Skip to main content

"That it might be lawful now, under the Reformation, to call the holy Table by the name of Altar"

From Laudian Peter Heylyn's Antidotum Lincolniense (a 1637 polemical engagement in the 'altar controversy').  Here (chapter IV) Heylyn offers a rejoinder to a Puritan declaration that "under the Reformation" the Lord's Table may not be termed an altar.  This illustrates how Laudianism stood within a wider Reformation tradition.

Under the Reformation? And why so? Onely to make poor men beleeve, that Altars, and the Reformation, cannot stand together. But you are out in that, as in all the rest. The writer of the letter cannot but acknowledge, Altars doe stand still in the Lutherane Churches; and that the Apologie for the Augustane Confession doth allow it: the Doctors and Divines whereof, he doth acknowledge also to be sound Protestants, although they suffer Altars to stand. And in those other Churches of the Reformation, some of the chiefe Divines are farre more moderate in this point, than you wish they were. Oecolampadius doth allow the Eucharist to be called the Sacrament of the Altar: affirming also, that for peace sake they would not abhor from the title of sacrifice, if there were no deceit closely carryed under it: that there is no harme, in calling the Lords Table by the name of Altar. Zanchie more fully, Quod neque Christus, neque Apostoli prohibuerunt altaria, aut mandarunt quod mensis ligneis utantur; That neither Christ nor his Apostles have prohibited Altars, or enjoyned wooden Tables; and therefore that it is to be accounted a matter of indifference whether we use an Altar of stone, or a table of wood, modo absit superstitio, so that no superstition be conceived of either. So they determine of the point; not doubting, as it seemes, but that it might be lawfull now, under the Reformation, to call the holy Table by the name of Altar.

Comments

  1. Lue-Yee Tsang21 April 2020 at 08:56

    ‘Quod mensis ligneis ut antur’ should be ‘quod mensis ligneis utantur’.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. laudable Practice21 April 2020 at 13:35

      Well spotted - the perils of 'cut-and-paste'. Duly corrected.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders.  With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter.  The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition).  Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical).  Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...
25 comments
Read more

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition.  A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics".  Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics.  What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition.  Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...
19 comments
Read more

1928 practices and the 1979 book: unthinking conservatism or popular piety?

Those responsible for Earth & Altar - a new blog emanating from a group within TEC - are to be congratulated for an excellent contribution to wider Anglican discussion and debate. The commitment to "an expansively conceived credal orthodoxy as fully compatible with LGBTQ inclusion, gender equality, and racial justice" is an important part of a wider retrieval of creedal orthodoxy within what we might call the post-liberal generation. It is in this spirit that I want to respond to a recent post on the site by Andrew McGowan , Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and Professor of Anglican Studies at Yale Divinity School.  Against the background of another round of "ill-defined" liturgical revision in TEC, he understandably urges that a fuller reception of the 1979 BCP should occur before further reforms. In doing so, however, he takes aim at what he describes as "clinging to the ritual structures of 1928" while using the text of 1979.  We ...
2 comments
Read more