To avoid a change of position beyond the _two_ specified. But it was doubtless intended that the centre should still be used for actual consecration, even as it was in the First Book, though no order was given in either case, to that effect. The order for the "north-side" was only put in because it was a new arrangement. And it will be observed that the term used _is_ "the North-side:" apparently indicating that a special and well-known part of the Table is meant. The present most incorrect practice, of standing at the north _end_, probably arose from two causes,--first, the infrequency of celebrations, which caused the habit to be formed of standing somewhat northwards; while the old distinct conception of the position had passed away: secondly, from the practice--probably in use[48] of old in our Church--of placing the vessels and unconsecrated elements, if there was no credence-table, on the _non-consecrating_ part of the altar, where it was found convenient to keep them still when consecrating. It may be questioned whether it be not still correct, or allowable however, thus to make use of the less important parts of the Table to serve as a Credence, if none other is provided. But the consecration should always take place at the middle of the Holy Table. [45] The Fathers generally prefer 'Altar,' the Liturgies 'Holy Table.' [46] Syriac Liturgy of St. James, "pars _altaris_ in quâ tabula defixa est;" "pars media _mensæ vitæ_." [47] Syriac Liturgy of St. James, Renaudot; the 'Ancient English and Communion Offices' (Maskell), where "cornu" is used. The Roman 'Ritus celebrandi Missam,' 4. 4; "Thurificat _aliud latus_ altaris." [48] The Rubrics in the Syriac Liturgy of St. James seem plainly to contemplate that the vessels, &c., should be placed on the north or south side until consecration, since they are to be carried _from_ the altar round the chancel, and _then_ placed on the _media pars_ (Renaudot, p. 60, who _imagines_ a credence). And both in England and abroad, ancient credence-tables are very rare.