SECTION XIII

OF THE ALTAR-RAIL.

THE rail was introduced in the seventeenth century as a fence to the altar, and as such it should be now retained in all churches where the chancels are imperfectly screened; but in properly furnished churches it is not wanted for this purpose. It is, however, useful as a support to infirm persons when kneeling at the sanctuary step, and therefore should not be entirely done away with. A few feet of rail at each end of the step is all that will be wanted, as only a small number of people require it. Where there are special reasons for carrying it across the chancel, a wide gate should be provided in the middle.

The rail should be two feet to two feet six inches high, and should stand one foot from the edge of the sanctuary step. If it is meant to serve as a screen, it should be close in design. Sometimes, instead of a fixed rail, two short moveable lengths are placed on the step when wanted. These are not to be commended; they are not really safe, and a treacherous support is worse than

none.

The material for the altar-rail may be either wood, marble, iron, or cast-brass. It need not be reduced so as to be scarcely visible, as is often done; on the contrary,

where it can be afforded, this is often a good place for richness. A well-managed altar-rail may add much to the dignity of the altar. A turned wood rail often looks very well; and it is scarcely credible that "correctness" should have caused so many really good altar-rails of this sort to be turned out of our old churches, to make way for vile tailors' trash, in the shape of what are called "iron standards."

SECTION XIV.

OF THE ALTA R.

THE size, material, and form of the altar, each require consideration. Most modern altars are too low and too broad; in length they are generally better, although here they generally err by being too short. The height and width should be regulated by the convenience of the celebrant, and, consequently, should vary only within small limits. But the length is not so affected, and may vary almost indefinitely, according to the size and character of the church.

The common mistake is to treat the altar as a table. But tables are meant to sit at, whilst every act done at the altar is done standing; consequently, what is a convenient height for an ordinary table must necessarily be too low for an altar. In spite of this apparently obvious objection, it is by no means uncommon to see altars very little higher than a common dining-table. In the newer churches this is generally somewhat exceeded, and the most usual height is about three feet. A few architects make it as much as three feet three, or at most four inches, but an altar above this height is seldom seen. This maximum of three feet four inches should really be the minimum. An altar lower than this will compel a priest

of average stature to stoop inconveniently over it. Three feet five inches is better, and is perhaps the best general height. I have made altars as high as three feet six inches, and their convenience is favourably reported on by the clergy using them. But I think this is the highest limit, as three feet four inches is the lowest.

The width of an altar should not. be great; two feet is sufficient to celebrate on, and any additional width given to the altar is so much taken from the length of the sanctuary, which is now oftener too short than too long. And, further, it is desirable to be able to reach over the altar, which cannot conveniently be done if it is more than two feet six inches wide. About two feet three inches will be found a good ordinary width. If the ledge stand upon the altar, the width of the latter must be correspondingly increased.

The high altar should be sufficiently long to make it appear decidedly and unmistakably the principal object at the east end of the church. It may take up from one-third to one-half of the width of the sanctuary. In a large church one-third is enough, but the proportion should increase as the chancel becomes narrower; and no high altar should; even in the smallest church, be less than eight feet long, otherwise the priest, gospeller, and epistoler, standing side by side in front of it, will completely conceal it. A side-altar, at which there are none. but low celebrations, may be as little as five feet long its height and width being determined by the same rules as the other.

There has of late years been much, as it seems to me,

unnecessary, disputing about the materials of which the altar should be made, some insisting that it must be wood, others that the whole, or at least the top, must be stone. Very good arguments may be produced in favour of each. The rubric, in directing that "the chancels shall remain as they have done in the times past," distinctly orders that the altar shall be of stone; for in "times past," i.., before the translation of the services, none but stone altars were known in English churches. But this rubric seems never to have been generally acted upon, and for the last three centuries stone and wood have been used indiscriminately. Until the general desecration of churches by the Puritan faction during the civil wars, many of the ancient stone altars still continued in use; but such new ones as were erected appear to have been usually of wood, as were also nearly all of those which were set up in the churches on their restoration to sacred uses, between 1660 and 1662. From that date until within the last forty years the altars were in most cases of marble, or with marble tops, supported on ironwork. In recent times wood has been more common, although now the fashion is rapidly changing in favour of stone.

Passing over the authority of the rubric, the main arguments in favour of stone are the example of the rest of western Christendom, and the unseemliness of the principal object in the church being less permanent and durable in character than those of only secondary importance—namely, the font, which is always, and the pulpit, which is often, of stone. In favour of wood may