ARCHES' COURT.

January 31.

FAULKNER v. LITCHFIELD AND

CASE.

Sir H. Jenner Fust delivered his sentence in this case:"This is an appeal from a decree of the Chancellor of the Diocese of Ely, in the Consistorial Court of that diocese, in which Court an application was made on behalf of the churchwardens of the parish of the Holy Sepulchre, in the town of Cambridge, for a faculty to confirm certain alterations, repairs, and restorations which had been made under a former faculty granted for that purpose; and the prayer of the petition also extend ed to such other alterations and repairs as were not comprised in the former faculty. Now, it was on behalf of the churchwardens and minister that the faculty was prayed in the first instance, and the former faculty was granted to them but to the second application the minister was not a party; on the contrary, it appears that, after the citation was returned, he appeared to oppose the grant of the faculty, and therefore the question before the Chancellor of the diocese of Ely was between the churchwardens, on the one hand, and Mr. Faulkner, the minister, on the other, whether vicar or per

but when the confirmatory faculty was applied for, Mr. Lichfield and Mr. Stearn were the churchwardens. The faculty was originally granted on the 25th of February, 1842, and by that faculty the minister and churchwardens were authorized "to repair the church, and, as to such parts thereof as had been rendered unsightly by injudicious repairs, to restore the same as near as may be according to the original design, and according to a design and plan deposited in the registry of the court," stated to have been made by a skilful architect. Now, under this original faculty the works were proceeded with, and had nearly arrived at completion, and the church was nearly prepared for being reopened for the performance of divine service, when Mr. Faulkner, the minister of the parish, appears to have received for the first time (as he states) an intimation of the intention to erect in the church the articles which are now the subject of discussion, namely, a stone communion table, and also a credence table; and Mr. Faulkner states, that if he had been aware of the proceeding he would not have allowed them to be erected in the church, but would

have opposed their erection. The works were, however, proceeded with, and on the 29th of February last year a vestry meeting of the parishioners was called, and a report was made of what had been done under the faculty originally granted; and this report contained a detail of all the different items (under twenty-four heads); to which report it will be necessary for the Court more particularly to advert. At this meeting the minister took the chair, and a resolution was proposed and seconded, which was carried with only the dissentient voice of the minister, to this effect: That the report be adopted; that the works therein detailed, as done or intended to be done, had the full sanction and approval of the meeting, and that the churchwardens should take such measures, by obtaining a further faculty or otherwise, as might be deemed necessary for the due ratification of the said works and otherwise, in order to carry into effect the former resolutions of the vestry relative to a restoration of the church, and also for selling the three bells, now no longer necessary, and appropriating the proceeds of such sale in aid of the expenses incident to the restoration of the said church." A further resolution was also proposed and carried," that the thanks of the meeting and of the parish generally were due to the members of the Camden Society," that is, a society established at Cambridge under that title,-" for their assistance in restoring the church, and to the Rev. Archdeacon Thorp especially," who is the president of that society," for his courtesy in explaining the various forms necessary for ratifying the former faculty, and applying for

another to confirm it." Now this resolution having been proposed and seconded, the minister declined to put it, and resigned the chair, which was taken by Mr. Litchfield, the senior churchwarden at the time. Now, in pursuance of this resolution, an application was made for a further faculty, to the effect I have stated, on the 26th of March, last year, and a citation issued reciting the former faculty, and stating what had been done, as detailed in the report made to the vestry, and calling upon the minister and churchwardens, and all other persons having any interest, to appear and show cause why a faculty should not be granted ratifying and confirming the before-mentioned faculty, and also (so far as may not be comprised therein) "the restorations, renovations, repairs, alterations, erections, and other works in the said church or chancel, specified in the aforesaid report, and also for selling the bells, no longer necessary, heretofore belonging to the said church." Upon the return of the citation, Mr. Faulkner, the minister of the parish, appeared to oppose the faculty. The cause came on for hearing on the 25th of July, before the Rev. the Chancellor of Ely, assisted by a learned advocate of this court, as his assessor. The cause was elaborately argued by two of the learned advocates, who have addressed this Court, and the result was that the Chancellor, with the advice of his assessor, decreed the faculty to issue. Mr. Faulkner immediately appealed from this decree, and in the course of the last term the cause was very elaborately and ably argued by all the learned counsel engaged in it; and it now remains for the

Court to pronounce its judgment upon the whole case, which being one of a somewhat novel character, and having excited considerable interest, the Court thought it right to take time to consider the arguments, and to look into the authorities cited in support of them; and many of these not being of very ready access, the Court requested it might be furnished with a list of them, which request was readily complied with by the learned counsel. This request was addressed only to the learned counsel in the cause; but it seems that this intimation was considered by some parties as a general invitation, and I have rereceived various communications, some with signatures attached to them, and others anonymous, to many of whom I have to express my thanks for reference to authorities not mentioned in the argument, and to which I have had recourse. I have also received communications from other persons, to whom I do not think any thanks are due, as their object is to produce an impression upon the mind of the Court in respect to the judgment it has to pronounce in this case. Now, the question I have to decide is between the churchwardens and the minister of the parish. With the Camden Society I have nothing whatever to do, save that they are incidentally mentioned as the persons under whose direction the works for the restoration of the church have been carried on. I can only look at the conduct of the parties before the Court. The motives of the parties have nothing to do with the question, which is simply on the construction of the Rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer, confirmed by the Act of Uni

formity, 13 and 14 Charles II., and the Canon of 1603. It is entirely a question of law, in which the motives of the parties ought to have no weight with the Court. The simple question is this:-Is this, or is it not, a communion table within the meaning of the Rubric, within the meaning of the 82nd Canon, and of the general laws, canons, and constitutions ecclesiastical of this realm? If this is a communion table within the provision and meaning of the statute, (as I call it,) the Court cannot hold that it is an authorized innovation,' and on that ground refuse to confirm the faculty; on the other hand, if it be not a communion table within the meaning of the law, to be collected from the sources to which I have alluded, then the Court would be bound to refuse the faculty prayed for. If the Rubrics have expressly decided that a communion table should be of wood, and not fixed, but moveable, the Court could not authorize the erection of a stone table fixed to the wall or floor of the church; and if, on a consideration of the authorities, it should appear that, according to the construction of the word 'table' in the Rubrics and Canons, it should be of wood and moveable, the Court must proceed in precisely the same manner as if it had been expressly so declared. I repeat, therefore, that the question is, whether this is a communion table or not, within the meaning of the Canon and Rubrics? I assume that neither the churchwardens nor the minister of the parish are actuated by any improper motives; that the churchwardens have no covert design of introducing Popish rites or ceremonies, as suggested; and, on the other hand, I give Mr. Faulkner

the credit of being influenced by a conscientious conviction that, in opposing this grant, he is opposing that which is repugnant to the laws and constitutions of the Reformed Church, and that he is not actuated by bigotry and prejudice. The facts of the case, as set forth in the act on petition, are these: —This ancient church, dedicated in the year 1101, having been found to be dilapidated and rendered unsightly by injudicious repairs, it was thought desirable to restore it as near as might be to its original design, and according to a plan prepared by a skilful architect, and with reference to which a faculty was granted. The works were executed under the superintendence of the Cambridge Camden Society, and a committee was formed, consisting of the minister and churchwardens, some of the parishioners, and the president and some of the members of the society. The expense was to be defrayed by voluntary contributions and the assistance of the society. In the progress of the works an individual, whose name is not mentioned, offered to make a free gift to the parish of a stone communion table, and what is called a credence table, also of stone. This offer was accepted, and that which forms the present subject of discussion was accordingly placed in the chancel, without, as is alleged, the privity and consent of the minister, he having been absent from Cambridge. It appears that this stone structure consists of a slab, supported by three upright slabs, all of stone, resting upon a lower slab, also of stone, and that the weight is about two tons; that the lower part is embedded in mortar or concrete, about an inch below the floor of

the chancel, which is built up to the table and covered with encaustic tiles; and that the table was also made to adhere to the east wall of the chancel. There is some dispute as to this last act, but it is sworn on one side, and not contradicted on oath. If the fact were material in the view which the Court is disposed to take of this case, it must be taken to be as stated in the affidavit. But the Court is satisfied to give the churchwardens the benefit of any alteration which has been made since the first erection. This structure, Mr. Faulkner contends, is a stone altar, or altar table, such as is erected and used with the credence table for idolatrous and heretical purposes in Popish countries; that the Rubrics and Canons require that the communion table should be of wood and moveable. On the other hand, the churchwardens deny that it is an altar, or such as is used in Popish countries for idolatrous and heretical purposes; and assert that it is essential to the preservation of uniformity in the internal arrangements of the church. They also deny that Mr. Faulkner was ignorant of the intention to place the communion table and credence table in the chancel; or if he was ignorant, they say he was wilfully so, for that he was a member of the committee, and had due notice of its meetings. To this it is rejoined, that Mr. Faulkner had no reason to suppose that the tenour of the faculty originally granted would be departed from, and that therefore he did not think his attendance necessary; that the substitution of the stone altar for the communion table formed no part of the original plan; and, looking at the

part of the plan where the credence table stands, there appear three pencil lines, describing where it should be placed, so that in the original specification it does not appear that a credence table was originally contemplated; this, therefore, would appear to have been an after-thought, in consequence of the offer made by the liberal individual to make a free gift to the parish. The churchwardens then annex a list of churches in which communion tables of stone, fixed, are to be found. I do not find any reference to either of the other three churches in the number of those in which stone tables have been used. I do not find that when the Temple Church was repaired the old communion table was replaced by one made of stone. Now, the question is, what is the real meaning of the word table' in the Canons and the Rubrics of the Church? In the first place, it is contended properly and truly that the present question must be determined by the Act of Uniformity and the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, which are incorporated with and made part of it. But in order to arrive at the true meaning of the expression in the present Act of Uniformity, and in the present Rubrics, it may not be immaterial to refer to the alterations made in the Rubrics at the time of the Reformation, and from that time down to the passing of the present Act of Uniformity in 1662, when we shall find that the word altar' has been changed to 'table.' We all know that after the Reformation one of the doctrines of the church of Rome which was renounced by the Church of England was the doctrine of transubstantiation; and it will be found that the ma

terial and the form of the altar in the Romish church are connected with this doctrine of transubstantiation, and with the eucharist as a sacrifice. It was contended that by the Rubrics of the Roman Catholic Church altars must be built of stone, and must be immoveable, and various canons from the body of the canon law were cited to show that the altar must be of stone, and fixed; and, if not, it must be re-consecrated. The Court does not think it necessary to go through all these authorities on this part of the case, because it is not incumbent upon the Court to pronounce whether this is or is not an altar. At the same time, it may not be inexpedient to consider what was the origin of the altars as used in the Roman Catholic churches, of what material they were constructed, and of what form, in order to arrive more readily at the meaning and intention of those who directed the removal of stone altars and the substitution of tables. From the authorities.cited by Cardinal Bona, in his work De Rebus Liturgicis, we learn that the altars used in the early ages of Christianity were made of wood, and in the form of a table; that about the year 509 they began to be of stone, although the wooden tables were not altogether abolished. The form altered with the material. Sometimes the altar or table was supported by one pillar, sometimes by four or two, and latterly they assumed the form of a tomb, as of the Sepulchre of the Martyrs, whence they derive their name; and there is no doubt that at the time of the Reformation the altars in the English churches were of stone, fixed and immoveable. At the