I see the bread broken, and the wine poured out, O teach me to discern Thy body there: O let those sacred and significant actions create in me a most lively remembrance of Thy sufferings."1 And from Ken we turn to another prelate, whose name it is always natural to associate with his. Bishop Wilson, whose episcopate in the Isle of Man ranged from 1698 to 1755, wrote some "Instructions for the Indians, where, in answer to the supposed question on the part of the Indian, "You will now, Sir, let me know how this Sacrament is observed amongst Christians," the Missionary says, "They do it after this manner: First the minister of Christ placeth, or causeth to be placed,3 upon a table in our churches a portion of bread and wine in the sight of the people. This bread and wine, which are to represent the sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, are sanctified, or set apart, for this holy use, by a giving thanks to God for all His favours, and especially for having sent His only Son to redeem us by His death, and by begging of Him that when 1 "Church Catechism" in his Prose Works, p. 324.

2 Works of Bishop Wilson in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, vol. iv. p. 275.

3 These words, "causeth to be placed," should be noticed by the way. There is a curious passage in the Treatise of Hickes, the Nonjuror, on the Christian Priesthood (Pref. p. liii., ed. 1707), from which it would appear that this rubric regarding the placing of the bread and wine at this time by the minister on the Holy Table was not very carefully observed in the early part of the eighteenth century. "As the disuse of this practice had taken deep root from the fifth year of King Edward VI., and helpt to obliterate the notion of the Christian sacrifice in the minds both of Priest and People; so this restored Rubrick, to the great reproach of the Clergy, was almost never since observed in Cathedral or Parochial Churches." This seems to me to show that this rubric was then regarded merely as having reference to convenience or propriety, and that the placing of the bread and wine on the Lord's Table was not generally viewed as an oblation. Hickes was, of course, desirous to assign a sacrificial meaning to this act.

we receive and eat and drink this bread and wine, we may be so far partakers of the sacrifice of His most blessed Body and Blood, as to share in all the benefits which He hath obtained for us by His death. At the same time he breaketh the bread into pieces, and poureth out the wine into a cup, to represent unto our senses, by these outward and visible signs, the death of Christ, whose body was broken, and blood poured out, upon the cross." It must be remembered that this paragraph occurs in a course of catechetical teaching; and it seems fair to use it for the sake of giving fulness and definiteness to Bishop Wilson's meaning, when he says, in a shorter manual of instruction,' "When God's minister breaketh the bread, and poureth out the wine, and blesseth them, let them put you in remembrance of Christ's Body broken and His Blood shed."

To the same effect Bishop Beveridge might be quoted:2 but to St. Asaph I turn for corroborative testimony of a different kind. The Welsh translation of the rubrics in the Prayer Book of 1662 have preserved for us, unchanged, the impression of their meaning which prevailed at the time when the translation was made. And the present Bishop of that ancient see, whose accurate knowledge of his native language no one will dispute, tells us distinctly, in a note appended to his Second Charge, that the Welsh words for "before the people" denote “in the presence of the people," and always involve the idea of sight.

1 Works, vol. iv. p. 117. Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. 2 See Appendix I. (Bishop Beveridge on seeing the Bread broken.) 3 Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. Asaph, Sept. and Oct. 1874. Note p. 38, where reference is made to the use of the same preposition in Isaiah i. 7.

When we connect all this argument with the fact that it belongs to a Table, not fixed altarwise against an eastern wall, but placed free in the chancel, or in the body of the church, so as to be in immediate contact with the congregation, we see how harmoniously all parts of this subject hang together. The true interpretation of the rubric which regulates the position of the consecrator depends on the rubric which regulates the position of the Table. The two subjects cannot, with a due regard to history, be treated separately from one another. Theoretically, however, they can be separated: and even if we are to leave the position of the Table an open question, we can find abundant historical evidence to prove that it has never been the custom or understood rule for the priest of the Church of England since 1552 to consecrate with his face to the East. To this narrower view of the subject we may now turn.

IX.

USAGE BEFORE 1662.

Custom from 1552 onwards-Evidence from Bishop Jewel- Wren's approval of Jewel- Bishop Wren's defence of himself— Archbishop Laud's chapel-His answer to his accusers-Bishop Cosin's answer to his own accusers-Defence of these three prelates against the charge of dishonesty.

HITHERTO the position of the "celebrant" has been treated chiefly in its historical connection with the placing of the Lord's Table. Let us now take the first subject separately, and turn to the simple consideration of actual usage in the Church of England. This usage must very seriously either weaken or strengthen the arguments which have been drawn out above. If it could be shown to have been the custom of the Clergy of the Church of England since 1552, when the rubric relating to the "North Side of the Table" was first introduced, to have consecrated in the eastward position, then it would be necessary to reconsider all these arguments, however perplexing the inconsistency might appear. If the contrary custom has prevailed, then we have in this matter that consistency between rule and practice which it is very difficult to refute. If there has been a general habit in one direction with occasional exceptions, then it is our duty to ascertain the number of these exceptions, the circumstances under which they have occurred, and the reasons by which they have been justified and thus to enable ourselves to estimate them at their true value.

It is obviously desirable to divide such a survey into two periods, separated from one another by the great date of 1662. The usage, indeed, with which we are more immediately concerned is that which succeeded this chronological landmark; for our true starting-point for present practice is the last revision of the Prayer Book, when the rubric in question was first introduced. Still, the opinions and controversies of the earlier period led by paths more or less direct to the results which we have inherited; and the subject would be treated very incompletely, if we were to take no note of the ecclesiastical practices which preceded the Restoration.

During this earlier period the rubric in question did not exist, but another rubric did; and the rule concerning "the North side of the Table" being in full force during the whole of this time, and no other rubric being existent which suggested any change of position at the Consecration Prayer, I am not aware of any reason for imagining the prevalence of any habit out of harmony with these facts. But if historical instances can be given to show that the harmony subsisted, they are certainly of some value. I will refer chiefly to circumstances connected with the names of Bishop Wren, Archbishop Laud, and Bishop Cosin; but first I will refer to a circumstance, which seems to have been somewhat overlooked, associated with the name of another and earlier bishop.

1 Any one examining a Prayer Book of 1552 or 1559 would assume that all the Service was said at the north side: for no other place is mentioned or hinted at. Does "orientation" at the Consecration Prayer depend on the words "before the Table?" Then it was not prescribed before 1662. And further, what authority is there now for any "orientation" in the Service previous to this prayer?