meaning and intention of the Rubrics and Canons, and therefore ought not to receive the formal sanction of a Faculty for its erection, especially in a disputed case. 3. How far Altars may be tolerated, and what protection would be afforded to them, where they already exist and have been sanctioned either by the acquiescence, or by the direct acts, of persons in authority, are we think further questions which this Judgment does not determine. 4. We think also that the reasoning of the learned Judge is not conclusive as to the material of the 'Table' intended by the Rubric and Canons; and considering the actual decision to be limited to an immoveable Altar, we do not think ourselves precluded from advising that, so long as the form of a table is observed, and the structure is bonâ fide moveable, it may consist wholly, or in part, of stone or of metal, as well as of wood. [Opinion] C. AUSTIN. I agree with Mr. Austin and Mr. Hope as to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th propositions contained in their Opinion: it is my misfortune to differ from them as to the first. I think it probable that the Court of Appeal would reverse the sentence of the Dean of the Arches, for these reasons: 1. That the opponents of the grant of the Faculty have failed to shew the existence of any positive law prohibiting the erection of a Stone Table in the Chancel of a Church; whereas the burthen of such proof lay upon them. 2. That the meaning of the word 'Table' is not of necessity to be derived from the sense in which it might have been used in the Injunctions of Bishop Ridley; but that the Church of England has used the words 'table' and 'altar' as synonymous terms both before and since the Reformation, as is manifest from the writings of the Divines of that and of a later period, as well as from the Coronation Service, the Church Building Acts, and other authorities. 3. That the material of which the Holy Table must be made is nowhere prescribed by any binding authority; while the language of the Canons of 1603 and of the Rubric is that it may, not that it must, be moveable. 4. That the reason for moving the Holy Table from the Chancel to the body of the Church has ceased with the removal of certain structures which obstructed the view and access of the Parishioners; and that the custom of moving it has fallen into desuetude for more than two centuries. 5. That looking to the history of the times when the Altars were "plucked down", the conflict of authorities after the Reformation as to the legality of Stone Tables, the fact that on the various revisions of the Liturgy, especially at the Restoration, no enactment of a more positive character with respect to them was introduced, though it was a subject much pressed by the Puritans, and to the fact that many immovable Stone Altars have been erected since the Reformation under the sanction of the Crown and the highest authorities of the Church;-looking to all these facts, I am of opinion that the Court of Ely came to a right decision in the matter, namely, that the material and the structure of the Holy Table was a question left, and intended to be left, by the Ecclesiastical laws of these realms, to the discretion of the local Ordinary, and that such discretion was rightly exercised in accepting the gift of the Stone Table which had been made to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Cambridge. ROBERT PHILLIMORE. And with these statements I am well satisfied to leave the subject, not however without the expression of hearty acknowledgments to the author of the Opinion last cited, on the part of all who were interested in the restoration, for the spirit, zeal, ability, and religious feeling with which he argued our case in the Consistory Court and the Court of Arches, and which greatly increased the reluctance with which the Appeal to a superior Court was abandoned: nor will I omit the opportunity of testifying our sense of the good humour, firmness, and sympathy with which Mr. Salvin throughout seconded our views, directed our proceedings, and perhaps bore with our peculiarities and humours: not to mention the professional skill and munificent generosity with which he contributed to a work from which he has as yet received no return, except in the credit which it will add to a professional reputation that wanted not that addition. And if the above statement shall have disabused any of the erroneous opinion they may have formed as to the views, designs, or proceedings of the Committee; or, still more, shall have given occasion to any to correct in themselves that disposition to suspect a bad motive, where a good one will at least as well solve the difficulties, which furnishes the most charitable ex G planation of the heats and suspicions to which those proceedings have given rise; I shall be content to compound for the temporary odium I may expect to contract by telling some plain truths, and of the motives and acts of those for whom I speak keeping back nothing that I know. As to the question itself, I dismiss it gladly in the appropriate words of the venerated George Herbert, not knowing whether they will offend any one, and indifferent as to whom they may offend. "For the matter whereof it is made, The matter is not much, Although it be of touch, 35 Or wood, or metal, that will last, or fade, So vanity And superstition avoided be." |