A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

ALMS. In the primitive Church, the people who were of sufficient substance used to give alms to the poor every Sunday, as they entered the church. And the poor, who were approved and selected by the deacons or other ministers, were exhorted to stand before the church doors to ask for alms, as the lame man, who was healed by Peter and John, at the Beautiful Gate of the temple. The order in our Church is, that these alms should be collected at that part of the communion service which is called the Offertory, while the sentences are in reading which follow the place appointed for the sermon. The intention of the compilers of our service was, that these alms should be collected every Sunday, as is plain from the directions in the rubric; and this, whether there was a communion or not. It is much to be regretted that the decay of charity has caused this good custom to fall into too general disuse; and it is one which all sincere churchmen should endeavour to restore. The alms are, and have immemorially been, collected every Sunday in Ireland.

ALMS-CHEST. Besides the alms collected at the offertory, it may be supposed that devout persons would make contributions to the poor on entering the church, or departing from it, at evening service; and to receive these alms, it is appointed by the 84th Canon, that a chest be provided and placed in the church.

ALOGIANS. Heretics in the second century, who denied the Divine Logos, or Word, and attributed the writings of St. John, in which the Second Person of the Godhead is so styled, to Cerinthus.

ALTAR. Altar was the name by which the holy board was constantly distinguished for the first three hundred years after Christ; during all which time it does not appear that it was above once called “table,” and that was in a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Xystus of Rome. And when, in the fourth century, Athanasius called it a “table,” he thought himself obliged to explain the word, and to let the reader know that by table he meant altar, that being then the constant and familiar name. Afterwards, indeed, both names came to be promiscuously used; the one having respect to the oblation of the eucharist, the other to the participation: but it was always placed altar-wise in the most sacred part of the church, and fenced in with rails to secure it from irreverence and disrespect.—Wheatly.

In King Edward’s first service-book the word altar was permitted to stand, as being the name that Christians for many hundred years had been acquainted withal. Therefore, when there was such pulling down of altars and setting up of tables in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, she was fain to make an injunction to restrain such ungodly fury, and appointed decent and comely tables covered to be set up again in the same place where the altars stood, thereby giving an interpretation of this clause in our communion-book. For the word “table” here stands not exclusively, as if it might not be called an altar, but to show the indifferency and liberty of the name; as of old it was called “mensa Domini,” the table of the Lord; the one having reference to the participation, the other to the oblation, of the eucharist.—Bp. Cosin.

It is called an altar, 1. Because, the holy eucharist being considered as a sacrifice, we offer up the commemoration of that sacrifice which was offered upon the cross. 2. We offer, with the action, prayers to God for all good things, and we need not fear to call the whole action by the name of a sacrifice, seeing part of it is an oblation to God of hearty prayers, and it is not unusual for that to be said of the whole, which is exactly true but of one part; and as the word sacrifice may be used without danger, so also the ancient Church did understand it.

And it is called a table, the eucharist being considered as a sacrament; which is nothing else but a distribution and application of the sacrifice to the receivers; and the proper use of a table is to set food upon, and to entertain guests, both which are applicable to this.—Clutterbuck.

But at the beginning of the Reformation an unhappy dispute arose, viz. whether those tables of the altar fashion, which had been used in the Popish times, and on which masses had been celebrated, should still be continued? This point was first started by Bishop Hooper, who in a sermon before the king, in the third year of his reign, declared, “that it were well, if it might please the magistrate to have altars turned into tables; to take away the false persuasion of the people, which they have of sacrifice, to be done upon altars; because as long,” says he, “as altars remain, both the ignorant people and priests will dream of sacrifice.” This occasioned not only a couple of letters from the king and council, one of which was sent to all the bishops, and the other to Ridley, bishop of London, in both which they were required to pull down the altars; but also that, when the liturgy was reviewed in 1551, the above-said rubric was altered, and in the room of it the priest was directed to stand on the north side of the table. But this did not put an end to the controversy. Another dispute arising, viz. whether the table, placed in the room of the altar, ought to stand altar-wise; i. e. in the same place and situation as the altar formerly stood? This was the occasion that in some churches the tables were placed in the middle of the chancels, in others at the east part thereof, next to the wall. Bishop Ridley endeavoured to compromise this matter, and therefore, in St. Paul’s cathedral, suffered the table to stand in the place of the old altar; but beating down the wainscot partition behind, laid all the choir open to the east, leaving the table then to stand in the middle of the chancel. Under this diversity of usage, things went on till the death of King Edward; when, Queen Mary coming to the throne, altars were again restored wherever they had been demolished; but her reign proving short, and Queen Elizabeth succeeding her, the people, (just got free again from the tyranny of Popery,) through a mistaken zeal fell in a tumultuous manner to the pulling down of altars; though, indeed, this happened for the generality only in private churches, they not being meddled with in any of the queen’s palaces, and in but very few of the cathedrals. And as soon as the queen was sensible of what had happened in other places, she put out an injunction to restrain the fury of the people, declaring it to be no matter of great moment, whether there were altars or tables, so that the sacrament was duly and reverently administered; but ordering, that where altars were taken down, holy tables should be decently made, and set in the place where the altars stood, and so to stand, saving when the communion of the sacrament was to be distributed; at which time the same was to be so placed in good sort within the chancel, as thereby the minister might be more conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministration, and the communicants also more conveniently and in more number communicate with the said minister. And after the communion, done from time to time, the same holy table was to be placed where it stood before. Pursuant hereunto, this part of the present rubric was added to the liturgy, in the first year of her reign, viz. that “the table, at the communion time, having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel, where morning and evening prayer are appointed to be said:” which was in those times generally in the choir. But then it is plain from the aforesaid injunction, as well as from the eighty-second Canon of the Church, (which is almost verbatim the same,) that there is no obligation arising from this rubric to move the table at the time of the communion, unless the people cannot otherwise conveniently hear and communicate. The injunction declares, that the holy tables are to be set in the same place where the altars stood, which every one knows was at the east end of the chancel. And when both the injunction and canon speak of its being moved at the time of the communion, it supposes that the minister could not otherwise be heard: the interposition of a belfry between the chancel and body of the church hindering the minister in some churches from being heard by the people, if he continued in the church. And with the same view seems this rubric to have been added, and which therefore lays us under no obligation to move the table, unless necessity requires. But whenever the churches are built so as the minister can be heard, and conveniently administer the sacrament at the place where the table usually stands, he is rather obliged to administer in the chancel, (that being the sanctum sanctorum, or most holy place, of the church,) as appears from the rubric before the Commandments, as also from that before the Absolution, by both which rubrics the priest is directed to turn himself to the people. From whence I argue, that if the table be in the middle of the church, and the people consequently round about the minister, the minister cannot turn himself to the people any more at one time than another. Whereas, if the table be close to the east wall, the minister stands on the north side, and looks southward, and consequently, by looking westward, turns himself to the people.—Wheatly.

Great dispute has been raised in the last age about the name of the communion table, whether it was to be called the Holy Table or an Altar. And indeed anything will afford matter of controversy to men in a disputing age. For the ancient writers used both names indifferently; some calling it Altar, others the Lord’s Table, the Holy Table, the Mystical Table, the Tremendous Table, &c., and sometimes both Table and Altar in the same sentence ... Ignatius uses only the name θυσιαστήριον, altar, in his genuine Epistles ... Irenæus and Origen use the same name ... Tertullian frequently applies to it the name of Ara Dei and Altare ... Cyprian uses both names; but most commonly Altar ... It is certain they did not mean by the altar what the Jews and heathens meant; either an altar dressed up with images, or an altar for bloody sacrifices. In the first sense they rejected altars, both name and thing. But for their own mystical, unbloody sacrifice, as they called the eucharist, they always owned they had an altar.... In Chrysostom it is most usually termed, “the mystical and tremendous table,” &c. St. Austin usually gives it the name of Mensa Domini, the Lord’s Table. It were easy to add a thousand other testimonies, where the altar is called the Holy Table, to signify to us their notion of the Christian sacrifice and altar at once, that it was mystical and spiritual, and had no relation either to the bloody sacrifices of the Jews, or the idolatries of the Gentiles, but served only for the service of the eucharist, and the oblations of the people.—Bingham.

In the First Book of King Edward, the terms used for this holy table are the Altar, and God’s Board. In our present Prayer Book, it is styled the Table, the Holy Table, and the Lord’s Table. The phrase communion table occurs in the Canons only, as in the 20th, and the 82nd. The word altar is used in the Coronation Service. It is employed without scruple by Bishop Overall, one of the commissioners for the revision of the Liturgy in King James I.’s reign, and by those who were employed in the last Review in 1662, who of course understood the real spirit of the Church of England. For example, the following are the words of Bishop Sparrow, one of the Reviewers.