y6

the life of

He further addeth, that an Act of State made at the Council Board by theKing himself, with the Advice of the Metropolitan, and the rest of the PrivyCouncil (who were all Commissioners for Causes ecclesiastical) about theplacing the Table in that wife at St. Gregory’s Church in London, Anno 1633,was as a Rule to lead this Defendant (as being the Ordinary) to give Direotions for the fame. Especially considering, that the forc-mentioned Adver-tisements 7 Eliz. do directly imply, that the Table should stand there, evenat the Time of the Communion. [Item, they shall decently cover the Tablewith a Carpet, and with a fair Linnen Cloth at the Time of the Ministration,and shall set the Ten Commandments upon the East-wall over the said Table,Cap. 2. Art. 7.] for if over it at the Time of Ministration, then was it at theTime to stand under the said East-wall.

Nevertheless, he humbly fuppoleth, that as well by his Articles enquiringonly, whether the Table did ordinarily stand up at the East end, as also by hisDirections, that the Table should always stand there, unless the Ordinarygave Direction otherwise, he did thereby intimate, that the CommunionTable might and should be, upon any due Occasion, for more convenienthearing or communicating, be removed not only at the Communion Time,but at other Times when there was no Communion; and to this end he ex-pressed himself afterwards, for some Churches in the said Diocese, as at St.j Edmund’s-bury, Lavenham , and other Places, where it was certified, that theEnd of the Chancels was too far distant from the People in the Church. Andat Yarmouth (from the Beginning) he had given Order for the more Conve-nience of the People, that although there was a Rail by the Vicar-general'sAppointment, placed towards the East-end of the said Chancel, yet the Com-munion Table should always stand without and beneath the laid Rail, in theBody of the said Church.

To the third Article this Defendant anfwereth and denietb, that he indnno 1636. did enjoin that there should be a Rail before the Table.

But he faith, that it being presented by most of the Presentments in hisprimary Visitation, that the Vicar- general > had in the Archbishop’s metropo-litical Visitation injoined them to set up Rails: many also coming to this De-fendant, and craving to be directed, in what Manner and Fassiion the saidRails should fitliest be, this Defendant did, after his Visitation was past, givea general Direction, that it was fittest to set the fame from one side of theChancel to the other ; thereby aiming at the least Expence about the samethat might be.

He also denietb, that he accounted the Place within the Rail too holy for thePeople ; and is heartily sorry, that they who gave this Information to the Hon.House of Commons, do account God’s People as Dogs: for so only werethe Words of this Defendant’s Direction, that the Rails should be so thickwith Pillars that Dogs might not get in. Against which abominable Profana-tion of Dogs to come and defile the Lord’s Table, he humbly conceiveth, noCare or Provision can be over much ; and he is ready to prove, that in a poorCountry Parish in his Diocese, upon a Christmas Day, while the Minister wasin his Sermon concerning the Participation of the Communion, a Dog cameinto the Chancel, and leaping upon the Communion-table (which was notrailed in, took the Bread, prepared for the Communion, in his Mouth, and ranaway with it; whereby they could have no Communion that Day, there be-ing not another Loaf of white Bread in the Town, except that which theDog had defiled.

Yea he further faith, that the said Rails do preserve the Lord’s Table fromiiandry other Inconveniences and profane Abuses; not only of Boys rioting,

leaning

4