thereof, and consecrate and 
 bless these elements, which otherwise he could not conveniently 
 reach." 
 
 This threefold testimony of Laud, Wren, and Cosin, must, 
 surely, be regarded as conclusive on the question what their 
 feeling and practice was ; and it furnishes a consistent com-
 
 108 A CHARGE. 
 
 mentary on the words of the rubric, which had Bishop Cosin for 
 its author ; designed, as we have seen it was, for avoiding the 
 difficulties which they had experienced, and the suspicions and 
 accusations from which they had all three suffered ; and pro- 
 viding for the priest's so ordering the bread and wine " that he 
 may with the more readiness and decency break the bread before 
 the people, and take the cup into his hands." 
 
 Another rubric, then first introduced into the Communion 
 Office, must be referred to, before we leave the proceedings at 
 the last Review, as being closely connected with that which 
 has been under our special consideration. It was a new rubric 
 that ordered that, " when there is a Communion the priest," 
 after receiving the alms and other devotions of the people in a 
 decent basin, and humbly presenting it and placing it upon the 
 holy Table, " shall then place upon the Table so much Bread and 
 Wine as he shall think sufficient." The absence of such a 
 direction had been noted with regret by the learned Joseph 
 Mede many years before. He had been speaking of the oblation 
 which was so distinctive a feature of the Holy Communion as 
 testified by the earliest records of the primitive Church, and 
 thereupon asks the question, " If all this be so, how is not our 
 celebration of the Eucharist defective, where no such oblation 
 is used ? " "I answer, This concerns not us alone, but all the 
 Churches of the West, of the Roman Communion, who, as in 
 other things they have depraved this mystery, and swerved 
 from the primitive pattern thereof, so have the}', for many ages, 
 disused this oblation of Bread and Wine, and brought in, in 
 lieu thereof, a real and hypostatical oblation of Christ Himself. 
 This blasphemous oblation we have taken away, and justly ; but 
 not reduced again that express and formal use of the other. 
 Howsoever, though we do it not with a set ceremony and form 
 of words, yet in deed and effect we do it, so often as we set the 
 Bread and Wine upon the Holy Table ; for whatsoever we set 
 upon God's Table, is ipso facto dedicated and offered unto Him ; 
 according to that of our Saviour, ' The altar sanctifies the gift,' l 
 that is, consecrates it unto God, and appropriates it to His use. 
 In which respect it ivere much to be loished that this were more 
 solemnly done than is usual ; namely, nut until the time of the 
 
 1 S. Matt, xxiii. 19.
 
 A CHARGE. 100 
 
 administration, and by the hand of the minister, in the namo 
 and sight of the whole congregation standing up, and showing 
 some sign of due and lowly reverence." 
 
 Joseph Mede had early attracted the notice of Bishop 
 Andrewes, who would gladly have received him into his house- 
 hold as one of his chaplains. Archbishop Laud was his friend ; 
 and what Cosin thought of him appears sufficiently from a brief 
 passage in a letter of his from Durham (August 4, 1637) 
 written in the midst of the Altar and Table controversy be- 
 tween Heylyn and Williams. 1 
 
 " Sir, — You have been as good as your word ; for every copy 
 of your book which you sent me (besides mine own) I have had 
 many solemn thanks returned me from those friends here upon 
 whom I bestowed them, all of which I return and bestow upon 
 you again. They read it over and over, and are so well affected 
 with it, that we all say here (except one of whom I shall tell 
 you hereafter) it will certainly conduce to the settling of men's 
 minds and judgments in this question, more than all the other 
 writings which have gone forth about it." 
 
 " There can be little doubt," as the editor of the Correspon- 
 dence observes, that " the book which Cosin refers to is a 
 tractate which Joseph Mede published in 1637, under the 
 following title: ' The Name Altar, or ®vo-LaarrjpLov, anciently 
 given to the Holy Table. A Commonplace, or Theological Dis- 
 course, in a Colledge Chappell, more than two years since. By 
 Joseph Mede, B.D., and Fellow of Christ's Colledge in Cam- 
 bridge.' " 
 
 The solemn placing of the elements as a sacred oblation, 
 before consecration, on the Holy Table, in conformity with 
 primitive practice, so different from the later corruptions of 
 Rome — an oblation, meanwhile, which no one could doubt would 
 fitly and naturally be placed on the middle of the Table — would 
 make more suitable and necessary the new rubric before the 
 Prayer of Consecration : the two Rubrics mutually illustrate 
 and explain each other. It were greatly to be wished, that those 
 who are justly apprehensive of any approach to Romish doctrine 
 in regard to a " real and hypostatical oblation " would see the 
 expediency as well as the propriety of conforming herein, as 
 
 1 Cosin's Correspondence, vol. i. p. 220.
 
 110 A CHARGE. 
 
 there seems indeed a disposition in some quarters to conform, 
 to the plain directions of the Kubric. 
 
 Upon one other point in connection with the proceedings 
 preparatory to the last Eeview, a word must be added. The 
 Puritans at the Savoy Conference had said in their notes on 
 the Communion Service, " The minister turning himself to the 
 people is most convenient throughout the whole ministration." 
 The reply of the bishops was, " The minister turning to the 
 people is not most convenient throughout the whole ministra- 
 tion. When he speaks to them as in lessons, absolution, and 
 benedictions, it is convenient that he turn to them. When he 
 speaks for them to God, it is fit they should all turn another 
 way, as the ancient Church ever did. . . ." But this certainly 
 did not mean — what it has been supposed to mean — turning 
 always eastward in prayer. It implied precisely that distinction 
 which is marked in our Communion office by the minister 
 turning sometimes to the people, sometimes to the Table. The 
 Rubric on which the Puritans were commenting, it may be 
 observed, was that which stands before the Absolution. The 
 places of solemn worship throughout the land, the choirs of our 
 cathedrals, abbey churches, and all religious houses, were 
 arranged with the seats, or stalls, looking south or north. The 
 turning to the east in reciting the Creed affords a remarkable 
 exception to this arrangement, and rests upon its own peculiar 
 grounds ; as does also the saying of the Litany in the midst of 
 the churches, as of old in the Jewish Temple, " between the 
 porch and the altar." 
 
 We have now examined, I think, with sufficient care the main 
 historic facts and documents which throw light upon the ques- 
 tion of the true interpretation of the Rubric before us ; whether 
 derived from the Prayer Book itself, from the writings or prac- 
 tice of Bishop Cosin, by whom it was undoubtedly drawn up, 
 or of those high authorities among the bishops and divines of 
 the Church of England with whose views and principles his 
 own were in full accordance — Bishop Andrewes, Archbishop 
 Laud, Bishop Wren, Archbishop Sancroft, and others. I am 
 not conscious of having neglected any source from whence 
 material assistance might be derived ; although I have ab-
 
 A CHARGE. Ill 
 
 stained from specifying the several contributors, in books, 
 pamphlets, reviews, or letters in the public journals, whose 
 pages or columns I have not the less carefully studied, though 
 I have omitted distinct reference to them, in the anxiety to 
 avoid giving the discussion of the question a " controversial " 
 character. To have noticed every particular, and every argu- 
 ment — in some cases somewhat extraordinary — which Las been 
 offered on the facts, or supposed facts, of the case, would have 
 swelled these Notes far beyond the limits which I had pre- 
 scribed to myself, and which they have already, to my regret, 
 unavoidably exceeded. And I may now, perhaps, venture to 
 state, in few words, my conclusion. And the only conclu- 
 sion which I can come to, as at present advised, is this ; 
 that, if I find myself called upon, — as I feel I am, by the 
 provisions of the recent Act, under the circumstances of 
 my own archdeaconry, — to form an " opinion," in regard to 
 the question which might not improbably arise, as to the 
 position of the minister while saying the Prayer of Conse- 
 cration, I must say that I should not think myself justified in 
 making a " representation " to the Diocesan, with a view to 
 penal proceedings under the " Public Worship Regulation 
 Act," to the effect that the incumbent had " failed to observe 
 the directions contained in the Book of Common Prayer," or 
 had made an " unlawful alteration of such services, rites, and 
 ceremonies." It appears to me that, when the Rubric directs 
 that the priest stand " before the Table " to order the Bread and 
 Wine, it clearly means " in front " (as that phrase would be com- 
 monly understood) ; but I think also that the same Rubric, 
 whether considered in itself, in its grammatical construction, or 
 by the light of high authorities in past times, must be regarded 
 as not absolutely and strictly defining the position in which the 
 Prayer which follows is to be said. What the framers of the 
 Rubric intended I have myself no doubt ; and the usage of all 
 cathedrals, royal chapels, and college chapels, from that day till 
 the time of the present generation is, to my mind, an irresistible 
 argument. And I should be ready and willing, in my office of 
 archdeacon, to give my advice or direction in any case in which 
 it was desired by those immediately concerned. But looking 
 back through the history of the last three hundred years, to the
 
 112 A CHARGE. 
 
 provision which has been made for the exercise of episcopal 
 discretion, under the various circumstances of different places, 
 it appears to me not less clearly one of those matters with 
 which, if any difference arises from doubt or diverse taking of 
 the Eubric, the bishop is to deal, or, in the words of the recent 
 resolution of the Lower House of Convocation, " to determine 
 which usage shall be adopted." It would be easy, of course, by 
 some " rough and ready legislation " in this and other matters, 
 to propose, and press, some alteration of the Eubric which 
 would make everything unambiguous, precise, and stringent; 
 but it would be simply to undo the careful work of past genera- 
 tions ; to ignore their patient, learned, and charitable labours ; 
 and to rough-ride consciences on this side or that — consciences, 
 it may be, in some cases more sensitive, in some perhaps more 
 captious, than well-regulated or well-informed — yet still not the 
 less requiring tender and considerate treatment ; to give a 
 triumph to party spirit in one direction or another, with a 
 greater triumph to Koine and to Infidelity ; to sow the seeds 
 of bitterness and strife, and to rend asunder the Church of 
 God. 
 
 It has been said above (p. 60), that from the time when the 
 present Eubric was enacted, during the last two hundred years, 
 down to the days of the present generation, the North-side 
 position of the Priest, with the qualifications before noticed, 
 has been, as I believe, the constant and unvarying usage in all 
 our Cathedrals and College Chapels, till within the last few 
 years. I took occasion, in the course of my Charge, to observe to 
 how great an extent the existing variety of practice had arisen 
 out of the varying decisions of the Judicial Committee, rather 
 than out of the practice of individual clergy in past times, or 
 any continuous tradition, the satisfactory proof of which, as 
 I then stated, appears to me to be wanting. I expressed this 
 the rather, because it seemed to me important to be borne in 
 mind, as entitling the existing diversity of practice to the more 
 considerate treatment of Clergy or congregations concerned in 
 it, in regard to the enforcement upon them of a contrary decision 
 of the Committee. 
 
 With regard to the practice of individual Clergy in past
 
 A CHARGE. 113 
 
 times, reference has been made to "Mr. Simeon's practice during 
 his life," which " was still the practice," as it was stated, " of an 
 eminent clergyman of the same school." The latter gentleman, 
 it appears, has since informed the writer by whom reference had 
 been made to his practice, that he had " discontinued the prac- 
 tice ever since the inquiry was made of him " (in 1852). Canon 
 Carus, it appears, has also written to say, that he "attended 
 Mr. Simeon's church from 1823 till his death in 1836, and never 
 saw him consecrate in front of the Holy Table ; " and another 
 curate of Mr. Simeon's, from 1829 till 1836, says his position was 
 " invariably and undeviatingly on the North-side of the Table." 
 It may be, as is presumed, that " be may have adopted the front 
 position in his earlier years, and laid it aside, for some reason 
 or other, afterwards." In some other cases that have been 
 referred to, I cannot but think there has been a mistake, owing 
 to imperfect recollection of times now remote. For instance, 
 it was certainly not Mr. Hugh James Eose's accustomed practice. 
 It was stated by a member, in the Lower House of Convoca- 
 tion, that he " had a letter from " a clergyman, " who was in 
 treaty with the Eev. Hugh James Kose about a curacy at 
 Hadleigh, and one condition upon which that eminent man told 
 this candidate for his curacy he should expect conformity was, 
 that he should use the position which he (Mr. Eose) always did 
 during the celebration of the Holy Communion, and that was 
 that in consecration he should stand facing eastward." This 
 seemed tolerably precise and circumstantial. On inquiry, 
 however, of the clergyman in question, he informs me as 
 follows, viz. that negotiations took place between an uncle of 
 his, to whom he was then curate, and Mr. Eose, in regard to the 
 curacy of Hadleigh ; and both from his uncle and from Mr. 
 Eose, with whom he had a short interview, he understood 
 that he should be required to follow his mode of celebrating the 
 Holy Sacrament. He "asked what that was, when something 
 was said about always standing in front of the Table ; but," 
 he adds, " whether this had reference to standing facing east- 
 ward during all the office, or ichether only during the arrange- 
 ment of the elements previous to consecration, is more than I can 
 venture, at this distance of time, to say." From my own per- 
 sonal knowledge, and inquiries which I have made, I have no 
 
 II
 
 U4 A CHARGE. 
 
 doubt that the practice which Mr. Eose observed and insisted 
 upon, was the placing the elements by the celebrant at the 
 proper time on the Lord's Table, and afterwards ordering the 
 Bread and Wine, according to the Eubric, "standing before 
 the Table"; but that he did not consecrate at the West side. 
 It certainly was not his practice. In regard to other cases, it 
 is 'very conceivable that Bomaine and others, who took their 
 own ground very much, — and greatly to their honour, in some 
 respects, — in matters concerning the Prayer Book, so read the 
 Eubric for themselves, and acted accordingly. It may have 
 been so, in like manner, with other individual clergymen of a 
 different school. And when a usage like this had been intro- 
 duced into a parish, and observed for many years, it would, not 
 unnaturally, be handed on. But as regards College Chapels, 
 the inquiries I have made confirm my own recollections aud 
 mpressions. Bishop Legge, Dr. Eouth, and Dr. Hodson Lave 
 been referred to. I have reason to think that Bishop Legge, as 
 Warden of All Souls, in the Chapel of the College, stood on 
 the North side ; and so did Dr. Eouth, I believe, in Magdalen 
 College Chapel ; and, in like manner, Dr. Hodson at Brasenose 
 College. Mention has been made of " the kneeling stool in 
 front of the Holy Table in Brasenose College Chapel." This, 
 however, would be no evidence, and indeed wovdd rather tell if 
 anything the other way. The kneeling stool was doubtless 
 placed there for presenting the alms and oblations ; it would 
 rather be in the way of the priest standing to consecrate at the 
 middle of the Table. In Canterbury Cathedral there would be 
 seen a kneeling stool before the Table every Sunday and on 
 other Communion days ; but any one who should infer from it 
 that the priest stood there to consecrate would draw an erro- 
 neous conclusion. 
 
 Without in the slightest degree calling in question the veracity 
 of alleged eye-witnesses, I cannot but think that in some cases 
 a mistake has been made ; that what attracted attention was the 
 officiating minister being seen standing in front of the Table 
 before the Prayer of Consecration, to arrange the elements, 
 while, naturally enough, perhaps, there was not the same notice 
 taken where he stood during the Prayer which followed. Be 
 this, however, as it may, there is abundant evidence attainable
 
 A CHARGE. 115 
 
 that at the period referred to, viz. between 1814 and 1820, the 
 fact is not what has been supposed, as the result of observation 
 and inquiries made " very extensively both in London and in the 
 provinces," in regard to the position assumed by the celebrant in 
 consecration. " The result is said to have been that there was 
 found to be " another practice than that of the eastward position, 
 but " that it was comparatively rare " — " that the eastward was 
 the prevailing position, and it was very jealously preserved by 
 many." It is said that while men of the so-called Evangelical 
 school " generally preferred consecrating at the north end," yet, 
 that " several very high Evangelicals adhered to the words of the 
 rubric, and two at least of that saintly band, who met at 6 a.m. 
 winter and summer to celebrate the Holy Communion, insisted 
 upon the eastward as the proper position of the consecrating 
 minister. One of those two was Eomaine." But in the course 
 of the preceding twenty years (dating from the beginning of the 
 century), it is said that " frequency of celebration had increased 
 chiefly amongst the Evangelical section ; and therefore the prac- 
 tice of the Evangelical school might almost give the rule of 
 celebrating." This explanation and hypothesis are, I think it 
 must be felt, far from convincing. If it be the fact that, about 
 the years 1819 and 1820, among "leading men at Oxford there 
 was found to be but one opinion, and all of those by whom it 
 was mooted were so certain that ' standing before the Table 
 and saying ' could be taken in no other way than as in the 
 Mackonochie judgment, and therefore no discussion could arise 
 on that point," I cannot believe that this consentient opinion 
 and practice were, throughout the Church, overset by the pre- 
 ference of the Evangelical clergy for a custom which, it would 
 seem, was at variance with that of some of their most venerated 
 leaders. In regard to those leaders, I can easily believe that, 
 coming fresh to the question, they read the words in the 
 rubric " standing before the table " in what appears to me their 
 natural and rubrical sense, and that they may be claimed 
 accordingly as witnesses in defence of that interpretation ; the 
 result of after consideration of the matter, by themselves or 
 their followers, may have been that the words did not rule the 
 question of the position during the Prayer ; they attached 
 to it themselves no doctrinal significance of an objectionable 
 
 H 2
 
 116 A CHARGE. 
 
 character, and, especially if any snch interpretation were 
 by any persons attached to it, conformed to what was un- 
 doubtedly the general usage — the North-side position. 
 
 The traditional usage of the English Church — the universal 
 tradition of her Cathedrals and principal Churches, Chapels 
 Eoyal, and College Chapels — ought, I thiuk, to protect that 
 usage from the disparaging and disrespectful expressions in 
 which some writers have of late indulged in respect to it — in 
 fact, doing something very like openly attacking it. Such a 
 course is not favourable to the liberty and toleration they would 
 desire for their own practice: the great body of Churchmen 
 would undoubtedly not be prepared to recognise it as " really 
 the only position that has a single reasonable word to say for 
 itself." * 
 
 To illustrate and vindicate the law or custom of our Church 
 in this matter would involve an inquiry which would be out 
 of place here : the object of this Note is simply to ascertain 
 what that law is, and how much it has defined or left opeu. The 
 other question would embrace much that is most sacred in doc- 
 trine, and deep in Scriptural interpretation, in regard to the 
 usage of the Temple under the former dispensation, and of 
 the new temple "in heavenly places in Christ," the worship 
 of which was unfolded in Apostolic vision, and reflected in the 
 earliest records of the Christian Church. 
 
 The rule of the Prayer Book, which provides that, " for the 
 resolution of all doubts," and the settlement of all " diversity " 
 that may arise, the parties " shall always resort to the Bishop of 
 the Diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the 
 quieting and appeasing of the same," implies that it will be 
 the duty of the parties concerned — whether clergy or laity, no 
 doubt, though this is sometimes forgotten — to conform to the 
 
 1 And common reverence for holy things, I must take leave to add, 
 revolts at such an argument as this — "Let anybody," it is said, "do 
 anything whatsoever on a table placed and shaped like an altar ; let it 
 be a baker to knead bread, or a butcher to cut meat, or a tailor to cut 
 cloth, or a laundry-maid to iron linen ; and who can doubt that the 
 front position will at once be chosen?" Such a passage painfully 
 savours of the irreverence of Puritans and Romanists of former days.
 
 A CHARGE. 117 
 
 " order " he may take, within the limits fixed by the Prayer 
 Book itself; "following with a glad mind and will his godly 
 admonitions, and submitting themselves to his godly judgments." 
 The recent Act simply provides that, on receiving a " represen- 
 tation," the bishop shall require both parties " to state in 
 writing within one and twenty days, whether they are willing to 
 submit to the directions of the bishop touching the matter of the 
 said representation, without appeal." If they are, he proceeds 
 to hear the matter, and pronounce judgment, or issue his moni- 
 tion ; " such judgment not to be considered as finally deciding 
 any question of law so that it may not be raised again by other 
 parties." If the parties are not willing so to submit to the 
 directions of the bishop, then the bishop is forthwith to transmit 
 the representation to the Archbishop, and the Archbishop shall 
 forthwith require the judge to hear the matter. In fact, if the 
 parties will not abide by the Church's rule, and be governed by 
 those who are set in authority in the Church, they may appeal 
 to the court which the State has authorised. If a man has 
 "appealed unto Caesar," "unto Caesar " he must "go"; but, 
 having done so, he must not then turn round, and say that the 
 court thus constituted, being a secular one, has no authority 
 over his conscience. If men prefer a court in which none but 
 legal functionaries are the judges, be it so ; but it is not com- 
 petent for them then to say that such court has no spiritual 
 authority, and that they are at liberty to set it at nought. The 
 best service rendered by the recent Act will be, if it suggests to 
 men's minds to find in the spiritual Rulers of the Church those 
 of whom it may be said — as it may, in the words of Pope's 
 description of the Man of Ross, when the filial and paternal 
 relations between clergy and their bishops are duly recognised 
 and faithfully observed between them — 
 
 " Is there contention ? Enter but his door, 
 Balked are the courts, and contest is no more." 
 
 In a recent article in an influential Review it is said, " A 
 power is given to the Bishop which, if wisely used, may yet 
 be the means of healing many a breach. The Bishop may 
 refuse to send on the plaint for hearing, stating in writing his 
 reasons for the refusal. And he may also act as arbitrator
 
 118 A CHARGE. 
 
 between the parties, if they agree to accept him ; and upon them 
 his decision shall be binding, though not, of course, upon others. 
 ... A power almost without a parallel has been entrusted to 
 the Bishops, and there is no reason to doubt that it will be used 
 so as to bring about a settlement of disputes without resort to 
 the Courts." The reviewer adds, " We agree that a Church 
 cannot subsist by prosecutions : these are the crisis of a 
 disease." x 
 
 The real danger of the Church assuredly is, that of courts, 
 nominally Church courts, ignoring Church law, and adopting 
 rules of expediency and policy, or principles which apply well 
 enough to the interpretation of ordinary Acts of Parliament, 
 but not to the Church's rules as embodied in Rubrics and 
 Canons. It is the glory of an Act of Parliament to be as 
 precise as possible in its definitions of offences against its 
 provisions, and in its penal clauses : it is the glory of a Church, 
 within the limits of essential truth and necessary uniformity, 
 to avoid laying down " hard and fast lines " in matters for 
 which Christ ordained, and His Apostles established, an order 
 of things which left great room for discretionary government 
 in the hands of the Church's duly apjwinted rulers. 
 
 2. The question of the " position of the Celebrant " (as it is 
 now commonly described) during the Prayer of Consecration 
 has been, in the foregoing pages, the more fully discussed 
 because, from circumstances which need not more particularly 
 be specified, the question not long ago came into a prominent 
 place, in the archdeaconry, and the diocese, with which the writer 
 is, personally and officially, connected. It is also a question 
 which did not come under discussion at the time — now just 
 thirty years ago — when other " Rubrics respecting the Sermon 
 and the Communion Service " were carefully examined by him, 
 by the light of an " historical inquiry " into the circumstances 
 under which they were originally drawn up, or subsequently 
 altered. Of the " Ornaments Rubric," in particular, which has 
 of late years attracted so much more attention, it was found 
 necessary, at that time, to examine the history somewhat 
 minutely ; and the conclusion to which the writer then came in 
 
 1 Quarterly Review for July 1875, p. 274.
 
 A CHARGE. 119 
 
 regard to it he has seen no reason meanwhile to alter. Docu- 
 ments which have since that time come to light have, in fact, 
 tended to confirm the conclusion he had come to ; which was, 
 that in the " Advertisements " of Queen Elizabeth, " according 
 to the provision of the Act of Uniformity, ' other order ' was 
 ' taken ' in regard to the ornaments of the Minister, ' by the 
 authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the advice of the Epis- 
 copal members of the Commission appointed and authorised 
 under the Great Seal of England for Causes Ecclesiastical,' and 
 specially and immediately ' of the Metropolitan of this Realm.' " l 
 It appeared clear, as the course of the history was followed out 
 through the somewhat perplexed narrative of the historian, that 
 the Advertisements were not acted upon— and indeed (as was 
 felt by those concerned) could not be — until they had obtained 
 what was regarded as full and sufficient authority from the 
 Queen. It is not necessary here to go again over the argument 
 grounded on the historical documents involved ; or to vindicate 
 the propriety and reasonableness of examining the book of 
 Advertisements and the subsequent Canons of 1603, which so 
 closely copied them, in the interpretation of the Rubric as 
 settled at the last Review. For indeed, it is not as if the Order 
 of the first Book of Edward VI. had been, in 1661, simply re- 
 enacted, ignoring or overriding the Church's own canons. The 
 fact that the wording of the former Rubric was altered, and the 
 wording of Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity adopted, with an 
 evident reference to the circumstances of the time, and the diffi- 
 culties which beset them, can scarcely be regarded as an unim- 
 portant point. The change of the Rubric from " the Minister 
 shall use such ornaments in the Church," to the formula, " that 
 such ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof shall 
 be retained and be in use," is one among many instances of a 
 very careful and well-considered modification of words, com- 
 bining the minimum of change with the maximum of regard for 
 men's consciences on both sides, and tender dealing with them. 
 I may venture to repeat, having seen no reason to depart from 
 the conclusion to which I had been led, that " in regard to the 
 ornaments of the Minister, the farther order contemplated by 
 the Act of Uniformity had been taken, and was universally 
 
 1 Historical Inquiry, p. 119.
 
 120 A CHARGE. 
 
 recognised as of absolute legal authority ; and the change had 
 been effected according to the intention with which that pro- 
 vision had been made, i. e. ' quietly and without any show of 
 novelty.' The Eubric continued as it was, viz. that the Minister 
 .... shall use such ornaments, etc. ; but the order subsequently 
 taken, not avowedly, but virtually and really, in conformity 
 with the provisions of that Act, entirely satisfied, as it would 
 seem, the consciences of Churchmen in the times of Hooker, 
 Andre wes, and other their contemporaries, wise and well- 
 informed men, and whom we justly look up to as patterns of 
 high principle and sound judgment." 1 
 
 Allusion is made, in the preceding extract, to the quiet way 
 in which certain changes were to be brought about, " without 
 any show of novelty." It was provided in a Eoyal Letter, 
 grounded on one clause in the Act of Uniformity, " that the 
 alteration of anything hereby ensuing be quietly done, without 
 show of any innovation in the Church." 2 It should be noticed 
 here, by the way, that this passage in the Eoyal Letter has been 
 recently quoted twice as if the word were " quickly," instead of 
 " quietly." 3 The correct reading is of considerable importance 
 in its bearing on the matter in hand. But there is a point to 
 which I wish to call attention, in illustration of the statement 
 that the " order " thus taken was, " not avowedly, but virtually 
 and really in conformity with the provisions of the Act." It is 
 important, in reference to a conclusion which has been drawn 
 beyond the line of the argument above referred to ; to the effect, 
 I mean, that the " order " taken not only legalised the non- 
 observance of the strict law of the first Book of Edward VI., 
 but went also to the point of making it " illegal." 
 
 In the course of the historical inquiry, I took occasion to 
 notice that in Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity there was a 
 reservation of power to the Queen to deal with certain matters 
 in both directions, namely, that of less ceremony or more. The 
 clause stood thus : 
 
 " Brovided always, and be it enacted, That such ornaments of 
 the Church and of the Ministers thereof shall be retained and 
 
 1 Historical Inquiry, pp. 136, 137. 
 
 2 Ibid, p. 84. 
 
 3 Droop's Edwardian Vestments, pp. 19. 21.
 
 A CHARGE. 121 
 
 be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority 
 of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward 
 VI., until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of 
 the Queen's Majesty, with the advice of her Commissioners, 
 appointed and authorised under the Great Seal of England for 
 Causes Ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of this Eealm." 
 
 And the clause went on to say : 
 
 " And also, that if there shall happen any contempt or irreve- 
 rence to be used in the Ceremonies and Eites of the Church, by 
 the misusing of the orders appointed in this Book, the Queen's 
 Majesty may, by the like advice of the said Commissioners or 
 Metropolitan, ordain and publish such further Ceremonies and 
 Eites as may be most for the advancement of God's glory, the 
 edifying of His Church, and the due reverence of Christ's holy 
 mysteries and Sacraments." 
 
 The distinction between these two provisions, looking as they 
 did in opposite directions, has been very commonly lost sight 
 of. The power reserved in the latter part of the clause was 
 speedily acted upon, viz. in the course of the very next year 
 (1560). The Archbishop, sitting in the Commission, "found 
 great neglect in many churches, and especially chancels, in 
 keeping them decent ; which betrayed much want of reverence 
 towards the places where God was served. Many of the 
 churches also were sadly out of repair, and run into decay, and 
 were kept slovenly, with unseemly Communion tables, and foul 
 cloths fur the Communion, and want of ornaments for the place 
 of prayer." The Archbishop therefore obtained Letters under 
 the Great Seal (Jan. 22), taking order, among other things, " for 
 the comely adorning of the east part of the churches," etc. ; 
 " and diligently to provide " — so the Letter ran — " that, what- 
 soever ye shall devise in this disorder, the order and reformation 
 be of one sort and fashion ; and that the things prescribed may 
 accord in one form as nigh as may be. Specially that in all 
 cathedral and collegiate churches, where cost may be more 
 properly allowed, one manner to be used ; and in all parish 
 churches also, either the same, or at least the like, and one 
 manner throughout our Eealm." It is observable that in this case 
 the Eoyal Letter expressly refers to the power reserved in the 
 Act. It runs thus : " Letting you to understand that, where it is
 
 122 A CHARGE. 
 
 provided by act of Parliament holden in the first year of our 
 reign, that whensoever we shall see cause to take further order 
 in any rite or ceremony, appointed in the Book of Common 
 Prayer, and our pleasure known therein, either to our Commis- 
 sioners for Causes Ecclesiastical or to the Metropolitan ; that 
 then eftsones consideration should be had therein ; we there- 
 fore," etc. 
 
 When the Queen was, by virtue of the power thus reserved to 
 her, to take action in the subsequent case, she required, enjoined, 
 and strictly charged the Metropolitan, conferring with his 
 brethren and primarily those who were in the Commission, " as 
 the several cases should appear to require, so to proceed by 
 order, injunction, or censure, according to the order and appoint- 
 ment" it was said, " of such laics and ordinances as are provided 
 by Act of Parliament, and the true meaning thereof. So as 
 uniformity of order may be kept in every Church, and without 
 variety and contention." " And yet in the execution hereof," 
 the Letter went on to say, " we require you to use all good dis- 
 cretion, that hereof no trouble grow to the Church ; neither that 
 such as, out of frowardness and obstinacy, forbear to acknowledge 
 our supreme authority over all sorts of our subjects, be hereby 
 encouraged anywise to think that we mean to have any change of 
 the policy, or of the laws already made and established, but that 
 the same shall remain in their due force and strength." In this 
 instance, it is to be observed, there is not the same express 
 reference as before to the provisions of the Act of Uniformity ; 
 and, doubtless, this was done advisedly. When the proviso in 
 question had been introduced into the Act of Uniformity, the 
 common understanding — " our gloss upon this text," as Dr. 
 Sandys expressed it to Parker — was, in regard to the orna- 
 ments of the first Book of King Edward, " that we shall not be 
 forced to use them, btxt that others in the meantime shall not 
 convey them away, but they may remain for the Queen." When 
 the Queen, therefore, under the pressure of circumstances, took 
 " other order " in the matter, she avoided such action, in the 
 exercise of the power reserved to her, as would have made 
 " illegal " what she desired still to retain for herself, and which 
 she might lawfully retain as the recognised ritual of the Church 
 of England, in its fulness ; while the ouly hope of repressing
 
 A CHARGE. 123 
 
 irregularity of the most flagrant kind was in putting forth, by 
 authority, in conformity with provisions of the law, a modifica- 
 tion of the ritual for general enforcement, with minor variation 
 contemplated for Cathedrals and parish churches, yet consis- 
 tently with the requirements of Uniformity. 
 
 In the case of this Eubric, as of that which has already been 
 discussed, the greatest difficulty that has arisen has been in 
 consequence of the different — and, to most men's minds, the 
 differing — utterances of the Judicial Committee. In the 
 Westorton case (1857) the Ornaments Eubric came under con- 
 sideration. It was in reference to certain crosses, and the 
 question was, whether the Rubric applied to them. The Judge 
 of the Consistory Court of London (Dr. Lushington) had ruled 
 that the reference in the Eubric must be to the Act of 2 and 3 
 Edward VI., and the Prayer Book which it established. His 
 only perplexity was that, " although there were words in that 
 Prayer Book describing the ornaments of the Ministers, there 
 were none which applied to the ornaments of the Church, in his 
 understanding of the expression." " Their Lordships, after 
 much consideration," were " satisfied that the construction of this 
 Rubric, which they suggested at the hearing of the case, is its 
 true meaning ; and that the word ' ornaments ' applies, and in 
 this Eubric is confined, to those articles the use of which in the 
 services and ministrations of the Church, is prescribed by the 
 Prayer Book of Edward VI." " All the several articles used 
 in the performance and rites of the Church," so they decided, 
 " are ornaments. Vestments, books, cloths, chalices, and patens 
 are amongst Church ornaments." " No difficulty," therefore, 
 would " be found in discovering " the missing " articles of 
 which the use is there enjoined. Besides the vestments differing 
 in the different services, the Eubric provides for the use of an 
 English Bible," etc. . . . And moreover, "if reference be now 
 made," it was said, " to the alterations in these matters intro- 
 duced by the second Prayer Book of Edward VI. and the sub- 
 sequent Eubric to the Prayer Book of Elizabeth, the meaning 
 will be sufficiently clear. The second Prayer Book forbids the 
 use of different vestments by the Priest, .... and enjoins 
 the use of a surplice only." Then came the " compromise " 
 under Elizabeth ; this was discussed, and the then new Eubric
 
 124 A CHARGE. 
 
 compared with the Act of Uniformity, and the slight difference 
 between them noticed; and the Eubric of the present Prayer 
 Book. " They all," it is distinctly pronounced, " obviously 
 meau the same thing, that the same dresses and the same utensils 
 or articles which were used under the first Prayer Book of 
 Edward VI. may still be used." 
 
 This Beport of the Judicial Committee was made March 21, 
 1857. It was a very full Committee that sat, consisting of 
 Lord Chancellor Cranworth, Lord Wensleydale, Mr. Pemberton 
 Leigh, Sir John Patteson, and Sir William H. Maule. " Privy 
 Councillors specially summoned, the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 (Sumner) ; Bishop of London (Tait)." 1 
 
 In the Mackonochie case (1868) the question of Vestments 
 was not raised ; but the Beport of the Committee in the 
 Westerton case was referred to in connection with the question 
 of Lights. The Beport said : " The construction of this rubric 
 was very fully considered in the case of Westerton v. Liddell ; 
 and the propositions which their Lordships understand to have 
 been established* by the judgment in that case may be thus 
 stated." These need not be repeated. The Beport went on to 
 say : " In these conclusions, and in this construction of the 
 Eubric, their Lordships entirely concur." 
 
 In the Purchas case (1871) the question of Vestments came 
 up ; and " the learned Judge in the Court below " had " said that 
 the plain words of the Statute, according to the ordinary prin- 
 ciples of interpretation, and the construction which they have 
 received in two Judgments of the Privy Council, oblige me to pro- 
 nounce that the ornaments of the Minister, mentioned in the 
 first Prayer Book of Edward VI., are those to which the 
 present Eubric referred." The Judicial Committee found it 
 " necessary to review shortly the history of the Eubric usually 
 known as the ' Ornaments Eubric,' which governs this question." 
 " The Eespondent," as the Beport stated, " had not appeared, and 
 the Committee had not had the assistance of the argument of 
 counsel on his behalf." 
 
 It was said, in reference to the decision of the Court of 
 Arches, " The learned Judge relies on two former judgments of 
 this Committee as having almost determined the question 
 1 Brooke's Six Privy Council Judgments, p. 42.
 
 A CHARGE. 125 
 
 of Vestments ; one of these is the case of Westerton v. Liddell, 
 and the other is the case of Martin v. Mackonochie. In 
 Westerton v. Liddell," the Eeport went on to say, " the question 
 which their Lordships had to decide was, whether the Rubric 
 which excluded all crosses used in the Service affected crosses 
 not used in the Service, but employed for decoration of the build- 
 ing only ; and they determined that these were unaffected by the 
 Rubric They decided that the Rubric in question referred to 
 the Act passed in 2 and 3 Edward VI., adopting the first Prayer 
 Book of Edward VI., and not to any Canons or Injunctions having 
 the authority of Parliament, but adopted at an earlier period. 
 Their Lordships feel quite free to adopt both the positive and the nega- 
 tive conclusions thus arrived at. In construing the expressions 
 made use of in that judgment, it should be borne in mind, that 
 this question of Vestments icas not before the Courts. In Martin 
 t\ Mackonochie the Committee stated anew the substance of the 
 judgment in Westerton v. Liddell upon this point, but did not 
 propose to take up any new ground." 
 
 Upon this it must be observed, that undoubtedly it would 
 have been perfectly competent to the Committee to decide that 
 "decorations" were not "ornaments;" and that the Rubric in 
 question, and its interpretation, had nothing to do with the 
 question before the Court. But this was not what the Com- 
 mittee did. It addressed itself to the question what were the 
 Ornaments within the scope of the Rubric ; and it decided what 
 they were, viz. those which were required, not by other Canons 
 or Injunctions, but explicitly by the first Prayer Book of 
 Edward VI. They examined the history of the Rubric itself, 
 and the changes it underwent, including the last Review, 
 making special reference to vestments ; and pronounced on the 
 whole question in regard to the Rubric of Elizabeth's Prayer 
 Book, the Statute of Elizabeth, James I.'s Prayer Book, and the 
 present Prayer Boole, that " they all obviously mean the same 
 thing ; that the same dresses, and the same utensils or articles 
 which were used under the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. may 
 still be used." In the Purchas judgment the Committee went 
 through the history again, with the help of "the researches 
 referred to in " their " remarks," compensating " for the scanti- 
 ness of some other materials for a judgment," and determined that
 
 126 A CHARGE. 
 
 these self " same dresses " might not be used. It has been said, 
 indeed, that " in both of these cases it was necessary, for the deci- 
 sion of the question actually at issue, that the Judicial Committee 
 should come to a conclusion as to what these words, ' authority 
 of Parliament,' etc., meant, because in each case it was alleged 
 that the Ornaments rubric applied to the questions then at 
 issue, to crosses and other images in Westerton v. Liddell, 
 and to lighted candles on the Communion table in Martin v. 
 Mackonockie ;" but " it was not necessary," so it has been said, 
 "in either of these cases for the Court to go into the further ques- 
 tion, whether the ornaments of the ministers are to be those 
 prescribed in Edward's first Prayer Book for the corresponding 
 service; and" it is conceived accordingly that "they expressed 
 no opinion upon it." It may not, indeed, have been necessary ; 
 but, I submit, the Committee did go into the question, and most 
 plainly pronounced a decision upon it. 
 
 And certainly for a long time there seemed to be no doubt 
 entertained by " lawyers," any more than by " laymen," what 
 the decision in the Westerton case went to. In 1865, for 
 instance, there was published A Collection of the Judgments of 
 the Judicial Committee in Ecclesiastical Cases, edited, under the 
 direction of the Lord Bishop of London, by the Hon. George 
 C. Brodrick, a barrister at law, with whom was joined the 
 Bishop's chaplain. Under the Westerton case it states that 
 " the following points were decided by this judgment : 
 
 " 1. All the articles used in the performance of the services 
 and rites of the Church are ' ornaments ' within the meaning 
 of the Bubric, etc. . . . 
 
 " 2. The Rubric is confined to those articles, the use of which 
 ... is prescribed by the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. . . ." 
 
 The words of the learned Judge of the Arches Court, in the 
 Purchas case, after giving his own opinion on the question, 
 were : " I am bound to say that I think this rubric has already 
 received a construction from an authority which is binding upon 
 me. It has been twice considered and elaborately reviewed by 
 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, . . . and in both 
 instances precisely the same construction was put upon it. 
 It certainly would seem at first sight that these judgments have 
 made my course plain. I have, in obedience to them, but to
 
 A CHARGE. 127 
 
 inquire whether these ' ornaments of the minister ' are to be 
 found in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. ; if they are, to 
 pronounce them legal ; if not, illegal. 
 
 " Two objections, ' the learned Judge went on to say, " are 
 raised to the application of this plain and clear language 
 (of the two Judgments) to the present case. First, it is said 
 that the question of the ornaments of the Minister was not 
 directly before the Court in Liddell v. Westerton, but only the 
 ornaments of the Church ; and this is literally true ; but how little 
 can it avail to prevent the application of the same rule to both 
 kinds of ornament. . . . The common rules of grammar and 
 sense require that I should not divide a sentence and apply a 
 predicate, equally applicable to both subjects contained in it, to 
 one only. I am not at liberty, if I were so inclined, to question 
 the judgment as to the ornaments of the Church ; nor would it 
 become me to express any doubt as to the logic on which it is 
 built. I am bound to follow where that judgment leads me ; 
 and if so, I must on the like premisses arrive at the like 
 conclusion." 
 
 Dr. Brice, in his recent work, The Law relating to Public 
 Worship (p. 215), after quoting the decision in the Purchas case, 
 says, " It is scarcely reconcilable with the language used by the 
 Privy Council in Westerton v. Liddell. Here their Lordships 
 said the rubric to the Prayer Book of James I., 1604, adopts the 
 language of the rubric of Elizabeth ; the rubric to the present 
 Prayer Book adopts the language of the statute of Elizabeth ; 
 but they all obviously mean the same thing, that the same 
 dresses and the same utensils or articles ivhich were used under 
 the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. may still be used." There 
 is a marginal note in Dr. Brice, "Decision in Hebbert v. Purchas 
 reconcilable with that in Westerton v. Liddell." The note is 
 " scarcely reconcilable " with the text ; the reconciling word 
 " scarcely," I presume, has by accident dropped out. Dr. Brice 
 subsequently remarks, that the Purchas judgment "is at variance 
 with at least some of the dicta put forth in Westerton v. Liddell." 
 (Page 218.) 
 
 In regard, then, to the decisions of Courts of Law, the case 
 stood thus, in a position closely corresponding with that of the 
 Rubric before the Prayer of Consecration. Only in the present
 
 128 A CHARGE. 
 
 case there had been two decisions, instead of one, of the Judicial 
 Committee ; and the Court of Arches had, moreover, given its 
 judgment on independent grounds, beside that of being bound 
 by the decision of the superior Court. The judgment of the 
 Judicial Committee in the Mackonochie case, together with the 
 whole pleadings, and also the judgment of the Arches Court in the 
 Purchas case, were given in the Appendix to the Fourth Report 
 of the Ritual Commission. The Dean of the Arches had regarded 
 this as " the most serious matter " in the Purchas case, and 
 had dealt with it accordingly, primarily and very fully ; and 
 this judgment concluded the document put forth by the Ritual 
 Commission. The Fourth Report appeared Aug. 31, 1870. In 
 Feb. 1871 came the decision of the Judicial Committee in the 
 contrary sense. 
 
 The action of the Ritual Commissioners, it should be observed, 
 had been as follows. The terms of the original commission 
 given them, it will be borne in mind, were that they should 
 inquire into " the differences of practice" which had "arisen 
 from varying interpretations put upon the Rubrics, etc., .... 
 and more especially with reference to the Ornaments used in the 
 Churches and Chapels of the United Church, and the Vestments 
 worn by the Ministers thereof at the time of their ministration ; 
 with the view of explaining or amending the said Rubrics, 
 Orders, and Directions, so as to secure general uniformity of 
 practice in such matters as may be deemed essential." At the first 
 meeting of the Commissioners (June 17, 1867) it was resolved, 
 " that the first object to be considered be that pointed out in the 
 Commission as most pressing, viz. the Ornaments used in the 
 Churches and Chapels of the United Church, and the Vestments 
 worn by the Ministers thereof." At eight successive meetings 
 witnesses were examined, and at nine more " the Commissioners 
 deliberated ; " and at the nineteenth meeting they settled their 
 First Report. At the eleventh meeting it had been resolved, 
 " That the resolutions proposed by Lord Portman be taken as 
 the basis of our deliberations." Of these the first was, " That 
 it is desirable, for the removal of any doubts, and for the clear 
 understanding of the phrases in the Rubrics and Acts of Parlia- 
 ment which may be liable to misconstruction, to declare by an Act of
 
 A CHARGE. 120 
 
 Parliament that the Vestments of Ministers shall be understood 
 to be those which have for a long series of years and now arc 
 commonly retained and used in the Cathedrals and parish 
 churches of England." It was, undoubtedly, " a short and easy 
 method with" the Eubrics, and the right and true interpreta- 
 tion thereof. At the next meeting it was resolved, " That it is 
 expedient that the vesture of the clergy in saying the public 
 Prayers, and in ministering the Sacraments and other rites of the 
 Church, shall be that which has been for a long series of years 
 and now is commonly retained and used ; provided, nevertheless, 
 that nothing contained in this resolution shall be hoi den to 
 prevent the Commission from considering the expediency of any 
 exceptions to it." Various " exceptions " were proposed at sub- 
 sequent meetings, discussed, and rejected ; and the First Eeport 
 of the Commission 1 was in accordance with the above resolution. 
 At the sixty-ninth meeting the discussion of the " Ornaments " 
 Rubric was resumed, and continued the next day (April 22, 
 18G9) ; several suggestions considered, but all rejected. Again, 
 at the ninety-sixth and ninety-eighth meetings, and at the 
 one hundred and seventh — the last meeting but one — and so the 
 Rubric remained just as it stood. 
 
 And the general feeling of Churchmen, I believe, was in 
 accordance with the opinion, which the late Bishop of St. 
 David's expressed, in his Charge of 1872. " There is no 
 reason," said his Lordship, "to regret that the Ornaments 
 Rubric, though it had been the chief occasion of the whole 
 agitation which it was the object of the Commission to quiet, 
 was left untouched. The fact itself seems to show that it would 
 have been hardly possible, even if the Commission could have 
 come to an agreement on this point, to bring any action of the 
 Legislature to bear upon it without risk of very inconvenient 
 consequences." Only, in fairness to all parties, it should be 
 borne in mind that, by the course which the Ritual Commissioners 
 took, the result meanwhile arrived at was the publication of the 
 
 1 This bore date August 19, 1867. When the Commission reassem- 
 bled, in the November following, it was agreed to postpone the 
 question of Ornaments till the Mackonochie case had been heard ; and 
 the Commissioners, meanwhile, betook themselves to a general review 
 of the Eubrics in the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 T
 
 130 A CHARGE. 
 
 judgment of the Court of Arches, with their authority, adopting 
 it in some sort, as an appendix to their Second Report ; and, as 
 an appendix to the Fourth Eeport, the decision of the Judicial 
 Committee in the Mackonochie case ; hoth alike maintaining the 
 legality of the ornaments of the First Book of Edward VI. 
 
 To pass on now from the decisions of the Courts to the opinions 
 of high legal authorities, it should he recalled to mind that, in 
 May 1866, two cases, very carefully prepared, and stating all 
 the particulars of the question, were submitted, one for "the 
 joint opinion thereon of the Attorney-General [Sir Eoundell 
 Palmer, now Lord Selborne], Sir Hugh M. Cairns, Q.C. [the 
 present Lord Chancellor], Mr. Mellish, Q.C. [now Lord Justice], 
 and Mr. Barrow ; " another, in Dec. 1866, " for the opinions 
 thereon of Her Majesty's Advocate [Sir B. Phillimore, Q.C], 
 Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Q.C. [afterwards Lord Chief Baron], Sir W. 
 Bovill, Q.C. [afterwards Lord Chief Justice of the Common 
 Pleas], Mr. W. M. James, Q.C. [now Lord Justice], Dr. Deane, 
 Q.C., Mr. J. D. Coleridge, Q.C, M.P. [now Lord Chief Justice 
 of the C.P.], Mr. G. C Prideaux, Mr. J. Hannen [now Sir James 
 Hannen], and Mr. J. Cutler, Professor of Law, King's College, 
 London." The opinion of the four first named lawyers was 
 against the legality of the Vestments ; the opinions of the nine 
 last named were in favour of it. 
 
 With this array of individual legal authorities, as well as 
 decisions of courts, on either side, the question, — it will he 
 evident, I think, to calmly judging minds, — is not one which, 
 we can take for granted, would he settled by the opinion of 
 a barrister of seven years' standing, or even of a "first rate 
 judge," unless the course of legal study in which he has spent 
 his life has lain in the direction of Church law or ecclesiastical 
 practice. That there is not the amount of study of the Civil 
 law or ecclesiastical jurisprudence which there was in past 
 days, is a simple fact which has been the not unforeseen, but 
 at the same time the inevitable, consequence of the transference 
 of matrimonial and testamentary causes from the Civil Law 
 bar to another court created under the provisions of Acts of 
 Parliament passed within the last twenty years. The Civil and 
 Ecclesiastical law courts have been starved out. 
 
 "What the Courts of Law may do in future," it ha been
 
 A CHARGE. 131 
 
 lately said, and may fitly be repeated here, " it would be alike 
 uncertain and improper to predict." J But the contingencies of 
 litigation — the chances of war — were sketched out by the Lord 
 Chancellor in the House of Lords in the debate on the Public 
 Worship Eegulation Act. His Lordship followed up the remarks 
 which have been quoted in the preceding Charge by saying, " 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 be hereafter 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 be so decided, that decision 
 will be compulsory upon every clergyman of the Church of 
 England. Now if that should turn out to be the law of the 
 Church, it is a law which would press heavily upon the con- 
 science of a great many clergymen of the Church of England. 
 But suppose that the tribunal should decide that the proper 
 position for the clergyman is to stand looking towards the south. 
 There are hundreds, if not thousands, of clergymen whose habit 
 it has been all their lives, before ritualism was thought of, cer- 
 tainly before it was developed, to stand in the other position. I 
 ask your lordships to consider how a final declaration of the law 
 to the effect that I have mentioned would bear upon the con- 
 sciences of these clergymen. But suppose the Court of Ultimate 
 Appeal should say the rubrics are so obscure that we will leave 
 the question of the position of the minister during the time of 
 consecration in dubio ; after a long, and difficult, and acri- 
 monious legislation you come to the very conclusion at which 
 the proposal of the right reverend prelate asks you to arrive. 
 The right reverend prelate proposes that no proceeding respect- 
 ing the matters which he enumerates should be commenced 
 under this bill, leaving it thus open to any to take proceedings 
 under the existing law ; but I suggest that no proceedings 
 should be taken at all for the enforcement of civil penalties." 
 
 It is not necessary here to discuss the proposal with imme- 
 diate reference to which the observations of the Lord Chancellor 
 1 Quarterly Review for July, page 282. 
 
 I 2
 
 132 A CHARGE. 
 
 were made. " It is now understood that this amendment was 
 not conceived by the Bishop of Peterborough ; " 1 but by whom- 
 soever it was conceived, no one, I believe, regrets that it came 
 to nought, as a legislative " dispensation," to be obtained by 
 Parliamentary discussion or debate, in regard to certain parts, 
 the most sacred, of the Book of Common Prayer. " When the 
 amendment was stripped of its superfluities," says a Keviewer,' 2 
 " it appeared to offer to the ' Low Church party ' the power to 
 disuse the Commination Service in return for the power to the 
 ' High Church ' clergyman to stand on the North side [qu. on 
 the West side]. But this proposal was viewed with swift- 
 growing disfavour by almost all parties. It was seen that the 
 original list of exceptions was delusive ; that far more things 
 would be added, or at least striven for ; and no party was dis- 
 posed to barter important principles for leave to carry out its 
 own principles more fully." — It might rather be said (for in 
 fact this was found to be the result) that they declared them- 
 selves not prepared to put Creeds and solemn Services into the 
 balance against a vestment or a position, however important it 
 might appear. — " If the list of exceptions became very large, 
 the principle of uniformity would be abandoned, and the list 
 itself reduced to an absurdity." But, on the other hand, the 
 observations of the Lord Chancellor remain in full force, in 
 their general principle, with regard to the recognition of "a 
 certain area of arguable ground " in the case of the rubrics in 
 question ; the diversity of legal opinion, and decisions of courts, 
 proving abundantly that it is fairly " arguable ground ; " and 
 supplying, as I venture to think, ample reason for leaving these 
 matters to be dealt with (as the courts have before now in such 
 cases laid down) by the authority of the Bishop, in the exercise 
 of the discretion vested in him by the Prayer Book, and now, 
 we may say, ratified and sustained by the recent Act. If the 
 questions immediately before us are carried again to the Judi- 
 cial Committee, — its jurisdiction at present remaining, in the 
 suspension of the provisions of the Supreme Judicature Act of 
 1873, — the case will stand thus. In regard to the "position 
 of the celebrant," there have been hitherto, as we have seen, 
 two decisions in an opposite sense ; a fresh decision, if the 
 1 Quarterly Review for October 1874, p. 570. J Ibid.
 
 A CHARGE. 133 
 
 Committee decided the question either way, would give to the 
 one side or the other a majority of 2 : 1. In regard to the vest- 
 ments, if it decided one way, it would give a majority of 
 decisions in favour, 3:1; if the other way, they would he 
 equally balanced ; and great interest would obviously attach to 
 some future decision, which would be, in common parlance, the 
 "winning game." But whether all this would be for the in- 
 terests of the Church, or for the peace of the community, is 
 another and a graver question. It is, of course, naturally 
 enough, a popular notion, that a Bishop would derive strength 
 — the whole strength of his office, as some would suppose — from 
 his having a legal judgment which he is simply to enforce. I 
 venhu*e to express my conviction that it would be found far 
 otherwise ; that many a clergyman who finds it difficult to 
 acquiesce in conflicting decisions of Judicial Committees would, 
 in obedience to his Ordination vow, not unwillingly submit 
 himself to the "godly judgment" of his Diocesan, "taking- 
 order," in conformity with the rule of the Prayer Book, for " the 
 quieting and appeasing " of doubt and diversity of opinion in 
 his parish. Anyhow, it is the rule of the Church, and entitled 
 to a fair trial, as the duly appointed remedy for ouv maladies. 
 One inevitable effect of a series of prosecutions, — and, in conse- 
 quence, defences, — by organised parties has been to prevent 
 altogether, or seriously to interfere with, the freedom of per- 
 sonal communication, in emergent cases, between Bishops and 
 Clergy ; godly admonitions and godly judgments freely given 
 and received. 
 
 It is a rule, moreover, which would harmonise, in practice, 
 opinions in regard to the true interpretation of the rubrics, 
 which appear otherwise hopelessly at variance. It has been 
 stated above with what "view, as it is conceived, the Rubric 
 before the Prayer of Consecration was left designedly in some 
 degree open ; though practically in regard to the usage in the 
 several Dioceses uniformity was intended. So also in the case 
 of vestments. What Bishop Cosin, and those with whom he was 
 acting, chiefly desired to establish was the use of the surplice as 
 against Genevan disorder ; but he would wish, at the same time, 
 that the ancient vestments should be " retained " and recognised 
 as part of the full ritual of the Church of England in relation
 
 134 A CHARGE. 
 
 specially to other Churches. He Avould have thought it, no doubt, 
 an advantage, that in any " Origines Liturgicre " the Church of 
 England should be able to claim these as her traditional posses- 
 sions, as well as to be able to appeal to Ancient Liturgies as the 
 source of her Forms of Prayer and other rites and ceremonies. 1 
 Queen Elizabeth's Advertisements had been unquestionably an 
 enforcement of order, not against Romanism primarily, but 
 against Puritan non-conformity ; and in this sense, enforced a 
 minimum ; not thereby lcaviug it to every clergyman in his 
 parish, at his own discretion, to introduce the maximum ; but 
 reserving to the Church, under lawful authorities, the power of 
 assumiug the full ceremonial. The practical superseding of the 
 vestments by the enforcement of the Advertisements no doubt 
 led to the destruction of vestments, and the appropriation of 
 them to secular uses ; but the direct object in view was to 
 enforce conformity upon the Puritans. If at a Coronation, 
 not only the Archbishop and the Dean of Westminster, ad- 
 ministering the Holy Communion, but the Bishops who said 
 the Litany, and the Prebendaries of the Abbey, wore copes, it 
 might be equally suitable, on such an occasion, for instance, 
 as when a dignitary of the English Church was called to 
 officiate, amidst dignitaries, say, of the Greek Church, as at a 
 recent Eoyal marriage at St. Petersburgh. To take an illus- 
 tration from the Court of the Sovereign, and the usages of 
 Parliament — the recognised full " dress " of the Court is that 
 of the reign of Queen Anne, and it is worn at levees and 
 drawing rooms of the Sovereign ; at levees of the Speaker, and 
 in the moving and seconding of the Address in either House of 
 Parliament ; the ordinary " full dress " being that which is used 
 at dinner parties, or the like, at the Eoyal Palace. If, instead of 
 this, any persons took upon them to come in ordinary morning 
 attire, something like Eoyal Advertisements might be required 
 to enforce the ordinary full dress ; not setting aside, meanwhile, 
 the recognised costume of formal Court etiquette ; while, on the 
 other hand, it would be unfitting, aud an offence against the laws 
 of the Court, to assume on ordinary occasions, without permis- 
 sion or authority, the special dress of official ceremonial. The 
 1 See the Appendix to Palmer's Origines, vol. ii.
 
 A CHARGE. 135 
 
 present aspect of the question, in a legal point of view, is, I 
 conceive, precisely that which would result from the corn-so 
 which was advisedly taken hy Queen Elizabeth ; amidst diffi- 
 culties which we can the better understand from those by 
 which we ourselves are beset. 
 
 I had occasion in the preceding Charge (p. 29), to give the 
 Resolutions unanimously adopted by the Lower House of Convo- 
 cation of the Province of Canterbury, in regard to " the position 
 of the celebrant," at the group of sessions which had just been 
 held at the time of the Visitation. The question of Vestments 
 was dealt with in subsequent of sessions held in June and July. 
 The course of debate in the two cases was very similar ; and the 
 Resolution finally adopted on the subject of Vestments was as 
 follows, carried by a very large majority. 
 
 " That in consideration of the long disuse of certain of the 
 Vestments specified in the First Prayer Book of King Ed- 
 ward VI., and referred to in the Ornaments Rubric, this House 
 recommends : 
 
 " First. That in celebrating the Holy Communion, as well as 
 at all other times of his ministration, it shall suffice that the 
 Minister do wear a surplice, with the addition of a stole or 
 scarf, and of the hood of his degree ; and that in preaching the 
 Minister do wear the surplice, with stole or scarf, and the hood 
 of his degree ; or, if he think fit, a gown and hood. 
 
 " Second. That the vestures specified in the First Prayer 
 Book of King Edward VI. shall not be brought into use in any 
 church, other than a cathedral or collegiate church, without the 
 previous consent of the Bishop." 
 
 " And it is hereby declared that by this resolution no sanction 
 is intended to be given to any doctrine other than is set forth in 
 the Prayer Book or Articles of the Church of England." 
 
 This last declaration was carried unanimously. 
 
 A preamble was afterwards prefixed, recommending that, " in 
 the event of action being taken by legislation or otherwise," 
 such action should be based upon these resolutions, with a 
 certain note to be appended, in such case, to the Ornaments 
 Rubric. The Upper House resolved, that " legislation on these 
 points " was " at the present time neither desirable nor prac-
 
 136 A CHARGE. 
 
 ticable," and therefore did not "deem it expedient now to 
 discuss the course which any such legislation should take, or the 
 principles according to which it should be regulated." Mean- 
 while the object with which the Letters of Business had been 
 granted had been sufficiently answered ; and the general feeling 
 of the Church, both Clergy and Laity, bad been tolerably well 
 ascertained. 
 
 The resolutions of April 16 and July 2, I conceive, very 
 faithfully reflect the spirit and letter of the Rubrics, taken in 
 connexion, in the latter case particularly, with the Advertise- 
 ments of Queen Elizabeth and the canons of 1603; both resolu- 
 tions alike falling back on the rule embodied in the Preface to 
 the Prayer Book. In the one case it was " provided that, in 
 cases where changes were made and disputes arise, it be left to 
 the Ordinary to determine which practice shall be adopted ; " in 
 the other, that the vestures in question " shall not be brought 
 into use in any church, other than a cathedral or collegiate 
 church, without the previous consent of the Bishop." It seems 
 to have been thought in some quarters, that there was an 
 omission, on the part of the Lower House, in regard to past 
 offences, as if they were ignored or condoned. It appeared to 
 me, I must say, as I believe it did to others also, that the Lower 
 House would be departing from its proper function if it dealt 
 with the administration of the Church's law ; that that indeed 
 belonged to the Bishops ; Convocation was neither the Church's 
 executive nor one of her courts of law ; but siruply her synod, a 
 deliberative body, taking counsel as to wbat should be the rule 
 to be observed for the future, in order to the Church's peace and 
 well-being. 
 
 In concluding these notes, I may be allowed to offer as my 
 apology for the delay which has occurred in the publication of 
 the Charge, the desire which I have felt to answer more fully 
 the object in view in the wish which was expressed for its 
 publication. The accessions which were making every week, 
 and at one time almost every day, to " the mass of controversial 
 literature " on the subject, made it necessary to enter more into 
 detail than I bad at first contemplated; and a variety of pressing
 
 A CHARGE. 137 
 
 duties, of different kinds, especially prolonged sessions of Con- 
 vocation on this and kindred matters, hindered my work. I 
 will now only add, that I trust what I have put together may, 
 in its humble degree, be found to subserve the interests of unity 
 and charity ; in the desire to " execute the judgment of truth and 
 peace in " our " gates," and fulfil the command Divinely given 
 to us all to " love the truth and peace." * I will only say for 
 myself that I have endeavoured, in my appointed place and 
 office in the Church, and in cordial co-operation with my bre- 
 thren of the Lower House of Convocation, and in dutiful regard 
 to his Grace the President, our Most Eeverend Diocesan, and 
 his Brethren in the Upper House, to have in mind the princi- 
 ples and rules of action laid down in the Preface to the Book of 
 Common Prayer, as those which had been kept in view and ob- 
 served in the proceedings at the last Eeview. " Our general 
 aim," it was there admirably and truly said, " in this undertak- 
 ing was not to gratify this or that party in any their unreasonable 
 demands : but to do that which, to our best understandings we 
 conceived might most tend to the preservation of peace and 
 unity in the Church ; the procuring of reverence, and exciting 
 of piety and devotion in the public worship of God, or the cut- 
 ting off occasion from them that seek occasion of cavil or quarrel 
 against the Liturgy of our Church." " And having thus endea- 
 voured to discharge our duties in this weighty affair, as in the 
 sight of God and to approve our sincerity therein (so far as lay 
 in us) to the consciences of all men ; although we know it im- 
 possible (in such variety of apprehensions, humours, and inte- 
 rests as are in the world) to please all ; nor can expect that men 
 of factious, peevish, and perverse spirits should be satisfied with 
 anything that can be done in this kind by any other than them- 
 selves ; Yet we have been in good hope that what is here pre- 
 sented, and hath been by the Convocations of both Provinces 
 with great diligence examined and approved, will be also well 
 accepted and approved by all sober, peaceable, and truly con- 
 scientious sons of the Church of England." 
 
 1 Zech. viii. 16, 19. 
 
 K
 
 138 A CHARGE. 
 
 " o pray for the peace op jerusalem : they shall prosper 
 that love thee. 
 
 " Peace be within thy walls : and plenteotjsness within 
 thy palaces. 
 
 "For my brethren and companions' sakes, I will now 
 say, Peace be within thee. 
 
 " Yea, because of the house of the Lord our God I 
 
 WILL SEEK THY GOOD." 
 
 Psalm cxxii. 6-9. 
 
 Precincts, Canterbury, 
 Oct. 12, 1875. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 8, line 9, for Berstead read Bearsted. 
 
 Page 53, line 12 from bottom, omit a after such. 
 
 Page 62, line IS, for what read which. 
 
 Page 67, line 23 from bottom, after Chance' insert comma. 
 
 Page 70, line 9 from bottom, for Presbyter read Pystoler.
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 Recently Published. 
 Visitation Courts and Synods. A Charge delivered 
 
 to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Maidstone, at the Ordinary 
 Visitation in May 1871. Price is. 
 
 The Unity of a Christian Kingdom in the One 
 
 Church of God. A Sermon preached in Canterbury Cathedral, 
 February 27, 1872, being the Day of National Thanksgiving to 
 Almighty God for the Recovery of H.R.H. Albert Edward, Prince of 
 Wales. Price is. 
 
 Ritual Uniformity and Elasticity, and Church 
 
 Desecration. A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry 
 of Maidstone, at the Ordinary Visitation in May 1873. 
 
 Measures and Means of Unity in the Church at 
 
 the Present Time. A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Arch- 
 deaconry of Maidstone at the Ordinary Visitation in April 1874. 
 
 RIVINGTONS 
 
 fttm&on, ©ifort, antj OTamfartjge
 
 k
 
 
 

 
 ^^