question I have to decide is between the churchwardens and the minister of the parish. With the Camden Society I have nothing whatever to do, save that they are incidentally mentioned as the persons under whose direction the works for the restoration of the church have been carried on. I can only look at the conduct of the parties before the court. The motives of the parties also have nothing to do with the question, which is simply on the construction of the rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer, confirmed by the Act of Uniformity, 13 and 14 Charles II., and the canon of 1603.

Is it entirely a question of law, in which the motives of the parties ought to have no weight with the court. The simple question is this:-Is this, or is it not, a communion-table within the meaning of the rubric, within the meaning of the 82nd canon, and of the general laws, canons, and constitutions ecclesiastical of this realm ? If this is a communion-table within the provision and meaning of the statute (as I call it), the court cannot hold that it is an "innovation," and on that ground refuse to confirm the faculty; on the other hand, if it be not a communion-table within the meaning of the law, to be collected from the sources to which I have alluded, then the court would be bound to refuse the faculty prayed for. If the rubrics have expressly decided that a communion-table should be of wood, and not fixed, but moveable, the court could not authorize the erection of a stone table fixed to the wall or floor of the church; and if, on a consideration of the authorities, it should appear that, according to the construction of the word "table" in the rubrics and canons, it should be of wood and moveable, the court must proceed in precisely the same manner as if it had been expressly so declared. I repeat, therefore, that the question is, whether this is a communion-table or not, within the meaning of the canon and rubrics? I assume that neither the churchwardens, nor the minister of the parish are actuated by any improper motives; that the churchwardens have no covert design of introducing Popish rites or ceremonies, as suggested; and, on the other hand, I give Mr. Faulkner the credit of being influenced by a conscientious conviction that, in opposing this grant, he is opposing that which is repugnant to the laws and constitutions of the reformed church, and that he is not actuated by bigotry and prejudice. The facts of the case, as set forth in the act on petition, are these:

This ancient church, dedicated in the year 1101, having been found to be dilapidated and rendered unsightly by injudicious repairs, it was thought desirable to restore it as near as might be to its original design, and according to a plan prepared by a skilful architect, and with reference to which a faculty was granted. The works were executed under the superintendence of the Cambridge Camden Society, and a committee was formed, consisting of the minister and churchwardens, some of the parishioners, and the president and some of the members of the society. The expense was to be defrayed by voluntary contributions and the assistance of the society. In the progress of the works an individual, whose name is not mentioned, offered to make a free gift to the parish of a stone communion-table, and what is called a credencetable, also of stone. This offer was accepted, and that which forms the present subject of discussion was accordingly placed in the chancel, without, as is alleged, the privity and consent of the minister, he having been absent from Cambridge. It appears, that this stone structure consists of a slab, supported by three upright slabs, all of stone, resting upon a lower slab, also of stone, and that the weight is about two tons; that the lower part is imbedded in mortar or concrete, about an inch below the floor of the chancel, which is built up to the table, and covered with encaustic tiles; and that the table was also made to adhere to the east wall of the chancel. There is some dispute as to this last act, but it is sworn on one side, and not contradicted on oath. If the fact were material in the view which the court is disposed to take of this case it must be taken to be as stated in the affidavit. But the court is

satisfied to give the churchwardens the benefit of any alteration which has been made since the first erection. This structure Mr. Faulkner contends is a stone altar, or altar table, such as is erected and used with the credence-table for idolatrous and heretical purposes in Popish countries; that the rubrics and canons require that the communion-table should be of wood and moveable. On the other hand the churchwardens deny that it is an altar, or such as is used in Popish countries for idolatrous and heretical purposes; and that it is essential to the preservation of uniformity in the internal arrangements of the church. They also deny that Mr. Faulkner was ignorant of the intention to place the communion-table and credence-table in the chancel; or, if he was ignorant, they say he was wilfully so, for that he was a member of the committee, and had due notice of its meetings. To this it is rejoined, that Mr. Faulkner had no reason to suppose that the tenour of the faculty originally granted would be departed from; and therefore that he did not think his attendance necessary; that the substitution of the stone altar for the communiontable formed no part of the original plan; and looking at the part of the plan where the credence-table stands, there appear three pencil lines, describing where it should be placed, so that in the original specification it does not appear that a credence-table was originally contemplated; this, therefore, would appear to have been an after-thought, in consequence of the offer made by a liberal individual to make a free gift to the parish. The churchwardens then annex a list of churches, in which communion-tables of stone, fixed, are to be found. I do not find any reference to either of the three similar churches as in the number of those in which stone tables have been used. I do not find that when the Temple Church was repaired, the old communion-table was replaced by one made of stone.

Now, the question is, what is the real meaning of the word "table” in the canons and rubrics of the church? In the first place it is contended, properly and truly, that the present question must be determined by the Act of Uniformity and the rubrics of the Book of Common-prayer, which are incorporated and made part of it. But in order to arrive at the true meaning of the expression in the present Act of Uniformity and in the present rubrics, it may not be immaterial to refer to the alterations made in the rubrics at the time of the Reformation, and from that time down to the passing of the present Act of Uniformity in 1662, when we shall find that the word "altar" has been changed to "table." We all know that after the Reformation one of the doctrines of the church of Rome which was renounced by the church of England, was the doctrine of transubstantiation; and it will be found that the material and the form of the altar of the Romish church are connected with this doctrine of transubstantiation, and with the eucharist as a sacrifice. It was contended that by the rubrics of the Roman-catholic church altars must be built of stone, and must be immoveable, and various canons from the body of the canon law were cited to show that the altar must be of stone, and fixed; and, if not, it must be re-consecrated. The court does not think it necessary to go through all these authorities on this part of the case, because it is not incumbent upon the court to pronounce whether this is or is not an altar. At the same time it may not be inexpedient to consider what was the origin of the altars as used in the Roman-catholic churches, of what material they were constructed, and of what form, in order to arrive more readily at the meaning and intention of those who directed the removal of stone altars and the substitution of tables.

From the authorities cited by Cardinal Bona, in his work De Rebus Liturgicis, we learn that the altars used in the early ages of Christianity were made of wood, and in the form of a table; that about the year 509 they began to be of stone, although the wooden tables were not altogether abolished. The form altered with the material, sometimes the altar or table was supported by one pillar, sometimes by four or two, and latterly they assumed the form of a

tomb, as of the Sepulchre of the Martyrs, whence they derived their name; and there is no doubt that at the time of the Reformation the altars in the English churches were of stone, fixed and immoveable. At the time of the separation of the church of England from that of Rome, amongst the many points of difference between them, one of the most important was that respecting the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Supper of the Lord, which, as is declared by the 28th article of our church, “cannot be proved by holy writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture." In the reign of Henry VIII., the feeling against this doctrine was not so decided as it afterwards became; nor did any material change take place in the early part of the reign of Edward V1., for we find in his first Prayer-book, 1549, that the mass was still to be celebrated in the order for the Supper of the Lord, "commonly called the Mass ;" and the word "altar" was used in different parts of the service as set forth in that book. But in his second Prayer-book, 1552, the terms "mass” and “altar” were altogether omitted. The order was for "the administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion." The table was to stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel, were morning and evening service were appointed to be read; and the priest, instead of standing in the midst of the altar, was to stand at the north side of the "table," and so on through the service. But in the interval between the publication of the first Prayer-book in 1549 and the publication of the second in 1552, certain events had taken place, and certain orders and injunctions had been issued, to which it is necessary to refer. In 1547 an order had been issued to take away and destroy all tables, images, and other monuments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatries, and superstitions; and in 1550, Ridley, Bishop of London, issued an injunction to the same effect. Bishop Ridley's injunctions are to the following effect :

"Whereas some of us use the Lord's board after the form of a table and some as an altar, whereby dissension is perceived to arise among the unlearned, therefore, wishing a godly unity to be observed in all our dioceses, and for that the form of a table may more move and turn the simple from the old superstitious opinions of the Popish mass, and to the right use of the Lord's Supper, we exhort the curates, churchwardens, and quest men here present to erect and set up the Lord's board after the form of an honest table, decently covered, in such place of the choir or chancel as shall be thought most meet by their discretion, so that the ministers with the communicants may have their place separated from the rest of the people; and to take down and abolish all other by-altars or tables."

These injunctions were, of course, confined in the first instance to the diocese of London, and to the form of an exhortation. But there was an order in council issued to Bishop Ridley strictly charging and commanding him, for avoiding strife and contention, to take down altars and place communiontables in their stead :

"We especially charge and command you, for the avciding of all strife and contention about the standing or taking away of the said altars, to give order throughout all your diocese, that with all diligence all the altars in every church or chapel be taken down, and instead of them a table be set up in some convenient part of the chancel, to serve for the ministration of the blessed communion."

And it appears from Burnet's History of the Reformation, that on the 19th of November, 1550, letters were sent to every bishop throughout England to "pluck down altars." This" plucking down and removing of altars," and the substitution of "honest tables" in their place, was for the avowed purpose of "moving and turning the simple from the old superstitions of the Popish mass." The change intended, therefore, must have been something more than nominal; it must have been substantial. If a change of name only had been intended, there could have been no necessity for removing the altars, since

they could have served the office of tables. The alterations, therefore, in the short reign of Edward VI. are very important for the consideration of the Court. In the short reign of Mary, which followed, one of her first acts was the repeal of all the statutes passed in that of Edward VI. respecting religion, and things reverted to the same state as they were at the end of Henry VIII.'s reign; altars were to be re-erected in the churches, and penalties were imposed upon those who, of their own accord, pulled down or destroyed them, and mass was again celebrated. But in the year 1558 Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne, and when she repealed the statutes of Queen Mary, the statutes of Edward VI. were revived. In 1559 orders were issued by Queen Elizabeth for substituting the communion of the sacrament for the high mass, and for placing tables in the churches to the same effect as those issued by Edward VI. :—

"Whereas her Majesty understandeth that in many and sundry parts of the realm the altars of the churches be removed, and tables placed for the administration of the holy sacrament according to the form of the law therefore provided; and in some places the altars be not yet removed, upon opinion conceived of some other order to be taken by her Majesty's visitors, in the order whereof, saving for uniformity, there seemeth no matter of great moment so that the sacrament be duly and reverendly administered, yet for the observation of the one uniformity through the whole realm, and for the better imitation of the law in that behalf, it is ordered that no altar be taken down but by oversight of the curate of the church and the churchwardens, or one of them at the least; and that the holy table in every church be decently made and set in the place where the altar stood, and there commonly covered, as thereto belongeth, and as shall be appointed by the visitors, and so to stand, saving when the communion of the sacrament is to be distributed, at which time the same shall be so placed in good sort within the chancel, whereby the minister may be more conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministration; and the communicants also more conveniently and in more number communicate with the minister, and after the communion done from time to time the same holy table to be placed where it stood before."

From this order it is manifest that the tables here meant were something very different from the altars, and that they were moveable; for the direction that it was to be placed where it stood before could not apply to an immoveable stone altar. In 1564 it appears that Queen Elizabeth issued advertisements directing amongst other things that parishes should provide a decent table standing on a frame," for the communion; an expression applicable rather to a wooden table than one made of stone. In 1569, Archbishop Parker's visitation inquiries go to the same fact as to the communion-tables and taking down of altars. In 1571, Archbishop Grindall's injunctions are remarkable for their expressions.

"All altars to be pulled down to the ground and the altar-stones defaced, and bestowed to some common use; the prayers and other service appointed for the ministration of the holy communion to be said and done at the communion-table."

Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the determined manner in which the measures for the utter subversion of the superstitions connected with the Popish mass were carried on than these orders and injunctions, the great object being the annihilation of the fixed, immoveable stone altars, and the substitution of wood moveable tables in their place. It has been said that these injunctions, and orders, and advertisements were of no legal or binding authority, not being sanctioned by act of Parliament. This is by no means clear; but they are referred to and relied upon, without being impugned, by Mr. Sherfield, on his trial for breaking a painted window in a church at New Sarum, and again by Archbishop Laud on his impeachment; but, whether they were of binding authority or not, the fact is that they were acted upon,

that they were carried into full execution. The altars were destroyed and tables of wood set up in their stead; and it is this fact which is alone material for the purpose of the present question.

We now approach a most important period, when the contest raged between high and low church in the reign of Charles I. Its origin may be found in Lord Clarendon's History of the Rebellion. It has been shewn that the stone altars were removed and tables of wood set up; the questions then agitated were as to the place in which the tables should stand, and their position. The Puritans contended that the proper place for the table when the communion was administered was in the body of the church, before the chancel door; and afterwards in the chancel, but placed table-wise, and not altar-wise—that is, that one of the ends of the table was to be placed towards the east, so that one of the larger sides might be to the north, the priest being directed to stand at the north side and not at the north end of the table. The high churchmen, on the contrary, contended that as the injunctions ordered that the tables when not in use should stand where the altar used to stand, it should consequently be placed as the altar was. These apparently unimportant matters were the source of violent contentions. Tracts were published, neither remarkable for courtesy of language, nor for accurate statements of facts. (The learned judge then referred to the following tracts: A Coal from the Altar, 1636-7, written by Dr. Heylyn; The Holy Table, Name and Thing, &c.) There is some ground for surmising that the last-named work was written by Williams, Bishop of Lincoln. It appears that a dispute had arisen between the vicar of Grantham and his parishioners respecting the proper place for the table. The vicar insisted that it ought to stand at the upper end of the chancel, against the east wall. The parishioners contended that it should stand in the body of the church. The vicar removed it from that situation, and placed it in the chancel. The alderman of the borough replaced it in its former situation, and a formal complaint was made to the bishop, and it was stated that the vicar had threatened to "build a stone altar." The bishop delivered his opinion in writing, to the effect that such an erection would be illegal. seems to settle the question as to stone altars at this time, and, being an admonition from a bishop to one of his clergy, is entitled to considerable weight; and the grounds upon which he founds his opinion are the orders, injunctions, and canons.

This

The learned judge then proceeded to consider the case of Archbishop Laud, who became involved in these unfortunate disputes, by introducing many of what were at that time called " innovations," an unfortunate term, as Lord Clarendon called it, and which formed part of the articles of impeachment against him.

We now come to the time of the Restoration, when the present Prayerbook and rubric were framed, when the term "table" was introduced, and the communion-table remained in the same situation as from the time of Elizabeth-that is, that it was of wood, not stone; and moveable, not fixed. The next question is, has any alteration been since made? In the rubrics of the present Book of Common Prayer the term "table" is repeatedly introduced, and in several places consistent only with the idea of an ordinary table of wood, which is moveable. Looking to the meaning and interpretation of the word "table" itself, what would be the ordinary construction which a person would naturally put upon the word? Would he consider that it was an article similar to that represented by the model now on the table of the court? would that be the natural and proper sense which he would attach to the word? It might be possible by ingenuity to shew that such an article is a table, as any flat surface raised from the ground, and supported by pillars, may be called a table. But that would not be the meaning which would suggest itself to the mind of any person who read the rubric in its ordinary and popular sense; no one would suppose the term "table" to mean an article