And Laud, and Hall and Heylin writ,
And so did White and Montague,
And Shelford, Cousins, Watts, and Dow,
Lawrence and Forbis, and a crew
Whose names would"——
Master Ward did not like these men, and therefore I omit his rather uncharitable conclusion.
Is there any record left of the notable quarrel, which appears to have engaged the attention and pens of some of the learned men of the age? Perhaps some of your correspondents at Grantham could throw some light upon this question.
L. L. L.
Kirton-in-Lindsey.
[This celebrated altar controversy occurred during the reign of Charles I., and its origin will be found in Clarendon's History of the Rebellion. The Puritans contended that the proper place for the table, when the eucharist was administered, was in the body of the church before the chancel door, and to be placed tablewise, and not altarwise; 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 Church party, on the contrary, contended that as the Injunctions ordered that the table should stand where the altar used to stand, it should consequently be placed as the altar was. This matter was the source of much violent contention, and tracts were published neither remarkable for courtesy of language nor for accurate statements of facts. It appears to have originated in a dispute between Mr. Titly, 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. Some of 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 and others replaced it in its former situation, when a formal complaint was made to the bishop (Williams). In 1627 the bishop published his judgment on the question, in A Letter to the Vicar of Grantham. The visitation of 1634 tempted Peter Heylyn to republish this Letter, together with an answer under the title of A Coal from the Altar, &c. Williams replied in 1637 by a treatise entitled The Holy Table, Name and Thing, more anciently and literally used under the New Testament than that of Altar. Heylyn rejoined by his Antidotum Lincolniense; or an Answer to a Book entitled "The Holy Altar, Name and Thing," &c. The bishop was preparing for his further vindication, when he was prevented by his troubles in the Star Chamber, in consequence of which his library was seized. "And how," says Hacket, "could he fight without his arms? or, how could the bell ring when they had stolen away the clapper?" During the controversy Dr. Pocklington, Chaplain in Ordinary to the King, published his Altare Christianum; or, the Dead Vicar's Plea, wherein the Vicar of Grantham being dead yet speaketh, and pleadeth out of Antiquity against him that hath broken down his Altar, 4to. 1637. The best historical notice of this controversy is given in Hacket's Life of Archbishop Williams, pt. ii. pp. 99-109., and was particularly referred to by the counsel on the Cambridge stone altar case, 1844-1845, as well as by Sir Herbert Jenner Fust in his judgment on it.]