THE “EASTERN POSITION” IN CHURCH COMMUNION.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1221, 1 February 1878, Page 3

THE “EASTERN POSITION” IN CHURCH COMMUNION.

The following is the opening article in the “Church Magazine ” for January:— We have received information, by way of complaint, from different sources, that several clergymen of this diocese stand, while saying the prayer of consecration in the Communion office, with their backs to the congregation, so that the latter cannot see the manual acts performed during that prayer. We refrain from publishing the names of the clergymen so acting, but we purpose to remonstrate with them for conduct which is, to say the least, deserving of grave censure. They probably consider that the Ridsdale judgment justifies their taking the eastward position during the consecrating prayer. We are aware that that judgment was regarded by Ritualists, and even by some High Churchmen, as legalising that position. And in a sense, but with a very limited application, the judgment did so. It legalised the eastward, the westward, the northward (or even the southward) position, (wo ask our readers attention to this), if it is consistent with the performing of the manual acts required to bo done in the sight of the people. As the Communion tables are usually placed, the eastward position does not permit of this being done, and therefore that position is virtually condemned. But if the table were removed, as directed by the rubric, to “the body of the church,’.’ then ihe clergyman officiating with his face to the east-, would not necessarily hinder his congregation from seeing the manual act s performed—for the bulk of the congregation, “ being properly placed,” would be before him. The defendant in the Ridsdale case escaped conviction on this point, because there was no distinct, proof that his performance of the manual acts would not be seen. It had been assumed by the prosecutors that the position itself was illegal, and consequently they had not considered it necessary to bring proof that the congregation could not see the performance of the manual acts. As far as the evidence itself was concerned there was nothing to show that. Mr Ridsdale was not in the habit , according to the rubical direction, of removing the table into “ the body of the Church.” The judicial conimittoo therefore declined to condemn hjm on this point, and solely for the reason here given. In other words he received, (lie prosecution being a penal one, the benefit of the doubt raised. Any person who will carefully read that portion of the Ridsdale judgment which refers to that point, will be satisfied of the soundness of this explanation.

The judgment of the Bench of Bishops in the Oarlvon case affirms the soundness of this explanation. The Bishops of the Church in New Zealand condemn the defendant for so standing as, by the interposition of his body, to hinder the congregation from seeeing the performance of the manual acts required to be done during the prayer of consecration. We believe that these remarks will assist gny one desirous of knowing the law of the Church to a right understanding of the matter. We do not wish to say more upon this subject at present; unless we«had the expression of our earnest hope 9 the clergy

■will not, where the meaning of the law is clear, irritate and provoke the laity of the Church by neglecting to obey the law. Where both the Privy Council and the Bench of Bishops have explained the law the clergy are surely without excuse, should they disregard such interpretation. In the ministering of the Sacrament of the Holy Communion no minister is free from blame who introduces ceremonies and practices which are illegal, or omit any that are required by the Church’s plain directions, when such omissions or additions give offence to actual, or intending communicants. Not infrequently we hear laymen say —“ I could not stay to the Communion because the officiating clergyman behaved during the service in such and such a way or “ I wouldn’t have gone to the Communion had I known beforehand how the officiating minister would have behaved or “I was on tenterhooks during the whole of the service, and will not go again.” We assure our readers that wo are not putting imaginary cases. Wo are simply repeating what we have heard within the last fortnight, from three different parishes. Very solemn, indeed, is the responsibility of that clergyman, who, to indulge himself iu some fancy of bodily posture, or what not, puts a stumbling block before his brother, and turns him from the Table where only he can fulfil his dying Saviour’s injunction, “ Do this in remembrance of me.”