ness, and wide experience in interpretation, and with which nonprofessional minds have little exact acquaintance.

The material parts of the judgment, which ran to great length, are as follows:

:

'The question is one simply of the construction of the Rubric and Book of Common Prayer, which are incorporated into the Statute of Uniformity, 13 and 14 Car. II., and of the Canons which were passed in 1603, and of that number the 82nd, which more particularly applies to the subject. In proceeding to consider this subject, the Court must proceed precisely in the same manner as it would in construing other Acts of Parliament. The question is, whether this stone Communion Table is or is not a Communion Table within the meaning of the Rubric, and the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical it is to be

observed, with respect to the use of the word "Table" in the
present Rubric, the term is to be construed according to its usual
and proper meaning
it is not unimportant to consider
what was the structure, and what was required at the time at
which these Tables, under the name of Altars, were used in the
Romish Church, and also to see what changes have been made in
the material, and in the mode of erecting these Altars.

I think I may assume the fact, that at the time of the Reform-
ation, this was the usual form of Altars in most Churches; they
were certainly made of stone, they were fixed and immovable,
and the generality of them were in the form of the tombs of the
martyrs. Such was the description of Altar which was to be
got rid of at this time, in order to remove as far as possible all
those superstitious notions which attached to the performance of
those Services in the Church of Rome which were connected
with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the change in the
Elements of the Lord's Supper. As that was one of the principal
points upon which the Church of England separated from that of
Rome, at the commencement of the Reformation alterations were
made in the performance of the Service to a certain extent, but
not to any great extent, at that time. The Mass continued to be
performed during the time of Henry VIII., and also for the first
two years of the reign of Edward VI. We find by his Prayer Book,
set forth in 1549, the Service thus described:-"The Supper of the
Lord and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass." The
Second Book then went on to say :-"The Table having, at the Com-
munion time, a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the
body of the Church, or in the chancel, where Morning Prayer and
Evening Prayer be appointed to be said ;" and the directions, as
it will presently appear, in the present Rubric are substantially the

LIDDELL

v.

WESTERTON
and
LIDDELL
v.

BEAL.

Note B.

LIDDELL

WESTERTON and LIDDELL

27.

BEAL. Note B.

same. Again, in the Prayer Book of 1549, the Priest is directed to stand "humbly afore the midst of the Altar," and say the Lord's Prayer, &c. In that of 1552, the Priest is directed to at the north side of the Table." Now the word "Altar " stand " occurs in several other parts of the first Prayer Book; the Minister is said to set the bread and wine on the "Altar." After the Consecration Prayer, the Priest is still to turn to the "Altar," but without any Elevation or showing the Sacraments to the people. Again, on Wednesdays and Fridays, &c., the Priest shall say all things at the Altar. In the bread there is an alteration made, and it is a point to which the Court must advert—the bread is declared to be bread, There is some alteration in the form of the 'bread which was received by the people in the Sacrament. It was, according to the First Book, to be fashioned after the manner of "unleavened bread," "and round as it was afore;" but in the Second Prayer Book the direction runs thus:-"And to take away any superstition which any person hath or might have in the bread and wine, it shall suffice that the bread shall be such as is usual to be eaten at the table with other meats." Now here it does appear to me impossible to doubt what the meaning of the word Table was as used in the Second Prayer Book, in reference to the bread which is to be taken on this occasion, that it shall be such as is "eaten at table with other meats." Can the word "Table" mean anything but that table at which meals are usually eaten? The expression, bread usually "eaten with other It was not to be such as was remeats," necessarily implies it. ceived before 1549, but it should be bread such as is commonly used at tables. It appears, therefore, to me, that these alterations throw a very important light upon the meaning of the word Table which is substituted for Altar in these several portions of the Prayer Book; and it is to be observed that the word "Altar” occurs nowhere in the Rubric of the Second Book of Prayer of Edward VI., although it is used as well as the word Table in that Book published in 1549.'

After commenting on Ridley's Injunctions (1550), directing 'Curates, etc., to erect and set up the Lord's Board after the form of an honest Table,' and the Orders in Council of November 19 (1550), sent to the Bishops, enjoining them 'to pluck down the Altars' and to set up instead Tables to serve for the ministration of the Blessed Communion, and upon the fact that these alterations were actually made throughout the kingdom in the year 1550, and from that time to the end of Edward VI.'s reign, the Communion was administered accordingly; and that on the accession of Elizabeth, there was a return to the administration

of the Sacrament, and the performance of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, as they stood at the end of the reign of Edward VI.-the learned Judge continued :-'It is to be observed, that the object in framing the Second Prayer Book (of Edward VI., 1552) was the removal of old superstitions; and when one of the modes of carrying that object into effect was to be the abolition of all Altars, and the substitution of Tables for those Altars, it must be that something more than a mere alteration of name was intended. It would not have satisfied the purpose for which the alteration was made merely to change the name of Altar into Table. The old superstitious notions would have adhered to the minds of the simple people, and would have continued so long as they saw the Altar, on which they had been used to consider a real sacrifice was offered. For these reasons I consider a substantial alteration of the structure was made.'

The learned Judge then referred to the Injunctions of Elizabeth (1559), which imply a most complete substitution of the Table for the Altar, and not only that the Table was to be so substituted, but also that it was a structure capable of being moved from time to time, and calculated to do away with all superstitious notions that belonged to the Popish Mass, one of which was, that it was essential that the Altar be immovable. The Altar was to be fixed; here the Table was to be substituted for the Altar, and moved from time to time when the Holy Communion was to be administered.' Further, the judgment shows in detail that these Injunctions were immediately acted upon, 'with the intention of removing anything of the nature of superstition which was supposed to attach to Altars, and that what was then done does not appear afterwards to have been undone.' The Canons of 1571, approved of by Convocation, fully accord with what had been previously done. In the Canon entitled,' Æditui Ecclesiarum et alii selecti viri,' are these directions:-[Æditui] 'curabunt mensam ex asseribus junctam, quæ administrationi sacrosanctæ Communionis inserviet.' The 82nd Canon, of the Canons of 1604 which are now in force, is entitled, 'A decent Communion Table in every Church,' and runs thus:- Whereas, we have no doubt but that in all Churches within the realm of England, convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed for the celebration of the Holy Communion, we appoint that the same Tables shall from time to time be kept and repaired in sufficient and seemly manner, and covered in time of Divine Service with a carpet of silk, or other decent stuff, thought meet by the Ordinary of the place, if any question be made of it, and with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration, as becometh that Table, and so

LIDDELL

v.

WESTERTON and LIDDELL

v.

BEAL.

Note B.

stand saving when the Holy Communion is to be administered, at which time the same shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or chancel, as thereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard by the Communicants in his prayer and ministration, and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in more number, may communicate with the said Minister.' 'This, then,' the learned Judge continues, is precisely in accordance with what has been done in Elizabeth's reign. The 82nd Canon does not indeed express, as that of 1571 does, that the Table should be ex asseribus juncta ;" but is there any possible reason to be conceived or assigned why this should not be of the same material? That it should be a movable Table is necessarily implied, because it is to be placed in a different position if required at the time when the Communion Service is performed from that in which it is to stand when not in use.'

66

After reviewing the subject so far as it receives illustration in the history of the period of Charles I., and commenting on the letters of Dr. Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, and Lord Chancellor of England, the sum of which is carefully to distinguish a Table from an Altar, and various other treatises of that time, all agreeing that the understanding of all persons who were called to act on the Injunctions, was that the Table was no longer to remain immovably fixed, but that for the purpose of removing the superstition connected with the Popish Mass, it was to be movable as the occasion might require, the learned Judge proceeded to inquire whether any alteration was made affecting the subject in 1662, when the last review of the Book of Common Prayer took place. He says, continuing :

or two

'There is no intimation, that I can discover, leading to the supposition, that a different sense was intended to be applied to the word Table from that which I have hitherto considered to be Moreover, "Table is used the true meaning of the word. throughout; "Altar" nowhere appears, except in one sentences in the Offertory, wherein the word Altar was necessarily retained as being the term used in those passages of Scripture whence the sentences were taken. Added to this, there is a declaration made after the last Rubric in the Communion Service, not to be found in the Prayer Book as revised in the reign of Elizabeth, respecting the meaning of the posture of kneeling prescribed in receiving the Holy Communion, which goes to subconsequently vert the notion that a real sacrifice is intended, and is at variance with the proper meaning of " Altar."

'What is the notion that would present itself to any one's mind of the word "Table" taken abstractedly? Surely it would not

LIDDELL

v.

and LIDDELL v.

be that of the object now under consideration—a stone structure of amazing weight and dimensions, immovably fixed. It is un- WESTERTON doubtedly possible, by an ingenious argument, to contend that the present erection is a Table; it may be so according to one definition given by Dr. Johnson-"a flat surface raised above the ground"-but that notion would not readily present itself to the mind; such is not the ordinary meaning of the word.

'When I take into consideration, then, that there is nothing whatever, so far as I can see, in the Injunctions and Canons which I have reviewed, to lead me to the conclusion that the word "Table" in the Book of Common Prayer is to be understood in an unnatural sense, but much the other way, I must pronounce that the structure in question is not a Communion Table within the meaning of the Rubric.' (1 Robertson Reports, p. 184.)

[No reference is made to the rest of the judgment disallowing Credence Tables, as on that point the judgment was overruled in Liddell v. Westerton.]

BEAL.

Note B.

NOTE C.

PARKER v. LEACH.

DECIDED in 1866 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on Appeal from the Chancery Court of York, contains some valuable obiter dicta on the question of Altars as distinguished from Tables. It was a cause of perturbation of a seat or pew, and was heard before Lord Westbury, Sir James W. Colvile, and Sir Edward V. Williams. In giving judgment (Nov. 20), Lord Westbury commented on the judgment of Dr. Lushington in the Arches Court, in the case of Turner v. Parishioners of Hanwell, in which words are attributed to Dr. Lushington which Lord Westbury said could hardly have been used by him; but if they were used, were obiter dicta not necessary for the case before him. 'He,' continued Lord Westbury, 'is reported to have said, “If the Altar has been taken down, there must be a reconstruction, as my jurisdiction depends entirely ratione loci." If the learned Judge used these words, it is quite clear he must have borrowed them from the equivalent expressions which are found in John de Burgh, or other writers previous to the Reformation, and intended to apply wholly to Roman Catholic Churches. In a Roman Catholic Church there is an Altar, or place where the Priest offers sacrifice. In a Protestant Church there is no Altar in the

S