[TO TEE EDITOR 07 THE " SPECTATOR."]
SIR,-I am not concerned to refute the inferences of your correspondent, Mr. Arthur R. Hunt, in the Spectator of March 25th, as to the priesthood of the laity drawn from the teaching of Wyclif. But his letter contains statements upon matters of ecclesiastical law, as to which I think he can be shown to be clearly in the wrong. Mr. Hunt writes :—" Both High Church and Low have unanimously agreed to shirk the rubric enjoining a table having a fair linen cloth upon it, where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said. Such services in country churches are usually said in the body of the Church.' In such cases who has ever seen the table placed as directed? It is invariably placed in a place considered more holy, viz., the chancel, and instead of having only a linen cloth on it, it is often covered and draped in red velvets or cloths in Low churches, and in a variety of colours in High churches." Ae to the position of the table, if Mr. Hunt will read the rubric prefixed to the " Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Com- munion" a little more carefully, be will find that it runs as follows : " The Table, at the Communion-time having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the Body of the Church, or in the Chancel, where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said." Further, the Ornaments Rubric, first inserted in the Prayer-book of Elizabeth in 1559, and adopted with some verbal alterations at the final revision of 1662, enjoins that "the Morning and Evening Prayer shall be used in the accustomed place of the Church, Chapel, or Chancel; except it shall be otherwise determined by the Ordinary of the Place. And the Chancels shall remain as they have done in times past." These rubrics, taken together, show that the placing of the holy table in the chancel is at least as legal as the position in the body of the church. Mr. Hunt appears to have hastily concluded from a few cases which may have come under his notice that in country churches the services for Morning and Evening Prayer are usually said is the body of the church. I do not think the experience of most Churchmen will bear out this statement. In the great majority of our ancient parish churches the reading-desk will be found placed within the chancel-screen, of which so many fine specimens remain in Mr. Hunt's own county of Devon, or at least on the raised step leading to the chancel. Mr. Hunt will find the whole question of the position of the holy table, " lengthwise " or "altar-wise," in the chancel or the body of the church, elaborately discussed in the judgment of the late Archbishop of Canterbury in the case of " Read v. Bishop of Lincoln " (Roscoe's Report, pp. 115-40).
As regards the " fair linen cloth," Mr. Hunt appears to have both misread the rubric: and to have overlooked Canon 82 of 1603. The terms of the rubric are precise: "At the time of Communion, having a fair white linen cloth upon it." Canon 82, which having the authority of Con- vocatien, though unratified by Parliament, is held to be binding on the clergy, is as follows: " Whereas we have no doubt but that in all churches within the realm of England, convenient and decent tables are provided and placed for the celebration of the Holy Communion, we appoint that the same tables shall from time to time be kept and repaired in sufficient and seemly manner, and covered in time of Divine Service with a carpet of silk or other decent stuff, thought meet by the Ordinary of the place, if any question be made of it, and with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration, as becometh that table, and so stand, saving when the said Holy Communion is to be administered " The last sentence refers to the con- venient placing of the communicants, as may be seen by reference to the concluding words of the Canon, too long to set out here. The whole question was discussed, and the Canon affirmed, by Dr. Lushington, Judge of the Consistory Court of London, and Sir John Dodson, Dean of the Arches, in the case of " Westerton v. Liddell," in 1855 (Zifoore's Special Report, pp. 72 and 130). As to the coloured altar cloths, favoured by the High Church clergy, to which Mr. Hunt takes exception, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held on appeal in the same case that embroidered and coloured clothe were within the discretion of the Ordinary, and legal if approved by him (Ibid., p. 188).—I 7 Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, March 29th.
Previous page
