Welsh Journals

communion was an act of fellowship, a communal meal com- memorating the Last Supper and Christ's sacrifice. Believing the church to be a corporate body, they wished to encourage the spirit of fellowship evoked when a congregation gathered round the holy table. Laud's desire to remove the table permanently to the east wall of the chancel and fix it 'altar-wise', with the ends north-south, posed a direct threat to their conception of the church. It would alienate the congregation from the minister, who would necessarily be forced to celebrate communion with his back toward the nave and at a greater distance from the congregation. And the spirit of fellowship would be exchanged for a much less satisfying formal ceremonialism in which the status of the priest as a member of a special class would be emphasized. Finally, Laudians wanted the altar to be permanently railed in against the east wall. They believed that rails would protect the altar by providing a physical barrier between it and the irreverent who, as Bishop Pierce of Bath and Wells reported, often subjected it to indignities: If it be not railed in, it wilbe subject to many prophanations and abuses; Churchwardens will keepe their accompts at the Lords Table, parishioners will sitt round about it and talke of their parishe businesses, Schoolemasters will teach their boyes to write upon this Table, and the boyes will lay their hatts, saccells and bookes upon it, and in their Masters absence sitt upon the same; and many will sitt or leane irreverently agaynst the Lords Table in Sermon tyme; Glaciers will knock it full of nayle holes (as it is found by experience they have done in many places) and doggs will defile the Lords tabled There was even one incident when a dog burst in upon a communion service, seized the unconsecrated loaf in its jaws, and ran out into the fields.6 Rails would prevent such occurrences. But they would also encourage communicants to receive while kneeling, and they would secure a permanent position for the altar against the east wall of the chancel. Thus, the issue of rails became an integral part of the quarrel concerning the nature of the holy communion. The altar controversy, then, was not simply an argument over terminology or the need for rails. It was rather a disagreement as to the meaning of the central act of Christian worship.7 6 T. F. Palmer (ed.), Collectanae, II (London: Somerset Record Society, 1928), XLII 1, 190. Laud, Works, V, pt. 2, 367. 7 For a general discussion of the 'altar controversy', see Godfrey Davies, 'Arminianism versus Puritanism in England, ca. 1620-1640', Huntington Library Quarterly, no. 5 (1934), 164-65; Allen French, Charles I and the Puritan Upheaval (Boston, 1955), pp. 267-68; F. M. G. Higham, Catholic and Reformed (London, 1962), pp. 116-20; J. F. H. New, Anglican and Puritan (Stanford, Calif., 1964), pp. 42-43; John Campbell, 'The Quarrel over the Com- munion Table', Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, XL (1971), 173-83.