The only possible objection to this plan is one rather of prejudice than of knowledge. It is thought by some persons that it is “incorrect” to place the holy table at the west end of a church instead of at the east. Now it is a singular fact, known to every ecclesiologist, that although from the earliest times churches have always been built east and west, yet the eastern position of the holy table is of late introduction. The primitive arrangement, as exhibited in the Basilicas, places the holy table almost universally at the western end of the church, and the minister stood upon its western side facing the congregation. Not only does this arrangement prevail in St. Peter’s, {13} and in almost all the other Basilicas at Rome, including the exceedingly early church recently brought to light beneath the Basilica of San Clemente, but it is found also, without I believe an exception, in the churches discovered in Eastern Syria by the Count de Voguè, the greater portion of which are earlier than the reign of Constantine. It is the arrangement of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, and it must be considered to be the original type adopted by the Christian church before mediæval developments had interfered with the primitive idea. A tradition of it still remains in many of the great German churches, which have a Quire and a High Altar at both ends of the church. To come nearer home, there is at least one church in this parish built upon this plan. It would be difficult to find an objection to so venerable a tradition, but some persons, not very conversant with such matters, have a fancy of their own, that the graves in a church yard point toward the holy table, and upon this ground they object to its removal westward. A moment’s consideration will show that those graves which lie to the east of the church point away from the table, and that those in the extreme south of the church-yard can hardly be said to be directed towards the sanctuary, which is situated far to the north of them. The eastward direction of graves has nothing whatever to do with the position of the chancel. It originated from a belief, which prevailed in very early times, that in His second Advent, our Lord would appear from the East, an opinion curiously enough founded upon the text of Matthew xxiv. 27. {14} Whatever may be the value of this belief the custom is venerable, and no one would wish to interfere with it, but it has nothing whatever to do with the position of the chancel and holy table. Indeed I ought to apologise, Mr. Vicar, for taking up time in the exposure of so obvious a blunder.