been over

junctions of the civil law, he had whelmed with 150 witnesses: and of these a large

altar stood; this, as it has been shown, was, anciently, in the choir, and indeed continued so throughout all the churches in England, until the time of Archbishop Laud. The Rubric in the prayer book and the eighty-second Canon of 1603, both order the tables into the body of the church. And as the saying of private masses brought this custom into the church of Rome, its introduction into England is evidently a Popish innovation.

With respect to the furniture of the altar, it was copied, no matter whether by Laud or Andrews, from the Pontifical of Aix, 1583; and, with the credentia and arras hangings representing the last supper, was condemned by the Homilies as well as by Elizabeth's injunctions.

In justice to the memory of him, who was, as usual, not permitted to answer, like St. Paul, for himself, let it be observed, that the managers, in representing communion tables to have stood universally in the body of the church, until their removal by Laud to the east end, were guilty of palpable self-contradiction. Both the injunctions of Elizabeth, and the 82d canon of 1603, to which they referred, speak of a REMOVAL of the' table from its original position, for the more convenient solemnization of the Eucharist, on every occasion of a communion. The injunctions confine it, when removed, to the chancel the canon of 1603 says, "either within the chancel or the church." Now as the injunctions direct the table to stand" in the place where the altar stood;" to be removed, though still retained within the chancel, on the approach of every communion; and, after that communion, to be replaced where it stood before, it is plain, 1st, That the altar did not

may conveniently be heard, and the communicants communicate with him; after the communion done, from time to time the same holy table to be placed where it stood before,

number were sectaries and schismatics; while by the canon law no schismatic could be heard against his bishop.

then stand in the nave or body of the church, nor even within the chancel detached from the wall; otherwise the table, its substitute in place, would not require removal on each preparation for the Eucharist. But the canon of 1603 throws still greater light on the subject; for the intention of removing the table at a sacrament is there stated to be, that a greater number might communicate along with the priest. Now seeing rails were introduced by Archbishop Laud, subsequently to both the injunctions and the canons, how could greater numbers communicate by the removal of a table, otherwise than by exposing four sides of that table where only three were usually exposed? The table, then, the substitute in PLACE for the altar (which had before stood in the chancel)-the table, which the injunctions of Elizabeth commanded never to be removed from the chancel-the table, which, by the 82d canon of 1603, might indeed be removed, for a communion, to the body of the church, but was, after each communion, to be replaced within the chancel, stood usually in that chancel, with one side close to the wall; and to which side of the wall will not be long disputed by any who are at all conversant in ecclesiastical antiquities, or who attend to the words of the 82d canon of 1603 itself; where it is stated, that the Ten Commandments shall be set at the EAST end of the church.

It appears from the injunctions of Elizabeth, that the change of altars into tables, was by no means a change of place, but merely a reduction in height, an alteration of form, and an abstraction of the house for the pix, or tabernacle of the host, together with the flowers, the crucifix in relievo, and other' superstitious appendages *.

On the whole, then, I conclude, that the managers, in hav

* See Picart's Relig. Cerem. vol. i.

Upon the whole, it was clearly proved, on the religious part of the charge, 1st, That, with re

ing asserted, that communion tables stood always in the body of the church, from the time of Elizabeth, until their removal to the east end of the chancel by Laud, advanced a glaring and self-exposing falsehood. The fact seems to have been, that after the canons of 1603 permitted the occasional removal of tables into the nave of the church, for the sake of convenience in communicating, lukewarm ministers, through negligence, and Puritan ministers through design, as well as encouraged by the connivance of Archbishop Abbott, very ge. nerally omitted their replacement after each sacrament, agree. ably to Elizabeth's injunctions, in the east end of the chancel; and that Laud, whose leading passions were uniformity and strictness in ceremonies (especially where differences in these ceremonies marked and widened differences in the more essen❤ tial matters of doctrine), did; only his duty in exacting com, pliance with the injunctions, which many of the clergy had violated, and with the canons of 1603, whose indulgence they had abused.

A letter addressed by Laud to Brent, his vicar-general, directing the general removal of altars from the nave to the chancel, was introduced at the trial, but it contains not one syllable concerning their being placed" in the form of an altar, with their ends north and south." These terms of the charge were, altogether, the invention of the managers.

On the whole, if it be considered that the irreverent Scotch fashion of sitting round the communion table was now coming into vogue, and that, ever since the time of Parker, "some received the Eucharist sitting, others standing, others kneeling; some in the nave, and others in the chancel*;" we shall not have occasion to ascribe to popish motives the restoration of tables to the east end of the choir, and the fencing of them with railings from the approach of profaneness. Laud's love of uniformity, and desire to renew the solemnity of the

* See Strype's Life of Parker.

spect to the particular articles of accusation, the archbishop was, for the most part, in the right

most solemn of all offices, will furnish a sufficient key to his conduct *.

With respect to the general reasoning of the managers on this head of the charge, it was no more than one string, from beginning to end, of false positions and impotent conclusions. In their dissertation on the difference betwixt an altar and a table, they were contending with objections of their own raising. Laud never attempted, never meant to restore ALTARS or the mass. As to the antiquity of the position of sacramental tables in the chancel †, Bingham has fully shown‡, that an

Our rubric at this day leaves the position of the communion table indifferent.

Bishop Williams's assertion, that the name of table only was in use for 250 years after Christ, is in direct contradiction to matter of fact. Ignatius ep. ad Philadel. calls the holy table, in each church, « Ouriasrngior; an expression which cannot signify Christ's body, for that is spoken of immediately before. The same name is given to the table by Irenæus and Origen. Tertullian calls it, ara Dei et altare: St. Cyprian, who died A. D. 258, uses the terms altar and table indiscriminately. As to the ob jection drawn from Origen, Min. Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius (all of the third century), who affirm that Christians have neither temples nor altars; they must refer to heathen temples as the enclosures of an idol, and to Jewish and Pagan altars, where animals were offered in sacrifice; for all these writers speak of both churches and altars. They boasted of their Quicorne, and even someimes a Baxos, though to this was ever added the epithet avaimaxros (the bloodless altar). Nay, even to the word rgarez, table, when employed, tremendous or mystic is prefixed §. After all, however, in speaking of the ancient usage in this matter, it is not very fair to refer to the period antecedent to that interval of tranquillity betwixt the death of St. Cyprian, 258, and the tenth persecution, A.D. 303, during which, Eusebius says, that splendid churches were built; since, when the Christians were a people unprotected and oppressed, they must have been often satisfied with imperfect modes of service. It of this period that Eusebius speaks, in describing the ancient church divided into three parts. Ecclesiast. Antiq. b. viji. ch. 5 and

In the story of Marinus, in Eusebius, the name is ary.

PA

2dly, That, even if he were censurable upon all the articles, he was not therefore guilty of an at

cient churches were divided into three parts, the first being the narthex, or porch; the second the nave, vaos, or oratory; and the third, the bema, called also the chorus, or choir, which was inaccessible to the multitude, and hence called adyta; while from the rails, like net-work, or cancelli, which separated it from the nave, it derived the name of chancel. Now the ante-room, or narthex (from its oblong figure of a rod), was the place of catechumens, heretics, and penitents not restored to communion; the nave, where stood the ambo, or reading desk, contained all the faithful laity in communion of the church; while the clergy only were admitted to the bema, chancel, or ayon aylar, as the inner part is termed by Eusebius.

Now, the managers on Laud's trial affirmed, that the com munion table in ancient churches stood in the nave or body; in proof of which, it was pretended, that the choir and nave were synonymous. The question then is, simply, Were they indeed so? In the 17th canon of the 4th council of Toledo, it is directed, that "Sacerdotes et levitæ (priests and deacons), ante altarem communicent, in chora clerus, extra chorum populus." Now the chorus here mentioned cannot be the nave, because the extra chorum would, in that case, be the ante-temple, or narthex ; but in this place, extra chorum, the people were to communicate; and the narthex was the place of those who were not admitted to communion. This conclusion is corroborated by what Thodosius II. says of himself, namely, that he only made an oblation at the altar (the em peror alone being admitted within the chancel for that purpose), and immediately retired to the atrium, or court of the people. This, then, was the extra chorum, where the people communicated; and the chorus must, therefore, have been the chancel.