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.]