On the 21st November we made a remark on certain
letters sent by Mr. William Milton to the Times, with the view of proving that the Parliament of 1661 entirely overruled the wishes of Con- vocation as to the revised Rubrics, and especially as to the rubric affecting the place of the Communion-table and the position of the celebrant. We are bound to admit that a long letter by a well-known High-Church clergyman, the Rev. Thomas W. Perry, Vicar of Ardleigh, Colchester, appears to upset Mr. Milton's asser- tion that Parliament overruled Convocation in the matter, and to show that the chief alterations discussed and rejected were alter- ations discussed and rejected by Convocation itself, and not by Parliament. Not the less, however, does it seem to be clear that the reason why Parliament made no alterations in the Prayer- book, was that Convocation had in its discretion already wisely rejected the proposed alterations, which it was pretty certain that Parliament would have declined to accept,—and, amongst these, the alteration which would have placed the Communion- table in the east end of the chancel, and substituted "the north part" for "the north end" of the table in defining the position of the celebrant. Parliament apparently did not snub Convoca- tion, only because Convocation was too prudent to lay itself open to a Parliamentary snub.
Previous page
