VI. Or, a master of arts of five years standing, living at his own charge in either of the universities. VII. Or, the intention of the bishop that ordains, shortly to admit him to some benefice, or curate's place 5 then void. And I think the canon intends, that after a man is once admitted a curate, the parson or vicar of the place should not have power to put them off at pleasure, but only for such criminal unworthiness, as might deprive 10 him of his benefice, if he had one. CXL. Archiepisc. Cant. Anno Christi Reg. Angliæ 15 An order of council for placing the communion table in THIS day was debated before his majesty, sitting in council, the question of difference, which grew about the removing the communion table in St. Gregory's church, near the cathedral church of St. Paul, from the An order of council] See No. CXXXVII. Rushw. vol. ii. p. 207. Heylin's Laud, p. 259. It seems to have been the practice in churches to place the communion table for the administration of the sacrament, in such a centrical situation as might be most convenient for the minister and the communicants. This practice began in the reign of 20 king Edward VI., when bishop Ridley removed the ancient altars, and afterwards obtained letters from the council to confirm what he had done (dated Nov. 24, 1550). It continued also in the time of queen Elizabeth, from whose Injunctions (No. XLIII. p. 201.) it is evident that the table when required for the communion was removed from its 25 customary position, where the altar had formerly stood, and was placed in a more convenient situation within the church. The same practice middle of the chancel to the upper end, and there placed altarwise, in such manner as it standeth in the said cathedral, and mother church, as also in other cathedrals and in his majesty's own chapel, and as is consonant to the practice of approved antiquity; which removing and 5 placing of it in that sort was done by order of the dean and chapter of St. Paul's, who are ordinaries thereof, as was avowed before his majesty by Dr. King, and Dr. Montford, two of the prebends there; yet some few of the parishioners, being but five in number, did complain 10 of this act, by appeal to the court of arches, pretending that the Book of Common Prayer and the 82d canon do give permission to place the communion table where it may stand with most fitness and convenience. Now his majesty having heard a particular relation, made by the 15 council of both parties of all the carriage and proceedings in this cause, was pleased to declare his dislike of all innovation, and receding from ancient constitutions, grounded upon just and warrantable reasons, especially in matters concerning ecclesiastical orders and govern- 20 ments; knowing how easily men are drawn to affect novelties, and how soon weak judgments in such cases may be overtaken and abused. And he was also pleased to observe, that if those few parishioners might have their wills, the difference thereby from the aforesaid cathedral 25 has also been commended by bishop Jewel, as may be seen from his reply to Harding, (p. 144. ed. 1609.) by bishop Babington, by Dr. Fulke and other eminent divines. But independently of the disorder which had in some places arisen from the practice, and the greater degree of external observance that had gradually been gaining ground 30 in religious ordinances, the position of the table had now become the token of a distinct and solemn belief as to the nature of the eucharist, and was therefore treated as a question of conscience and an article of faith. The archbishop's religious opinions coincided with the strictest view of the case; and having this order of council in his favour, he 35 proceeded gradually to establish a uniform practice respecting it. For cathedrals (as we find from the statutes enjoined by him in his own mother church, by which all other churches depending thereon ought to be guided, would be the more notorious, and give more subject of discourse and disputes, that might be spared, by reason of the nearness of St. Gre5 gory's, standing close to the wall thereof. And likewise for so much as concerns the liberty of the said Common Prayer book or canon, for placing the communion table in any church or chapel with more conveniency; that liberty is not so to be understood, as if it were ever left To to the discretion of the parish, much less to the particular fancy of any humorous person, but to the judgment of the ordinary, to whose place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that point, both for the thing itself, and the time when, and how long, as he 15 may find cause. Upon which consideration his majesty declared himself, that he well approved and confirmed the act of the said ordinary, and also gave commandment, that if those few parishioners before mentioned do proceed in their said appeal, then the dean of the arches, 20 who was then attending at the hearing of the cause, should confirm the said order of the aforesaid dean and chapter. cathedral) he required that the altar should be placed at the east end, and be provided with candlesticks, bason, carpet and other furniture; 25 and that in all approaches to the altar due reverence should be made to God by bowing toward it. For parish churches (as we learn from orders issued in the diocese of Norwich), he ordained that the table should stand close under the east wall of the chancel, the ends thereof north and south, and that the rail be made before it, reaching across 30 from the north wall to the south. (No. CXLIII.) These regulations however did not generally take effect till about the year 1636, and not without the greatest opposition. Rushw. vol. ii. p. 278. Wilkins, Conc. vol. iv. p. 526. Heylin's Laud, p. 291. Canterbury's Doom, P. 1. p. 87. Neal, Purit. vol. i. p. 565. Collier, vol. ii. p. 762. CXLI. Archiepisc. Cant. Anno Christi Reg. Angliæ The king's majesty's declaration to his subjects concerning lawful sports to be used. OUR By the king. UR dear father of blessed memory in his return from Scotland, coming through Lancashire, found that his subjects were debarred from lawful recreations upon Sundays after evening prayers ended, and upon holy-days: 5 and he prudently considered, that if these times were taken from them, the meaner sort, who labour hard all the week, should have no recreations at all, to refresh The king's majesty's declaration] In the year 1617, during his journey into Scotland and his return homeward, king James indulged his court 10 in all possible diversions, to the great gratification of the new favourite, the future duke of Buckingham. Great was the contrast between the loose revelry of the king, and the stern morality of his subjects, more especially in such districts as the county of Lancaster, where, owing to the prevalence of popery, the puritans carried their sentiments also to 15 the utmost degree of strictness, and both parties, by a kind of mutual repulsion, were equally distinguished for their superstitious practices. In the following year the king published his Book of Sports, but did not long insist upon its observance, being influenced probably by the representations of several of his bishops. "Archbishop Abbot," says Wilson, 20 "being at Croydon the day it was ordered to be read in churches, flatly forbade it to be read there; which king James was pleased to wink at, notwithstanding the daily endeavours that were used to irritate the king against him." Kennet, vol. ii. p. 709. Hallam, vol. i. p. 43 г. Collier, vol. ii. p. 711. In the year 1633 the same question was revived, but with the additional misfortune of involving in it a contest between civil and ecclesiastical authority. The magistrates and judges of assize acting in the county of Somerset had ordered all revels and wakes to be sup 25 their spirits. And after his return, he further saw that his loyal subjects in all other parts of the kingdom did suffer in the same kind, though perhaps not in the same degree, and did therefore in his princely wisdom publish 5 a declaration to all his loving subjects concerning lawful sports to be used at such times, which was printed and published by his royal commandment in the year MDCXVIII. in the tenour, which hereafter followeth : ΤΟ By the king. Whereas upon our return the last year out of Scotland we did publish our pleasure touching the recreations of our people in those parts under our hand; for some causes us thereunto moving we have thought good to command these our directions, then given in Lancashire, with a few words thereunto added, and most applicable to these parts of the realms, to be published to all our subjects. pressed, including the feasts of the dedication of churches, and required the clergy to make publication of these orders within their several parishes. The archbishop complained to the king in council; and 20 chief justice Richardson, who was mainly instrumental in the matter, was soon afterwards compelled to revoke the orders that he had given And thus it became a question of strong party feeling, and of extreme opinion, which grew out into feuds and divisions, as soon as the king put forth his Book of Sports, and the clergy were required to publish 25 it in their respective churches. Nothing could be more trying to the conscience of individuals, or more fatal to the efficiency of the church. Many consequently were suspended or deprived: some were excommunicated. But even this was not all for the dissension revived, and brought within its vortex, the old dispute respecting the divine authority 30 of the sabbath; and so forcing itself into questions from which it might otherwise have been excluded, it involved all classes of men, the learned as well as the uninformed, the theologian as well as the zealot, in the universal discord. And this was a crisis in the history of the church of England. Rushw. vol. ii. pp. 192. 459. Heylin's Laud, 35 P. 257. Neal, Purit. vol. i. p. 558. Collier, vol. ii. p. 758. Canterb. Doom, p. 153. Hallam, vol. i. p. 512. |