A church dictionary
Date: 2024-10-06T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Episcopal Church -- Dictionaries; Theology -- Dictionaries; Church of England -- Dictionaries

The Project Gutenberg eBook of A church dictionary

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: A church dictionary

Author: Walter Farquhar Hook

Release date: October 6, 2024 [eBook #74523]

Language: English

Original publication: London: John Murray

Credits: Richard Tonsing, Peter Podgoršek and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A CHURCH DICTIONARY ***

Transcriber’s Note:

New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public domain.

A
CHURCH DICTIONARY.

BY

WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, D. D.

VICAR OF LEEDS.

SEVENTH EDITION, REVISED AND AUGMENTED.

LONDON:

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.

1854.

JOHN CHILDS AND SON, BUNGAY.

TO
HENRY HALL,
OF BANK LODGE, LEEDS,
ESQUIRE,

SENIOR TRUSTEE OF THE ADVOWSON OF THE VICARAGE OF LEEDS,

A LOYAL MAGISTRATE,
A CONSISTENT CHRISTIAN, A FAITHFUL FRIEND,
THIS VOLUME
IS,
WITH AFFECTION AND RESPECT,
INSCRIBED.

PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.

The Church Dictionary, of which the Sixth Edition is now published, appeared originally in the shape of monthly tracts, intended by the writer to explain to his parishioners the more important doctrines of the Church, and the fundamental verities of our religion. The title of Church Dictionary was adopted from a work published with a similar object in America, by the Rev. Mr. Staunton; and the work itself assumed the character of short dissertations on those theological terms and ecclesiastical practices, which were misrepresented or misunderstood by persons who had received an education external to the Church.

For these tracts there was a considerable demand; and the monthly issue amounting to four thousand, the author was persuaded to extend his plan, and to make the Church Dictionary a work of more general utility than was at first designed. It was, in consequence, gradually enlarged in each successive Edition until now, when it has assumed its last and permanent character.

In this Edition, which has been enlarged by an addition of more than one hundred articles, the authorities are quoted upon which the statements are made in the more important articles; and where it has been possible, the ipsissima verba of the authors referred to have been given.

But as this publication has no pretensions beyond those of an elementary work, it has been thought, for the most part, sufficient only to refer to secondary authorities, such as Bingham, Comber, Wheatly, Palmer, &c., in whose learned works the reader, who wishes to investigate any subject more thoroughly, will find the further references which he may require.

In deference to a wish very generally expressed, an account has been taken from sources acknowledged to be authentic, and which are duly noticed, of various Christian communities, not in connexion with the Church.

It was found impossible, within the limits prescribed, to act upon another suggestion, and to introduce the biographies of our great divines. This, therefore, has been done in a separate publication, entitled “An Ecclesiastical Biography.”[1]

The articles on Church architecture have been carefully revised by the Rev. G. A. Poole, M. A., vicar of Welford.

The Law articles have been revised, partly by the Rev. James Brogden, A. M., of Trinity College, Cambridge, and partly by William Johnston, of Gray’s Inn, Esq., barrister-at-law.

To Mr. Johnston, known to the literary world as the author of “England as it is,” the thanks of the present writer are also due for the kindness with which he has assisted him in correcting the press, and for many valuable suggestions.

The original dissertations remain unaltered; but the circumstances of the Church of England have changed considerably from what they were when the Church Dictionary was first published. At that time the Protestantism of the Church of England was universally recognised, and the fear was lest her pretensions to Catholicity should be ignored. But now an affectation of repudiating our Protestantism is prevalent, while by ignorant or designing men Protestantism is misrepresented as the antithesis, not, as is the case, to Romanism, but to Catholicism; at the same time, Catholicism is confounded with Romanism, primitive truth with mediæval error, and the theology of the Schools with that of the Fathers: while, therefore, the articles bearing on the catholicity, orthodoxy, and primitive character of the Church of England are retained, the articles relating to the heresies and peculiarities of the Church of Rome have been expanded; and strong as they were in former editions in condemnation of the papal system, they have been rendered more useful, under the present exigencies of the Church, by a reference to the decisions of the so-called Council of Trent, so as to enable the reader to see what the peculiar tenets of that corrupt portion of the Christian world really are.

Vicarage, Leeds, 21 Sept. 1852.

PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION.

In this Edition the articles on the Early Heresies have been revised by the Rev. James Craigie Robertson, M. A.;[2] the Ritual articles, by the Rev. John Jebb, M. A,; the articles on the Councils, by the Rev. Sanderson Robins, M. A.; and the Law articles, by William Johnston, Esq. To Mr. Jebb’s notes in Stephens’s edition of the Book of Common Prayer, and to his other learned works, and to Mr. Robins’s excellent treatise entitled “Evidences of Scripture against the Claims of the Romish Church,” reference is frequently made. Authorities have been fully given, except when articles have been taken with only slight alterations from Broughton or Bingham, or translated from Suicer.

July, 1854.

A CHURCH DICTIONARY.

ABACUS. The upper member of a capital. (See Capital.)

In semi-Norman and early English architecture, the abacus of engaged shafts is frequently returned along the walls, in a continued horizontal string: perhaps the last lingering recognition of the effect of the capital in representing that horizontal line, which was so decided in the classic architrave, and to which the spirit of Gothic architecture is in the main so greatly opposed.

ABBA. A Syriac word signifying Father, and expressive of attachment and confidence. St. Paul says, Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father. (Rom. viii. 15; comp. Gal. iv. 6.) The word is derived from the Hebrew Ab: and, if we may ascend still higher, that word itself (as many others which occur in that language) proceeds from the voice of nature; being one of the most obvious sounds, to express one of the first and most obvious ideas.

ABBÉ. The designation assumed in France, before the Revolution, by certain persons, who, whether in the higher orders of the ministry or not, ostensibly devoted themselves to theological studies, in the hope that the king would confer upon them a real abbey, i.e. a certain portion of the revenues of a real abbey. Hence it became the common title of unemployed secular priests. In Italy the word Abate was similarly used, to designate one who merely adopted the clerical habit. [Vocabolario della Crusca.]

ABBEY. The habitation of a society devoted to religion. It signifies a monastery, of which the head was an Abbot or Abbess. (See Abbot.) Of cathedral abbeys the bishop was considered to be virtually the abbot: and therefore the Presbyteral Superior of these establishments was styled Prior. The abbey of Ely was constituted a cathedral in 1109: when the Abbot Harvey was made bishop. The abbacy was henceforward united to the bishopric: and therefore it is that the bishops of Ely still occupy the first stall on the right side of the choir, usually assigned to the dean: the dean’s stall being the first on the left side, formerly occupied by the prior. (See Monasteries.)

Cranmer begged earnestly of Henry VIII. that he would save some of the abbeys, to be reformed and applied to holy and religious uses, but his petition, and the exertions of Latimer for the same purpose, were in vain. For the arrangement of the several buildings of an abbey, see Cathedral and Monastery.

ABBOT. The Father or Superior of an abbey of monks, or male persons, living under peculiar religious vows. The word abbot comes, through the late Latin abbas, from the Syriac abba—father. (See Abba.) The word Father, in its various forms of Papa, Abbas, Padre, Père, &c., has in all countries and all ages of Christianity been applied as a title of respect to the superior clergy and priesthood. In some parts of the East and in Ireland, this term, abbas or abbat, was frequently confounded with that of bishop, from the fact of the abbots being in the early times bishops also.

Among the abbeys in England before the dissolution, were some which gave the title of Mitred Abbot [or Abbots general, or sovereign] to the superiors of them. These mitred abbots sat and voted in the House of Lords. They held of the king in capite per baroniam, their endowments being at least an entire barony, which consisted of thirteen knights’ fees. The following are the abbeys which conferred this distinction on their abbots: St. Alban’s, Glastonbury, St. Peter’s, Westminster; St. Edmondsbury, St. Bennet’s of Holm, Bardney, Shrewsbury, Croyland (or Crowland), Abingdon, Evesham, Gloucester, Ramsey, St. Mary’s, York; Tewkesbury, Reading, Battle, Winchcomb, Hide by Winchester, Cirencester, Waltham, Malmesbury, Thorney, St. Augustine’s, Canterbury; Selby, Peterborough, St. John’s, Colchester; to which was added, not long before the Reformation, Tavistock. All mitred abbots were of the Benedictine order, except those of Waltham and Cirencester, who were Augustinians. This fact Fuller has overlooked. (See Dugdale’s Monasticon.)

But it is to be observed, that there were two other lords of parliament, heads of religious houses, who were not abbots: (1.) The prior of St. John’s of Jerusalem, of the Knights Hospitallers in England. He ranked before the mitred abbots, and was considered the first baron in England. (2.) The prior of Coventry; a solitary instance in England of the presbyteral head of a cathedral being a spiritual peer. Of the abbots, the abbot of Glastonbury had the precedence, till A. D. 1154, when Pope Adrian VII., an Englishman, from the affection he entertained for the place of his education, assigned this precedence to the abbot of St. Alban’s. In consequence, Glastonbury ranked next after him, and Reading had the third place.

According to the ancient laws of Christendom, confirmed by general councils, all heads of monasteries, whether abbots or priors, owed canonical obedience to their diocesan. And the same law subsisted till the Reformation, wherever special exemptions had not been granted, which, however, were numerous. Cowell, as quoted by Johnson in his Dictionary, (voce Abbot,) erroneously says that the mitred abbots were exempted from episcopal jurisdiction, but that the other sorts (i. e. the non-mitred) were subject to their diocesans. The truth is, that the former endeavoured after their own aggrandizement in every possible way, but had no inherent right of exemption from the fact of their being lords of parliament, or being invested with the mitre. Thus it appears from Dugd. Monast. that Gloucester, Winchcomb, and Tewkesbury were subject to the visitation and jurisdiction of the bishop of Worcester, till the Reformation; Croyland, Peterborough, Bardney, and Ramsey to the bishop of Lincoln; St. Mary in York, and Selby, to the archbishop of York, and Coventry to the bishop of Lichfield. The abbots, unless specially exempted, took the oath of canonical obedience to their diocesan, and after election, were confirmed by him, and received his benediction. [Fuller, Collier, Willis’s Mitred Abbeys.] In Ireland the abbots who were mitred, or lords of parliament, were those of St. Mary, Dublin; St. Thomas, Dublin; Monastereven, Baltinglass, Dunbrody, Duisk, Jerpoint, Bective, Mellifont, Tracton, Monasternenagh, Owney, and Holycross. All these were of the Cistercian order, except the abbot of St. Thomas, who was of St. Victor. The other parliamentary lords, heads of religious houses, were the cathedral priors of Christ Church, Dublin, and of Downpatrick; the priors of Allhallows, Dublin; Conall, Kells, (in Kilkenny,) Louth, Athassel, Killagh, Newton, and Rathboy. All these were of the Augustinian order, except the prior of Down, who was a Benedictine, the preceptor of the Knights Hospitallers at Wexford, and the prior of the Knights Hospitallers at Kilmainham. (See Monks.)

ABBESS. The Mother or Superior of an abbey of nuns, or female persons living under peculiar religious vows and discipline.

ABECEDARIAN HYMNS. Hymns composed in imitation of the acrostic poetry of the Hebrews, in which each verse, or each part, commenced with the first and succeeding letters of the alphabet, in their order. This arrangement was intended as a help to the memory. St. Augustine composed a hymn in this manner, for the common people to learn, against the error of the Donatists. (See Acrostics.)

ABEYANCE, from the French bayer, to expect, is that which is in expectation, remembrance, and intendment of law. By a principle of law, in every land there is a fee simple in some body, or else it is in abeyance; that is, though for the present it be in no man, yet it is in expectancy belonging to him that is next to enjoy the land.—Inst.

Thus if a man be patron of a church, and presenteth a clerk to the same; the fee of the lands and tenements pertaining to the rectory is in the parson; but if the parson die, and the church becometh void, then is the fee in abeyance, until there be a new parson presented, admitted, and inducted. For the frank tenement of the glebe of a parsonage, during the time the parsonage is void, is in no man; but in abeyance or expectation, belonging to him who is next to enjoy it.—Terms of the Law.

ABJURATION. A solemn renunciation in public, or before a proper officer, of some doctrinal error. A formal abjuration is often considered necessary by the Church, when any person seeks to be received into her communion from heresy or schism. A form for admitting Romish recusants into the Church of England was drawn up by one of the Houses of Convocation of 1714, but did not receive the royal sanction. It is as follows:

A Form for admitting Converts from the Church of Rome, and such as shall renounce their errors.

The bishop, or some priests appointed by him for that purpose, being at the communion table, and the person to be reconciled standing without the rails, the bishop, or such priest as is appointed, shall speak to the congregation as followeth:

Dearly beloved,

We are here met together for the reconciling of a penitent (lately of the Church of Rome, or lately of the separation) to the Established Church of England, as to a true and sound part of Christ’s holy Catholic Church. Now, that this weighty affair may have its due effect, let us in the first place humbly and devoutly pray to Almighty God for his blessing upon us in that pious and charitable office we are going about.

Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help, that in this and all other our works, begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy name, and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen.

Almighty God, who showest to them that be in error the light of thy truth, to the intent that they may return into the way of righteousness; grant unto all them that are or shall be admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s religion, that they may eschew those things that are contrary to their profession, and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same, through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Psalm cxix. 161.

Let my complaint come before thee, O Lord; give me understanding according to thy word.

Let my supplication come before thee; deliver me according to thy word.

My lips shall speak of thy praise, when thou hast taught me thy statutes.

Yea, my tongue shall sing of thy word, for all thy commandments are righteous.

Let thine hand help me, for I have chosen thy commandments.

I have longed for thy saving health, O Lord, and in thy law is my delight.

O let my soul live, and it shall praise thee and thy judgments shall help me.

I have gone astray, like a sheep that is lost; O seek thy servant, for I do not forget thy commandments.

Glory be to the Father, &c.

As it was in the beginning, &c.

The Lesson. Luke XV. to ver. 8.

Then drew near unto him the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? and when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders rejoicing; and when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and his neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance.

The hymn to be used when the penitent comes from the Church of Rome.

Psalm cxv. to ver. 10.

Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give the praise, for thy loving mercy and for thy truth’s sake.

Wherefore shall the heathen say: Where is now their God?

As for our God, he is in heaven; he hath done whatsoever pleased him.

Their idols are silver and gold, even the work of men’s hands.

They have mouths, and speak not; eyes have they, and see not; they have ears, and hear not; noses have they, and smell not; they have hands, and handle not; feet have they, and walk not; neither speak they through their throat.

They that make them are like unto them, and so are all such as put their trust in them.

But thou, house of Israel, trust thou in the Lord; he is their succour and defence.

Glory be to the Father, &c.

As it was in the beginning, &c.

If the penitent comes from the separation, then this is to be used.

Psalm cxxii.

I was glad when they said unto me, We will go into the house of the Lord.

Our feet shall stand in thy gates, O Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is built as a city that is at unity in itself.

For thither the tribes go up, even the tribes of the Lord, to testify unto Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the Lord.

For there is the seat of judgment, even the seat of the house of David.

O pray for the peace of Jerusalem, they shall prosper that love thee.

Peace be within thy walls, and plenteousness within thy palaces.

For my brethren and companions’ sake I wish thee prosperity.

Yea, because of the house of the Lord our God, I will seek to do thee good.

Glory be to the Father, &c.

As it was in the beginning, &c.

Then the bishop sitting in a chair, or the priest standing, shall speak to the penitent, who is to be kneeling, as follows:

Dear brother, or sister,

I have good hope that you have well weighed and considered with yourself the great work you are come about, before this time; but inasmuch as with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, that you may give the more honour to God, and that this present congregation of Christ here assembled may also understand your mind and will in these things, and that this your declaration may the more confirm you in your good resolutions, you shall answer plainly to these questions, which we in the name of God and of his Church shall propose to you touching the same:

Art thou thoroughly persuaded that those books of the Old and the New Testament, which are received as canonical scriptures by this Church, contain sufficiently all doctrine requisite and necessary to eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?

Answer. I am so persuaded.

Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son our Lord, and that he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day, that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and from thence shall come again, at the end of the world, to judge the quick and the dead?

And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and everlasting life after death?

Answer. All this I stedfastly believe.

Art thou truly sorrowful that thou hast not followed the way prescribed in these Scriptures for the directing of the faith and practice of a true disciple of Christ Jesus?

Answer. I am heartily sorry, and I hope for mercy through Jesus Christ.

Dost thou embrace the truth of the gospel in the love of it, and stedfastly resolve to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this present world all the days of thy life?

Answer. I do embrace it, and do so resolve, God being my helper.

Dost thou earnestly desire to be received into the communion of this Church, as into a true and sound part of Christ’s holy Catholic Church?

Answer. This I earnestly desire.

If the penitent come from the Church of Rome, this question is to follow:

Dost thou renounce all the errors and superstitions of the present Romish Church, so far as they are come to thy knowledge?

Answer. I do from my heart renounce them all.

If the penitent from the Church of Rome be in holy orders, let these further questions be asked:

Dost thou in particular renounce the twelve last articles added in the confession, commonly called “the Creed of Pope Pius IV.,” after having read them, and duly considered them?

Answer. I do upon mature deliberation reject them all, as grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.

Dost thou acknowledge the supremacy of the kings and queens of this realm, as by law established, and declared in the thirty-seventh article of religion?

Answer. I do sincerely acknowledge it.

Wilt thou then give thy faithful diligence always so to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and realm hath received the same, according to the commandments of God, so that thou mayest teach the people with all diligence to keep and observe the same?

Answer. I will do so by the help of the Lord.

Wilt thou conform thyself to the liturgy of the Church of England, as by law established?

Answer. I will.

If the penitent come from the separation, these questions are to be asked:

Dost thou allow and approve of the orders of bishops, priests, and deacons [as what have been in the Church of Christ from the time of the apostles]; and wilt thou, as much as in thee lieth, promote all due regard to the same good order and government of the Church of Christ?

[Note. That within the crotchets is to be used only when the penitent hath been a teacher in some separate congregation.]

Answer. I do approve it, and will endeavour that it may be so regarded, as much as in me lieth.

Wilt thou conform thyself to the liturgy of the Church of England, as by law established, and be diligent in attending the prayers and other offices of the Church?

Answer. I will do so by the help of God.

If the penitent be one who has relapsed, the following question is to be asked:

Art thou heartily sorry, that when thou wast in the way of truth, thou didst so little watch over thy own heart, as to suffer thyself to be led away with the shows of vain doctrine? and dost thou stedfastly purpose to be more careful for the future, and to persevere in that holy profession, which thou hast now made?

Answer. I am truly grieved for my former unstedfastness, and am fully determined by God’s grace to walk more circumspectly for the time to come, and to continue in this my profession to my life’s end.

Then the bishop, or priest, standing up, shall say:

Almighty God, who hath given you a sense of your errors, and a will to do all these things, grant also unto you strength and power to perform the same, that he may accomplish his work, which he hath begun in you, through Jesus Christ. Amen.

The Absolution.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him, have mercy upon you, pardon and deliver you from all your sins, confirm and strengthen you in all goodness, and bring you to everlasting life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then the bishop, or priest, taking the penitent by the right hand, shall say unto him:

I N., bishop of ——, or I A. B., do upon this thy solemn profession and earnest request receive thee into the holy communion of the Church of England, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

People: Amen.

Then the bishop, or priest, shall say the Lord’s Prayer, with that which follows, all kneeling.

Let us pray.

Our Father, which art in heaven, &c.

O God of truth and love, we bless and magnify thy holy name for thy great mercy and goodness in bringing this thy servant into the communion of this Church: give him (or her) we beseech thee, stability and perseverance in that faith of which he (or she) hath in the presence of God and of this congregation witnessed a good confession. Suffer him (or her) not to be moved from it by any temptations of Satan, enticements of the world, the scoffs of irreligious men, or the revilings of those who are still in error; but guard him (or her) by thy grace against all these snares, and make him (or her) instrumental in turning others from the errors of their ways, to the saving of their souls from death, and the covering a multitude of sins. And in thy good time, O Lord, bring, we pray thee, into the way of truth all such as have erred and are deceived; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that there may be one fold under one Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ; to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.

Then the bishop, or priest, standing up (if there be no communion at that time), shall turn himself to the person newly admitted, and say:

Dear brother, or sister,

Seeing that you have by the goodness of God proceeded thus far, I must put you in mind, that you take care to go on in that good way into which you are entered; and for your establishment and furtherance therein, that, if you have not been confirmed, you endeavour to be so the next opportunity, and receive the holy sacrament of the Lord’s supper. And may God’s Holy Spirit ever be with you. Amen.

The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your heart and mind by Christ Jesus. Amen.—Cardwell’s Synodalia. Wilkins’s Concilia.

ABSOLUTION. (See Confession, Penance.) The power of absolution consists in removing the guilt and punishment of sin, and receiving the guilty person into favour, as if he were perfectly innocent. This is variously expressed in holy Scripture. It is sometimes made the same with justification, which is the acquitting a person from guilt, and looking upon him as perfectly righteous. It is opposed to condemnation, which is a laying of sin to his charge. This power is expressed by remitting or retaining of sin, which is the pardoning or punishing of it. It is called sometimes the power of opening and shutting the kingdom of heaven, which is by admitting into, or excluding out of, the Church; for none can be received into the kingdom of glory hereafter but such as are admitted into the church or kingdom of grace here: called therefore the power of the keys. It is called in St. Matthew the power of binding and loosing, (xvi. 19,) “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth,” &c. Sinners are said to be “tied and bound with the chain of their sins,” to be “holden with cords,” and to be “in the bond of iniquity.” Now to loosen this bond, to untie those cords, and so be freed from these chains, is done by what we call the power of absolution, or remission of sins: and so the words of St. Matthew are the same in effect with those of St. John, “Whose soever sins ye remit,” &c. This power of pardoning is annexed to some acts of religion, instituted by God for this purpose, and executed only by Christ’s ministers. As, 1. Baptism was ordained for the remission of sins; so St. Peter told his converts, (Acts ii. 38,) “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you,” &c. 2. The holy sacrament of the eucharist was instituted for this purpose: as we read, Matt. xxvi. 28, where Christ’s body is said to be broken, and “his blood shed for many for the remission of sins.” 3. The preaching the word is for the proclaiming of pardon, called therefore the ministry, or word, of reconciliation. (2 Cor. v. 18.) 4. The prayer of the elders over the sick hath joined to it the forgiveness of sins. (Jas. v. 14.) Now these ministerial acts for the “remission of sins,” are peculiar only to the “priest’s office:” neither is the virtue or effect of them to be imparted to any other; for to them it is said, and to no other, “whose sins ye remit,” &c.; and therefore a pardon pronounced by them must be of greater efficacy than by any ordinary person.—Hole.

The authority and power of conferring absolution on penitents, wherewith our gracious Saviour hath so clearly vested his ministerial successors, “whose soever sins ye remit,” &c., having been abused by the Church of Rome into a lucrative market of pardons and indulgences, it is no wonder that Luther, and all our first reformers, should have taken infinite offence at a practice so flagitious, and so directly contrary to the command of Christ, “freely ye have received, freely give.” This, however, should not have been a reason, as it was with too many, for rejecting all absolutions. The true doctrine is, and must be, this: For the consolation of his Church, and particularly of such as class with the penitent publican in the gospel, Christ hath left with his bishops and presbyters a power to pronounce absolution. This absolution is on condition of faith and repentance in the person or persons receiving it. On sufficient appearance of these, and on confession made with these appearances in particular persons, the bishop or presbyter, as the messenger of Christ, is to pronounce it. But he cannot search the heart; God only, who can, confirms it. The power of absolution is remarkably exercised by St. Paul, though absent, and depending on both report and the information of the Holy Spirit, in regard to the Corinthian excommunicated for incest. The apostle, speaking in the character of one to whom the authority of absolution had been committed, saith to the Church of Corinth, “to whom ye forgave anything, I forgive also.” (2 Cor. ii. 10.) Thus the penitent was pardoned and restored to communion by delegated authority, in the person of Christ, lest such an one should be swallowed up with over-much sorrow, and lest Satan should get an advantage over us. As these reasons for compassion still remain, it seems evident that the Church should still retain the same power of showing that compassion, as far as human understanding may direct its application.—Skelton.

Sacerdotal absolution does not necessarily require any particular or auricular confession of private sins; forasmuch as that the grand absolution of baptism was commonly given without any particular confession. And therefore the Romanists vainly found the necessity of auricular confession upon those words of our Saviour, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: as if there could be no absolution without particular confession; when it is so plain, that the great absolution of baptism (the power of which is founded by the ancients upon this very place) required no such particular confession. We may hence infer, that the power of any sacerdotal absolution is only ministerial; because the administration of baptism, (which is the most universal absolution,) so far as man is concerned in it, is no more than ministerial. All the office and power of man in it is only to minister the external form, but the internal power and grace of remission of sins is properly God’s; and so it is in all other sorts of absolution.—Bingham.

The bishops and priests of the whole Christian Church have ever used to absolve all that truly repented, and at this day it is retained in our Church as a part of the daily office; which being so useful, so necessary, and founded on holy Scripture, needs not any arguments to defend it, but that the ignorance and prejudice of some make them take offence at it, and principally because it hath been so much abused by the Papal Church. We may declare our abhorrency of these evil uses of absolution; though in that sober, moderate, and useful manner we do perform it, we do not vary from the prime intention of Christ’s commission, and the practice of antiquity: absolution was instituted by Jesus, and if it have been corrupted by men, we will cast away the corruptions, not the ordinance itself.—Comber.

Sin is compared to a bond, (Acts viii. 23; Prov. v. 22,) because it binds down the soul by its guilt and power, and hinders it from free converse with God, yea, makes it liable to eternal condemnation: but Jesus came to unloose these bonds, and actually did so to divers, when he was upon earth, and left this power to his apostles and their successors, when he went to heaven; and this unloosing men from the bond of their sins is that which we properly call absolution, and it is a necessary and most comfortable part of the priest’s office. But the sectaries do wholly disown this power, and are so bold as to deride us for the use thereof: yet it is certain that Christ did give his disciples the power of binding and loosing, (Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18,) or, as it is elsewhere called, of remitting sins, (John xx. 22, 23,) frequently repeating this commission, and solemnly promising to ratify in heaven what they did on earth. It is plain also, that the apostles exercised this power, (Acts ii. 38; 2 Cor. ii. 10,) and gave their successors a charge to use it also (Gal. vi. 1; James v. 14, 15); and the primitive histories do abundantly testify they did so very often; so that they must cancel all those lines of Scripture, and records of antiquity also, before they can take away this power. Nor can they fairly pretend it was a personal privilege dying with the apostles, since the Church hath used it ever since, and penitents need a comfortable application of their pardon now, as well as they did then: and whereas they object with the Jews, that “none can forgive sins but God only,” (Luke v. 21,) we reply, that God alone can exercise this power in his own right, but he may and hath communicated it to others, who did it in his name, and by his authority; or, as St. Paul speaks, in the person of Christ (2 Cor. ii. 10); so that St. Ambrose saith, “God himself forgives sins by them to whom he hath granted the power of absolution.”—Comber.

Calvin’s liturgy has no form of absolution in it: but he himself says that it was an omission in him at first, and a defect in his liturgy; which he afterwards would have rectified and amended, but could not. He makes this ingenuous confession in one of his epistles: “There is none of us,” says he, “but must acknowledge it to be very useful, that, after the general confession, some remarkable promise of Scripture should follow, whereby sinners might be raised to the hopes of pardon and reconciliation. And I would have introduced this custom from the beginning, but some fearing that the novelty of it would give offence, I was over-easy in yielding to them; so the thing was omitted.” I must do that justice to Calvin here, by the way, to say, that he was no enemy to private absolution neither, as used in the Church of England. For in one of his answers to Westphalus he thus expresses his mind about it: “I have no intent to deny the usefulness of private absolution: but as I commend it in several places of my writings, provided the use be left to men’s liberty, and free from superstition, so to bind men’s consciences by a law to it, is neither lawful nor expedient.” Here we have Calvin’s judgment, fully and entirely, for the usefulness both of public and private absolution. He owns it to be a defect in his liturgy, that it wants a public absolution.—Bingham.

Calvin’s own account of his facility merits attention. In his character, flexibility of disposition appears to be a lineament either so faint, or so obscured by more prominent features of a different cast, that it has generally escaped vulgar observation. His panegyrist, the learned translator of Mosheim’s Eccles. Hist., [Maclaine,] describes him as surpassing most of the reformers “in obstinacy, asperity, and turbulence.”—Shepherd.

This penitence our Church makes not a new sacrament, (as doth the Church of Rome,) but a means of returning to the grace of God bestowed in baptism. “They which in act or deed sin after baptism, (saith our homily,) when they turn to God unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this sacrifice from their sins.”—Puller.

If our confession be serious and hearty, this absolution is as effectual as if God did pronounce it from heaven. So says the Confession of Saxony and Bohemia, and so says the Augustan Confession; and, which is more, so says St. Chrysostom in his fifth homily upon Isaiah, “Heaven waits and expects the priest’s sentence here on earth; the Lord follows the servant, and what the servant rightly binds or looses here on earth, that the Lord confirms in heaven.” The same says St. Gregory (Hom. 20) upon the Gospels: “The apostles (and in them all priests) were made God’s vicegerents here on earth, in his name and stead to retain or remit sins.” St. Augustine and Cyprian, and generally all antiquity, say the same; so does our Church in many places, particularly in the form of absolution for the sick; but, above all, holy Scripture is clear, (St. John xx. 23,) “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them.” Which power of remitting sins was not to end with the apostles, but is a part of the ministry of reconciliation, as necessary now as it was then, and therefore to continue as long as the ministry of reconciliation; that is, to the end of the world. (Eph. iv. 12, 13.) When therefore the priest absolves, God absolves, if we be truly penitent. Now, this remission of sins granted here to the priest, to which God hath promised a confirmation in heaven, is not the act of preaching, or baptizing, or admitting men to the holy communion. But this power of remitting sins, mentioned John xx., was not granted (though promised, Matt. xvi. 19) till now, that is, after the resurrection, as appears by the ceremony of breathing, signifying that then it was given: and secondly, by the word receive, used in that place, (ver. 22,) which he could not properly have used, if they had been endued with this power before. Therefore the power of remitting, which here God authorizes, and promises certain assistance to, is neither preaching nor baptizing, but some other way of remitting, viz. that which the Church calls absolution. And if it be so, then, to doubt of the effect of it, (supposing we be truly penitent, and such as God will pardon,) is to question the truth of God: and he that, under pretence of reverence to God, denies or despises this power, does injury to God, slighting his commission, and is no better than a Novatian, says St. Ambrose.—Sparrow.

Our Church has not appointed the indicative form of absolution to be used in all these senses, but only once in the office of the sick, and that may reasonably be interpreted, (according to the account given out of St. Jerome,) a declaration of the sinner’s pardon, upon the apparent evidences of a sincere repentance, and the best judgment the minister can make of his condition; beyond which none can go, but the searcher of hearts, to whom alone belongs the infallible and irreversible sentence of absolution. The indicative form, “I absolve thee,” may be interpreted to mean no more than a declaration of God’s will to a penitent sinner, that, upon the best judgment the priest can make of his repentance, he esteems him absolved before God, and accordingly pronounces and declares him absolved. As St. Jerome observes, the priests under the old law were said to cleanse a leper, or pollute him; not that they were the authors of his pollution, but that they declared him to be polluted, who before seemed to many to have been clean. As, therefore, the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so the bishop or presbyter here binds or looses, not properly making the guilty or the guiltless; but according to the tenor of his office, when he hears the distinction of sins, he knows who is to be bound, and who is to be loosed. Upon this also, the master of the sentences (following St. Jerome) observes, that the priests of the gospel have that right and office which the legal priests had of old under the law in curing the lepers. These, therefore, forgive sins, or retain them, whilst they show and declare that they are forgiven or retained by God. For the priests “put the name of the Lord” upon the children of Israel, but it was he himself that blessed them, as it is read in Num. vi. 27.—Bingham.

Our Church maintains, appealing to Scripture for the proof of it, that some power of absolving or remitting sins, derived from the apostles, remains with their successors in the ministry; and accordingly, at the ordination of priests, the words of our Saviour, on which the power is founded, are solemnly repeated to them by the bishop, and the power at the same time conferred. We do not pretend it is in any sort a discretionary power of forgiving sins, for the priest has no discernment of the spirit and hearts of men, as the apostles had, but a power of pronouncing authoritatively, in the name of God, who has committed to the priest the ministry of reconciliation, his pardon and forgiveness to all true penitents and sincere believers. That God alone can forgive sins, that he is the sole author of all blessings, spiritual as well as temporal, is undeniable: but that he can declare his gracious assurance of pardon, and convey his blessings to us, by what means and instruments he thinks fit, is no less certain. In whatever way he vouchsafes to do it, it is our duty humbly and thankfully to receive them; not to dispute his wisdom in the choice of those means and instruments; for, in that case, he that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God.—Waldo.

The following remarks on our forms of absolution occur in “Palmer’s Origines Liturgicæ.”

“An absolution followed the confession formerly in the offices of the English churches, for prime, or the first hour of the day. We may, perhaps, assign to the absolution thus placed, an antiquity equal to that of the confession, though Gemma Animæ and Durandus do not appear expressly to mention it. The sacerdotal benediction of penitents was in the earliest times conveyed in the form of a prayer to God for their absolution; but, in after ages, different forms of benediction were used, both in the East and West. With regard to these varieties of form, it does not appear that they were formerly considered of any importance. A benediction seems to have been regarded as equally valid, whether it was conveyed in the form of a petition or a declaration, whether in the optative or the indicative mood, whether in the active or the passive voice, whether in the first, second, or third person. It is true that a direct prayer to God is a most ancient form of blessing; but the use of a precatory, or an optative form, by no means warrants the inference, that the person who uses it is devoid of any divinely instituted authority to bless and absolve in the congregation of God. Neither does the use of a direct indicative form of blessing or absolution imply anything but the exercise of an authority which God has given, to such an extent, and under such limitations, as Divine revelation has declared.”

In the primitive Church absolution was regarded to consist of five kinds: sacramental, by baptism and the eucharist; declaratory, by word of mouth and doctrine; precatory, by imposition of hands and prayer; judicial, by relaxation of Church censures.—Bingham.

The Absolution in the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer was first inserted in the Second Book of King Edward VI. It can be pronounced by the priest only or alone. At the last review the word Minister in the rubric preceding the absolution, was changed into Priest: this change being obviously adopted from the Scotch Prayer Book in Charles I.’s time, where the word in the same place is Presbyter. The other two absolutions are coeval with our reformed Prayer Book. The ministerial absolution of persons unquiet in conscience, before receiving the holy communion, is mentioned in the first exhortation on giving notice of the communion; and the absolution of excommunicated persons in the 65th Canon.

ABSTINENCE. (See Fasting.) In the Romish Church, fasting and abstinence admit of a distinction, and different days are appointed for each of them. On their days of fasting, they are allowed but one meal in four and twenty hours; but, on days of abstinence, provided they abstain from flesh, and make but a moderate meal, they are indulged in a collation at night. The times by them set apart for the first are, all Lent, except Sundays, the Ember days, the vigils of the more solemn feasts, and all Fridays except those that fall within the twelve days of Christmas, and between Easter and the Ascension. Their days of abstinence are all the Sundays in Lent, St. Mark’s day, if it does not fall in Easter week, the three Rogation days, all Saturdays throughout the year, with the Fridays before excepted, unless either happen to be Christmas day. The reason why they observe St. Mark as a day of abstinence is, as we learn from their own books, in imitation of St. Mark’s disciples, the first Christians of Alexandria, who, under this saint’s conduct, were eminent for their great prayer, abstinence, and sobriety. They further tell us, that St. Gregory the Great, the apostle of England, first set apart this day for abstinence and public prayer, as an acknowledgment of the Divine mercy, in putting a stop to a mortality in his time at Rome.

We do not find that the Church of England makes any difference between days of fasting and days of abstinence. It is true, in the title of the table of Vigils, &c., she mentions fasts and days of abstinence separately; but when she comes to enumerate the particulars, she calls them all days of fasting or abstinence, without distinguishing between the one and the other. Nor does she anywhere point out to us what food is proper for such times or seasons, or seem to place any part of religion in abstaining from any particular kinds of meat. It is true, by a statute, (5 Eliz. 5,) none were allowed to eat flesh on fish-days, (which are there declared to be all Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays in the year,) without a licence first obtained, for which they are to pay a yearly fine, (except such as are sick, who may be licensed either by the bishop or minister,) under penalty of three pounds’ forfeiture, or three months’ imprisonment without bail, and of forty shillings’ forfeiture for any master of a family that suffers or conceals it. But then this is declared to be a mere political law, for the increase of fishermen and mariners, and repairing of port towns and navigation, and not for any superstition to be maintained in the choice of meats. For, by the same act, whosoever, by preaching, teaching, writing, &c., affirms it to be necessary to abstain from flesh for the saving of the soul of man, or for the service of God, otherwise than other politic laws are or be, is to be punished as a spreader of false news. That is, he must suffer imprisonment till he produce the author; and, if he cannot produce him, must be punished at the discretion of the king’s council. The sections of this act which relate to eating fish on Wednesdays, were repealed by 27 Eliz. c. 11.

With us, therefore, neither Church nor State makes any difference in the kinds of meat; but as far as the former determines in the matter, she seems to recommend an entire abstinence from all manner of food till the time of fasting be over; declaring in her homilies, that fasting (by the decree of the six hundred and thirty fathers, assembled at the Council of Chalcedon, which was one of the four first general councils, who grounded their determination upon the sacred Scriptures, and long-continued usage or practice both of the prophets and other godly persons, before the coming of Christ, and also of the apostles and other devout men in the New Testament) is a withholding of meat, drink, and all natural food from the body, for the determined time of fasting.—Wheatly.

ABYSSINIA. The Abyssinian Church was founded early in the fourth century. Its first bishop, Frumentius, received consecration from St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and to this day the Abund of Abyssinia is consecrated by the Alexandrian patriarch. In the sixth century the Christians of Abyssinia fell into the heresy of the Monophysites, in which they still remain; and they also agree with the Greek Church in denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. In the fifth, and again in the seventeenth, century, attempts were made to reduce the Abyssinian Christians to obedience to the Roman see, but the attempt in both instances utterly failed. The number of Christians in Abyssinia is said to amount to three millions.

ACŒMETÆ. (Ἁκοιμηταί, Watchers.) An order of monks instituted at the beginning of the fifth century at Constantinople, who were divided into three classes, who performed the Divine service by rotation, and so continued night and day without intermission.

ACEPHALI. (ἀ and κεφαλὴ, literally, without a head.) The name given to those of the Egyptian Eutychians, who, after Peter Magus, bishop of Alexandria, had signed the Henoticon of Zeno, A. D. 482, formed a separate sect. (See Henoticon.) The word is also applied to those bishops who were exempt from the jurisdiction of a metropolitan or patriarch.

ACOLYTH, or ACOLYTE, (ἀκολουθος,) in our old English called Collet, was an inferior church servant, who, next under the subdeacon, waited on the priests and deacons, and performed the meaner offices of lighting the candles, carrying the bread and wine, &c. He was allowed to wear the cassock and surplice. In the Church of Rome it was accounted one of the minor orders. In the Greek Church it is supposed to be another name for the order of subdeacons, according to Bingham.—Jebb.

ACROSTIC. A form of poetical composition among the Hebrews, composed of twenty-two lines, or stanzas, according to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, each line or stanza beginning with each letter in its order. Of the several poems of this character, there are twelve in all, in the Old Testament, viz. Psalms xxv., xxxiv., xxxvii., cxi., cxii., cxix., cxlv. Part of Proverbs xxxi. Lament. i., ii., iii., iv. Psalm cxix. is the most remarkable specimen. It still retains in the Bible translation the name of the several letters of the Hebrew alphabet, to mark its several divisions. This Psalm consists of twenty-two stanzas, (the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet,) each division consisting of eight couplets; the first line of each couplet beginning with that letter of the alphabet which marks the division. Psalm xxxvii. consists of twenty-two quatrains; the first line only of each quatrain being acrostical. Lam. i. and ii., of twenty-two triplets, the first line of each only being acrostical. Lam. iii., of twenty-two triplets also, but with every line acrostical. Lam. iv. and Psalms xxv., xxxiv., and cxv., and part of Prov. xxxi., of twenty-two couplets, the first line only of each being acrostical. Psalms cxi. and cxii., of twenty-two lines each, in alphabetical order. The divisions of the Hebrew poetry into lines, not metrical, but rhythmical and parallel in sentiment, is very much elucidated by the alphabetical or acrostical poems.—Jebb.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. One of the canonical books of the New Testament. It contains a great part of the lives of St. Peter and St. Paul, beginning at our Lord’s ascension, and continued down to St. Paul’s arrival at Rome, after his appeal to Cæsar; comprehending in all about thirty years. St. Luke has been generally considered the author of this book; and his principal design in writing it was to obviate the false Acts, and false histories, which began to be dispersed up and down the world. The exact time of his writing it is not known; but it must have been written at least two years after St. Paul’s arrival at Rome, because it informs us that St. Paul “dwelt two whole years in his own hired house.” Perhaps he wrote it while he remained with St. Paul, during the time of his imprisonment, Acts xxviii. 30.

St. Luke wrote this work in Greek; and his language is generally purer, and more elegant, than that of the other writers of the New Testament. Epíphanius (Hæres. xxx. chap. 3 and 6) tells us that this book was translated by the Ebionites out of Greek into Hebrew, that is, into Syriac, which was the common language of the Jews in Palestine; but that those heretics corrupted it with a mixture of many falsities and impieties, injurious to the memory of the apostles. St. Jerome assures us, that a certain priest of Asia added to the true, genuine Acts, the voyages of St. Paul and St. Thecla, and the story of baptizing a lion. Tertullian (de Baptismo, chap. xvii.) tells us that St. John the evangelist, having convicted this priest of varying from the truth in this relation, the good man excused himself, saying, he did it purely out of love to St. Paul.

The Marcionites and Manichæans, because they were sensible that this book too plainly condemned their errors, rejected it out of the Canon of Scripture. (Tertull. contra Marcion, lib. 5.)

There were several spurious Acts of The Apostles; particularly, I. The Acts of the Apostles, supposed to be written by Abdias, the pretended bishop of Babylon, who gave out, that he was ordained bishop by the apostles themselves, when they were upon their journey into Persia. II. The Acts of St. Peter: this book came originally from the school of the Ebionites. III. The Acts of St. Paul, which is entirely lost. Eusebius, who had seen it, pronounces it of no authority. IV. The Acts of St. John the Evangelist; a book made use of by the Encratites, Manichæans, and Priscillianists. V. The Acts of St. Andrew; received by the Manichæans, Encratites, and Apotactics. VI. The Acts of St. Thomas the Apostle; received particularly by the Manichæans. VII. The Acts of St. Philip: this book the Gnostics made use of. VIII. The Acts of St. Matthias. Some have imagined that the Jews for a long time had concealed the original Acts of the Life and Death of St. Matthias, written in Hebrew; and that a monk of the abbey of St. Matthias at Treves, having got them out of their hands, procured them to be translated into Latin, and published them. But the critics will not allow them to be genuine and authentic.—Cotelerius. Fabricius Apocr. N. T. Tillemont, Hist. Eccles.

ADAMITES. A sect of Christian heretics who imitated Adam’s nakedness before his fall, believing themselves as innocent since their redemption by the death of Christ, and therefore met together naked upon all occasions, asserting that if Adam had not sinned, there would have been no marriages. They sprang from the Carpocratians and Gnostics, and followed the errors of an infamous person called Prodicus. They gave the name of deity to the four elements, rejected prayer, and said it was not necessary to confess Jesus Christ. This sect was renewed in Flanders by one Tanchelm, (1115–1124,) who being followed by 3000 soldiers, committed all kinds of vice, calling their villanies by a spiritual name. In the 15th century one Picard, so called from the country of his birth, renewed it in Bohemia, from whence the sect spread into Poland: it was said they met in the night, and used these words, (originally ascribed to the Priscillianists in the 4th century,) Swear, forswear, and discover not the secret.

ADMINISTRATOR. An ancient officer of the Church, whose duty was to defend the cause of the widows, orphans, and all others who might be destitute of help.

ADMINISTRATION, in an ecclesiastical sense, is used to express the giving or dispensing the sacrament of our Lord.—In its more general use it signifies the distribution of the personal effects of intestates, which is made by the ordinary according to the enactment of sundry statutes; the principal of which is 22 and 23 Car. II. cap. x.

ADMONITION. The first step of ecclesiastical censure, according to the words of the apostle, “a man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.” (Tit. iii. 10.) This part of episcopal discipline always precedes excommunication; which, however, must necessarily follow, if the offender continue contumacious, and hardened in his error or crime. Vide Canon 64, &c. The word also occurs in the Ordination Service: “following with a glad mind and will their godly admonition.”—Jebb.

ADMONITIONISTS. Certain Puritans in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who were so called from being the authors of the “Admonition to the Parliament,” 1571, in which everything in the Church of England was condemned, which was not after the fashion of Geneva. They required every ceremony to be “commanded in the Word,” and set at nought all general rules and canons of the Church.

ADOPTIANS. Heretics in several parts of Spain, who held that our Saviour was God only by adoption. Their notions were condemned at Frankfort in the year 794.

ADOPTION. To adopt is to make him a son who was not so by birth. The Catechism teaches us that it is in holy baptism that “we are made members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.” God sent forth his Son to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Gal. iv. 4, 5.)

ADORATION. This word signifies a particular sort of worship, which the Pagans gave to their deities: but, amongst Christians, it is used for the general respect and worship paid to God. The heathens paid their regard to their gods, by putting their hands to their mouths, and kissing them. This was done in some places standing, and sometimes kneeling; their faces were usually covered in their worship, and sometimes they threw themselves prostrate on the ground. The first Christians in their public prayers were wont to stand; and this they did always on Sundays, and on the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost, in memory of our Lord’s resurrection, as is still common in the Eastern Churches. They were wont to turn their faces towards the east, either because the East is a title given to Christ in the Old Testament, (as by Zachariah, vi. 12, according to the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate,) or else to show that they expected the coming of Christ at the last day from the east.

ADULT BAPTISM. (See Baptism.)

ADVENT. For the greater solemnity of the three principal holidays, Christmas day, Easter day, and Whit-Sunday, the Church hath appointed certain days to attend them: some to go before, and others to come after them. Before Christmas are appointed four “Advent Sundays,” so called because the design of them is to prepare us for a religious commemoration of the advent or coming of Christ in the flesh. The Roman ritualists would have the celebration of this holy season to be apostolical, and that it was instituted by St. Peter. But the precise time of its institution is not so easily to be determined; though it certainly had its beginning before the year 450, because Maximus Taurinensis, who lived about that time, writ a homily upon it. And it is to be observed, that, for the more strict and religious observation of this season, courses of sermons were formerly preached in several cathedrals on Wednesdays and Fridays, as is now the usual practice in Lent. And we find by the Salisbury Missal, that, before the Reformation, there was a special Epistle and Gospel relating to Christ’s advent, appointed for those days during all that time.—Wheatly.

It should be observed here, that it is the peculiar computation of the Church, to begin her year, and to renew the annual course of her service, at this time of Advent, therein differing from all other accounts of time whatsoever. The reason of which is, because she does not number her days, or measure her seasons, so much by the motion of the sun, as by the course of our Saviour; beginning and counting on her year with him, who, being the true “Sun of righteousness,” began now to rise upon the world, and, as “the Day-star on high,” to enlighten them that sat in spiritual darkness.—Bp. Cosin, Wheatly.

The lessons and services, therefore, for the four first Sundays in her liturgical year, propose to our meditations the two-fold advent of our Lord Jesus Christ; teaching us that it is he who was to come, and did come, to redeem the world; and that it is he also who shall come again, to be our judge. The end proposed by the Church in setting these two appearances of Christ together before us, at this time, is to beget in our minds proper dispositions to celebrate the one and expect the other; that so with joy and thankfulness we may now “go to Bethlehem, and see this great thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known to us,” even the Son of God come to visit us in great humility; and thence, with faith unfeigned and hope immoveable, ascend in heart and mind to meet the same Son of God in the air, coming in glorious majesty to judge the quick and dead.—Bp. Horne.

ADVOCATE, the word used in our Bibles as a translation of the Greek παράκλητος, (see Paraclete,) which signifies one who exhorts, defends, comforts; also one who prays or intercedes for another. It is an appellation given to the Holy Spirit by our Saviour. (John xiv. 16; xv. 26.)

ADVOCATES are mentioned in the 96th, 131st, and 133rd English Canons, as regular members of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The pleaders, or superior practitioners, in all the English and Irish Church Courts are so called. In London they form a corporation, or college, called Doctors’ Commons; because all Advocates must be Doctors of Law, and they formerly lived together in a collegiate manner, with a common table, &c. The candidate Advocates obtain a fiat from the archbishop of Canterbury, and are admitted by the judge to practise. In Ireland they do not form a college: they must be Doctors of Law, but generally practise in the common law or equity courts, besides. They are admitted to practise by the judge of the Prerogative Court. The pleaders in the supreme courts in Scotland, and generally throughout Europe, are called Advocates. The institution of the order is very ancient. About the time of the emperor Alexander Severus (see Butler’s Life of L’Hopital) three ranks of legal practitioners were established: the orators, who were the pleaders; the advocates, who instructed the orators in points of law; and the cognitores, or procuratores, who discharged much the same office as proctors or attorneys now. The first order gradually merged into the second.—Jebb.

ADVOWSON, is the right of patronage to a church, or an ecclesiastical benefice; and he who has the right of advowson is called the patron of the church, from his obligation to defend the rights of the church from oppression and violence. For when lords of manors first built churches upon their own demesnes, and appointed the tithes of those manors to be paid to the officiating ministers, which before were given to the clergy in common, the lord, who thus built a church and endowed it with glebe or land, had of common right a power annexed of nominating such minister as he pleased (provided he were canonically qualified) to officiate in that church, of which he was the founder, endower, maintainer, or, in one word, the patron.

Advowsons are of two sorts, advowsons appendant, and advowsons in gross. When annexed to a manor or land, so as to pass with them, they are appendant; for so long as the church continues annexed to the possession of the manor, as some have done from the foundation of the church to this day, the patronage or presentation belongs to the person in possession of the manor or land. But when the property of the advowson has been once separated from that of the manor by legal conveyance, it is called an advowson in gross, or at large, and exists as a personal right in the person of its owner, independent of his manor or land. Advowsons are also either presentative, collative, donative, or elective. An advowson presentative is where the patron has a right to present the parson to the bishop or ordinary to be instituted and inducted, if he finds him canonically qualified. An advowson collative is where the bishop is both patron and ordinary. An advowson donative is where the king, or any subject by his licence, founds a church or chapel, and ordains that it shall be merely in the gift or disposal of the patron; subject to his visitation only, and not to that of the ordinary; and vested absolutely in the clerk by the patron’s deed of donation, without presentation, institution, or induction.

As to presentations to advowsons: where there are divers patrons, joint-tenants, or tenants in common, and they vary in their presentment, the ordinary is not bound to admit any of their clerks; and if the six months elapse within which time they are to present, he may present by the lapse; but he may not present within the six months; for if he do, they may agree and bring a quare impedit against him, and remove his clerk. Where the patrons are co-parceners, the eldest sister, or her assignee, is entitled to present; and then, at the next avoidance, the next sister shall present, and so by turns one sister after another, till all the sisters, or their heirs, have presented, and then the eldest sister shall begin again, except they agree to present together, or by composition to present in some other manner. But if the eldest presents together with another of her sisters, and the other sisters every one of them in their own name, or together, the ordinary is not bound to receive any of their clerks, but may suffer the church to lapse. But in this case, before the bishop can take advantage of the lapse, he must direct a writ to inquire the right of patronage. Where an advowson is mortgaged, the mortgager alone shall present, when the church becomes vacant: and the mortgagee can derive no advantage from the presentation in reduction of his debt. If a woman has an advowson, or part of an advowson, to her and her heirs, and marries, the husband may not only present jointly with his wife, during the coverture, but also after her death the right of presenting during his life is lodged in him, as tenant by courtesy, if he has children by her. And even though the wife dies without having had issue by her husband, so that he is not tenant by courtesy, and the church remains vacant at her death, yet the husband shall present to the void turn; and if in such case he does not present, his executor may. If a man, seized of an advowson, takes a wife, and dies, the heir shall have two presentations, and the wife the third, even though her husband may have granted away the third turn. Or, if a manor, to which an advowson is appendant, descends to the heir, and he assigns dower to his mother of the third part of the manor, with the appurtenances, she is entitled to the presentation of the third part of the advowson; the right of presentation being a chose in action which is not assignable. If an advowson is sold, when the church is vacant, it is decided that the grantee is not entitled to the benefit of the next presentation. If, during the vacancy of a church, the patron die, his executor, or personal representative, is entitled to that presentation, unless it be a donative benefice, in which case the right of donation descends to the heir. But if the incumbent of a church be also seized in fee of the advowson of the same church, and die, his heir, and not his executors, shall present.

As to the manner in which advowsons descend, it has been determined, that advowsons in gross cannot descend from the brother to the sister of the entire blood, but they shall descend to the brother of the half blood, unless the first had presented to it in his lifetime, and then it shall descend to the sister, she being the next heir of the entire blood.

ÆONS. (Αίῶνες, ages.) The name given by some of the Gnostic heretics to the spiritual beings, whom they supposed to have emanated from the Divinity. (See Valentinus.)

AERIANS. A small sect founded by Aërius, a presbyter of Sebaste, in the lesser Armenia, about A. D. 355. St. Augustine tells us that Aërius, the author of this heresy, was mortified at not attaining the episcopate; and having fallen into the heresy of Arius, and having been led into many strange notions by impatience of the control of the Church, he taught, among other things, that no difference ought to be recognised between a bishop and a presbyter; whereas, until then, even all sectaries had acknowledged the episcopate as a superior order, and had been careful at their outset to obtain episcopal ordination for their ministers. Thus Aërius revenged himself upon the dignity to which he had unsuccessfully aspired; and he has left his history and his character to future ages, as an argument almost as forcible as direct reasoning and evidence, of the apostolical ordinance of the episcopate.

AFFINITY. (From affinis.) Relation by marriage. Relation contracted by the husband to the kindred of the wife, and by the wife to those of the husband. It is opposed to consanguinity, or relation by birth.—Johnson. (See Consanguinity.)

AFFUSION. Although dipping or plunging into the water were the more ancient practice, and more universal in the primitive times, yet sprinkling or pouring water on the head of the baptized person was of great antiquity in the Church likewise. It had its beginning in the cases of sick persons chiefly, who could not come to the public baptistery, nor could the weakness of their constitution admit of their being dipped all over in the water; and, therefore, the sprinkling or pouring of a small quantity of water upon the face or head was judged sufficient. In the fourth and fifth centuries aspersion was more common. After the heathen nations were converted to Christianity, and by that means the baptisms of adults were less frequent, the tenderness of children’s bodies, especially in the colder countries, not enduring to be dipped in water, the use of sprinkling generally succeeded in the Church, instead of that of dipping. And, indeed, during the more early ages of the Church, and when adults were frequently baptized, there were some particular cases when aspersion was used instead of immersion; as in that of some young women noticed by St. Chrysostom. Our Church, with great moderation, does not totally lay aside immersion, if the strength of the child will bear it, as indeed it seldom will without danger in our cold country; in which case she admits aspersion only, rather than occasion any injury or danger to the body of a tender babe; wisely considering, that, in the sight of God, “mercy is better than sacrifice.”—Dr. Nicholls.

Either of these modes of administering baptism is sufficient. For it is not in this spiritual washing, as it is in the bodily, where, if the bath be not large enough to receive the whole body, some parts may be foul, when the rest are cleansed. The soul is cleansed after another manner; a little water can cleanse the believer, as well as a whole river. The old fashion was to dip or sprinkle the person “thrice,” to signify the mystery of the Trinity. The Church so appointed then because of some heretics that denied the Trinity: upon the same ground, afterwards, it was appointed to do it but once, (signifying the unity of substance in the Trinity,) lest we should seem to agree with the heretics that did it thrice. This baptizing is to be at the “font.”—Bp. Sparrow.

It should here be noticed, that our Church doth not direct sprinkling or aspersion, but affusion or “pouring of water” upon the children to be baptized. It is true the quantity of water to be used is nowhere prescribed, nor is it necessary that it should be; but, however the quantity be left to the minister’s discretion, yet it must be understood to determine itself thus far: first, that the action be such as is properly a “washing,” to make the administration correspond with the institution; and this we should observe as ministers of Christ at large: secondly, that the action be such, as is properly a “pouring of water,” which is the rubrical direction to express that washing at all times when “dipping” is not practised; and this we are bound to observe as ministers of the Church of England in particular; taking it always for granted, that there is a reason for whatever is prescribed in a rubric, and such an one as is not to be contradicted by our private practice, or rejected for the sake of any modes or customs brought in we know not how.

And we should the rather keep to this rule of affusion, because we have in a manner lost that more primitive way of baptizing by immersion. Custom having “certified” in general, that it is the opinion and judgment of all, who bring their children to the font, that they are “too weak to endure dipping.” Or, if we would have their sentiments certified more explicitly, there being a rubric to that purpose, we are sure, as Dr. Wall observes, to find a certificate of the children’s weakness in their dress; and to ask for further satisfaction would be a mighty needless inquiry. I mention this observation of his, as the best apology I know of for our present practice of baptizing by affusion, without any formal declaration being made, according to rubric, of the danger of “dipping.” It is not said we shall ask any questions. And, when we are sure beforehand what would be the answer if the question were asked, we seem under no obligation, as we are under no direction, to put it at all.—Archdeacon Sharp. (See Aspersion.)

AGAPÆ. Love feasts, or feasts of charity, among the early Christians, were usually celebrated in connexion with the Lord’s supper, but not as a necessary part of it. The name is derived from the Greek word ἀγαπὴ, which signifies love or charity. In the earliest accounts which have come down to us, we find that the bishop or presbyter presided at these feasts. It does not appear whether the food was dressed in the place appointed for the celebration of the feast, or was previously prepared by individual members of the Church at their own homes; but perhaps either of these plans was adopted indifferently, according to circumstances. Before eating, the guests washed their hands, and a public prayer was offered up. A portion of Scripture was then read, and the president proposed some questions upon it, which were answered by the persons present. After this, any accounts which had been received respecting the affairs of other Churches were recited; for, at that time, such accounts were regularly transmitted from one community to another, by means of which all Christians became acquainted with the history and condition of the whole body, and were thus enabled to sympathize with, and in many cases to assist, each other. Letters from bishops and other eminent members of the Church, together with the Acts of the Martyrs, were also recited on this occasion; and hymns or psalms were sung. At the close of the feast, money was also collected for the benefit of widows and orphans, the poor, prisoners, and persons who had suffered shipwreck. Before the meeting broke up, all the members of the Church embraced each other, in token of mutual brotherly love, and the whole ceremony was concluded with a philanthropic prayer.

As the number of Christians increased, various deviations from the original practice of celebration occurred; which called for the censures of the governors of the Church. In consequence of these irregularities, it was appointed that the president should deliver to each guest his portion separately, and that the larger portions should be distributed among the presbyters, deacons, and other officers of the Church.

While the Church was exposed to persecution, these feasts were not only conducted with regularity and good order, but were made subservient to Christian edification, and to the promotion of brotherly love, and of that kind of concord and union which was specially demanded by the circumstances of the times.

At first these feasts were held in private houses, or in other retired places, where Christians met for religious worship. After the erection of churches, these feasts were held within their walls; until, abuses having occurred which rendered the observance inconsistent with the sanctity of such places, this practice was forbidden. In the middle of the fourth century, the Council of Laodicea enacted “that agapæ should not be celebrated in churches;” a prohibition which was repeated by the Council of Carthage, in the year 391; and was afterwards strictly enjoined during the sixth and seventh centuries. By the efforts of Gregory of Neocæsarea, Chrysostom, and others, a custom was generally established of holding the agapæ only under trees, or some other shelter, in the neighbourhood of the churches; and from that time the clergy and other principal members of the Church were recommended to withdraw from them altogether.

In the early Church it was usual to celebrate agapæ on the festivals of martyrs, agapæ natalitiæ, at their tombs; a practice to which reference is made in the epistle of the church of Smyrna, concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp.

These feasts were sometimes celebrated on a smaller scale at marriages, agapæ connubiales, and funerals, agapæ funerales.

The celebration of the agapæ was frequently made a subject of calumny and misrepresentation by the enemies of the Christian faith, even during the earliest and best ages of the Church. In reply to these groundless attacks, the conduct of the Christians of those times was successfully vindicated by Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Origen, and others. But real disorders having afterwards arisen, and having proceeded to considerable lengths, it became necessary to abolish the practice altogether; and this task was eventually effected, but not without the application of various means, and only after a considerable lapse of time.—Riddle, from Augusti and Siegel.

AGAPETÆ. In St. Cyprian’s time certain ascetics (who wished, perhaps, to add to their religious celibacy the additional merit of a conquest over a special and greater temptation) chose persons of the other sex, devoted like themselves to a life of celibacy, with whom they lived under the sanction of a kind of spiritual nuptials, still maintaining their chastity, as they professed, though living, in all things else, as freely together as married persons. These were called Agapetæ, Subintroductæ, Συνείσακτοι. This practice, however pure in intention, gave rise to the utmost scandal in the Church; and those who had adopted it were condemned severely, both by the individual authority of St. Cyprian, and afterwards by the decrees of councils. See Dodwell’s Dissertationes Cyprianicæ.

AGISTMENT. The feeding of cattle in a common pasture for a stipulated price; and hence tithe of agistment is the tithe due for the profit made by agisting. The Irish parliament, in the last century, most iniquitously declared that man an enemy of his country who should demand tithe of agistment.—Jebb.

AGNOETES or AGNOETÆ. (ἀ and γνῶμι.) A sort of Christian heretics about the year 370, followers of Theophronius the Cappadocian, who joined himself with Eunomius; they called in question the omniscience of God, alleging that he knew not things past in any other way than by memory, nor things to come but by an uncertain prescience.

AGNOETES. Another sort of heretics about the year 535, who followed the errors of Themistius, deacon of Alexandria, who believed that Christ knew not when the day of judgment should happen.

AGNUS DEI. A cake of wax, used in the Romish Church, stamped with the figure of a lamb supporting the banner of the cross. The name literally signifies The Lamb of God. These cakes, being consecrated by the pope with great solemnity, and distributed among the people, are supposed to possess great virtues. They cover them with a piece of stuff, cut in the form of a heart, and carry them very devoutly in their processions. From selling these Agnus Deis to some, and presenting them to others, the Romish clergy and religious officers derive considerable pecuniary advantage. The practice of blessing the Agnus Dei took its rise about the seventh or eighth century. It was common in those times to mark converts with the sign of the cross after baptism; and in order to distinguish the converted from heathens, they were commanded to wear about their necks pieces of white wax stamped with the figure of a lamb. This was done in imitation of the heathenish practice of hanging amulets around the neck, as preservatives against accidents, diseases, or any sort of infection. Though the efficacy of an Agnus Dei has not been declared by Romish councils, the belief in its virtue has been strongly and universally established in the Church of Rome. Pope Urban V. sent to John Palæologus, emperor of the Greeks, an Agnus folded in fine paper, on which were written verses explaining all its properties. These verses declare that the Agnus is formed of balm and wax mixed with chrism, and that being consecrated by mystical words, it possesses the power of removing thunder and dispersing storms, of giving to women with child an easy delivery, of preventing shipwreck, taking away sin, repelling the devil, increasing riches, and of securing against fire.

AISLE. (Ala.) The lateral divisions of a church, or of any part of it, as nave, choir, or transept, are called its aisles. (See Church.) Where there is but one aisle to a transept, it is always at the east. In foreign churches the number of aisles is frequently two on either side of the nave and choir; at Cologne there are three. This arrangement is very ancient, since it is found in the Basilicas of St. John, Lateran, and St. Paul, at Rome. In England this was never perhaps the original plan. All, except one on each side, are clearly additions at Chichester, Manchester, St. Michael’s, Coventry, Spalding, and several other churches.

The last bay to the west, or that westward of the porch in the south aisle, is generally a little earlier in character than the rest. It frequently happens, too, that the north aisle is of an earlier type than the south, where there is no reason to suppose them of different dates. There is no sufficient reason assigned for this. The word has been very commonly, but incorrectly, applied to the open space in the nave of churches between the seats of the congregation.

AISE. A linen napkin to cover the chalice used in Bishop Andrew’s chapel, and in Canterbury cathedral, before the rebellion. See Canterbury’s Doom, 1646, Neale’s Hist. of Puritans.

ALB. An ample linen tunic with sleeves, named from its colour, (albus, white,) worn next over the cassock and amice. It was at first loose and flowing, afterwards bound with a zone, mystically signifying continence, according to some ritualists; but more probably for the greater convenience of ministering at the communion office. It has been in other points considerably altered from its primitive form in the continental churches subject to Rome; in the Greek churches it more nearly resembles the form of the surplice used in the English Church. Cardinal Bona admits that the alb, as well as the surplice, was anciently talaris, that is, reaching to the feet, and it was therefore called podéris in the Greek Church. It was made originally of white linen; and was probably the same as the surplice, from which it now differs only in the form of the sleeves, which are not flowing, but closed at the wrists.

The rubrics of King Edward VI.’s First Book prescribed the alb to be worn at the communion by the principal minister and his assistants, and by the bishop at all times of his public ministrations. These rubrics are referred to in our present Prayer Book, in the notice preceding the Morning Prayer: “And here it is to be noted, that such ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof at all times of their ministrations, shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of England by the authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI.” Most of our most eminent ritualists, and constitutional lawyers, have considered the rubric of King Edward VI. as still binding in strictness of law. The 58th Canon apparently, but not really, contradicts these rubrics, as it prescribes a surplice with sleeves, to be used at the communion as well as at other services. But it is to be observed that an alb is, in fact, a surplice with sleeves; and by these very rubrics the terms seem to be almost convertible, as the bishop is enjoined to wear a surplice or alb: and in the rubric after the communion, regulating the Wednesday and Friday services, the priest is to wear a plain alb or surplice. But even if the canon did contradict the rubric, it ought to be remembered that the rubric of 1662 is the final enactment of the Church, and plainly ought to supersede the enactment of 1604. The English alb is enjoined to be plain, that is, not ornamental with lace, or gold, as was the mediæval custom.—Jebb.

ALBATI. A sort of Christian hermits (so called from the white linen which they wore). Anno 1399, in the time of Pope Boniface IX., they came down from the Alps into several provinces of Italy, having for their guide a priest clothed all in white, and a crucifix in his hand: he pretended so much zeal and religion, that he was taken for a saint, and his followers multiplied so fast, that the pope, growing jealous of their leader’s aiming at his chair, sent soldiers, who apprehended and put him to death, upon which his followers dispersed. They professed sorrow and weeping for the sins and calamities of the times, they ate together in the highways, and slept promiscuously like beasts.

ALBIGENSES. Certain religionists who sprung up in the twelfth century. They received their name from a town in Aquitaine, called Albigia or Alby, where their tenets were first condemned in a council held in the year 1176. The Albigenses grew so formidable, that the court of Rome determined upon a league or crusade against them. Pope Innocent III., desirous to put a stop to their progress, stirred up the great men of France to make war upon them. After suffering cruelly from their persecutors, they dwindled by little and little, till the time of the Reformation; when such of them as were left fell in with the Vaudois, and conformed to the doctrine of Zuinglius and the disciples of Geneva. The Albigenses have been frequently confounded with the Waldenses; from whom however it is said that they differed in many respects, both as being prior to them in point of time, as having their origin in a different country, and as being charged with divers heresies, particularly Manicheism, from which the Waldenses were exempt.

ALBIS (Dominica in). See Low Sunday.

ALIENATION, ecclesiastically speaking, is the improper disposal of such lands and goods as have become the property of the Church. These being looked upon as devoted to God and his service, to part with them, or divert them to any other use, may be considered as no less than the sin of sacrilege. Upon some extraordinary occasions, however, as the redemption of captives from slavery, or the relief of the poor in the time of famine, this was permitted; in which cases it was not unusual to sell even the sacred vessels and utensils of the church. Some canons, if the annual income of the church was not sufficient to maintain the clergy, allowed the bishop to sell certain goods of the church for that purpose. By subsequent canons, however, this was prevented, unless the consent of the clergy was obtained, and the sanction of the metropolitan, lest, under the pretence of necessity or charity, any spoil or devastation should be made on the revenues of the church. See Bing. Orig. Eccl. lib. v. ch. vi. s. 6.

ALIENATION IN MORTMAIN, is the conveying or making over lands or tenements to any religious house or other corporate body.

ALLELUIA, or HALLELUJAH. This is a Hebrew word signifying Praise the Lord, or Praise to the Lord. It occurs at the beginning and at the end of many of the Psalms, and was always sung by the Jews on solemn days of rejoicing. An expression very similar in sound seems to have been used in many nations, who can hardly be supposed to have borrowed it from the Jews. Hence it has been supposed to be one of the most ancient words of devotion. St. John retains the word without translation (Rev. xix. 1, 3, 4, 6); and among the early Christians it was so usual to sing Hallelujah, that St. Jerome says little children were acquainted with it.

In evident imitation of the Jewish custom, the Church has from very early times, at least during the season of Easter, preceded the daily Psalms with Alleluia, or Praise ye the Lord. In the Roman and unreformed offices it was disused during certain penitential seasons; while Alleluia was used in other parts of the service also during the Easter season, &c. In the First Book of King Edward VI., Allelujah was sung after “Praise ye the Lord,” from Easter to Trinity Sunday. The response, “The Lord’s name be praised,” was added at the last review. It had been inserted in the Scotch Liturgy in King Charles I.’s time. (See Gloria Patri.)—Jebb.

ALL SAINTS’ DAY. The festival of All Saints is not of very high antiquity. About the year 610, the bishop of Rome ordered that the heathen Pantheon, a temple dedicated to all the gods, should be converted into a Christian church. This was done, and it was appropriately dedicated to the honour of All Martyrs; hence came the origin of All Saints, which was then celebrated on the first of May. In the year 834 it was changed to November 1st, on which day it is still observed. Our Church having, in the course of her year, celebrated the memories of the holy apostles, and the other most eminent saints and martyrs of the first days of the gospel, deems it unnecessary to extend her calendar by any other particular festivals, but closes her course with this general one. It should be the Christian’s delight, on this day, to reflect, as he is moved by the appointed scriptures, on the Christian graces and virtues which have been exhibited by that goodly fellowship of saints who, in all ages, have honoured God in their lives, and glorified him in their deaths; he should pray for grace to follow them “in all virtuous and godly living;” he should meditate on the glorious rest that remains for the people of God, on which they have entered; he should gratefully contemplate that communion of saints which unites him to their holy fellowship, even while he is here militant, if he be a faithful disciple of the Saviour in whom they trusted; he should earnestly seek that grace whereby, after a short further time of trial, he may be united with them in the everlasting services of the Church triumphant. The Church of England seems to have been induced to sum up the commemoration of martyrs, confessors, doctors, and saints in this one day’s service, from the circumstance of the great number of such days in the Church of Rome having led to gross abuses, some of which are enumerated in the preface to the Book of Common Prayer.

This day was popularly called “Allhallows day.” “Hallow E’en” in Scotland, and “Holy Eve” in Ireland, means the eve of all Saints’ Day. This day is celebrated as a high festival, or scarlet day, at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

ALL SOULS. A festival or holiday of the Romish Church, on which special prayers are made for the benefit of the souls of the departed. Its observance has been traced back to the year 998; about which time, we are told, a certain monk, whose curiosity had led him to visit Mount Ætna, which he, in common with others of that age, verily believed to be the mouth of hell, returned to his abbot with the grave story that he had overheard “the devils within complain, that many departed souls were taken out of their hands by the prayers of the Cluniac monks.” (See Clugni.) The compassionate abbot took the hint, and set apart the second day of November, to be annually kept by his monks as a day of prayer for All Souls departed. This local appointment was afterwards changed by the pope into a general one, obligatory on all the Western Churches. The ceremonies observed on this day were in good keeping with the purpose of its institution. In behalf of the dead, persons arrayed in black perambulated the cities and towns, each provided with a loud and dismal-toned bell, which they rang in public places by way of exhortation to the people to remember the souls in purgatory, and give them the aid of their prayers. In France and Italy, at the present day, the annual Jour des Morts is observed, by the population resuming their mourning habits, and visiting the graves of their friends for many years after their decease. At the period of the Reformation, the Church of England abrogated altogether the observance of this day, as based on false doctrine, and as originating in a falsehood.

ALMONER. An officer in monasteries, who had the care of the Almonry. In the cathedral of St. Paul, London, the Almoner had the distribution of the alms, and the care of the burial of the poor. He also educated eight boys in music and in literature, for the service of the Church. The office afterwards was practically that of a Chori-master, or Master of the Boys, and was usually held by a Vicar Choral. See Dugdale’s History of St. Paul’s.

The Lord High Almoner is a Prelate, who has the disposing of the King’s Alms, and of other sums accruing to the Crown. Till King James I.’s accession, when the office of Dean of the Chapel Royal was revived, he had the care of the King’s Chapel; his office being then analogous to that of the Grand Almoner of France. See Heylin’s Life of Laud.

ALMONRY. A room where alms were distributed, generally near to the church, or a part of it. The Almonries in the principal monasteries were often great establishments, with endowments specially appropriated to their sustentation, having a chapel, hall, and chambers for the accommodation of the poor and infirm. The remains of the Almonry at Canterbury, for example, are extensive and interesting.—Jebb.

ALMS. In the primitive Church, the people who were of sufficient substance used to give alms to the poor every Sunday, as they entered the church. And the poor, who were approved and selected by the deacons or other ministers, were exhorted to stand before the church doors to ask for alms, as the lame man, who was healed by Peter and John, at the Beautiful Gate of the temple. The order in our Church is, that these alms should be collected at that part of the communion service which is called the Offertory, while the sentences are in reading which follow the place appointed for the sermon. The intention of the compilers of our service was, that these alms should be collected every Sunday, as is plain from the directions in the rubric; and this, whether there was a communion or not. It is much to be regretted that the decay of charity has caused this good custom to fall into too general disuse; and it is one which all sincere churchmen should endeavour to restore. The alms are, and have immemorially been, collected every Sunday in Ireland.

ALMS-CHEST. Besides the alms collected at the offertory, it may be supposed that devout persons would make contributions to the poor on entering the church, or departing from it, at evening service; and to receive these alms, it is appointed by the 84th Canon, that a chest be provided and placed in the church.

ALOGIANS. Heretics in the second century, who denied the Divine Logos, or Word, and attributed the writings of St. John, in which the Second Person of the Godhead is so styled, to Cerinthus.

ALTAR. Altar was the name by which the holy board was constantly distinguished for the first three hundred years after Christ; during all which time it does not appear that it was above once called “table,” and that was in a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Xystus of Rome. And when, in the fourth century, Athanasius called it a “table,” he thought himself obliged to explain the word, and to let the reader know that by table he meant altar, that being then the constant and familiar name. Afterwards, indeed, both names came to be promiscuously used; the one having respect to the oblation of the eucharist, the other to the participation: but it was always placed altar-wise in the most sacred part of the church, and fenced in with rails to secure it from irreverence and disrespect.—Wheatly.

In King Edward’s first service-book the word altar was permitted to stand, as being the name that Christians for many hundred years had been acquainted withal. Therefore, when there was such pulling down of altars and setting up of tables in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, she was fain to make an injunction to restrain such ungodly fury, and appointed decent and comely tables covered to be set up again in the same place where the altars stood, thereby giving an interpretation of this clause in our communion-book. For the word “table” here stands not exclusively, as if it might not be called an altar, but to show the indifferency and liberty of the name; as of old it was called “mensa Domini,” the table of the Lord; the one having reference to the participation, the other to the oblation, of the eucharist.—Bp. Cosin.

It is called an altar, 1. Because, the holy eucharist being considered as a sacrifice, we offer up the commemoration of that sacrifice which was offered upon the cross. 2. We offer, with the action, prayers to God for all good things, and we need not fear to call the whole action by the name of a sacrifice, seeing part of it is an oblation to God of hearty prayers, and it is not unusual for that to be said of the whole, which is exactly true but of one part; and as the word sacrifice may be used without danger, so also the ancient Church did understand it.

And it is called a table, the eucharist being considered as a sacrament; which is nothing else but a distribution and application of the sacrifice to the receivers; and the proper use of a table is to set food upon, and to entertain guests, both which are applicable to this.—Clutterbuck.

But at the beginning of the Reformation an unhappy dispute arose, viz. whether those tables of the altar fashion, which had been used in the Popish times, and on which masses had been celebrated, should still be continued? This point was first started by Bishop Hooper, who in a sermon before the king, in the third year of his reign, declared, “that it were well, if it might please the magistrate to have altars turned into tables; to take away the false persuasion of the people, which they have of sacrifice, to be done upon altars; because as long,” says he, “as altars remain, both the ignorant people and priests will dream of sacrifice.” This occasioned not only a couple of letters from the king and council, one of which was sent to all the bishops, and the other to Ridley, bishop of London, in both which they were required to pull down the altars; but also that, when the liturgy was reviewed in 1551, the above-said rubric was altered, and in the room of it the priest was directed to stand on the north side of the table. But this did not put an end to the controversy. Another dispute arising, viz. whether the table, placed in the room of the altar, ought to stand altar-wise; i. e. in the same place and situation as the altar formerly stood? This was the occasion that in some churches the tables were placed in the middle of the chancels, in others at the east part thereof, next to the wall. Bishop Ridley endeavoured to compromise this matter, and therefore, in St. Paul’s cathedral, suffered the table to stand in the place of the old altar; but beating down the wainscot partition behind, laid all the choir open to the east, leaving the table then to stand in the middle of the chancel. Under this diversity of usage, things went on till the death of King Edward; when, Queen Mary coming to the throne, altars were again restored wherever they had been demolished; but her reign proving short, and Queen Elizabeth succeeding her, the people, (just got free again from the tyranny of Popery,) through a mistaken zeal fell in a tumultuous manner to the pulling down of altars; though, indeed, this happened for the generality only in private churches, they not being meddled with in any of the queen’s palaces, and in but very few of the cathedrals. And as soon as the queen was sensible of what had happened in other places, she put out an injunction to restrain the fury of the people, declaring it to be no matter of great moment, whether there were altars or tables, so that the sacrament was duly and reverently administered; but ordering, that where altars were taken down, holy tables should be decently made, and set in the place where the altars stood, and so to stand, saving when the communion of the sacrament was to be distributed; at which time the same was to be so placed in good sort within the chancel, as thereby the minister might be more conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministration, and the communicants also more conveniently and in more number communicate with the said minister. And after the communion, done from time to time, the same holy table was to be placed where it stood before. Pursuant hereunto, this part of the present rubric was added to the liturgy, in the first year of her reign, viz. that “the table, at the communion time, having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel, where morning and evening prayer are appointed to be said:” which was in those times generally in the choir. But then it is plain from the aforesaid injunction, as well as from the eighty-second Canon of the Church, (which is almost verbatim the same,) that there is no obligation arising from this rubric to move the table at the time of the communion, unless the people cannot otherwise conveniently hear and communicate. The injunction declares, that the holy tables are to be set in the same place where the altars stood, which every one knows was at the east end of the chancel. And when both the injunction and canon speak of its being moved at the time of the communion, it supposes that the minister could not otherwise be heard: the interposition of a belfry between the chancel and body of the church hindering the minister in some churches from being heard by the people, if he continued in the church. And with the same view seems this rubric to have been added, and which therefore lays us under no obligation to move the table, unless necessity requires. But whenever the churches are built so as the minister can be heard, and conveniently administer the sacrament at the place where the table usually stands, he is rather obliged to administer in the chancel, (that being the sanctum sanctorum, or most holy place, of the church,) as appears from the rubric before the Commandments, as also from that before the Absolution, by both which rubrics the priest is directed to turn himself to the people. From whence I argue, that if the table be in the middle of the church, and the people consequently round about the minister, the minister cannot turn himself to the people any more at one time than another. Whereas, if the table be close to the east wall, the minister stands on the north side, and looks southward, and consequently, by looking westward, turns himself to the people.—Wheatly.

Great dispute has been raised in the last age about the name of the communion table, whether it was to be called the Holy Table or an Altar. And indeed anything will afford matter of controversy to men in a disputing age. For the ancient writers used both names indifferently; some calling it Altar, others the Lord’s Table, the Holy Table, the Mystical Table, the Tremendous Table, &c., and sometimes both Table and Altar in the same sentence ... Ignatius uses only the name θυσιαστήριον, altar, in his genuine Epistles ... Irenæus and Origen use the same name ... Tertullian frequently applies to it the name of Ara Dei and Altare ... Cyprian uses both names; but most commonly Altar ... It is certain they did not mean by the altar what the Jews and heathens meant; either an altar dressed up with images, or an altar for bloody sacrifices. In the first sense they rejected altars, both name and thing. But for their own mystical, unbloody sacrifice, as they called the eucharist, they always owned they had an altar.... In Chrysostom it is most usually termed, “the mystical and tremendous table,” &c. St. Austin usually gives it the name of Mensa Domini, the Lord’s Table. It were easy to add a thousand other testimonies, where the altar is called the Holy Table, to signify to us their notion of the Christian sacrifice and altar at once, that it was mystical and spiritual, and had no relation either to the bloody sacrifices of the Jews, or the idolatries of the Gentiles, but served only for the service of the eucharist, and the oblations of the people.—Bingham.

In the First Book of King Edward, the terms used for this holy table are the Altar, and God’s Board. In our present Prayer Book, it is styled the Table, the Holy Table, and the Lord’s Table. The phrase communion table occurs in the Canons only, as in the 20th, and the 82nd. The word altar is used in the Coronation Service. It is employed without scruple by Bishop Overall, one of the commissioners for the revision of the Liturgy in King James I.’s reign, and by those who were employed in the last Review in 1662, who of course understood the real spirit of the Church of England. For example, the following are the words of Bishop Sparrow, one of the Reviewers.

“That no man take offence at the word Altar, let him know, that anciently both these names, Altar, or Holy Table, were used for the same thing; though most frequently the fathers and councils use the word Altar. And both are fit names for that holy thing. For the holy eucharist being considered as a sacrifice, in the representation of the breaking of the bread, and pouring forth of the cup, doing that to the holy symbols which was done to Christ’s body and blood, and so showing forth and commemorating the Lord’s death, and offering upon it the same sacrifice that was offered upon the cross, or rather the commemoration of that sacrifice, (St. Chrysost. in Heb. x. 9,) it may fitly be called an Altar; which again is as fitly called an Holy Table, the Eucharist being considered as a Sacrament, which is nothing else but a distribution and application of the sacrifice to the several receivers.”

And Bishop Cosins, who (Nicholl’s add. notes, p. 42) speaks of the king and queen presenting their offering “on their knees at God’s altar:” though he adds afterwards, (p. 50,) on the passage “This our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,”—“In which regard and divers others besides, the eucharist may by allusion, analogy, and extrinsical denomination, be fitly called a sacrifice, and the Lord’s table an altar, the one relating to the other; though neither of them can be strictly and properly so called.... The sacrament of the eucharist carries the name of a sacrifice; and the table, whereon it is celebrated, an altar of oblation, in a far higher sense than any of their former sacrifices did, which were but the types and figures of those services, which are performed in recognition and memory of Christ’s own sacrifice, once offered upon the altar of his cross.”

Again, Bishop Beveridge, on the necessity, &c., of frequent communion, uses the word; “Upon Sundays and holy days, although there be not such a number, and therefore no communion, yet, however, the priest shall go up to the altar,” &c.

And Bishop Bull (Charge to the Clergy of St. David’s): “Before the priest goes to the altar to read the second service,” &c.

Hence, though not presuming to dispute the wisdom of the Reviewers, or, to speak more reverently, the dispositions of God’s providence, whereby the use of the word altar was withheld from our Prayer Book, there can be no doubt that the employment of the word can be justified, if we understand it as the ancient Church understood it.—Jebb.

According to Bingham, the ancient altars were of wood; and he considers that the fashion of stone altars began in the time of Constantine. Stone altars were enjoined by the Council of Epone, (or Albon,) in France, A. D. 509 or 517; and throughout the whole of the time to which we look for architectural examples, altars were of stone.

The place of the high altar was uniformly, in England at least, at the east of the church; but in large churches room is left for processions to pass behind it, and in cathedral churches of Norman foundation for the bishop’s throne. Where the end of the church was apsidal, the high altar was placed in the chord of the apse. Chantry altars, not being connected with a service in which processions were used, were placed against the wall, and scarcely an aisle or a transept was without one or more. In form the high altar was generally large and plain, relying for decoration wholly on the rich furniture with which it was loaded; very rarely its front was panelled or otherwise ornamented. Chantry altars were, perhaps, in ninety-nine cases in a hundred, mere slabs built into the wall. At Jervaulx, however, at the end of each aisle, is a large plain altar built up of separate stones, much in the form of a high tomb. In situ but few high altars remain, but chantry altars in situ are frequent enough. They are not, however, often found in the aisles and transepts of our churches, but in places where they would more readily escape observation, as, for instance, under the east window (or forming its sill) of a vestry, or of a parvise, or in a gateway to a monastery, or in private chapels and chapels of castles. Altar stones not in situ, but used in pavements and all places, are almost innumerable, sometimes two or three or more occurring in a single small church. They may be recognised by five little crosses, one in the centre, and one at each corner. The multiplication of altars in the same church is still strictly forbidden in the Eastern Church, as it was in ancient times. (Vide Bingham, book viii. c. 6, § 16.)—Poole.

ALTARAGE, a legal term used to denote the profits arising to the priest or parson of the parish on account of the altar, called obventio altaris. Since the Reformation there has been much dispute as to the extent of the vicar’s claim upon tithes as altarage. In the 21st Eliz. it was decided that the words Alteragium cum manso competenti would entitle him to the small tithes; but it has since been holden and now generally understood, that the extent of the altarage depends entirely upon usage and the manner of endowment.

ALTAR CLOTH. By the 82nd Canon it is appointed that the table provided for the celebration of the holy communion shall be covered, in time of divine service, with a carpet of silk, or other decent stuff thought meet by the ordinary of the place, if any question be made of it; and with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration, as becometh that table. The sovereigns of England, at their coronation, present, as their first oblation, a pall or altar cloth of gold, &c.

ALTAR PIECE. A picture placed over the altar. It is not uncommon in English churches to place paintings over the altar, although it is a practice of modern introduction, and although there would be a prejudice against placing paintings in other parts of the church. The English Reformers were very strongly opposed to the introduction of paintings into the sanctuary. In Queen Elizabeth’s reign, a proclamation was issued against pictures as well as images in churches; and Dean Nowell fell under her Majesty’s displeasure for procuring for her use a Prayer Book with pictures. The Puritans, who formed the religious world of King Charles’s time, both in the Church and out of it, destroyed pictures wherever they could find them, as relics of Popery. We may add that the feeling against pictures prevailed not only in modern times, but in the first ages of the primitive Church. In the various catalogues of church furniture that we possess, we never read of pictures. There is a particular breviat of the things found by the persecutors in the church of Paul, bishop of Cirta, in Numidia, (A. D. 303,) where we find mention made of cups, flagons, two candlesticks, and vestments; but of images and pictures there is not a syllable. In Spain, at the Council of Eliberis, A. D. 305, there was a positive decree against them. And, at the end of this century, Epiphanius, passing through Anablatha, a village of Palestine, found a veil there, hanging before the doors of the sanctuary in the church, whereon was painted the image of Christ, or some saint, which he immediately tore in pieces, and gave it as a winding-sheet for the poor, himself replacing the hanging by one from Cyprus. The first mention of pictures we find at the close of the fourth century; when Paulinus, bishop of Nola, to keep the country people employed, when they came together to observe the festival of the dedication of the church of St. Felix, ordered the church to be painted with the images of saints, and stories from Scripture history, such as those of Esther and Job, and Tobit and Judith. (Paulinus, Natal. 9. Felicis, p. 615.) The reader will find a learned historical investigation of this subject in note B to the translation of Tertullian’s Apology in the Library of the Fathers, which is thus summed up: 1. In the first three centuries it is positively stated that Christians had no images. 2. Private individuals had pictures, but it was discouraged. (Aug.) 3. The cross, not the crucifix, was used; the first mention of the cross in a church is in the time of Constantine. 4. The first mention of pictures in churches, except to forbid them, is at the end of the fourth century, and these historical pictures from the Old Testament, or of martyrdoms, not of individuals. 5. No account of any picture of our Lord being publicly used occurs in the six first centuries; the first is A. D. 600. 6. Outward reverence to pictures is condemned. We find frequent allusion to pictures in the writings of St. Augustine. We thus see that the use of pictures in churches is to be traced to the fourth century; and we may presume that the practice of the age, when the Church was beginning to breathe after its severe persecutions, when the great creed of the Church Universal was drawn up, and when the canon of Scripture was fixed, is sufficient to sanction the use of pictures in our sanctuaries. That in the middle ages, pictures as well as images were sometimes worshipped, as they are by many Papists in the present day, is not to be denied. It was therefore natural that the Reformers, seeing the abuse of the thing, should be strongly prejudiced against the retention of pictures in our churches. But much of Romish error consists in the abuse of what was originally good or true. We may, in the present age, return to the use of what was originally good; but being warned that what has led to Popish corruptions may lead to them again, we must be very careful to watch against the recurrence of those evil practices to which these customs have been abused or perverted.

ALTAR RAILS, as such, and as distinguished from the chancel screen, were not known in the Western Church before the Reformation. We probably owe them to Archbishop Laud, who, in order to guard against a continuance of the profanations to which the holy table had been subjected, while standing in the nave of the church, or in the middle of the chancel, ordered that it should be placed at the east end of the chancel, and protected from rude approach by rails. As the use of altar rails arose out of, and visibly signified respect for, the great mysteries celebrated at the altar, they were, of course, a mark for the hostility of the Puritans; and accordingly, in the journal of William Dowsing, parliamentary visitor of churches in the great rebellion, we find that they were everywhere destroyed. They have generally, however, been restored; and there are now few churches in England where they are not found. In the East, the altar has been enclosed by a screen or an enclosure resembling our rails, from ancient times. These were at first only the cancelli, or κίγκλιδες, or, as Eusebius styles them, reticulated wood-work. They were afterwards enlarged into the holy doors, which now wholly conceal the altar, and which Goar admits to be an innovation of later times. (pp. 17, 18.) These are not to be confounded with the enclosure of the choir; which, like the chancel screen, was originally very low, a mere barrier, but was enlarged afterwards into the high screens which now shut out the choir from the church.—Jebb.

ALTAR SCREEN. A screen behind the altar, bounding the presbytery eastward, and in our larger churches separating it from the parts left free for processions between the presbytery and the Lady Chapel, when the latter is at the east end. (See Cathedral.) These screens were of comparatively late invention. They completely interfered with the ancient arrangement of the Apsis. (See Apsis.) The most magnificent specimens of altar screens are at Winchester cathedral, and at St. Alban’s abbey. In college chapels, and churches where an apse would be altogether out of place, and where an east window cannot be inserted, as at New College, and Magdalene, Oxford, they are as appropriate as they are beautiful.—Jebb.

AMBO. A kind of raised platform or reading desk, from which, in the primitive Church, the Gospel and Epistle were read to the people, and sometimes used in preaching. Its position appears to have varied at different times; it was most frequently on the north side of the entrance into the chancel. Sometimes there was one on each side, one for the Epistle, the other for the Gospel, as may still be seen in the ancient churches of St. Clement and St. Lawrence, at Rome, &c. The word Ambo has been popularly employed for a reading desk within memory, as in Limerick cathedral, where the desk for the lessons in the centre of the choir was so called. The singers also had their separate ambo, and in many of the foreign European churches it is employed by the precentor and principal singers; being placed in the middle of the choir, like an eagle, but turned towards the altar.—Jebb.

AMBROSIAN OFFICE. A particular office used in the church of Milan. It derives its name from St. Ambrose, who was bishop of Milan in the fourth century, although it is not certain that he took any part in its composition. Originally each church had its particular office; and even when Pope Pius V. took upon him to impose the Roman office on all the Western churches, that of Milan sheltered itself under the name and authority of St. Ambrose, and the Ambrosian Ritual has continued in use.—Brouqhton, Gueranger.

AMEDIEU, or Friends of God. A kind of religious congregation in the Church of Rome, who wore grey clothes and wooden shoes, had no breeches, girding themselves with a cord; they began in 1400, and grew numerous; but Pius V. united their society partly with that of the Cistercians, and partly with the Soccolanti.—Jebb.

AMEN. This, in the phraseology of the Church, is denominated orationis signaculum, or devotæ conscionis responsio, the token for prayer—the response of the worshippers. It intimates that the prayer of the speaker is heard, and approved by him who gives this response. It is also used at the conclusion of a doxology. (Rom. ix. 5.) Justin Martyr is the first of the fathers who speaks of the use of the response. In speaking of the sacrament he says, that, at the close of the benediction and prayer, all the assembly respond, “Amen,” which, in the Hebrew tongue, is the same as, “So let it be.” According to Tertullian, none but the faithful were permitted to join in the response.

In the celebration of the Lord’s supper especially, each communicant was required to give this response in a tone of earnest devotion. Upon the reception, both of the bread and of the wine, each uttered a loud “Amen;” and at the close of the consecration by the priest, all joined in shouting a loud “Amen.” But the practice was discontinued after the sixth century.

At the administration of baptism also, the witnesses and sponsors uttered this response in the same manner. In the Greek Church it was customary to repeat this response as follows: “This servant of the Lord is baptized in the name of the Father, Amen; and of the Son, Amen; and of the Holy Ghost, Amen; both now and for ever, world without end;” to which the people responded, “Amen.” This usage is still observed by the Greek Church in Russia. The repetitions were given thrice, with reference to the three persons of the Trinity.—Coleman’s Christian Antiquities.

It signifies truly or verily. Its import varies slightly with the connexion or position in which it is placed. In the New Testament it is frequently synonymous with “verily,” and is retained in some versions without being translated. At the conclusion of prayer, as the Catechism teaches, it signifies So be it; after the repetition of the Creed it means So it is.

It will be observed, that the word “Amen” is at the end of some prayers, the Creed, &c., printed in the same Roman letter, but of others, and indeed generally, in Italics—“Amen.” This seems not to be done without meaning, though unfortunately the distinction is not correctly observed in all the modern Prayer Books. The intention, according to Wheatly, is this: At the end of all the collects and prayers, which the priest is to repeat or say alone, it is printed in Italic, a different character from the prayers themselves, probably to denote that the minister is to stop at the end of the prayer, and to leave the “Amen” for the people to respond. But at the end of the Lord’s Prayer, Confessions, Creeds, &c., and wheresoever the people are to join aloud with the minister, as if taught and instructed by him what to say, there it is printed in Roman, i. e. in the same character with the Confessions and Creeds themselves, as a hint to the minister that he is still to go on, and by pronouncing the “Amen” himself, to direct the people to do the same, and so to set their seal at last to what they had been before pronouncing.

AMERICA. (See Church in America.)

AMICE. An oblong square of fine linen used as a vestment in the ancient Church by the priest. At first introduced to cover the shoulders and neck, it afterwards received the addition of a hood to cover the head until the priest came before the altar, when the hood was thrown back. We have the remains of this in the hood.

The “grey amice,” a tippet or cape of fur, was retained for a time by the English clergy after the Reformation; but, as there was no express authority for this, it was prohibited by the bishops in the reign of Elizabeth.

The word Amice is sometimes used with greater latitude. Thus Milton, (Par. Reg. iv.,)

——morning fair

Came forth, with pilgrim steps, in amice grey.

By most ritualists, the Amictus, or Amicia, and the Almutium, of the Western Churches were considered the same. But W. Gilbert French, in an interesting and curiously illustrated Essay on “The Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical,” considers that there is a distinction between the amice and the almuce. The former he identifies with the definition given above. The latter he considers to be the choir tippet, worn by all members of cathedral churches, of materials varying with the ecclesiastical rank of the wearer. The hood part of the almuce was in the course of time disused, and a square cap substituted; and the remaining parts gave rise to the modern cape, worn in foreign churches, and to the ornament resembling the stole, like the ordinary scarf worn in our churches. The almuce, or “aumusse,” is now an ornament of fur or other materials carried over the arm by the canons of many French and other continental cathedrals. In the Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique (Lymr. 1787) it is defined as an ornament which was first borne on the head, afterwards carried on the arm. Cardinal Bona only mentions the amictus, describing it as in the first paragraph of this article. He identifies it, but certainly without any reason, with the Jewish ephod. There seems nothing improbable in the various terms above mentioned having been originally identical. (See Band, Hood, Scarf, and Tippet.)—Jebb.

AMPHIBALUM. (See Chasible.)

ANABAPTISTS. (See Baptists.) Certain sectaries whose title is compounded of two Greek words, (ἀνα and βαπτιζω,) one of which signifies “anew,” and the other “to baptize;” and whose distinctive tenet it is, that those who have been baptized in their infancy ought to be baptized anew.

John of Leyden, Münzer, Knipperdoling, and other German enthusiasts about the time of the Reformation, were called by this name, and held that Christ was not the son of Mary, nor true God; that we were righteous by our own merits and sufferings, that there was no original sin, and that infants were not to be baptized. They rejected, also, communion with other churches, magistracy, and oaths; maintained a communion of goods, polygamy, and that a man might put away his wife if not of the same religion with himself; that the godly should enjoy monarchy here on earth; that man had a free will in spiritual things; and that any man might preach and administer the sacraments. The Anabaptists of Moravia called themselves apostolical, going barefoot, washing one another’s feet, and having community of goods; they had a common steward, who distributed equally things necessary; they admitted none but such as would get their livelihood by working at some trade; they had a common father for their spirituals, who instructed them in their religion, and prayed with them every morning before they went abroad; they had a general governor of the church, whom none knew but themselves, they being obliged to keep it secret. They would be silent a quarter of an hour before meat, covering their faces with their hands, and meditating, doing the like after meat, their governor observing them in the mean time, to reprove what was amiss; they were generally clad in black, discoursing much of the last judgment, pains of hell, and cruelty of devils, teaching that the way to escape these was to be rebaptized, and to embrace their religion. They caused considerable disturbance in Germany, but were at length subdued. To this sect allusion is made in our 38th Article. By the present Anabaptists in England, the tenets subversive of civil government are no longer professed.

The practice of rebaptizing proselytes was used by some ancient heretics, and other sectaries, as by the Montanists, the Novatians, and the Donatists. In the third century, the Church was much agitated by the question whether baptism received out of the Catholic communion ought to be acknowledged, or whether converts to the Church ought to be rebaptized. Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and the Africans generally, held that baptism without the Church was null, as did also Firmilian, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and the Asiatics of his time. On this account, Stephen, bishop of Rome, declined communion with the Churches of Africa and of the East. To meet the difficulty, a method was devised by the Council of Arles, Can. 8, viz. to rebaptize those newly converted, if so be it was found that they had not been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and so the first Council of Nice, Can. 19, ordered that the Paulianists, or followers of Paul of Samosata, and the Cataphrygians should be rebaptized. The Council of Laodicea, Can. 7, and the second of Arles, Can. 16, decreed the same as to some heretics.

But the notion of the invalidity of infant baptism, which is the foundation of the modern Anabaptism, was not taught until the twelfth century, when Peterall Bruis, a Frenchman, preached it.

ANABATA. A cope, or sacerdotal vestment, to cover the back and shoulders of a priest. This is no longer used in the English Church.

ANALOGY OF FAITH, [translated in our version, proportion of faith,] is the proportion that the doctrines of the gospel bear to each other, or the close connexion between the truths of revealed religion. (Rom. xii. 6.)

ANAPHORA. That part of the liturgy of the Greek Church, which follows the introductory part, beginning at the Sursum corda, or, Lift up your hearts, to the end, including the solemn prayers of consecration, &c. It resembles, but does not exactly correspond to, the Roman Canon. (See Renandot.)—Jebb.

ANATHEMA, imports whatever is set apart, separated, or divided; but is most usually meant to express the cutting off of a person from the communion of the faithful. It was practised in the primitive Church against notorious offenders. Several councils, also, have pronounced anathemas against such as they thought corrupted the purity of the faith. The Church of England in her 18th Article anathematizes those who teach that eternal salvation is to be obtained otherwise than through the name of Christ, and in her Canons excommunicates all who say that the Church of England is not a true and apostolic Church.—Can. 3. All impugners of the public worship of God, established in the Church of England.—Can. 4. All impugners of the rites and ceremonies of the Church.—Can. 6. All impugners of episcopacy.—Can. 7. All authors of schism.—Can. 9. All maintainers of schismatics.—Can. 10. All these persons lie under the anathema of the Church of England.

ANCHORET. A name given to a hermit, from his dwelling alone, apart from society (Ἀναχωρητής). The anchoret is distinguished from the cœnobite, or the monk who dwells in a fraternity, or Κοινόβια. (See Monks.)

ANDREW’S (Saint) DAY. This festival is celebrated by the Church of England, Nov. 30, in commemoration of St. Andrew, who was, first of all, a disciple of St. John the Baptist, but being assured by his master that he was not the Messias, and hearing him say, upon the sight of our Saviour, “Behold the Lamb of God!” he left the Baptist, and being convinced himself of our Saviour’s divine mission, by conversing with him some time at the place of his abode, he went to his brother Simon, afterwards surnamed Peter by our Saviour, and acquainted him with his having found out the Messias; but he did not become our Lord’s constant attendant until a special call or invitation. After the ascension of Christ, when the apostles distributed themselves in various parts of the world, St. Andrew is said to have preached the gospel in Scythia, in Epirus, in Cappadocia, Galatia, Bithynia, and the vicinity of Byzantium, and finally, to have suffered death by crucifixion, at Ægea, by order of the proconsul of the place. The instrument of his death is said to have been in the form of the letter X, being a cross decussate, or saltier, two pieces of timber crossing each other in the middle; and hence usually known by the name of St. Andrew’s cross.

ANGEL. (See Idolatry, Mariolatry, Invocation of Saints.) By an angel is meant a messenger who performs the will of a superior. The scriptural words, both in Hebrew and Greek, mean a messenger. Thus, in the letters addressed by St. John to the seven churches in Asia Minor, the bishops of those churches are addressed as angels; ministers not appointed by the people, but sent by God. But the word is generally applied to those spiritual beings who surround the throne of glory, and who are sent forth to minister to them that be heirs of salvation. It is supposed by some that there is a subordination of angels in heaven, in the several ranks of seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominions, principalities, &c. We recognise in the service of the Church, the three orders of archangels, cherubim, and seraphim. The only archangel, as Bishop Horsley remarks, mentioned in Scripture, is St. Michael. (See Cherub.) The word seraph signifies in the Hebrew to burn. It is possible that these two orders of angels are alluded to in Psal. civ. 4, “He maketh his angels spirits; and his ministers a flaming fire.” The worship of angels is one of the sins of the Romish Church. It was first invented by a sect in the fourth century, who, for the purpose of exercising this unlawful worship, held private meetings separate from those of the Catholic Church, in which it was not permitted. The Council of Laodicea, the decrees of which were received and approved by the whole Church, condemned the sect in the following terms: “Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and depart and call on angels, and make meetings, which are forbidden. If any one, therefore, be found, giving himself to this hidden idolatry, let him be anathema, because he hath left the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and hath betaken himself to idolatry.” The same principle applies to prayers made to any created being. The worship of the creature was regarded by the Church in the fourth century as idolatry. See Bishop Beveridge’s Expos. of Acts xxii.: see also Bishop Bull, on the Corruption of the Church of Rome, sect. iii., who, whilst showing that the ancient fathers and councils were express in their denunciation of it, (e. g. the Council of Laodicea, Theodoret, Origen, Justin Martyr, &c.,) says, “It is very evident that the Catholic Christians of Origen’s time made no prayers to angels or saints, but directed all their prayers to God, through the alone mediation of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Indeed, against the invocation of angels and saints we have the concurrent testimonies of all the Catholic Fathers of the first three centuries at least.” Bishop Bull then refers to his own Def. Fid. Nic. ii. to 8, for a refutation of Bellarmine’s unfair citation of Justin Martyr, (Apol. i. 6, p. 47,) where he says, “I have evidently proved that that plan of Justin, so far from giving countenance to the religious worship of angels, makes directly against it.” Also the most ancient Liturgies, &c.

ANGELIC HYMN. A title given to the hymn or doxology beginning with “Glory be to God on high,” &c. It is so called from the former part of it having been sung by the angels on their appearance to the shepherds of Bethlehem, to announce to them the birth of the Redeemer. (See Gloria in Excelsis.)

ANGELICI. A sort of Christian heretics, who were supposed to have their rise in the apostles’ time, but who were most numerous about A.D. 180. They worshipped angels, and from thence had their name.

ANGELITES. A sort of Sabellian heretics, so called from Agelius or Angelius, a place in Alexandria, where they used to meet.

ANGLO-CATHOLIC CHURCH. (See Church of England.) Any branch of the Church reformed on the principles of the English Reformation.

In certain considerations of the first spiritual importance, the Church of England occupies a singularly felicitous position. The great majority of Christians—the Roman, Greek, and Eastern Churches—regard Episcopacy as indispensable to the integrity of Christianity; the Presbyterians and others, who have no bishops, nor, as far as we can judge, any means of obtaining the order, regard episcopacy as unnecessary. Supposing for a moment the question to be dubious, the position of the Presbyterian is, at the best, unsafe; the position of the member of the Church of England is, at the worst, perfectly safe: at the worst, he can only be in the same position at last as the Presbyterian is in at present. On the Anti-episcopalian’s own ground, the Episcopalian is on this point doubly fortified; whilst, on the opposite admission, the Presbyterian is doubly condemned, first, in the subversion of a Divine institution; and, secondly, in the invalidity of the ordinances of grace. Proceeding, therefore, on mere reason, it would be most unwise for a member of the Church of England to become a Presbyterian; he can gain nothing by the change, and may lose everything. The case is exactly the reverse with the Presbyterian.

Again: by all apostolic Churches the apostolic succession is maintained to be a sine quâ non for the valid administration of the eucharist and the authoritative remission of sins. The sects beyond the pale of the apostolic succession very naturally reject its indispensability; but no one is so fanatical as to imagine its possession invalidates the ordinances of the Church possessing it. Now, of all branches of the Catholic Church, the Church of England is most impregnable on this point; she unites in her priesthood the triple successions of the ancient British, the ancient Irish, and the ancient Roman Church. Supposing, therefore, the apostolic Churches to hold the right dogma on the succession, the member of the Church of England has not the slightest occasion to disturb his soul; he is trebly safe. Supposing, on the other hand, the apostolic succession to be a fortunate historical fact, not a divinely perpetuated authority, he is still, at the least, as safe as the dissenter; whereas, if it is, as the Church holds, the only authority on earth which the Saviour has commissioned with his power, what is the spiritual state of the schismatic who usurps, or of the assembly that pretends to bestow, what God alone can grant and has granted to his Church only. No plausible inducement to separate from the Church of England can counterbalance this necessity for remaining in her communion: and her children have great cause to be grateful for being placed by her in a state of such complete security on two such essential articles of administrative Christianity.—Morgan.

ANNATES, or FIRST-FRUITS. These are the profits of one year of every vacant bishopric in England, claimed at first by the pope, upon a pretence of defending the Christians from the infidels; and paid by every bishop at his accession, before he could receive his investiture from Rome. Afterwards the pope prevailed on all those who were spiritual patrons to oblige their clerks to pay these annates; and so by degrees they became payable by the clergy in general. Some of our historians tell us that Pope Clement was the first who claimed annates in England, in the reign of Edward I.; but Selden, in a short account which he has given us of the reign of William Rufus, affirms that they were claimed by the pope before that reign. Chronologers differ also about the time when they became a settled duty. Platina asserts that Boniface IX., who was pope in the first year of Henry IV., Annalarum usum beneficiis ecclesiasticis primum imposuit (viz.) dimidium annui proventus fisco apostolico persolvere. Walsingham affirms it to be above eighty years before that time,(viz.) in the time of Pope John XXII., who was pope about the middle of the reign of Edward II., and that he reservavit cameræ suæ primos fructus beneficiorum. But a learned bishop of Worcester has made this matter more clear. He states that the old and accustomed fees paid here to the feudal lords were called beneficia; and that the popes, assuming to be lords or spiritual heads of the Church, were not contented with an empty though very great title, without some temporal advantage, and therefore Boniface VIII., about the latter end of the reign of Edward I., having assumed an absolute dominion in beneficiary matters, made himself a kind of feudal lord over the benefices of the Church, and as a consequence thereof, claimed a year’s profits of the Church, as a beneficiary fee due to himself, the chief lord. But though the usurped power of the pope was then very great, the king and the people did not comply with this demand; insomuch that, by the statute of Carlisle, which was made in the last year of his reign, and about the beginning of the popedom of Clement V., this was called a new imposition gravis et intolerabilis, et contra leges et consuetudines regni; and by reason of this powerful opposition the matter rested for some time: but the successors of that pope found more favourable opportunities to insist on this demand, which was a year’s profits of each vacant bishopric, at a reasonable valuation, viz. a moiety of the full value; and having obtained what they demanded, they afterwards endeavoured to raise the value, but were opposed in this likewise by the parliament, in the 6th of Henry IV., and a penalty was inflicted on those bishops who paid more for their first-fruits than was accustomed. But, notwithstanding these statutes, such was the plenitude of the pope’s power, and so great was the profit which accrued to him by this invention, that in little more than half a century, the sum of £16,000 was paid to him, under the name of annates, for expediting bulls of bishoprics only. The payment of these was continued till about the 25th year of Henry VIII., and then an act was made, reciting, that since the beginning of that parliament another statute had been made (which act is not printed) for the suppressing the exaction of annates of archbishops and bishops. But the parliament being unwilling to proceed to extremities, remitted the putting that act in execution to the king himself: that if the pope would either put down annates, or so moderate the payment that they might no longer be a burthen to the people, the king, by letters patent, might declare the act should be of no force.

The pope, having notice of this, and taking no care to reform those exactions, that statute was confirmed; and because it only extended to annates paid for archbishoprics and bishoprics, in the next year another statute was made, (26 Henry VIII. cap. 3,) that not only those first-fruits formerly paid by bishops, but those of every other spiritual living, should be paid to the king. Notwithstanding these laws, there were still some apprehensions, that, upon the death of several prelates who were then very old, great sums of money would be conveyed to Rome by their successors; therefore, Anno 33 Henry VIII., it was enacted, that all contributions of annates for bishoprics, or for any bulls to be obtained from the see of Rome, should cease; and if the pope should deny any bulls of consecration by reason of this prohibition, then the bishop presented should be consecrated in England by the archbishop of the province; and if it was in the case of an archbishop, then he should be consecrated by any two bishops to be appointed by the king; and that, instead of annates, a bishop should pay to the pope £5 per cent. of the clear yearly value of his bishopric. But before this time (viz. 31 Henry VIII. cap. 22) there was a court erected by the parliament, for the levying and government of these first-fruits, which court was dissolved by Queen Mary; and in the next year the payment was ordered to cease as to her. But in the first of Elizabeth they were again restored to the crown, and the statute 32 Hen. VIII., which directed the grant and order of them, was recontinued; and that they should be from thenceforth within the government of the exchequer. But vicarages not exceeding £10 per annum, and parsonages not exceeding ten marks, according to the valuation in the first-fruits’ office, were exempted from payment of first-fruits; and the reason is because vicarages, when this valuation was made, had a large revenue, arising from voluntary oblations which ceased upon the dissolution, &c., and therefore they had this favour of exemption allowed them afterwards. By the before-mentioned statute, a new officer was created, called a remembrancer of the first-fruits, whose business it was to take compositions for the same; and to send process to the sheriff against those who did not pay it; and by the act 26 Henry VIII. he who entered into a living without compounding, or paying the first-fruits, was to forfeit double the value.

To prevent which forfeiture, it was usual for the clerk newly presented, to give four bonds to pay the same, within two years next after induction, by four equal payments. But though these bonds were executed, yet if the clergyman died, or was legally deprived before the payments became due, it was a good discharge by virtue of the act 1 Elizabeth before-mentioned. And thus it stood, until Queen Anne, taking into consideration the insufficient maintenance of the poor clergy, sent a message to the House of Commons by one of her principal secretaries, signifying her intention to grant the first-fruits for the better support of the clergy; and that they would find out some means to make her intentions more effectual. Thereupon an act was passed, by which the queen was to incorporate persons, and to settle upon them and their successors the revenue of the first-fruits; but that the statutes before-mentioned should continue in force, for such intents and purposes as should be directed in her grant; and that this new act should not extend to impeach or make void any former grant made of this revenue. And likewise any person, except infants and femme-coverts, without their husbands, might, by bargain and sale enrolled, dispose lands or goods to such corporation, for the maintenance of the clergy officiating in the Established Church, without any settled competent provision; and the corporation might also purchase lands for that purpose, notwithstanding the statute of mortmain. Pursuant to this law, the queen (in the third year of her reign) incorporated several of the nobility, bishops, judges, and gentry, &c., by the name of the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne, for the augmentation of the maintenance of the poor clergy, to whom she gave the first-fruits, &c., and appointed the governors to meet at the Prince’s Chamber, in Westminster, or in any other place in London or Westminster, to be appointed by any seven of them; of which number a privy-counsellor, a bishop, a judge, or counsellor at law, must be one; there to consult about the distribution of this bounty. That four courts shall be held by these governors in every year, viz. in the months of December, March, June, and September; and that seven of the said governors (quorum tres, &c.) shall be a court, and that the business shall be despatched by majority of votes: that such courts may appoint committees out of the number of the governors, for the better managing their business; and at their first or any other meeting, deliver to the queen what methods they shall think fit for the government of the corporation; which being approved under the great seal, shall be the rules of the government thereof. That the lord keeper shall issue out writs of inquiry, at their request, directed to three or more persons, to inquire, upon oath, into the value of the maintenance of poor parsons who have not £80 per annum, and the distance of their churches from London; and which of them are in market or corporate towns, or not; and how the churches are supplied; and if the incumbents have more than one living; that care may be taken to increase their maintenance. That after such inquiry made, they do prepare and exhibit to the queen a true state of the yearly value of the maintenance of all such ministers, and of the present yearly value of the first-fruits and arrears thereof, and of such pensions as are now payable out of the same, by virtue of any former grants. That there shall be a secretary, and a treasurer, who shall continue in their office during the pleasure of the corporation; that they shall take an oath before the court for the faithful execution of their office. That the treasurer must give security to account for the money which he receives; and that his receipt shall be a discharge for what he receives; and that he shall be subject to the examination of four or more of the governors. That the governors shall collect and receive the bounties of other persons; and shall admit into their corporation any contributors, (whom they think fit for so pious a work,) and appoint persons under their common seal, to take subscriptions, and collect the money contributed; and that the names of the benefactors shall be registered in a book to be kept for that purpose.

Owing mainly to the exertion of Dean Swift, a similar remission of the first-fruits was made in Ireland during the reign of Queen Anne, and a corporation for the distribution of this fruit was appointed under the designation of the Board of First-fruits, consisting of all the archbishops and bishops of Ireland, the dean of St. Patrick’s, and the chief officers of the Crown. The Board was dissolved by the act of parliament which established the first Ecclesiastical Commission, which now discharges its functions.

ANNIVELAIS, or Annualais. The chantry priests, whose duty it was to say private masses at particular altars, were so called; as at Exeter cathedral, &c. They were also called chaplains.

ANNUNCIADA. A society founded at Rome, in the year 1460, by Cardinal John Turrecremata, for the marrying of poor maids. It now bestows, every Lady-day, sixty Roman crowns, a suit of white serge, and a florin for slippers, to above 400 maids for their portion. The popes have so great a regard for this charitable foundation, that they make a cavalcade, attended with the cardinals, &c., to distribute tickets for these sixty crowns, &c., for those who are to receive them. If any of the maids are desirous to be nuns, they have each of them 120 crowns, and are distinguished by a chaplet of flowers on their head.

ANNUNCIADE, otherwise called the Order of the Ten Virtues, or Delights, of the Virgin Mary; a Popish order of women, founded by Queen Jane, of France, wife to Lewis XII., whose rule and chief business was to honour, with a great many beads and rosaries, the ten principal virtues or delights of the Virgin Mary; the first of which they make to be when the angel Gabriel annunciated to her the mystery of the incarnation, from whence they have their name; the second, when she saw her son Jesus brought into the world; the third, when the wise men came to worship him; the fourth, when she found him disputing with the doctors in the temple, &c. This order was confirmed by the pope in 1501, and by Leo X. again in 1517.

ANNUNCIATION of the BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. This festival is appointed by the Church, in commemoration of that day on which it was announced to Mary, by an angel, that she should be the mother of the Messiah. The Church of England observes this festival on the 25th of March, and in the calendar the day is called the “Annunciation of our Lady,” and hence the 25th of March is called Lady-day. It is observed as a “scarlet day” at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

ANOMŒANS. (From ἄνομοιος, unlike.) The name of the extreme Arians in the fourth century, because they held the essence of the Son of God to be unlike unto that of the Father. These heretics were condemned by the semi-Arians, at the Council of Seleucia, A. D. 359, but they revenged themselves of this censure a year after, at a pretended synod in Constantinople.

ANTELUCAN. In times of persecution, the Christians being unable to meet for divine worship in the open day, held their assemblies in the night. The like assemblies were afterwards continued from feelings of piety and devotion, and called Antelucan, or assemblies before daylight.

ANTHEM. A hymn, sung in parts alternately. Such, at least, would appear to be its original sense. The word is derived from the Greek Ἀντιφωνὴ, which signifies, as Isidorus interprets it, “Vox reciproca,” &c., one voice succeeding another; that is, two choruses singing by turns. (See Antiphon.) In the Greek Church it was more particularly applied to one of the Alleluia Psalms sung after those of the day. In the Roman and unreformed Western offices it is ordinarily applied to a short sentence sung before and after one of the Psalms of the day: so called, according to Cardinal Bona, because it gives the tone to the Psalms which are sung antiphonely, or by each side of the choir alternately; and then at the end both choirs join in the anthem. The same term is given to short sentences said or sung at different parts of the service; also occasionally to metrical hymns. The real reason of the application of the term in these instances seems to be this, that these sentences are a sort of response to, or alternation with, the other parts of the office. The preacher’s text was at the beginning of the Reformation sometimes called the Anthem. (Strype, Ann. of the Ref. chap. ix. A. D. 1559.) In this sense it is applied in King Edward’s First Book to the sentences in the Visitation of the Sick, “Remember not,” &c., &c., “O Saviour of the world,” &c., which were obviously never intended to be sung. In the same book it is applied to the hymns peculiar to Easter day, and to the prayer in the Communion Service, “Turn thou us,” &c., both of which are prescribed to be said or sung. In our present Prayer Book it occurs only in reference to the Easter Hymn, and in the rubrics after the third Collects of Morning and Evening Prayer. These rubrics were first inserted at the last Review, though there is no doubt that the anthem had always been customarily performed in the same place. To the anthem so performed Milton alluded in the well-known words, “In service high and anthems clear;” these expressions, as well as the whole phraseology of that unrivalled passage, being technically correct: the service meaning the Church Hymns, set to varied harmonies; the anthem, (of which two were commonly performed in the full Sunday morning service,) the compositions now in question.

The English Anthem, as the term has long been practically understood, sanctioned by the universal use of the Church of England, has no exact equivalent in the service of other Churches. It resembles, but not exactly, the Motets of foreign choirs, and occasionally their Responsories or Antiphons. There are a few metrical anthems, corresponding to the hymns of those choirs. But, generally speaking, the English anthem is set to words from Holy Scripture, or the Liturgy; sung, not to a chant, or an air, like that of a hymn, but to varied consecutive strains, admitting of every diversity of solo, verse, and chorus. The Easter-day Anthem, at the time of the last Review, was not usually sung, as now, to a chant, but to varied harmonies, (as is still the case at Salisbury cathedral,)—and in the sealed book it is to be observed, that it is not printed like the Psalms, in verses, but in paragraphs. Properly speaking, our services, technically so called, (see Service,) are anthems; as are also the hymns in the Communion and Burial Service. The responses to the Commandments, and the sentence “O Lord, arise,” &c., in the Liturgy, give a tolerably correct notion of the Roman Antiphon.

The Church of England anthems consist of three kinds: Full; or those sung throughout by the whole choir. Full with verse; that is, consisting of a chorus for the most part, but with an occasional passage sung by but a few voices. Verse; consisting mainly of solos, duets, trios, &c., the chorus being the appendage, not the substance. Objections have been made of late to verse anthems; but there is no question that they are nearly, if not quite, coeval with the Reformation.

In many choirs, besides the anthem in its proper place after the third Morning Collect, another was sung on Sundays after the sermon. In the Coronation Service several anthems are prescribed to be used.—Jebb.

An anthem in choirs and places where they sing is appointed by the rubric in the daily service in the Prayer Book, after the third Collect, both at Morning and Evening Prayer.

ANTHOLOGIUM. (In Latin, Florilegium.) The title of a book in the Greek Church, divided into twelve months, containing the offices sung throughout the whole year, on the festivals of our Saviour, the Virgin Mary, and other remarkable saints. It is in two volumes; the first contains six months, from the first day of September to the last day of February; the second comprehends the other six months. It is observable from this book that the Greek Church celebrates Easter at the same time with the Church of England, notwithstanding that they differ from us in the lunar cycle.—Broughton.

ANTHROPOLATRÆ. (Man-worshippers.) A name of abuse given to churchmen by the Apollinarians, because they maintained that Christ, whom both admitted to be the object of the Christian’s worship, was a perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. This the Apollinarians denied. It was always the way with heretics to apply to churchmen terms of reproach, while they assumed to themselves distinctive appellations of honour: thus the Manichees, for instance, while they called themselves the elect, the blessed, and the pure, gave to the churchmen the name of simple ones. It is not less a sign of a sectarian spirit to assume a distinctive name of honour, than to impose on the Church a name of reproach, for both tend to divided communion in spirit or in fact. There is this good, however, to be gathered from these slanderous and vain-glorious arts of heretics; that their terms of reproach serve to indicate some true doctrine of the Church: as, for instance, that of Anthropolatræ determines the opinion of Catholics touching Christ’s human nature; while the names of distinction which heretics themselves assume, usually serve to throw light on the history of their own error.

ANTHROPOMORPHITES. Heretics who were so called because they maintained that God had a human shape. They are mentioned by Eusebius as the opponents of Origen, and their accusation of Origen implies their own heresy. “Whereas,” they said, “the sacred Scriptures testify that God has eyes, ears, hands, and feet, as men have, the partisans of Dioscorus, being followers of Origen, introduce the blasphemous dogma that God has not a body.” The Anthropomorphite error was common among the monks of Egypt about the end of the fourth century. Dioscorus was a leader of the opposite party.

ANTICHRIST. The man of sin, who is to precede the second advent of our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ. “Little children,” saith St. John, “ye have heard that Antichrist shall come.” And St. Paul, in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, describes him: “That day (the day of our Lord’s second advent) shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming; even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.”

Under the image of a horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things; that made war with the saints, and prevailed against them till the Ancient of days came; and under the image of a little horn, which attacked the very heavens, and trod down and trampled on the state, Daniel is supposed to predict Antichrist.

St. John in the Apocalypse describes Antichrist as a beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit, and maketh war upon the saints; as a beast rising out of the sea, with two horns and two crowns upon his horns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. In another place, he speaks of the number of the beast, and says, it is six hundred threescore and six.

It is not the purpose of this dictionary to state the various ways in which this prophecy has been understood. We therefore pass on to say, that Antichrist is to lay the foundation of his empire in Babylon, i. e. (as many have supposed,) in Rome, and he is to be destroyed by the second coming of our Lord.

ANTINOMIANS. The Antinomians derive their name from ἀντὶ, against, νόμος, law, their distinguishing tenet being, that the law is not a rule of life to believers under the gospel. The founder of the Antinomian heresy was John Agricola, a Saxon divine, a contemporary, a countryman, and at first a disciple, of Luther. He was of a restless temper, and wrote against Melancthon; and having obtained a professorship at Wittemberg, he first taught Antinomianism there, about the year 1535. The Papists, in their disputes with the Protestants of that day, carried the merit of good works to an extravagant length; and this induced some of their opponents, as is too often the case, to run into the opposite extreme. The doctrine of Agricola was in itself obscure, and perhaps represented worse than it really was by Luther, who wrote with acrimony against him, and first styled him and his followers Antinomians—perhaps thereby “intending,” as Dr. Hey conjectures, “to disgrace the notions of Agricola, and make even him ashamed of them.” Agricola stood in his own defence, and complained that opinions were imputed to him which he did not hold.

About the same time, Nicholas Amsdorf, bishop of Naumburg in Saxony, fell under the same odious name and imputation, and seems to have been treated more unfairly than even Agricola himself. The bishop died at Magdeburg in 1541, and some say that his followers were called for a time Amsdorfians, after his name.

This sect sprung up among the Presbyterians in England, during the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, who was himself an Antinomian of the worst sort. The supporters of the Popish doctrines deducing a considerable portion of the arguments on which they rested their defence from the doctrines of the old law, Agricola, in the height of his zeal for reformation, was encouraged by the success of his master, Luther, to attack the very foundation of their arguments, and to deny that any part of the Old Testament was intended as a rule of faith or practice to the disciples of Christ.

He is said to have taught that the law ought not to be proposed to the people as a rule of manners, nor used in the Church as a means of instruction; and, of course, that repentance is not to be preached from the Decalogue, but only from the gospel; that the gospel alone is to be inculcated and explained, both in the churches and the schools of learning; and that good works do not promote our salvation, nor evil works hinder it.

Some of his followers in England, in the seventeenth century, are said to have expressly maintained, that as the elect cannot fall from grace, nor forfeit the Divine favour, the wicked actions they commit are not really sinful, nor are they to be considered as instances of their violation of the Divine law; and that, consequently, they have no occasion either to confess their sins, or to seek renewed forgiveness. According to them, it is one of the essential and distinctive characters of the elect, that they cannot do anything displeasing to God, or prohibited by the law. “Let me speak freely to you, and tell you,” says Dr. Tobias Crisp, (who may be styled the primipilus of the more modern scheme of Antinomianism, and was the great Antinomian opponent of Baxter, Bates, Howe, &c.,) “that the Lord hath no more to lay to the charge of an elect person, yet in the height of his iniquity, and in the excess of riot, and committing all the abominations that can be committed; I say, even then, when an elect person runs such a course, the Lord hath no more to lay to that person’s charge, than God hath to lay to the charge of a believer: nay, God hath no more to lay to the charge of such a person than he hath to lay to the charge of a saint triumphant in glory. The elect of God, they are the heirs of God; and as they are heirs, so the first being of them puts them into the right of inheritance, and there is no time but such a person is the child of God.”

That the justification of sinners is an immanent and eternal act of God, not only preceding all acts of sin, but the existence of the sinner himself, is the opinion of most of those who are styled Antinomians, though some suppose, with Dr. Crisp, that the elect were justified at the time of Christ’s death. In answer to the question, “When did the Lord justify us?” Dr. Crisp says, “He did, from eternity, in respect of obligation; but in respect of execution, he did it when Christ was on the cross; and in respect of application, he doth it while children are yet unborn.”

The other principal doctrines which at present bear the appellation of Antinomian, are said to be as follows:

1. That justification by faith is no more than a manifestation to us of what was done before we had a being.

2. That men ought not to doubt of their faith, or question whether they believe in Christ.

3. That by God’s laying our iniquities upon Christ, and our being imputed righteous through him, he became as completely sinful as we, and we as completely righteous as Christ.

4. That believers need not fear either their own sins or the sins of others, since neither can do them any injury.

5. That the new covenant is not made properly with us, but with Christ for us; and that this covenant is all of it a promise, having no conditions for us to perform; for faith, repentance, and obedience, are not conditions on our part, but on Christ’s; and that he repented, believed, and obeyed for us.

6. That sanctification is not a proper evidence of justification—that our righteousness is nothing but the imputation of the righteousness of Christ—that a believer has no holiness in himself, but in Christ only; and that the very moment he is justified, he is wholly sanctified, and he is neither more nor less holy from that hour to the day of his death.

Justification by a faith not necessarily productive of good works, and righteousness imputed to such a faith, are the doctrines by which the members of this denomination are chiefly distinguished.

While the Socinian Unitarians place the whole of their religion in morality, in disregard of Christian faith, the Antinomians rely so on faith as to undervalue morality. Their doctrines at least have too much that appearance.

In short, according to Dr. Williams, Dr. Crisp’s scheme is briefly this: “That by God’s mere electing decree all saving blessings are by Divine obligation made ours, and nothing more is needful to our title to these blessings: that on the cross all the sins of the elect were transferred to Christ, and ceased ever after to be their sins: that at the first moment of conception a title to all those decreed blessings is personally applied to the elect, and they are invested actually therein. Hence the elect have nothing to do, in order to have an interest in any of those blessings, nor ought they to intend the least good to themselves in what they do: sin can do them no harm because it is none of theirs; nor can God afflict them for any sin.” And all the rest of his opinions “follow in a chain,” adds Dr. W., “to the dethroning of Christ, enervating his laws and pleadings, obstructing the great design of redemption, opposing the very scope of the gospel, and the ministry of Christ and his prophets and apostles.”—Adams.

High Calvinism, or Antinomianism, absolutely withers and destroys the consciousness of human responsibility. It confounds moral with natural impotency, forgetting that the former is a crime, the latter only a misfortune; and thus treats the man dead in trespasses and sins, as if he were already in his grave. It prophesies smooth things to the sinner going on in his transgressions, and soothes to slumber and the repose of death the souls of such as are at ease in Zion. It assumes that, because men can neither believe, repent, nor pray acceptably, unless aided by the grace of God, it is useless to call upon them to do so. It maintains that the gospel is only intended for elect sinners, and therefore it ought to be preached to none but such. In defiance, therefore, of the command of God, it refuses to preach the glad tidings of mercy to every sinner. In opposition to Scripture, and to every rational consideration, it contends that it is not man’s duty to believe the truth of God—justifying the obvious inference, that it is not a sin to reject it. In short, its whole tendency is to produce an impression on the sinner’s mind, that if he is not saved it is not his fault, but God’s; that if he is condemned, it is more for the glory of the Divine Sovereignty, than as the punishment of his guilt.

So far from regarding the moral cure of human nature as the great object and design of the gospel, Antinomianism does not take it in at all, but as it exists in Christ, and becomes ours by a figure of speech. It regards the grace and the pardon as everything—the spiritual design or effect as nothing. Hence its opposition to progressive and its zeal for imputed sanctification: the former is intelligible and tangible, but the latter a mere figment of the imagination. Hence its delight in expatiating on the eternity of the Divine decrees, which it does not understand, but which serve to amuse and to deceive; and its dislike to all the sober realities of God’s present dealings and commands. It exults in the contemplation of a Christ who is a kind of concretion of all the moral attributes of his people; to the overlooking of that Christ who is the Head of all that in heaven and on earth bear his likeness. It boasts in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, while it believes in no saint but one, that is, Jesus, and neglects to persevere.—Orme’s Life of Baxter, vol. ii. p. 311.

ANTI-PÆDOBAPTISTS. (From ἀντὶ, against, παῖς, child, βάπτισμα, baptism.) Persons who are opposed to the baptism of infants. In this country, this sect arrogate to themselves the title of Baptists par excellence, as though no other body of Christians baptized: just as the Socinians extenuate their heresy by calling themselves Unitarians: thereby insinuating that those who hold the mystery of the Holy Trinity do not believe in one God. (See Anabaptists, Baptism.)

ANTIPHON, or ANTIPHONY. (ἀντὶ and φωνὴ.) The chant or alternate singing of a Christian choir. This is the most ancient form of church music. Diodorus and Flavian, the leaders of the orthodox party at Antioch during the ascendency of Arianism, in the fourth century, and St. Ambrose at Milan, instead of leaving the chanting to the choristers, as had been usual, divided the whole congregation into two choirs, which sang the psalms alternately. That the chanting of the psalms alternately is even older than Christianity, cannot be doubted, for the custom prevailed in the Jewish temple. Many of the psalms are actually composed in alternate verses, evidently with a view to their being used in a responsive manner. “I make no doubt,” says Nicholls, “but that it is to this way of singing used in the temple, that that vision in Isaiah vi. alluded, when he saw the two cherubims, and heard them singing, ‘Holy, holy,’ &c. For these words cannot be otherwise explained, than of their singing anthem-wise; ‘they called out this to that cherubim,’ properly relates to the singing in a choir, one voice on one side, and one on the other.” In the earlier days of the Christian Church, this practice was adopted, and became universal. The custom is said, by Socrates the historian, to have been first introduced among the Greeks by Ignatius. St. Basil tells us that, in his time, about A. D. 470, the Christians, “rising from their prayers, proceeded to singing of psalms, dividing themselves into two parts, and singing by turns.” Tertullian remarks, that “when one side of the choir sing to the other, they both provoke it by a holy contention, and relieve it by a mutual supply and change.” For these or similar reasons, the reading of the Psalter is, in places where there is no choir, divided between the minister and people. In the cathedral worship of the Church Universal, the psalms of the day are chanted throughout. And in order to preserve their responsive character, two full choirs are stationed one on each side of the church. One of these having chanted one or two verses (the usual compass of the chant-tune) remains silent, while the opposite choir replies in the verses succeeding; and at the end of each psalm, (and of each division of the 119th Psalm,) the Gloria Patri is sung by the united choirs in chorus, accompanied by the peal of the great organ. The usage, now prevalent in foreign churches subject to Rome, of chanting one verse by a single voice, and the other by the full choir, is not ancient, and is admitted to be incorrect by some continental ritualists themselves. This method is quite destructive of the genuine effect of antiphonal chanting, which ought to be equally balanced on each side of the choir. It may indeed be accepted as a sort of modification of the ordinary parochial mode; but in regular choirs it would be a clear innovation, a retrograde movement, instead of an improvement. In some choirs the Gloria Patri is sung antiphonally, but always to the great organ.—Jebb.

ANTIPHONAR. The book which contains the invitatories, responsories, verses, collects, and whatever else is sung in the choir; but not including the hymns peculiar to the Communion Service, which are contained in the Gradual, or Grail.—Jebb.

ANTI-POPE. He that usurps the popedom in opposition to the right pope. Geddes gives the history of no less than twenty-four schisms in the Roman Church caused by anti-popes. Some took their rise from a diversity of doctrines or belief, which led different parties to elect each their several pope; but they generally took their rise from dubious controverted rights of election. During the great schism, which, commencing towards the close of the 14th century, lasted for fifty years, there was always a pope and anti-pope; and as to the fact which of the two rivals was pope, and which anti-pope, it is impossible even now to decide. The greatest powers of Europe were at this time divided in their opinions on the subject. As is observed by some Roman Catholic writers, many pious and gifted persons, who are now numbered among the saints of the Church, were to be found indifferently in either obedience; which sufficiently proved, as they assert, that the eternal salvation of the faithful was not, in this case, endangered by their error. The schism began soon after the election of Urban VI., and was terminated by the Council of Constance. By that Council three rival popes were deposed, and the peace of the Church was restored by the election of Martin V.

ANTI-TYPE. A Greek word, properly signifying a type or figure corresponding to some other type: the word is commonly used in theological writings to denote the person in whom any prophetic type is fulfilled: thus, our blessed Saviour is called the Anti-type of the Paschal lamb under the Jewish law.

APOCALYPSE. A revelation. The name sometimes given to the last book of the New Testament, the Revelation of St. John the Divine, from its Greek title, ἀποκαλύψις, which has the same meaning.

This is a canonical book of the New Testament. It was written, according to Irenæus, about the year of Christ 96, in the island of Patmos, whither St. John had been banished by the emperor Domitian; but Sir Isaac Newton fixes the time of writing this book earlier, viz. in the time of Nero. In support of this opinion he alleges the sense of the earliest commentators, and the tradition of the Churches of Syria preserved to this day in the title of the Syriac version of that book, which is this: “The Revelation which was made to John the Evangelist by God in the island of Patmos, into which he was banished by Nero the Cæsar.” This opinion, he tells us, is further confirmed by the allusions in the Apocalypse to the temple, and altar, and holy city, as then standing; as also by the style of it, which is fuller of Hebraisms than his Gospel; whence it may be inferred, that it was written when John was newly come out of Judea. It is confirmed also by the many Apocalypses ascribed to the apostles, which appeared in the apostolic age: for Caīus, who was contemporary with Tertullian, tells us, that Cerinthus wrote his Revelation in imitation of St. John’s, and yet he lived so early that he opposed the apostles at Jerusalem twenty-six years before the death of Nero, and died before St. John. To these reasons he adds another, namely, that the Apocalypse seems to be alluded to in the Epistles of St. Peter, and that to the Hebrews; and if so, must have been written before them. The allusions he means, are the discourses concerning the high priest in the heavenly tabernacle; the σαββατισμὸς, or the millennial rest; the earth, “whose end is to be burned,” &c.; whence this learned author is of opinion, that Peter and John stayed in Judea and Syria till the Romans made war upon their nation, that is, till the twelfth year of Nero; that they then retired into Asia, and that Peter went from thence by Corinth to Rome; that the Romans, to prevent insurrections from the Jews among them, secured their leaders, and banished St. John into Patmos, where he wrote his Apocalypsis; and that very soon after, the Epistle to the Hebrews and those of Peter were written to the churches, with reference to this prophecy, as what they were particularly concerned in. Some attribute this book to the arch-heretic Cerinthus: but the ancients unanimously ascribe it to John the son of Zebedee, and brother of James. The Revelation has not at all times been esteemed canonical. There were many Churches of Greece, as St. Jerome informs us, which did not receive it; neither is it in the catalogue of the canonical books prepared by the Council of Laodicea; nor in that of St. Cyril of Jerusalem; but Justin, Irenæus, Origen, Cyprian, Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, and all the fathers of the fourth, fifth, and following centuries, quote the Revelations as a book then acknowledged to be canonical.

It is a part of this prophecy, that it should not be understood before the last age of the world; and therefore it makes for the credit of the prophecy that it is not yet understood.—The folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by this prophecy, as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness, they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this, and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men’s curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that, after they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted by the event; and his own providence, not the interpreters, be then manifested thereby to the world.—There is already so much of the prophecy fulfilled, that as many as will take pains in this study, may see sufficient instances of God’s providence.

The Apocalypse of John is written in the same style and language with the prophecies of Daniel, and hath the same relation to them which they have to one another: so that all of them together make but one consistent prophecy, pointing out the various revolutions that should happen both to the Church and the State, and at length the final destruction and downfal of the Roman empire.

APOCRYPHA. (See Bible, Scriptures.) From ἀπὸ and κρύπτω, to hide, “because they were wont to be read not openly and in common, but as it were in secret and apart.” (Bible of 1539, Preface to Apocrypha.) Certain books appended to the sacred writings. There is no authority, internal or external, for admitting these books into the sacred canon. They were not received as portions of the Old Testament by the Jews, to whom “were committed the oracles of God;” they are not cited and alluded to in any part of the New Testament; and they are expressly rejected by St. Athanasius and St. Jerome in the fourth century, though these two fathers speak of them with respect. There is, therefore, no ground for applying the books of the Apocrypha “to establish any doctrine,” but they are highly valuable as ancient writings, which throw considerable light upon the phraseology of Scripture, and upon the history and manners of the East; and as they contain many noble sentiments and useful precepts, the Church of England doth read them for “example of life and instruction of manners.” (Art. VI.) They are frequently quoted with great respect in the Homilies, although parties who bestow much praise upon the Homilies are wont to follow a very contrary course. The corrupt Church of Rome, at the fourth session of the Council of Trent, admitted them to be of equal authority with Scripture. Thereby the modern Church of Rome differs from the Catholic Church; and by altering the canon of Scripture, and at the same time making her dictum the rule of communion, renders it impossible for those Churches which defer to antiquity to hold communion with her. Divines differ in opinion as to the degree of respect due to those ancient writings. The reading of the Apocryphal books in churches formed one of the grievances of the Puritans: our Reformers, however, have made a selection for certain holy days; and for the first lesson from the evening of the 27th of September, till the morning of the 23rd of November, inclusive. Some clergymen take upon themselves to alter these lessons; but for so doing they are amenable to the ordinary, and should be presented by the churchwardens, at the yearly episcopal or archidiaconal visitation; to say nothing of their moral obligation. There were also Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but these were manifest forgeries, and of course were not used or accepted by the Church. (See the Acts of the Apostles.)

APOLLINARIANS. An ancient sect who were followers of Apollinaris or Apollinarius, bishop of Laodicea, about the middle of the fourth century. He denied that our Saviour had a reasonable human soul, and asserted that the Logos or Divine nature supplied the place of it. This is one of the sects we anathematize when we read the Athanasian Creed. The doctrine of Apollinaris was condemned by several provincial councils, and at length by the General Council of Constantinople, in 381. In short, it was attacked at the same time by the laws of the emperors, the decrees of councils, and the writings of the learned, and sunk, by degrees, under their united force.

APOLOGY. A word derived from two Greek words, signifying from and speech, and thus in its primary sense, and always in theology, it means a defence from attack; an answer to objections. Thus the Greek word, ἀπολογία, from which it comes, is, in Acts xxii. 1, translated by defence; in xxv. 16, by answer; and in 2 Cor. vii. 11, by “clearing of yourselves.” There were several Apologies for Christianity composed in the second century, and among these, those of Justin Martyr and Tertullian are best known.

APOSTASY. (ἀποστάσις, falling away.) A forsaking or renouncing of our religion, either formally, by an open declaration in words, or virtually, by our actions. The word has several degrees of signification. The primitive Christian Church distinguished several kinds of apostasy: the first, of those who went entirely from Christianity to Judaism. The second, of those who mingled Judaism and Christianity together. The third, of those who complied so far with the Jews, as to communicate with them in many of their unlawful practices, without formally professing their religion; and the fourth, of those who, after having been some time Christians, voluntarily relapsed into Paganism. It is expressly revealed in Holy Scripture that there will be a very general falling away from Christianity, or an apostasy, before the second coming of our Lord. (2 Thess. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 1; 2 Tim. iv. 3, 4.)

In the Romish Church the term apostasy is also applied to a renunciation of the monastic vow.

APOSTLE. A missionary, messenger, or envoy. The highest order in the ministry were at first called Apostles; but the term is now generally confined to those first bishops of the Church who received their commission from our blessed Lord himself, and who were distinguished from the bishops who succeeded them, by their having acted under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and by their having frequently exercised the power of working miracles. Matthias was chosen into the place of Judas Iscariot, when it was necessary that “another should take his bishopric,” (Acts i. 20,) and is called an apostle. St. Paul also and St. Barnabas are likewise styled apostles. So that, when we speak of the twelve apostles, we allude to them only as they were when our Lord was on earth. Afterwards, even in the restricted sense, there were more than twelve. But both while there were but eleven, and afterwards when there were more, they were called the twelve, as the name of their college, so to speak; as the LXXII. translators of the Old Testament into Greek are called the LXX. All the apostles had equal power; a fact which is emphatically asserted by St. Paul.

Our Lord’s first commission to his apostles was in the third year of his public ministry, about eight months after their solemn election; at which time he sent them out by two and two. (Matt. x. 5, &c.) They were to make no provision of money for their subsistence in their journey, but to expect it from those to whom they preached. They were to declare, that the kingdom of heaven, or the Messiah, was at hand, and to confirm their doctrine by miracles. They were to avoid going either to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, and to confine their preaching to the people of Israel. In obedience to their Master, the apostles went into all the parts of Palestine inhabited by the Jews, preaching the gospel, and working miracles. (Mark vi. 12.) The evangelical history is silent as to the particular circumstances attending this first preaching of the apostles, and only informs us, that they returned, and told their Master all that they had done. (Luke ix. 10.)

Their second commission, just before our Lord’s ascension into heaven, was of a more extensive and particular nature. They were now not to confine their preaching to the Jews, but to “go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) Accordingly they began publicly, after our Lord’s ascension, to exercise the office of their ministry, working miracles daily in proof of their mission, and making great numbers of converts to the Christian faith. (Acts ii. 42–47.) This alarmed the Jewish Sanhedrim; whereupon the apostles were apprehended, and, being examined before the high priest and elders, were commanded not to preach any more in the name of Christ. But this injunction did not terrify them from persisting in the duty of their calling; for they continued daily, in the temple, and in private houses, teaching and preaching the gospel. (Acts ii. 46.)

After the apostles had exercised their ministry for twelve years in Palestine, they resolved to disperse themselves in different parts of the world, and agreed to determine by lot what parts each should take. (Clem. Alex. Apollonius.) According to this division, St. Peter went into Pontus, Galatia, and those other provinces of the Lesser Asia. St. Andrew had the vast northern countries of Scythia and Sogdiana allotted to his portion. St. John’s was partly the same with St. Peter’s, namely the Lesser Asia. St. Philip had the Upper Asia assigned to him, with some parts of Scythia and Colchis. Arabia Felix fell to St. Bartholomew’s share. St. Matthew preached in Chaldæa, Persia, and Parthia. St. Thomas preached likewise in Parthia, as also to the Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Indians. St. James the Less continued in Jerusalem, of which Church he was bishop. St. Simon had for his portion Egypt, Cyrene, Libya, and Mauritania; St. Jude, Syria and Mesopotamia; and St. Matthias, who was chosen in the room of the traitor Judas, Cappadocia and Colchis. Thus, by the dispersion of the apostles, Christianity was very early planted in a great many parts of the world. We have but very short and imperfect accounts of their travels and actions.

In order to qualify the apostles for the arduous task of converting the world to the Christian religion, (Acts ii.,) they were, in the first place, miraculously enabled to speak the languages of the several nations to whom they were to preach; and, in the second place, were endowed with the power of working miracles, in confirmation of the doctrines they taught; gifts which were unnecessary, and therefore ceased, in the future ages of the Church, when Christianity came to be established by the civil power.

The several apostles are usually represented with their respective badges or attributes; St. Peter with the keys; St. Paul with a sword; St. Andrew with a cross; St. James the Less with a fuller’s pole; St. John with a cup, and a winged serpent flying out of it; St. Bartholomew with a knife; St. Philip with a long staff, whose upper end is formed into a cross; St. Thomas with a lance; St. Matthew with a hatchet; St. Matthias with a battle-axe; St. James the Greater with a pilgrim’s staff, and a gourd-bottle; St. Simon with a saw; and St. Jude with a club.

APOSTLES’ CREED is used by the Church between the third part of the daily service, namely, the lessons, and the fourth part, namely, the petitions, that we may express that faith in what we have heard, which is the ground of what we are about to ask. For as “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” (Rom. x. 17,) so we must “ask in faith,” if we “think to receive anything of the Lord.” (James i. 6, 7.) For “how shall we call upon him, in whom we have not believed?” (Rom. x. 14.) But as all the doctrines of Scripture, though equally true, are not of equal importance, the more necessary articles have been, from the beginning of Christianity, collected into one body, called in Scripture, “the form of sound words” (2 Tim. i. 13); “the words of faith” (1 Tim. iv. 6); “the principles of the doctrine of Christ” (Heb. vi. 1); but in our common way of speaking at present, “the Creed,” from the Latin word, credo, which signifies “I believe.” Now the ancient Churches had many such creeds; some longer, some shorter; differing on several heads in phrase, but agreeing in method and sense, of which that called “the Apostles’ Creed” is one. And it deserves this name, not so much from any certainty, or great likelihood, that the apostles drew it up in these very expressions; though some, pretty early, and many since, have imagined they did; as because it contains the chief apostolic doctrines, and was used by a Church which, before it grew corrupt, was justly respected as the chief apostolic settlement, I mean, the Roman.—Abp. Secker.

The opinion which ascribes the framing of this Creed to the apostles in person, though as ancient as the first account we have of the Creed itself from Ruffinus, in the year 390, is yet rendered highly improbable, as by many collateral reasons, so especially by this argument, that it is not appealed to in elder times as the sacred and unalterable standard. And therefore our excellent Church with due caution styles it, in her 8th Article, “that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed.” But though it seems not to have been compiled or formally drawn up by the apostles themselves, yet is its authority of sufficient strength; since it may still be demonstrated to be the apostles’, or rather the apostolic, creed, in three several respects. First, as it is drawn from the fountains of apostolical Scripture. Secondly, as it agrees in substance with the confessions of all orthodox Churches, which make up the Apostolic Church in the extended meaning of the word. Thirdly, as it was the creed of an Apostolic Church in the restrained sense of that term, denoting a Church founded by the apostles, as was that of Rome.—Kennet.

Though this Creed be not of the apostles’ immediate framing, yet it may be truly styled apostolical, not only because it contains the sum of the apostles’ doctrine, but also because the age thereof is so great, that its birth must be fetched from the very apostolic times. It is true, the exact form of the present Creed cannot pretend to be so ancient by four hundred years; but a form, not much different from it, was used long before. Irenæus, the scholar of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, where he repeats a creed not much unlike to ours, assures us, that “the Church, dispersed throughout the whole world, had received this faith from the apostles and their disciples;” which is also affirmed by Tertullian of one of his creeds, that “that rule of faith had been current in the Church from the beginning of the gospel:” and, which is observable, although there was so great a diversity of creeds, as that scarce two Churches did exactly agree therein, yet the form and substance of every creed was in a great measure the same; so that, except there had been, from the very plantation of Christianity, a form of sound words, or a system of faith, delivered by the first planters thereof, it is not easy to conceive how all Churches should harmonize, not only in the articles themselves into which they were baptized, but, in a great measure also, in the method and order of them.—Lord Chancellor King.

The Creed itself was neither the work of one man, nor of one day; but the composure of it was gradual. First, several of the articles therein were derived from the very days of the apostles: these were the articles of the existence of God, the Trinity; that Jesus was Christ, or the Saviour of the world; the remission of sins; and the resurrection of the dead. Secondly, the others were afterwards added by the primitive doctors and bishops, in opposition to gross heresies and errors that sprung up in the Church.—It hath been received in all ages with the greatest veneration and esteem. The ancients declare their respect and reverence for it with the most noble and majestic expressions; and in these latter times, throughout several centuries of years, so great a deference hath been rendered thereunto, that it hath not only been used in baptism, but in every public assembly it hath been usually, if not always, read as the standard and basis of the Christian faith.—Lord King.

But neither this, nor any other creed, hath authority of its own equal to Scripture, but derives its principal authority from being founded on Scripture. Nor is it in the power of any man, or number of men, either to lessen or increase the fundamental articles of the Christian faith: which yet the Church of Rome, not content with this its primitive creed, hath profanely attempted, adding twelve articles more, founded on its own, that is, on no authority, to the ancient twelve, which stand on the authority of God’s word. (See Creed of Pope Pius IV.) But our Church hath wisely refused to go a step beyond the original form; since all necessary truths are briefly comprehended in it, which it is the duty of every one of us firmly to believe, and openly to profess. “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Rom. x. 10.)—Abp. Secker.

The place of the Creed in our liturgy is, first, immediately after the lessons of Holy Scripture, out of which it is taken; and since faith comes by hearing God’s word, and the gospel doth not profit without faith, therefore it is very fit, upon hearing thereof, we should exercise and profess our faith. Secondly, the Creed is placed just before the prayers, as being the foundation of our petitions; we cannot “call on him, on whom we have not believed” (Rom. x. 14); and since we are to pray to God the Father in the name of the Son, by the assistance of the Spirit, for remission of sins and a joyful resurrection, we ought first to declare that we believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that there is remission here and resurrection hereafter to be had for all true members of the Catholic Church, and then we may be said to pray in faith. And hence St. Ambrose and St. Augustine advise Christians to say it daily in their private devotions; and so our old Saxon councils command all to learn and use it, not as a prayer, (as some ignorantly or maliciously object,) but as a ground for our prayers, and a reason for our faith and hope of their acceptance: upon which account also, as soon as persecution ceased, and there was no danger of the heathens overhearing it, the Creed was used in the public service.

And there are many benefits which we may receive by this daily use of it. For, first, this fixes it firmly in our memories, that we may never forget this blessed rule of our prayers, nor be at any time without this necessary touchstone to try all doctrines by. Secondly, thus we daily renew our profession of fidelity to Almighty God, and repeat that watchword which was given us when we were first listed under Christ’s banner, declaring thereby that we retain our allegiance to him and remain his faithful servants and soldiers; and no doubt that will move him the sooner to hear the prayers which we are now making to him for his aid. Thirdly, by this we declare our unity amongst ourselves, and show ourselves to be members of that holy Catholic Church, by and for which these common prayers are made. Those who hold this one faith, and those only, have a right to pray thus; nor can any other expect to be admitted to join in them; and therefore this Creed is the symbol and badge to manifest who are fit to make these prayers, and receive the benefit of them.

Wherefore, in our daily use of this sacred form, let us observe these rules:—First, to be heartily thankful to God for revealing these divine, mysterious, and saving truths to us; and though the Gloria be only set at the end of St. Athanasius’s Creed, yet the duty of thanksgiving must be performed upon every repetition of this Creed also. Secondly, we must give our positive and particular assent to every article as we go along, and receive it as an infallible oracle from the mouth of God; and for this reason we must repeat it with an audible voice after the minister, and in our mind annex that word, “I believe,” to every particular article; for, though it be but once expressed in the beginning, yet it must be supplied and is understood in every article; and to show consent the more evidently, we must stand up when we repeat it, and resolve to stand up stoutly in defence thereof, so as, if need were, to defend it, or seal the truth of it, with our blood. Thirdly, we must devoutly apply every article, as we go along, to be both a ground for our prayers and a guide to our lives; for if we rightly believe the power of the Father, the love of the Son, and the grace of the Holy Ghost, it will encourage us (who are members of the Catholic Church) to pray heartily for all spiritual and temporal blessings, and give us very lively hopes of obtaining all our requests. Again, since these holy principles were not revealed and selected out from all other truths, for any other end but to make us live more holily, therefore we must consider, how it is fit that man should live, who believes that God the Father is his Creator, God the Son his Redeemer, and God the Holy Ghost his Sanctifier; who believes that he is a member of that Catholic Church, wherein there is a communion of saints, and remission for sins, and shall be a resurrection of the body, and a life everlasting afterwards. No man is so ignorant but he can tell what manner of persons they ought to be who believe this; and it is evident, that whoever firmly and fully believes all this, his faith will certainly and necessarily produce a holy life.—Dean Comber.

In the First Book of King Edward VI., the Apostles’ Creed followed the lesser litany, “Lord, have mercy upon us,”—and immediately after it was repeated the Lord’s Prayer. The alteration, as it at present stands, was made in the Second Book.—Jebb.

APOSTOLIC, APOSTOLICAL, something that relates to the apostles, or descends from them. Thus we say, the apostolical age, apostolical character, apostolical doctrine, constitutions, traditions, &c. In the primitive Church it was an appellation given to all such Churches as were founded by the apostles, and even to the bishops of those Churches, as the reputed successors of the apostles. These were confined to four: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. In succeeding ages, the other Churches assumed the same title, on account, principally, of the conformity of their doctrine with that of the Churches which were apostolical by foundation, and because all bishops held themselves successors of the apostles, or acted in their respective dioceses with the authority of apostles. The first time the term apostolical is attributed to bishops, is in a letter of Clovis to the Council of Orleans, held in 511; though that king does not in it expressly denominate them apostolical, but apostolicâ sede dignissimi, highly worthy of the apostolical see. In 581, Guntram calls the bishops, assembled at Macon, apostolical pontiffs. In progress of time, the bishop of Rome increasing in power above the rest, and the three patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem having fallen into the hands of the Saracens, the title apostolical came to be restricted to the pope and his Church alone. At length some of the popes, and among them Gregory the Great, not content to hold the title by this tenure, began to insist that it belonged to them by another and peculiar right, as the successors of St. Peter. In 1046, the Romish Council of Rheims declared, that the pope was the sole apostolical primate of the Universal Church.

APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS AND CANONS. These two collections of ecclesiastical rules and formularies were attributed, in the early ages of the Church of Rome, to Clement of Rome, who was supposed to have committed them to writing from the mouths of the apostles, whose words they pretended to record. The authority thus claimed for these writings has, however, been entirely disproved; and it is generally supposed by critics, that they were chiefly compiled during the second and third centuries; or that, at least, the greater part must be assigned to a period before the first Nicene Council. We find references to them in the writings of Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Athanasius, writers of the third and fourth centuries. A modern critic supposes them not to have attained their present form until the fifth century. The Constitutions are comprised in eight books. In these the apostles are frequently introduced as speakers. They contain rules and regulations concerning the duties of Christians in general, the constitution of the Church, the offices and duties of ministers, and the celebration of Divine worship. The tone of morality which runs through them is severe and ascetic. They forbid the use of all personal decorations and attention to appearance, and prohibit the reading of the works of heathen authors. They enjoin Christians to assemble twice every day in the church for prayers and psalmody, to observe various fasts and festivals, and to keep the sabbath (i. e. the seventh day of the week) as well as the Lord’s day. They require extraordinary marks of respect and reverence towards the ministers of religion; commanding Christians to honour a bishop as a king or a prince, and even as a kind of God upon earth, to render to him absolute obedience, to pay him tribute, and to approach him through the deacons or servants of the Church, as we come to God only through Christ! This latter kind of (profane) comparison is carried to a still greater extent, for the deaconesses are declared to resemble the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as they are not able to do anything without the deacons. Presbyters are said to represent the apostles; and the rank of Christian teachers is declared to be higher than that of magistrates and princes. We find here, also, a complete liturgy or form of worship for Christian churches; containing not only a description of ecclesiastical ceremonies, but the prayers to be used at their celebration.

This general description of the contents of the books of Constitutions is alone enough to prove that they are no productions of the apostolic age. Mention also occurs of several subordinate ecclesiastical officers, such as readers and exorcists, who were not introduced into the Church until the third century. And there are manifest contradictions between several parts of the work. The general style in which the Constitutions are written is such as had become prevalent during the third century.

It is useless to inquire who was the real author of this work; but the date and probable design of the forgery are of more importance, and may be more easily ascertained. Epiphanius, towards the end of the fourth century, appears to be the first author who speaks of these books under their present title, Apostolical Constitutions. But he refers to the work only as one containing much edifying matter, without including it among the writings of the apostles; and indeed he expressly says that many persons had doubted of its genuineness. One passage, however, to which Epiphanius refers, speaks a language directly the reverse of what we find in the corresponding passage of the work now extant; so that it appears probable that the Apostolical Constitutions, which that author used, have been corrupted and interpolated since his time. On the whole, it appears probable, from internal evidence, that the Apostolical Constitutions were compiled during the reigns of the heathen emperors, towards the end of the third century, or at the beginning of the fourth; and that the compilation was the work of some one writer (probably a bishop) of the Eastern Church. The advancement of episcopal dignity and power appears to have been the chief design of the forgery.

If we regard the Constitutions as a production of the third century, (containing remnants of earlier compositions,) the work possesses a certain kind of value. It contributes to give us an insight into the state of Christian faith, the condition of the clergy and inferior ecclesiastical officers, the worship and discipline of the Church, and other particulars, at the period to which the composition is referred. The growth of episcopal power and influence, and the derivation of the episcopal authority from the apostles, is here clearly shown. Many of the regulations prescribed, and many of the moral and religious remarks, are good and edifying; and the prayers especially breathe, for the most part, a spirit of simple and primitive Christianity. But the work is by no means free from traces of superstition; and it is occasionally disfigured by mystical interpretations and applications of Holy Scripture, and by needless refinements in matters of ceremony. We find several allusions to the events of apostolical times; but occurrences related exclusively in such a work, are altogether devoid of credibility, especially as they are connected with the design of the compiler to pass off his book as a work of the apostles.

The Canons relate chiefly to various particulars of ecclesiastical polity and Christian worship; the regulations which they contain being, for the most part, sanctioned with the threatening of deposition and excommunication against offenders. The first allusion to this work by name, is found in the Acts of the Council which assembled at Constantinople in the year 394, under the presidency of Nectarius, bishop of that see. But there are expressions in earlier councils, and writers of the same century, which appear to refer to the Canons, although not named. In the beginning of the sixth century, fifty of these Canons were translated from the Greek into Latin by the Roman abbot, Dionysius the Younger; and, about the same time, thirty-five others were appended to them in a collection made by John, patriarch of Constantinople. Since that time, the whole number have been regarded as genuine in the East; while only the first fifty have been treated with equal respect in the West. It appears highly probable, that the original collection was made about the middle of the third century, or somewhat later, in one of the Asiatic Churches. The author may have had the same design as that which appears to have influenced the compiler of the Apostolical Constitutions. The eighty-fifth Canon speaks of the Constitutions as sacred books; and from a comparison of the two books, it is plain that they are either the production of one and the same writer, or that, at least, the two authors were contemporary, and had a good understanding with each other. The rules and regulations contained in the Canons are such as were gradually introduced and established during the second and third centuries. In the canon or list of sacred books of the New Testament, given in this work, the Revelation of St. John is omitted; but the two Epistles of St. Clement and Apostolical Constitutions are inserted.—Augusti.

APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. An appellation usually given to the writers of the first century, who employed their pens in the cause of Christianity. Of these writers, Cotelerius, and after him Le Clerc, have published a collection in two volumes, accompanied both with their own annotations and the remarks of other learned men. Among later editions may be particularly mentioned that by the Rev. Dr. Jacobson, Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, which, however, does not include Barnabas or Hermas. See also The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers, by Archbishop Wake, and a translation of them in one volume 8vo, by the Rev. Temple Chevallier, B. D., formerly Hulsean lecturer in the University of Cambridge. The names of the apostolical fathers are, Clement, bishop of Rome, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and Hermas. To these Barnabas the apostle is usually added. The epistles and other writings of these eminent men are still extant. A more admirable appendix to the pure word of God, and a more trustworthy comment on the principles taught by inspired men, cannot be conceived. As eye-witnesses of the order and discipline of the Church, while all was fresh and new from the hands of the apostles, their testimony forms the very summit of uninspired authority. None could better know these things than those who lived and wrote at the very time. None deserve a greater reverence than they who proclaimed the gospel, while the echo of inspired tongues yet lingered in the ears of the people.

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. (See Succession.) The line in which the ministry of the Church is handed on from age to age: the corporate lineage of the Christian clergy, just as in the Jewish Church there was a family lineage. The Church of England maintains the apostolical succession in the preface to her Ordination Service. Those are said to be in apostolical succession who have been sent to labour in the Lord’s vineyard, by bishops who were consecrated by those who, in their turn, were consecrated by others, and these by others, until the derived authority is traced to the apostles, and through them to the great Head of the Church. The apostolical succession of the ministry is essential to the right administration of the holy sacraments. The clergy of the Church of England can trace their connexion with the apostles by links, not one of which is wanting, from the times of St. Paul and St. Peter to our own.—See Appendix to Rose’s Commission and consequent Duties of the Clergy: Perceval’s Doctrine of the Apostolical Succession, 2nd edition; Sinclair (Rev. John) on the Episcopal Succession; and Courayer’s Defence of the English Ordinations.

APOSTOLICI, or APOTACTICI. Heretics in Christianity, who sprung from the Encratites and Cathari, and took these names because they pretended to be the only followers of the apostles, and because they made a profession of never marrying, and renounced riches. Epiphanius observes, that these vagabonds, who appeared about the year 260, for the most part made use of the apocryphal Acts of St. Andrew and St. Thomas. There was another sect of this name, about the twelfth century, who were against marriage, and never went without lewd women: they also despised infant baptism, would not allow of purgatory, invocation of saints, and prayers for the dead, and called themselves the true body of the Church, condemning all use of flesh with the Manichæans.—Bingham, Antiq. Chr. Ch.

APOTACTITÆ, or APOTACTICI. (See Apostolici.)

APPARITOR. Apparitors (so called from the principal branch of their office, which consists in summoning persons to appear) are officers appointed to execute the orders and decrees of the ecclesiastical courts. The proper business and employment of an apparitor is to attend in court; to receive such commands as the judge shall please to issue forth; to convene and cite the defendants into court; to admonish or cite the parties to produce witnesses, and the like. Apparitors are recognised by the 138th English Canon, which wholly relates to them.—Jebb.

APPEAL. The provocation of a cause from an inferior to a superior judge. (1 Kings xviii.; Acts xxv.) Appeals are divided into judicial and extra-judicial. Judicial appeals are those made from the actual sentence of a court of judicature. In this case the force of such sentence is suspended until the cause is determined by the superior judge. Extra-judicial appeals are those made from extra-judicial acts, by which a person either is, or is likely to be, wronged. He therefore resorts to the legal protection of a superior judge. By the civil law, appeals ought to be made gradatim; but by the canon law, as it existed before the Reformation, they might be made omisso medio, and immediately to the pope; who was reputed to be the ordinary judge of all Christians in all causes, having a concurrent power with all ordinaries. Appeals to the pope were first sent from England to Rome in the reign of King Stephen, by the pope’s legate, Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester (A. D. 1135–1154). Prior to that period, the pope was not permitted to enjoy any appellate jurisdiction in England. William the Conqueror refused to do him homage. Anglo-Saxon Dooms do not so much as mention the pope’s name: and the laws of Edward the Confessor assert the royal supremacy in the following words:—“Rex autem, qui vicarius Summi Regis est, ad hoc constitutus est, ut regnum et populum Domini, et super omnia sanctam ecclesiam, regat et defendat ab injuriosis; maleficos autem destruat et evellat.” The Penitential of Archbishop Theodore (A. D. 668–690) contains no mention of appeals to Rome; and in the reign of Henry II., at the Council of Clarendon, (A. D. 1164,) it was enacted, “De appellationibus si emerserint ab archidiacono debebit procedi ad episcopum, ab episcopo ad archiepiscopum, et si archiepiscopus defuerit in justitia exhibenda, ad dominum regem perveniendum est postremo, ut præcepto ipsius in curia archiepiscopi controversia terminetur; ita quod non debeat ultra procedi absque assensu domini regis.” Notwithstanding this law, and the statutes made against “provisors” in the reigns of Edward I., Edward III., Richard II., and Henry V., appeals used to be forwarded to Rome until the reign of Henry VIII., when, by the statutes of the 24 Henry VIII. c. 12, and the 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, all appeals to the pope from England were legally abolished. By these statutes, appeals were to be finally determined by the High Court of Delegates, to be appointed by the king in chancery under the great seal. This jurisdiction was, in 1832, by 2 & 3 William IV. c. 92, transferred from the High Court of Delegates to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; whose “report or recommendation,” when sanctioned by the Crown, is a final judgment.

The Crown, however, used to have the power to grant a commission of review after the decision of an appeal by the High Court of Delegates. (26 Henry VIII. c. 1; 1 Eliz. c. 1, Goodman’s case in Dyer’s Reports.) This prerogative Queen Mary exercised by granting a review after a review in Goodman’s case, regarding the deanery of Wells. (See Lord Campbell’s Judgment in the Court of Queen’s Bench in Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter.) It is a remarkable fact that, although the statutes for restraint of appeals had been repealed on Queen Mary’s accession, no appeal in Goodman’s case was permitted to proceed out of England to the pope.

The commissions of review were not granted by Queen Mary under the authority of Protestant enactments, but by virtue of the common law, regarding the regalities of the Crown of England. It does not appear that by the 2 & 3 William IV. c. 92, 3 & 4 William IV. c. 41, 7 & 8 Vict., the prerogative is interfered with; and that the Crown is compelled to adopt the “report or recommendation” of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: on the contrary, the sovereign is quite free to sanction or reject such report, which only becomes valid as a decision on the royal assent being given. The ancient Appellant Court of Delegates still subsists in Ireland.

APPELLANT. Generally, one who appeals from the decision of an inferior court to a superior. Particularly those among the French clergy were called appellants, who appealed from the bull Unigenitus, issued by Pope Clement in 1713, either to the pope better informed, or to a general council. This is one of the many instances in which the boasted unity of the Roman obedience has been signally broken; the whole body of the French clergy, and the several monasteries, being divided into appellants and non-appellants.

APPROPRIATION is the annexing of a benefice to the use of a spiritual corporation. This was frequently done in England after the Norman Conquest. The secular clergy were then Saxons or Englishmen; and most of the nobility, bishops, and abbots being Normans, they had no kind of regard to the secular clergy, but reduced them as low as they could to enrich the monasteries; and this was the reason of so many appropriations. But some persons are of opinion, that it is a question undecided, whether princes or popes first made appropriations: though the oldest of which we have any account were made by princes; as, for instance, by the Saxon kings, to the abbey of Crowland; by William the Conqueror, to Battle Abbey; and by Henry I., to the church of Salisbury. It is true the popes, who were always jealous of their usurped supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs, did in their decretals assume this power to themselves, and granted privileges to several religious orders, to take appropriations from laymen: but in the same grant they were usually required to be answerable to the bishop in spiritualibus, and to the abbot or prior in temporalibus, which was the common form of appropriations till the latter end of the reign of Henry II. For at first those grants were not in proprios usus: it was always necessary to present a clerk to the bishop upon the avoidance of a benefice, who, upon his institution, became vicar, and for that reason an appropriation and a rectory were then inconsistent. But because the formation of an appropriation was a thing merely spiritual, the patron usually petitioned the bishop to appropriate the church; but the king was first to give licence to the monks that, quantum in nobis est, the bishop might do it. The king being supreme ordinary, might of his own authority make an appropriation without the consent of the bishop, though this was seldom done. Appropriations at first were made only to spiritual persons, such as were qualified to perform Divine service; then by degrees they were extended to spiritual corporations, as deans and chapters; and lastly to priories, upon the pretence that they had to support hospitality; and lest preaching should by this means be neglected, an invention was found out to supply that defect by a vicar, as aforesaid; and it was left to the bishop to be a moderator between the monks and the vicar, for his maintenance out of the appropriated tithes; for the bishop could compel the monastery to which the church was appropriated to set out a convenient portion of tithes, and such as he should approve, for the maintenance of the vicar, before he confirmed the appropriation.

It is true the bishops in those days favoured the monks so much, that they connived at their setting out a portion of small tithes for the vicar, and permitted them to reserve the great tithes to themselves. This was a fault intended to be remedied by the statute 15 Rich. II. cap. 6; by which it was enacted, that in every licence made of an appropriation this clause should be contained, viz. that the diocesan should ordain that the vicar shall be well and sufficiently endowed. But this statute was eluded; for the abbots appointed one of their own monks to officiate; and therefore the parliament, in the 4th year of Henry IV. cap. 12, provided that the vicar should be a secular clergyman, canonically instituted and inducted into the church, and sufficiently endowed; and that no regular should be made vicar of a church appropriate. But long before the making of these statutes the kings of England made appropriation of the churches of Feversham and Milton in Kent, and other churches, to the abbey of St. Augustine in Canterbury, by these words: “Concessimus, &c., pro nobis, &c., abbati et conventui, &c., quod ipsi ecclesias predictas appropriare ac eas sic appropriatas in proprios usus tenere possint sibi et successoribus in perpetuum.” The like was done by several of the Norman nobility, who came over with the king, upon whom he bestowed large manors and lands; and out of which they found tithes were then paid, and so had continued to be paid even from the time they were possessed by the Saxons: but they did not regard their law of tithing, and therefore they held it reasonable to appropriate all, or at least some part of, those tithes to those monasteries which they had founded, or to others as they thought fit; and in such cases they reserved a power to provide for him who served the cure; and this was usually paid to stipendiary curates. But sometimes the vicarages were endowed, and the very endowment was expressed in the grant of the appropriation, viz. that the church should be appropriated upon condition that a vicarage should be endowed; and this was left to the care of the bishop. But whenever the vicar had a competent subsistence by endowment, the monks took all opportunities to lessen it; and this occasioned several decretals prohibiting such usage without the bishop’s consent, and that no custom should be pleaded for it, where he that served the cure had not a competent subsistence. And it has been a question whether an appropriation is good when there is no endowment of a vicarage, because the statute of Henry IV. positively provides that vicarages shall be endowed. But it is now settled, that if it is a vicarage in reputation, and vicars have been instituted and inducted to the church, it shall be presumed that the vicarage was originally endowed. Thus much for the tithes: but the abbot and convent had not only the tithes of the appropriate churches, but the right of patronage too; for that was extinct, as to the former patron, by the appropriation, unless he had reserved the presentation to himself; and that made the advowson disappropriate, and the church presentable as before, but not by the old patron, but by the abbot and convent, who were then bound, upon a vacancy, to present a person to the bishop. Sometimes the bishop would refuse the person presented unless they consented to such an allowance for his maintenance as he thought fit, and therefore they would present none. This occasioned the making another decretal, which gave the bishop power to present; but this did not often happen, because the monks were favoured by the bishops; that is, the poorer sort, for the rich would not accept his kindness. They always got their appropriations confirmed by the pope, and their churches exempted from the jurisdiction of the bishop. But now all those exemptions are taken away by the statute 31 Henry VIII. cap. 13, and the ordinary is restored to his ancient right. Before giving an account of that statute, it will not be improper to mention the forms of appropriations both before and since that time. A licence being obtained of the king as supreme ordinary, and the consent from the diocesan, patron, and incumbent, thereupon the bishop made the grant.

By the aforesaid statute, those appropriations which were made formerly by bishops, and enjoyed only by religious houses, are now become the inheritance of laymen; and though the bishop’s power in such cases is not mentioned in the statute, yet the law leaves all matters of right just as they were before; for when those religious houses were surrendered, the king was to have the tithes in the same manner as the abbots had them in right of their monasteries; and there is a saving of the rights and interests of all persons; so that, if before the dissolution the vicar had an antecedent right to a competent maintenance, and the bishop had power to allow it, it is not taken away now.

This is the law of England, and it is founded on good reason: for tithes were originally given for the service of the Church, and not for the private use of monasteries; and it may be a question, whether a monastery was capable of taking an appropriation, because it is not an ecclesiastical body; for by the canons they could not preach, baptize, or visit the sick, and they had no cure of souls. This matter was disputed between St. Bernard, a Cistercian monk, and Peter the Venerable: the first was dissatisfied that monks should take tithe from the secular clergy, which was given to support them in attending the cure of souls; the other answered him, that monks prayed for souls, but tithes were not only given for prayers, but for preaching, and to support hospitality. Upon the whole matter, appropriations may be made by the joint consent of the queen, the ordinary, and the patron who hath the inheritance of the advowson; and he must have the queen’s licence, because she hath an interest in it as supreme ordinary: for it might happen that the presentation may be devolved on her by lapse, and such licence was usually granted when the church was void; but if it is granted when the church is full, it does not make the appropriation void, though such grant should be in general words, because, where it may be taken in two intents, the one good, the other not, it shall be expounded in that sense which may make the grant good. It is true, the best way is to give a licence in particular words, importing that the appropriation shall take effect after the death of the incumbent: however, if it is a license per verba de præsenti, yet it is good for the reason already mentioned. The bishop must likewise concur, for he has an interest in the presentation, which may come to him by lapse before it can be vested in the queen. Besides, an appropriation deprives him of institution, for it not only carries the glebe and tithes, but gives to the corporation a spiritual function, and supplies the institution of the ordinary: for in the very instrument of appropriation it is united and given to the body corporate in proprios usus, that is, that they shall be perpetual parsons there: this must be intended where there are no vicarages endowed, and yet they cannot have the cure of souls because they are a body politic; but the vicar who is endowed and comes in by their appointment, has the cure.

APSE, or APSIS. A semicircular or polygonal termination of the choir, or other portion of a church. The word signifies in Greek a spherical arch. It was called in Latin testudo, or concha, from the same reason that a hemispherical recess in the school-room at Westminster was called the shell. The ancient Basilicas, as may still be seen at Rome, had universally a semicircular apse, round which the superior clergy had their seats; at the upper end was the bishop’s throne; the altar was placed on the chord of the arc; the transept, or gallery, intervened between the apse or the choir. There the inferior clergy, singers, &c., were stationed, and there the lessons were read from the ambos. (See Choir and Chaunt.) This form was generally observed, at least in large churches, for many ages, of which Germany affords frequent specimens. And as Mr. Neale has shown in his very valuable remarks on the Eastern churches, (Hist. of the Holy Greek Church,) the apse is the almost invariable form even in parish churches in the East. Of this arrangement there are traces in England. Then large Saxon churches, as we collect from history, generally had an eastern apse at least, and often several others. In Norman churches of large size, the apse was very frequent, and it was repeated in several parts of the church. These inferior apses represented the oriental exedræ, which usually terminate their sacristies. Norwich and Peterborough cathedrals convey a good impression of the general character of Norman churches in this respect. Traces of the apse are found also at Winchester, Rochester, Ely, Lincoln, Ripon, Gloucester, and Worcester cathedrals, besides St. Alban’s, Tewkesbury, and other conventual churches. So also at Canterbury, where the apse seems to have been disturbed by subsequent arrangements. But it is remarkable that the ancient archiepiscopal chair stood behind the altar in a sort of apse till late in the last century. Traces of the ancient apse at Chester have been discovered of late years. In small churches, as Steetley, Derbyshire, and Birkin, Yorkshire, the eastern apse alone is found, nor is this at all a universal feature. See Mr. Hussey’s Notice of recent discoveries in Chester Cathedral. There are three very interesting English specimens in Herefordshire, viz. as at Kilpech, Moccas, and Peter Church; all small parish churches, and of Norman date; and with regular chancel below the apse. In the early British and Irish churches there is no trace of an apse, even in those which the learned Dr. Petrie, in his essay on round towers, attributes to the 5th and 6th centuries. With the Norman style the apse was almost wholly discontinued, though an early English apse occurs at Tidmarsh, Berkshire, and a decorated apse at Little Maplestead; the latter is, however, altogether an exceptional case. There seems to have been some tendency to reproduce the apse in the fifteenth century, as at Trinity church, Coventry, and Henry VII.’s chapel, Westminster; but the latter examples entirely miss the breadth and grandeur of the Norman apse. Yet the later styles might have had one great advantage in the treatment of this feature in their flying buttresses spanning the outer aisle of the apse, which is often so striking a feature in foreign churches, and to which the perpendicular clerestory to the Norman apse of Norwich makes some approach. Some writers have confounded the apse with the choir or chancel; and think that, according to primitive usage, the holy table ought to stand between the latter and the nave: whereas in fact it always stood above the choir; so that in churches where there is no apse (and none was required when there were no collegiate or capitular clergy) its proper place is close to the eastern wall of the church. See Cathedral.

AQUARII. A sect of heretics who consecrated their pretended eucharist with water only, instead of wine, or wine mingled with water. This they did under the delusion that it was universally unlawful to drink wine; although, as St. Chrysostom says, our blessed Lord instituted the holy eucharist in wine, and himself drank wine at his communion table, and after his resurrection, as if by anticipation to condemn this pernicious heresy. It is lamentable to see so bold an impiety revived in the present day, when certain men, under the cloak of temperance, pretend a eucharist without wine, or any fermented liquor. These heretics are not to be confounded with those against whom St. Cyprian discourses at large in his letter to Cæcilian, who, from fear of being discovered, from the smell of wine, by the heathen in times of persecution, omitted the wine in the eucharist cup. It was indeed very wrong and unworthy of the Christian name, but far less culpable than the pretence of a temperance above that of Christ and the Church, in the Aquarii. Origen engaged in a disputation with them.—Epiph. Hæres. xlvi.; August. de Hæres. c. 46.; Theodoret, de Fab. Hæret. lib. i. cap. 20.; Cyprian, Ep. lxiii. ad Cæcilium.; Conc. Carth. iii. can. xxiv.; Bingham.

ARABICS, or ARABIANS. Heretics who appeared in Arabia in the third century. According to Eusebius and St. Augustine, they taught that the soul died, and was corrupted with the body, and that they were to be raised together at the last day.

ARCADE. In church architecture, a series of arches supported by pillars or shafts, whether belonging to the construction, or used in relieving large surfaces of masonry: the present observations will be confined to the latter, that is, to ornamental arcades.

These were introduced early in the Norman style, and were used very largely to its close, the whole base story of exterior and interior alike, and the upper portions of towers and of high walls being often quite covered with them. They were either of simple or of intersecting arches: it is needless to say that the latter are the most elaborate in work, and the most ornamental; they are accordingly reserved in general for the richer portions of the fabric. There is, moreover, another, and perhaps even more effective, way of complicating the arcade, by placing an arcade within and behind another, so that the wall is doubly recessed, and the play of light and shadow greatly increased. The decorations of the transitional, until very late in the style, are so nearly those of the Norman, that we need not particularize the semi-Norman arcade. In the next style the simple arcade is, of course, most frequent. This, like the Norman, often covers very large surfaces. Foil arches are often introduced at this period, and greatly vary the effect. The reduplication of arcades is now managed differently from the former style. Two arcades, perfect in all their parts, are set the one behind the other, but the shaft of the outer is opposite to the arch of the inner series, the outer series is also more lofty in its proportions, and the two are often of differently constructed arches, as at Lincoln, where the outer series is of trefoil, the inner of simple arches, or vice versâ, the two always being different. The effect of this is extremely beautiful.

Norman Arcade from Canterbury.

But the most exquisite arcades are those of the Geometrical period, where each arch is often surmounted by a crocketted pediment, and the higher efforts of sculpture are tasked for their enrichment, as in the glorious chapter-house of Salisbury, Southwell, and York; these are, however, usually confined to the interior. In the Decorated period partially, and in the Perpendicular entirely, the arcade gave place to panelling, greatly to the loss of effect, for no delicacy or intricacy of pattern can compensate for the bright light and deep shadows of the Norman and Early English arcades.

ARCANI DISCIPLINA. The name given to a part of the discipline of the early Church in withdrawing from public view the sacraments and higher mysteries of our religion: a practice founded on a reverence for the sacred mysteries themselves, and to prevent their being exposed to the ridicule of the heathen. Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria are the first who mention any such custom in the Church. And the Disciplina Arcani gradually fell into disuse after the time of Constantine, when Christianity had nothing to fear from its enemies.—Bingham. Augusti.

ARCH. All architecture may be divided into the architecture of the entablature and of the arch, and as the very terms denote, the arch is the differential of the latter. Romanesque and Gothic fall under this head. Our view of the arch is limited to a description of its several forms; an estimate of its effects on style, and its mechanical construction, being beyond our province.

Semicircular.      Horse-shoe.      Stilted.

The Saxon and the Norman arch were alike semicircular in their normal form, though in Norman buildings we often find a greater arc of a circle, or “horse-shoe” arch, or the semicircle is “stilted:” to one or other of which constructions it was necessary to resort when an arch of higher proportion than a semicircle was required. In the middle of the twelfth century the pointed arch was introduced. It was used for a long time together with the semicircle, and often with an entire absence of all but Norman details; and it is worthy of note that the pointed arch is first used in construction, as in the great pier arches, and evidently, therefore, from an appreciation of its mechanical value, and not till afterwards in lighter portions, as windows and decorative arcades. The pointed arch has three simple forms, the equilateral, the lancet, and the drop arch; the first described from the angles at the base of an equilateral, the second of a triangle whose base is greater, the third of a triangle whose base is less, than the sides. These forms are common to every style, from Early English downwards. In the Perpendicular period a more complex arch was introduced, struck from four centres, all within or below the base of the arch. This modification of the arch is of great importance, as involving differences of construction in the fabric, especially in the vaulting, so that it has a place in the history of Gothic architecture only inferior to the introduction of the pointed arch.

Equilateral.      Lancet.      Drop.

Four-centred.      Foil.      Ogee.

There are, besides, other modifications of the arch, struck from more than two centres, but these are either of less frequent occurrence, or merely decorative. We may mention the foil and the ogee arch; the former struck from four centres, two without and two within the resulting figure, and flowing into one another; the latter from several centres, according to the number of foils, all generally within the resulting figure, and cutting one another. The foil arch precedes in history the foliation or cusping of arches and tracery, which it no doubt suggested; the ogee arch came in with ogee forms of tracery and of cusping, and outlived them.

ARCHBISHOP. An archbishop is the chief of the clergy in a whole province; and has the inspection of the bishops of that province, as well as of the inferior clergy, and may deprive them on notorious causes. The archbishop has also his own diocese wherein he exercises episcopal jurisdiction, as in his province he exercises archiepiscopal. As archbishop, he, upon the receipt of the king’s writ, calls the bishops and clergy within his province to meet in convocation. To him all appeals are made from inferior jurisdictions within his province; and, as an appeal lies from the bishops in person to him in person, so it also lies from the consistory courts of his diocese to his archiepiscopal court. During the vacancy of any see in his province he is guardian of the spiritualities thereof, as the king is of the temporalities; and, during such vacancy, all episcopal rights belong to him. The archbishops in England have from time to time exercised a visitatorial power over their suffragans, in use till the time of Archbishop Laud. The archbishops of Ireland have immemorially visited their suffragans triennially: the Episcopal Visitation being there annual. (See Stephens’ Edition of the Book of Common Prayer, with notes, vol. i. pp. 26–30.)

Some learned men are of opinion, that an archbishop is a dignity as ancient as the apostles’ time, for there were primi episcopi then, though the name of archbishop was not known until some ages afterwards; and that the apostle himself gave the first model of this government in the Church, by vesting Titus with a superintendency over all Crete. Certain it is that there were persons soon after that time, who, under the name of metropolitans, exercised the same spiritual and ecclesiastical functions as an archbishop; as for instance the bishop of Carthage, who certainly assembled and presided in provincial councils, and had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the bishops of Africa; and the bishops of Rome, who had the like primacy in the suburbiconian provinces, viz. middle and southern Italy, with Sicily, and other adjacent islands. Moreover, the Apostolical Canons, which were the rule of the Greek Church in the third century, mention a chief bishop in every province, and most of them about the eighth century assumed the title of archbishops; some of which were so in a more eminent degree, viz. those of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, which were the four principal cities of the empire. To these the archbishop of Jerusalem was added by the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, because that was the capital city of the Holy Land, and these five were called patriarchs.

The archbishop of Canterbury is styled primate of all England and metropolitan, and the archbishop of York primate of England. They have the title of Grace, and Most reverend Father in God by Divine Providence. There are two provinces or archbishoprics in England, Canterbury and York. The archbishop of Canterbury has the precedency of all the other clergy; next to him the archbishop of York. Each archbishop has, within his province, bishops of several dioceses. The archbishop of Canterbury has under him, within his province, Rochester, London, Winchester, Norwich, Lincoln, Ely, Chichester, Salisbury, Exeter, Bath and Wells, Worcester, Lichfield, Hereford, Landaff, St. David’s, Bangor, and St. Asaph; and four founded by King Henry VIII., erected out of the ruins of dissolved monasteries, viz. Gloucester and Bristol, now united into one, Peterborough, and Oxford. The archbishop of York has under him six, viz. the bishop of Chester, erected by Henry VIII., and annexed by him to the archbishopric of York, the bishops of Durham, Carlisle, Ripon, and Manchester, and the Isle of Man, annexed to the province of York by King Henry VIII. The dioceses of Ripon and Manchester have been formed in the province of York within the last few years, by act of parliament. The archbishop of Armagh is styled primate of all Ireland. The archbishop of Dublin, primate of Ireland. Before the late diminution of the Irish episcopate, there were two other archbishops, viz. of Cashel, styled primate of Munster, and Tuam, primate of Connaught. Under Armagh were the bishoprics of *Meath, *Down, *Derry, Dromore, Raphoe, *Kilmore, and Clogher. Under Dublin, Kildare, Ferns, and *Ossory. Under Cashel, *Limerick, *Cork, Cloyne, *Killaloe, and Waterford. Under Tuam, Clonfert, Elphin, and Killala. At present Cashel is a suffragan of Dublin, Tuam of Armagh; and only those suffragan bishoprics marked with an asterisk are retained. The bishops of Calcutta and Sydney, being metropolitans, are archbishops in reality, though not in title.

ARCHDEACON. In the English branch of the united Church, and most European Churches, each diocese is divided into archdeaconries and parishes. Sometimes a diocese has but one archdeaconry; sometimes four or five. But in Ireland there is but one archdeacon to each diocese (several dioceses being often united under one bishop); and archdeaconries, as ecclesiastical divisions, are there unknown. The dioceses of Dublin and Ardfert may be regarded as exceptions, but not with justice: as the archdeaconry of Glendaloch in the former, and of Aghadoe in the latter, belonged originally to separate dioceses, which have been drawn into the adjacent ones: so that the dividing boundaries are now unknown. (Jebb.) Over the diocese the bishop presides; over the archdeaconry one of the clergy is appointed by the bishop to preside, who must be a priest, and he is called an archdeacon; over the parish the rector or vicar presides. An archdeacon was so called anciently, from being the chief of the deacons, a most important office at a very early period in the Christian Church.

The antiquity of this office is held to be so high by many Roman Catholic writers, that they derive its origin from the appointment of the seven deacons, and suppose that St. Stephen was the first archdeacon: but there is no clear authority to warrant this conclusion. Mention is also made of Laurentius, archdeacon of Rome, who suffered A. D. 260; but although he was called archdeacon, (according to Prudentius,) he was no more than the principal man of the seven deacons who stood at the altar. “Hic primus è septem viris qui stant ad aram proximi.” (Prudent. Hymn. de St. Steph.) At Carthage the office appears to have been introduced within the last forty years of the third century, as St. Cyprian does not mention it, whereas in the persecution of Diocletian Cecilian is described as archdeacon, under the bishop Mensurius. St. Jerome says, “that the archdeacon was chosen out of the deacons, and was the principal deacon in every church, just as the archpresbyter was the principal presbyter.”

But even in St. Jerome’s time, the office of archdeacon had certainly grown to great importance. His proper business was, to attend the bishop at the altar; to direct the deacons and other inferior officers in their several duties, for their orderly performance of Divine service; to attend the bishop at ordinations, and to assist him in managing and dispensing the revenues of the Church: but without anything that could be called “jurisdiction,” in the present sense of the word, either in the cathedral or out of it.

After the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 360, when it was ordained that no bishop should be placed in country villages, the archdeacon, being always near the bishop, and the person mainly intrusted by him, grew into great credit and power, and came by degrees, as occasion required, to be employed by him in visiting the clergy of the diocese, and in the despatch of other matters relating to the episcopal care.

He was the bishop’s constant attendant and assistant, and, next to the bishop, the eyes of the whole Church were fixed upon him; it was therefore by no means unusual for him to be chosen the bishop’s successor before the presbyters, and St. Jerome records, “that an archdeacon thought himself injured if he was ordained a presbyter.” (“Certe qui primus fuerit ministrorum, quia per singula concionatur in populos, et a pontificis latere non recedit, injuriam putat si presbyter ordinetur.”—Hieron. Com. in Ezek. c. 48.)

The author of the “Apostolical Constitutions” calls him the Ὁ παρεστὼς τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ; and St. Ambrose informs us, in the account which he gives of Laurentius, archdeacon of Rome, that it belonged to him “to minister the cup to the people when the bishop celebrated the eucharist, and had administered the bread before him.”—Ambros. de Offic. lib. i. c. 41.

At the beginning of the seventh century, he seems to have been fully possessed of the chief care and inspection of the diocese in subordination to the bishop.

But the authority of the archdeacon, in ancient times, was chiefly a power of inquiry and inspection; and the gradual growth of his “jurisdiction,” properly so called, during the middle ages, is a subject of difficult inquiry. Pope Clement V. gives an archdeacon the title of “oculus Episcopi,” saying that “he is in the bishop’s place, to correct and amend all such matters as ought to be corrected and amended by the bishop himself, unless they be of such an arduous nature, as that they cannot be determined without the presence of his superior the bishop.”

Regularly, the archdeacon cannot inflict any punishment, but can only proceed by “precepts” and “admonitions.”

Beyond this, all the rights that any archdeacon enjoys, subsist by grants from the bishop, made either voluntarily, or of necessity, or by composition. (See the case of composition made between the bishop of Lincoln and his archdeacons, in Gibson’s Codex, vol. ii. p. 1548.)

As to the divisions in England of dioceses into archdeaconries, and the assignment of particular divisions to particular archdeaconries, this is supposed to have begun a little after the Norman conquest. We meet with no archdeacons vested with any kind of jurisdiction in the Saxon times. Archbishop Lanfranc was the first who made an archdeacon with power of “jurisdiction,” in his see of Canterbury, and Thomas, the first archbishop of York after the Conquest, was the first in England that divided his diocese into archdeaconries; as did also Remigius, bishop of Lincoln. When the Norman bishops, by reason of their baronies, were tied by the Constitutions of Clarendon to strict attendance upon the kings in their parliaments, they were obliged, for the administration of their dioceses, to grant larger delegations of power to archdeacons, who visited when they did not (de triennio in triennium). Archdeacons, therefore, with us, could not have this power of jurisdiction by common right, or by immemorial custom; the power which the archdeacon has is derived from the bishop, although he himself is an ordinary, and is recognised as such by the books of common law, which adjudge an administration made by him to be good, though it is not expressed by what authority, because, as done by the archdeacon, it is presumed to be done “jure ordinario.”

In the 22nd of Henry I. we have the first account of their being summoned to convocation; and in the 15th of Henry III., and in the 32nd year of the same king, they were summoned by express name.

This being the original of archdeacons, it is impossible for them to prescribe to an independency on the bishop, as it was declared in a court of law they might, and endeavoured to be proved by the gloss on a legatine constitution, where we read that an archdeacon may have a customary jurisdiction distinct from the bishop, and to which he may prescribe. But the meaning of it is, not that there can be an archdeaconry by prescription, and independent of the bishop, but that the archdeacon may prescribe to a particular jurisdiction, exempt from the ordinary; which jurisdiction has customarily been enjoyed by him and his predecessors time out of mind.

The archdeaconries of St. Alban’s, of Richmond, and Cornwall, are cases of this kind; these jurisdictions are founded upon ancient customs, but the archdeacon is still subordinate to the bishop in various ways; he being, in our law, as he is according to the canon law, vicarious episcopi.

According to Lyndwood and other canonists, he can inquire into crimes, but not punish the criminals; he has, in one sense, according to the casuists, a cure of souls, by virtue of his office, though it is in foro exteriori tantum et sine pastorali cura; and has authority to perform ministerial acts, as to suspend, excommunicate, absolve, &c., therefore by the ecclesiastical law he is obliged to residence. And that may be one reason why he may not be chosen to execute any temporal office that may require his attendance at another place; another reason is because he is an ecclesiastical person. But he has no parochial cure, and therefore an archdeaconry is not comprehended under the name of a benefice with cure; for if one who has such benefice accepts an archdeaconry, it is not void by our law, though it is so by the canon law. And yet, though he has not any parochial cure, he is obliged to subscribe the declaration pursuant to the statute, 14 Charles II. It is true, he is not expressly named therein, but all persons in holy orders are enjoined to subscribe by that statute; and because an archdeacon must be in those orders, therefore he must likewise subscribe, &c. And as he has a jurisdiction in certain cases, so, for the better exercising the same, he has power to keep a court, which is called the Court of the Archdeacon, or his commissary, and this he may hold in any place within his archdeaconry. With regard to the Archdeacon’s Court, it was said by the justices of the Common Pleas, 2 & 3 William and Mary, in the case of Woodward and Fox, that though it might be supposed originally that the jurisdiction within the diocese was lodged in the bishop, yet the Archdeacon’s Court had, “time out of mind,” been settled as a distinct court, and that the statute 24th of Henry VIII. chap. xii. takes notice of the Consistory Court, which is the bishop’s, and of the Archdeacon’s Court, from which there lies an appeal to the bishop’s. (See Appeal.) There is an officer belonging to this court, called a registrar, whose office concerns the administration of justice, and therefore the archdeacon cannot by law take any money for granting it; if he does, the office will be forfeited to the queen. Regarding parochial visitations by archdeacons, see “Articles and Directions to the Incumbents and Churchwardens within the Archdeaconry of Surrey,” in Gibson’s Codex, vol. ii. p. 1551–1555; and see post, “Visitation.”

By 1 & 2 Vict. c. cvi. s. 2, an archdeacon may hold, with his archdeaconry, two benefices under certain restrictions; or a benefice and a cathedral preferment.

He is also, whilst engaged in his archidiaconal functions, considered to be resident on his benefice. In cathedrals of the old foundation, the archdeacons of the diocese, how numerous soever, were members of the greater chapter, and had stalls in the choir. This was the universal custom on the continent, and is uniformly the case in Ireland, as it was also in Scotland. In the diocese of Dublin, the archdeacon of Dublin has a stall in both of the cathedrals there, the archdeacon of Glendaloch however only in that of St. Patrick’s.

The archdeacons of Ireland have not for a long time exercised any jurisdiction. It is however evident from old documents that they did exercise it in ancient times. The bishops hold annual visitation.

ARCHES, COURT OF. The Court of Arches is an ancient court of appeal, belonging to the archbishop of Canterbury, whereof the judge is called the Dean of Arches, because he anciently held his court in the church of St. Mary-le-Bow (Sancta Maria de Arcubus); though all the spiritual courts are now holden at Doctors’ Commons.

ARCHIMANDRITE. A name formerly given to the superior of a monastery: it is derived from the word μάνδρα, by which monasteries were sometimes called. The term Archimandrite is still retained in the Greek Church.

ARCHPRIEST, or ARCHIPRESBYTER. An ancient title of distinction, corresponding to our title, rural dean, revived under most unhappy pretensions among the Romanists of England, in the year 1598. These men, finding themselves without bishops, importuned the pope, Clement VII., to supply their need; but instead of sending them, as they desired, a number of bishops, he gave them but one ecclesiastical superior, Robert Blackwell, who after all was merely a priest; an archpriest indeed he was called, but as such having no episcopal power. In the early times this title was given to the chief presbyter in each church, presiding over the church next under the bishop, and taking care of all things relating to the church in the bishop’s absence. In this case however, instead of being placed in a cathedral church, or discharging the office of rural dean, under a bishop or archdeacon, he was appointed to govern all the Romish clergy of England and Scotland, without one or the other. Here then we find Rome, while preserving an old title, inventing an office hitherto unknown to the Christian world. And, when appointed, what could the archpriest do? He could merely be a rural dean on a large scale. He could merely overlook his brother clergy. He could not discharge any functions properly episcopal. He could not ordain priests, confirm children, nor consecrate chapels, should circumstances permit or require. It is plain, then, that the archpriest was a very imperfect and insufficient substitute for a bishop. The archpriest in many foreign churches, in Italy especially, answers to our cathedral dean. In some Italian dioceses, somewhat to our rural dean.—Darwell.

ARCHONTICS. Heretics who appeared in the second century, about A. D. 175, and who were an offshoot of the Valentinians. They held a quantity of idle stories concerning the Divinity and the creation of the world, which they attributed to sundry authors; and hence they were called Archontics, from the Greek word ἀρχων, which means prince or ruler.

ARIANS. (See Councils.) Heretics, so named from Arius, their first founder: they denied the three persons in the Holy Trinity to be of the same essence, and affirmed the Word to be a creature, and that once (although before the beginning of time) he was not. They were condemned by the Council of Nice, in 325.

The doctrine of Arius may be thus stated:—The Son sprang not from the nature of the Father, but was created from nothing: he had, indeed, an existence before the world, even before time, but not from eternity. He is, therefore, in essence different from the Father, and is in the order of creatures, whom he, however, precedes in excellence, as God created all things, even time, by his instrumentality; whence he was called the Son of God, the Logos, or Word of God. As a creature the Son is perfect, and as like to the Father as a creature can be to the Creator. But as he has received all things as a gift, from the favour of the Father,—as there was a period in which he was not,—so there is an infinite distance between him and the nature of the Father; of which nature he cannot even form a perfect idea, but can enjoy only a defective knowledge of the same. His will was originally variable, capable of good and of evil, as is that of all other rational creatures: he is, comparatively at least, free from sin; not by nature, but by his good use of his power of election; the Father, therefore, foreseeing his perseverance in good, imparted to him that dignity and sublimity above all other creatures, which shall continue to be the reward of his virtues. Although he is called God, he is not so in truth, but was deified in that sense in which men, who have attained to a high degree of sanctity, may arrive at a participation of the Divine prerogatives. The idea then of a generation of the Son from the essence of the Father is to be absolutely rejected.

This doctrine, which must have corresponded to the superficial understandings, and to the yet half-pagan ideas, of many who then called themselves Christians, attacked the very soul of the Christian doctrine of the redemption; for, according to this doctrine, it was not God made man, but a changeable creature, who effected the great work of the redemption of fallen man. The devout Christian, to whom faith in the God-man, Christ, the only Divine Mediator, opened the way to an intimate union with God, saw by this doctrine that his Redeemer and Mediator was as infinitely removed from the essence of God as himself; he saw himself driven back to the ancient pagan estrangement from God, and removed to an unattainable distance from him.—See Maimbourg, Hist. of Arians. For an account of the revival of Arianism in the last century, see Van Mildert’s Life of Waterland.

ARK OF THE COVENANT. So the Jews called a small chest or coffer, three feet nine inches in length, two feet three inches in breadth, and two feet three inches in height, (Prideaux, Connect. Part i. Book iii.,) in which were contained “the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod, and the tables of the covenant,” as well the broken ones (according to the Rabbins) as the whole. Heb. ix. 4. Over the ark was the mercy-seat, and it was the covering of it. It was made of solid gold (Exod. xxv. 17–22); and at the two ends of it were two cherubims looking inward toward each other, with expanded wings, which, embracing the whole circumference of the mercy-seat, met on each side in the middle. The whole (according to the Rabbins) was made out of the same mass, without joining any of the parts by solder. Here it was that the Shechinah, or Divine presence, rested, both in the tabernacle and in the temple, and was visibly seen in the appearance of a cloud over it. And from hence the Divine oracles were given out, by an audible voice, as often as God was consulted in the behalf of his people. And hence it is, that God is said, in Scripture, to dwell between the cherubims, on the mercy-seat, because there was the seat or throne of the visible appearance of his glory among them. And for this reason the high priest appeared before this mercy-seat once every year, on the great day of expiation; at which time he was to make his nearest approach to the Divine presence, to mediate, and make atonement for the whole people of Israel.—R. Levi, Ben. Gersom, Solomon, &c. Lev. xvi. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 6; 2 Kings xix. 15; 1 Chron. xiii. 6; Psal. lxxx. 1; Lev. xvi. 14, 15; Heb. ix. 7.

The ark of the covenant was, as it were, the centre of worship to all those of that nation, who served God according to the Levitical law; and not only in the temple, when they came thither to worship, but everywhere else, in their dispersion throughout the whole world, whenever they prayed, they turned their faces towards the place where the ark stood, and directed all their devotions that way. Whence the author of the book of Cosri justly says, that the ark, with the mercy-seat, and cherubims, were the foundation, root, heart, and marrow, of the whole temple, and all the Levitical worship therein performed. And therefore had there been nothing else wanting in the second temple, but the ark only, this alone would have been reason enough for the old men to have wept, when they remembered the first temple, in which it stood; and for the saying of Haggai, that the second temple was as nothing in comparison of the first; so great a share had the ark of the covenant in the glory of Solomon’s temple. However, the defect was supplied as to the outward form: for, in the second temple, there was also an ark, of the same shape and dimensions with the first, and put in the same place: but it wanted the tables of the law, Aaron’s rod, and the pot of manna; nor was there any appearance of the Divine glory over it, nor any oracles delivered from it. The only use that was made of it was, to be a representative of the former on the great day of expiation, and to be a repository of the Holy Scriptures; that is, of the original copy of that collection of them made by Ezra, after the captivity. In imitation of which, the Jews, in all their synagogues, have a like ark, or coffer, in which they keep their Scriptures. 1 Kings viii. 48.—Lightfoot, of the Temple, ch. xv. § 4.

The place of the temple where the ark stood, was the innermost and most sacred part, called the Holy of Holies, and sometimes the most holy place; which was made on purpose for its reception. This place, or room, was of an exact cubic form, being thirty feet square, and thirty feet high. In the centre of it, the ark was placed upon a stone (say the Rabbins) rising three fingers’ breadth above the floor. On the two sides of it stood two cherubims, fifteen feet high, at equal distance between the centre of the ark and each side of the wall; where, having their wings expanded, with two of them they touched the side walls, whilst the other two met and touched each other exactly over the middle of the ark.—Yoma, cap. v. § 2.

The ark, while it was ambulatory, with the tabernacle, was carried on the shoulders of the Levites, by the means of staves, overlaid with gold, and put through golden rings. Exod. xxv. 13, 14; xxvii. 6; Num. iv. 4–6; 1 Chron. xv. 15.

What became of the old ark, on the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, is a dispute among the Rabbins. Had it been carried to Babylon with the other vessels of the temple, it would have been brought back again with them, at the end of the captivity. But that it was not so, is agreed on all hands; whence it is probable it was destroyed with the temple. The Jews contend, that it was hid and preserved by Jeremiah. Some of them will have it, that King Josiah, being foretold by Huldah the prophetess that the temple, soon after his death, would be destroyed, caused the ark to be deposited in a vault, which Solomon, foreseeing this destruction, had built on purpose for the preservation of it.—Buxtorf, de Arca, cap. xxi., xxii.

ARMENIANS. The Christians of Armenia, the first country in which Christianity was recognised as the national religion, in consequence of the preaching of Gregory, called The Illuminator, in the beginning of the fourth century. At a later time the Armenians adopted the Eutychian or Monophysite heresy, asserting that the human nature of Christ is swallowed up of the Divine; or is no more properly human than a drop of vinegar put into the sea can afterwards be reckoned vinegar. They do not deny the real presence in the eucharist, they do not mix water with their wine, nor do they consecrate unleavened bread. They abstain from eating blood and things strangled. They scrupulously observe fasting; and fasts so frequently occur, that their whole religion seems to consist in fasting. They admit infants to the sacrament of the eucharist: they reject purgatory and prayers for the dead: they fast on Christmas day, and they allow marriage in their priests. The Armenians were anciently subject to the patriarchs of Constantinople, but they now have their own patriarchs.

ARMINIANS. A powerful party of Christians, so called from Arminius, professor of divinity at Leyden, who was the first that opposed the then received doctrines in Holland, of an absolute predestination. They took the name of Remonstrants, from a writing called a Remonstrance, which was presented by them to the states of Holland, 1609, wherein they reduced their peculiar doctrines to these five articles:—

1. That God, from all eternity, determined to bestow salvation on those who, as he foresaw, would persevere unto the end in their faith in Jesus Christ; and to inflict everlasting punishment on those who should continue in their unbelief, and resist, to the end of life, his Divine assistance; so that election was conditional; and reprobation, in like manner, the result of foreseen infidelity and persevering wickedness.

2. On the second point, they taught, That Jesus Christ, by his suffering and death, made an atonement for the sins of mankind in general, and of every individual in particular; that, however, none but those who believe in him can be partakers of that Divine benefit.

3. On the third article they held, That true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural faculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free will; since man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is incapable either of thinking or doing any good thing; and that, therefore, it is necessary to his conversion and salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed by the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God, through Jesus Christ.

4. On the fourth they believed, That this Divine grace, or energy of the Holy Ghost, begins, advances, and perfects everything that can be called good in man; and that, consequently, all good works are to be attributed to God alone; that nevertheless, this grace, which is offered to all, does not force men to act against their inclinations, but may be resisted and rendered ineffectual by the perverse will of the impenitent sinner.

5. And on the fifth, That God gives to the truly faithful, who are regenerated by his grace, the means of preserving themselves in this state; and, though the first Arminians entertained some doubt with respect to the closing part of this article, their followers uniformly maintain, That the regenerate may lose true justifying faith, fall from a state of grace, and die in their sins.

The synod of Dort, consisting of Dutch, French, German, and Swiss divines, and held in 1618, condemned their opinions.

ARMS. Armorial bearings, whether borne by individuals or by corporate bodies and corporations sole: among which are reckoned bishops, colleges, and other ecclesiastical persons and bodies. A bishop empales his family coat with the arms of his see, to denote his spiritual marriage with his Church; but the arms of the see occupy the dexter side of the escutcheon, or the side of greater honour. When a bishop is married, he empales the arms of his wife with his own family coat, on a separate escutcheon; and this escutcheon is placed by the sinister side of the shield, empaling his own coat with the arms of the see. Many of the arms of bishoprics contain allusions to the spiritual character of the person who bears them. Thus the archbishops of Canterbury, Armagh, and Dublin, each bear a pall, in right of their sees; as did the archbishop of York till his arms were changed about the beginning of the sixteenth century to two keys crossed saltierwise, and a crown royal in chief. Colleges often assume the family coat of their founder as their arms.

ARTICLES, THE THIRTY-NINE. The Thirty-nine Articles, based on the Forty-two Articles framed by Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Ridley in the reign of Edward VI., were presented by his Grace the archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Parker, to the convocation of the province of Canterbury which was convened with the parliament in January, 1562, and by the convocation they were unanimously approved. In 1566 a bill was brought into parliament to confirm them. The bill passed the Commons, but by the queen’s command was dropped in the Lords. In 1571 the convocation revised the articles of 1562, and made some alterations in them. In the same year an act was passed, “to provide that the ministers of the Church should be of sound religion.” It enacted that all ecclesiastical persons should subscribe to “all the articles of religion which only contained the confession of the true faith and of the sacraments, comprised in a book imprinted, entitled ‘Articles,’ whereupon it was agreed by the archbishops and bishops, and the whole clergy in convocation holden at London, in the year of our Lord God 1562, according to the computation of the Church of England, for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion, put forth by the queen’s authority.” In 1628 an English edition was published by royal authority, to which is prefixed the declaration of Charles I. The English Articles were adopted by the Irish convocation in 1615.

Some have thought that they are only articles of union and peace; that they are a standard of doctrine, not to be contradicted or disputed; that the sons of the Church are only bound to acquiesce silently in them; and that the subscription binds only to a general compromise upon those articles, that so there may be no disputing or wrangling about them. By this means they reckon, that though a man should differ in his opinion from that which appears to be the clear sense of any of the articles; yet he may with a good conscience subscribe them, if the article appears to him to be of such a nature, that though he thinks it wrong, yet it seems not to be of that consequence, but that it may be borne with and not contradicted.

Now as to the laity, and the whole body of the people, certainly to them these are only the articles of Church communion: so that every person, who does not think that there is some proposition in them that is erroneous to so high a degree that he cannot hold communion with such as hold it, may, and is obliged to, continue in our communion; for certainly there may be many opinions held in matters of religion, which a man may believe to be false, and yet may esteem them to be of so little importance to the chief design of religion, that he may well hold communion with those whom he thinks to be so mistaken.

But what the clergy are bound to by their subscriptions is much more than this. The meaning of every subscription is to be taken from the design of the imposer, and from the words of the subscription itself. The title of the Articles bears, that they were agreed upon in convocation, “for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion.” Where it is evident that “a consent in opinion” is designed. If we in the next place consider the declarations that the Church has made in the canons, we shall find, that though by the fifth canon, which relates to the whole body of people, such only are declared to be excommunicated ipso facto, who shall affirm any of the articles to be erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe to; yet the thirty-sixth canon is express for the clergy, requiring them to subscribe “willingly and ex animo,” and “acknowledge all and every article to be agreeable to the word of God:” upon which canon it is, that the form of the subscription runs in these words, which seem expressly to declare a man’s own opinion, and not a bare assent to an article of peace, or an engagement to silence and submission. The statute of the 13th of Queen Elizabeth, chap. 12, which gives the legal authority to our requiring subscriptions, in order to a man’s being capable of a benefice, requires that every clergyman should read the Articles in the Church, with a declaration of his unfeigned assent to them. These things make it appear very plain, that the subscriptions of the clergy must be considered as a declaration of their own opinion, and not as a bare obligation to silence.—Bishop Burnet.

We learn from the New Testament, that those who first embraced the gospel declared their faith in Jesus, as the promised Messiah, in simple and general terms (Acts viii. 37); and there is no ground for supposing that the apostles required this declaration to be made in any one particular form of words. No such formulary is transmitted to us; and, had any ever existed, it would probably have been cited or alluded to in the New Testament, or in the early apologies for Christianity. Every bishop was authorized to prescribe a formulary for the use of his own church; and there are still extant in writers who lived near to the apostolic age, several abstracts of Christian faith, which, though they agree in substance, vary in expression. But, when heresies gained ground, and destroyed uniformity of belief among Christians, it became necessary to have a public standard of faith; and to this cause we are to attribute the origin of creeds. The design of these creeds was to establish the genuine doctrines of the gospel, in opposition to the errors which then prevailed; and to exclude from communion with the orthodox Church of Christ all who held heretical opinions. New dissensions and controversies continually arose; and we have to lament that, in process of time, “the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints,” became corrupted in the highest degree; and that those very councils, which were convened according to the practice of the apostolic age, for the purpose of declaring “the truth as it is in Jesus,” gave their sanction and authority to the grossest absurdities and most palpable errors. These corruptions, supported by secular power, and favoured by the darkness and ignorance of the times, were almost universally received through a succession of many ages, till at last the glorious light of the Reformation dispelled the clouds which had so long obscured the Christian world.

At that interesting period the several Churches, which had separated themselves from the Roman communion, found it expedient to publish confessions of their faith; and, in conformity to this practice, Edward the Sixth, the first Protestant king of England, caused to be published by his royal authority forty-two “Articles, agreed upon by the bishops and other learned and good men, in the convocation held at London in the year 1552, to root out the discord of opinions, and establish the agreement of true religion.” These Articles were repealed by Queen Mary, soon after her accession to the throne. But Queen Elizabeth, in the beginning of her reign, gave her royal assent to thirty-nine [or rather thirty-eight] “Articles, agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces, and the whole clergy, in the convocation holden at London in the year 1562, for avoiding diversities of opinion, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion.” These Articles were revised, and some small alterations made in them, in the year 1571; since which time they have continued to be the criterion of the faith of the members of the Church of England on the subjects to which they relate. The Articles of 1562 were drawn up in Latin only [in reality the Articles both of 1552 and of 1562 were set forth in our authorized English version, as well as in Latin]; but, in 1571, they were subscribed by the members of the two houses of convocation, both in Latin and English; and, therefore, the Latin and English copies are to be considered as equally authentic. The original manuscripts, subscribed by the Houses of Convocation, were burnt in the Fire of London; but Dr. Bennet has collated the oldest copies now extant, and it appears that there are no variations of any importance.

It is generally believed that Cranmer and Ridley were chiefly concerned in framing the forty-two Articles, upon which our thirty-nine are founded. But Bishop Burnet says, that “questions relating to them were given about to many bishops and divines, who gave in their several answers, which were collated and examined very maturely; all sides had a free and fair hearing before conclusions were made.” Indeed, caution and moderation are no less conspicuous in them than a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures, and of the early opinions and practice of Christians.

These Thirty-nine Articles are arranged with great judgment and perspicuity, and may be considered under four general divisions: the first five contain the Christian doctrines concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; in the sixth, seventh, and eighth, the rule of faith is established; the ten next relate to Christians, as individuals; and the remaining twenty-one relate to them, as they are members of a religious society. But, as all confessions of faith have had a reference to existing heresies, we shall here find, not only the positive doctrines of the gospel asserted; but also the principal errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, and most of the extravagances into which certain Protestant sects fell at the time of the Reformation, rejected and condemned.—Bp. Tomline.

The various forms through which the Articles have passed, may be seen in Cardwell’s Synodalia, and in Hardwick’s History of the Articles. In 1615, a set of Articles of a Calvinistic nature were compiled by the Irish convocation; but it does not appear that they ever received the sanction of parliament. These, however, were superseded in 1635 by the English Articles, which were then adopted by the Irish Convocation. (See Introduction to Stephens’ Book of Common Prayer, from the Dublin MS., vol. i., xxxvii.–xxxix.) The old Articles are given at length. In general, these perfectly agree with the English Articles; but the doctrines of the Lambeth Articles are introduced.

ARTS. One of the faculties in which degrees are conferred in the universities. In the English and Irish universities there are two degrees in arts, that of Bachelor and that of Master. The whole circle of the arts was formerly reduced to seven sciences, grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy; and these again were divided into the trivium, including the first three, and the quadrivium, including the remaining four. Music is now considered as a separate faculty at Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin; as the degrees of Doctor and Bachelor of Music are given. Grammar was a separate but subordinate faculty at Oxford and Cambridge, in which there were three degrees, Doctor, Master, and Bachelor. There is an instance in Wood’s Athenæ Oxon., of a Doctor in Grammar and Rhetoric (Robt. Whityndon, 1513). The last record of grammatical degrees at Oxford is in 1568; at Cambridge in 1539. The faculty of arts is called that of philosophy in some foreign and more modern universities, there the degrees are Doctor and Candidate.

ASAPH, Psalms of. One of the three Temple Choirs bore the designation of the Sons of Asaph: from Asaph, their leader, in the time of David. They were descendants of Gershom, the eldest son of Levi. Twelve Psalms are entitled Psalms of Asaph: viz. the 50th, 73rd, 74th, 75th, 76th, 77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 81st, 82nd, and 83rd. Critics are divided in opinion, as to whether these were composed or adopted by the above-named Asaph, or by one of the same name, but of later date, or were appropriated to the peculiar use of the Sons of Asaph, in the courses of attendance at the temple.

ASCENSION DAY. This holy day has been kept in the Christian Church from the earliest times. It is reckoned by the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions among the other great festivals, Christmas day, the Epiphany, Easter, and Whitsunday; and St. Augustine speaks of it as either instituted by the apostles, or by some early and numerously attended councils of the primitive bishops, whose authority he considered most beneficial in the Church. “On this day,” says St. Chrysostom, “the reconciliation between God and mankind was completed, the long enmity was dissolved, the blasting war brought to an end.” “On this day, we, who had been shown to be unworthy of earth, were raised to the hope of heaven; we, who were not fit to receive dominion even on earth below, were exalted to the kingdom which is above; and our nature, kept out by cherubim from an earthly paradise, may now sit above the cherubim on high.” Christ, the first-fruits of our nature, having obtained this perfection, we that are his members may hope to partake the same glory. This hope the returning day of his ascension should ever bring into our minds, and we should keep it for the sustaining of our hope, and in thankfulness for the grace it brought. It is one of the days which the Church especially recommends for the receiving of the holy communion. (See the Special Preface in the Communion Office.) It is difficult to account for the too prevalent neglect of this high festival of our Church, on any other ground than the encroachment of worldly principles upon the minds of men, to the displacing of the principles of the Church. Ascension day is one of the six holy days for which special psalms are appointed. The three Rogation days are appointed to prepare us for its right celebration, and yet, because it is not marked by worldly festivities, many neglect and pass it by. It is observed as a scarlet day at Oxford and Cambridge. It is popularly called Holy Thursday. By 27 Henry VI. cap. 5, the holding of fairs or markets was prohibited on Ascension day, as well as on other high holidays, and on Sundays, &c.; making an exception however of the four Sundays in harvest: and it was enacted that the fair should be held on some other day preceding or following. That part of the act which related to Sundays in harvest was repealed by 13 and 14 Vict. cap. 23. The rest of the act remains unrepealed.

ASCETICS. Men in the second century, who made profession of uncommon degrees of sanctity and virtue, and declared their resolution of obeying all the counsels of Christ, in order to their enjoying communion with God here; and also, in expectation that, after the dissolution of their mortal bodies, they might ascend to him with the greater facility, and find nothing to retard their approach to the supreme centre of happiness and perfection. They looked upon themselves as prohibited the use of things which it was lawful for other Christians to enjoy, such as wine, flesh, matrimony, and commerce. They thought it their indispensable duty to attenuate the body by watchings, abstinence, labour, and hunger. They looked for felicity in solitary retreats, in desert places, where, by severe and assiduous efforts of sublime meditation, they thought to raise their souls above all external objects and all sensual pleasures. Both men and women imposed upon themselves the most severe tasks, the most austere discipline; all which, however it might be the fruit of pious intention, was in the issue extremely detrimental to Christianity, and tended to introduce the doctrine of justification by inherent righteousness. These persons were called ascetics (from ἀσκησις, exercise or discipline) and philosophers; nor were they only distinguished by their title from other Christians, but also by their garb. In the second century, indeed, such as embraced this austere kind of life submitted themselves to all these mortifications in private, without breaking asunder their social bonds, or withdrawing themselves from the concourse of men. But in process of time, they retired into deserts; and, after the example of the Essenes and Therapeutæ, they formed themselves into certain companies.—See Origen, contr. Cels. lib. v.; Can. Apostol. cap. 51; Cyril, Catech. 10, n. 9; Bingham, Antiq. Chr. Ch.

ASCETICISM. The practice of the Ascetics. We do not consider neglect of the body—meaning by the term our present material organization—a rule of Christianity. The abnegation of sin is, of course, the root of all religion, and the body of sin is a scriptural phrase for our nature in its unredeemed and antagonistic state; but it ceases to be a body of sin, in this sense, when it becomes a member of Christ: it becomes in baptism a temple of the Holy Ghost. But how are we to judge that the spirit within is indeed regenerated? Principally by the works of the body. The existence of good works manifests the operation of the spirit of good, and the Christian character therefore takes for its physical development—labour, activity, perseverance, energy, fortitude, courage; to all of which qualities self-denial is the preliminary. Christianity, therefore, does not eradicate the powers of the body any more than it does the feelings of the heart, or the faculties of the mind; it eradicates their misdevotion. What it aims at effecting is, to assign to each in its sanctified character its proper place and province. It defines legitimate objects for the passions, legitimate ambitions for the mind, legitimate aspirations for the soul. Simply, Christianity is human nature in rectitude, not lethargy, of action. Nature in every instance tells us that we possess such and such powers; the gospel directs their application, and reveals the important results dependent on their use or abuse. The right discipline, therefore, not the destruction, of human capabilities, is inculcated by the Scriptures. God has for the wisest reasons placed the extirpation of these internal organs of action beyond our power, but within our power the regulating them for good or evil, happiness or misery. The choice is ours; the consequences attendant on the choice are not ours: these have been fixed from, and will extend into, eternity.—Morgan.

ASCODRUTES, or ASCODROUTES. An heretical sect of the Marcosians. They rejected the sacraments, alleging that things spiritual cannot be conveyed in corporeal symbols.—Bingham, Antiq. Chr. Ch.

ASHES. Several religious ceremonies depend upon the use of ashes. St. Jerome relates, that the Jews, in his time, rolled themselves in ashes, as a sign of mourning. To repent in sackcloth and ashes is a frequent expression in Scripture, for mourning and being afflicted for our sins. Numb. xix. 17. There was a sort of lustral water, made with the ashes of an heifer, sacrificed on the great day of atonement, the ashes whereof were distributed among the people. In the Romish Church, ashes are given among the people on Ash-Wednesday: they must be made from branches of olive, or some other trees, that have been blessed the foregoing year. (Pescara Cerem. Eccles. Rom.) The sacristan, or vestry-keeper, prepares these ashes, and lays them in a small vessel on the altar: after which the officiating priest blesses the ashes, which are strewed by the deacons, and assistants, on the heads of all that are present, accompanied with these words, Memento, homo, quod pulvis es, &c.; Remember, man, that thou art dust, &c.—Religious Ceremonies of all Nations, vol. iii. (See Ash-Wednesday.)

ASH-WEDNESDAY. (See Lent and Commination.) This day seems to have been observed as the first day of Lent in the time of Gregory the Great. It is supposed by some, that Gregory added three days at the beginning of Lent, to make the number forty, in more exact imitation of the number of days in our blessed Saviour’s fast; and that before his time there were only thirty-six days, the Sundays being always kept as festivals. It was called, in his time, Dies cinerum, the day of sprinkling ashes, or Caput jejunii, the beginning of the fast. The custom of open penance, which the name of the day reminds us of, is one of those things which the Church of England, at the time of the Reformation, wished to see restored; but on account of the prejudices of the time, she could not carry out her wishes. (See the Commination Service in the Prayer Book.)

ASPERGILLUM. An instrument resembling a brush, used in the Roman Catholic Church for the purpose of sprinkling holy water over objects to be blessed.

ASPERSION. (See Affusion.) The sprinkling with water in the sacrament of baptism. This our rubric permits.

Then the priest shall take the child into his hands, and say to the godfathers and godmothers,

Name this child.

And then naming it after them (if they shall certify him that the child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily, saying,

N. I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

But if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it, saying the aforesaid words.

N. I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

It is said by the Anabaptists that there is no authority in Scripture for thus administering the sacrament of baptism. But we find in the primitive Church, that although baptism was regularly administered by immersion, yet in cases of sickness, where clinic baptism was administered, aspersion was used. We conclude, then, that immersion is not essential to the sacrament; and if sickness were an excuse for not immersing under certain circumstances, it is still a sufficient excuse, if in our cold climate to immerse our children would be attended with danger.—See Bingham’s Origines Ecclesiasticæ.

ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES. The title given to a notable assembly held at Westminster, 1st July, 1643, convoked by an ordinance of the Lords and Commons, but forbidden to be held by the king, to take the liturgy, government, and doctrines of the Church under consideration. The members were elected by the knights and burgesses, two being returned for each county. According to Clarendon, they were most of them men of mean learning, and some of them of scandalous morals. Among the exceptions to this condemnatory sentence were Lightfoot and Selden. Usher was nominated, but with the few Episcopalians elected did not serve. The Scottish covenant was taken by this assembly: the confession of faith still received in the Scottish Presbyterian establishment, and the larger and shorter catechisms, were drawn up. But the opinions of the members differed so widely on many points, that the assembly broke up without accomplishing the principal end for which it was convened. (See Confessions of Faith.)

ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. A festival of the Romish Church, instituted in the seventh century, and fixed to the 15th of August, in honour of the imaginary ascension of the Virgin Mary into heaven, which, without any authority from Scripture or tradition, some sects in that corrupt Church teach to have occurred in a miraculous manner, some years after her death. Such is the corrupt practice of the Romanists, that in many places higher honour is paid to this legendary festival than even to the anniversary of the crucifixion of our Lord. (See Virgin Mary.)

ASYLUM. A place of refuge. This began to be a privilege of churches in the time of Constantine. No persons could be arrested in churches. In the middle ages this was a great advantage, to prevent the excesses of private revenge. In times of great civilization it became an abuse, and the privilege was taken away. (See Sanctuary.)

ATHANASIAN CREED. The learned, at this day, however they may differ in their opinions about the age, or author, make no question but that the composition was originally in Latin. The style and phraseology—its early acceptance with the Latins, while unknown to the Greeks—the antiquity and number of the Latin MSS., and their general agreement with each other, compared with the lateness, the scarceness, and the disagreement of the Greek copies—all seem to demonstrate this.

As to the antiquity of the Athanasian Creed, it was certainly become so famous in the sixth century as to be commented upon, together with the Lord’s Prayer and Apostles’ Creed, about the year 570, by Venantius Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers, in France. This is certain evidence for the time specified, and presumptive for much greater antiquity. For who can imagine that it should grow into such repute of a sudden?

From the doctrines contained in the Creed, and from its manner of expressing them, it is probable that it is earlier than the times of Nestorius, or the Ephesine council, in 431; the Creed not condemning the heresy of the Nestorians in such full, direct, critical terms as the Catholics found to be necessary against the wiles and subtleties of those men.

From the doctrine of the incarnation, as expressed therein, we may be confident that it is not earlier than the rise of the Apollinarian heresy, which appeared at first about the year 360, and grew to a head about 370, or a little later. And this consideration is against the opinion that Athanasius made it, either during his banishment at Treves, which ended in the year 338, or during his stay at Rome, in the year 343; or that he presented it to either Pope Julius, or Liberius, who were both dead before the year 367. And Dr. Waterland, whose researches were so extensive, infers that the Athanasian Creed is not earlier than the year 420.

It is observable that, about the year 426, St. Augustine, then bishop of Hippo, in Africa, held a close and intimate correspondence with the Gallican Churches. For one Leporius, a presbyter, having spread false doctrine in Gaul, chiefly relating to the incarnation, and being censured for it, fled to Africa, and was there brought to a sense of his errors by St. Augustine and some other African bishops. The lives and characters suiting extremely well with place, time, occasion, and other circumstances, all these concur to persuade that the Creed was composed in Gaul, between the years 426 and 430. And as Honoratus of Marseilles tells us that Hilary, archbishop of Arles, from 429, composed an admirable “Exposition of the Creed,” and as among the ancient titles given to this Creed are, “An Exposition of the Catholic Faith,” or, yet nearer, “An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed,” Hilary was probably the author of this work: or else his Creed is lost.

As to the name of Athanasius, now generally prefixed to it, it may be remarked, that upon the revival of the Arian controversy in Gaul, under the influence of the Burgundian kings, it was natural to call one side Athanasians, and the other side Arians; and so also to name the orthodox faith the Athanasian faith, as the other, the Arian. This Creed, therefore, being an excellent summary of the Catholic faith, as maintained by Athanasius, might in process of time acquire the name of the Athanasian faith, and so in a little while occasion the mistake of ascribing it to him as his composition.

His name, together with the intrinsic worth and value of the form itself, gave it credit enough to be received in France as an orthodox formulary, or system of belief, about the middle of the sixth century, and into the public offices of the Gallican Church about the year 670. In Spain it was known and approved as a rule of faith about the year 633, and was soon after taken into the offices of the Church in that kingdom. In Germany it was received at lowest about 787. As to our own country, we have proof of the Creed’s being sung alternately in our churches in the tenth century, when Abbo of Fleury, an ear-witness of it, was here; and when the Saxon versions, still extant, were of standing use, for the instruction and benefit both of clergy and people. These evidences alone will prove the reception of this Creed in England to have been as early as 950, or 930, or the time of Athelstan, whose Latin Psalter has the Creed in it. But other circumstances make it probable it was used as early as 880. About fourscore years after this, it was received in Italy. And in Rome itself (which was always more desirous of imposing her own offices upon other churches, than of receiving any from them) it was received in the tenth century, and probably about the year 930. From which time forwards this Creed has been publicly recited in the Church offices all over the West; and it seems in some parts of the Greek Church also.—Waterland’s Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, &c.

Its reception has been both general and ancient. It has been received by Greeks and Latins all over Europe; and if it has been little known among the African and Asian Churches, the like may be said of the Apostles’ Creed, which has not been admitted, scarce known, in Africa, and but little in Asia, except among the Armenians, who are said to receive it. So that, for generality of reception, the Athanasian Creed may vie with any, except the Nicene, or Constantinopolitan, the only general Creed common to all the Churches.

As to the antiquity of its reception into the sacred offices, it was received in several countries, France, Germany, England, Italy, and Rome itself, as soon as the Nicene, or sooner; which is a high commendation of it, as gaining ground by its own intrinsic worth, and without the authority of any general council to enforce it. And there is this further to be observed, that while the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds were growing up to their present perfection, in a course of years, or centuries of years, and not completed till about the year 600, this Creed was made and perfected at once, and is more ancient, if considered as an entire form, than either of the others, having received its full perfection while the others wanted theirs.—Waterland.

In the Greek and Roman Churches it survived in the midst of all the corruptions that arose: upon the Reformation there was not a Protestant Church but what received it in its fullest extent: Luther, Calvin, Beza, and all the wisest and best reformers, acknowledged the Athanasian Creed, and made it their profession of faith: the Puritans, in our own country, the parent stock of all our modern dissenters, embraced it as readily as the Church of England herself.—Dean Vincent.

This admirable summary of the Christian faith, as to the great doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation, has met with the esteem it deserves among all that have at heart the welfare of Christianity. The faith into which Christians are baptized is this,—there is but one God, yet there are three persons,—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are equally Divine, and must be together the one God, since God is but one. This is the faith which has been received in the Christian Churches from the beginning; and this faith, I doubt not, will continue universally to prevail, till all the chosen people are gathered in, and united in one general assembly and church, in the pure realms of blessedness above. In that happy country, the noise of controversies will cease. All who are brought to stand in the presence of God, dressed in the unblemished robes of innocence and immortality, will know, that all the three Divine persons were concerned in bringing them thither; and as they owe their happiness to the sacred three, they will join in directing the same songs of praise to God, the Father of mercies, who chose them to himself before the foundation of the world; to God the Son, who redeemed them from wrath, by shedding his own precious blood; and to God the Holy Spirit, who renewed and sanctified them, and conducted them safe through the wilderness of this world, into the land of uprightness, the country of rest and pure delight.—Taylor on the Trinity.

On the clauses called damnatory, we may offer the following observations from several of our standard writers. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark xvi. 16.) These are the words of him who is ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dead; of him who himself shall pronounce the final doom of all men; spoken by him at the time when he was taking his solemn leave of his apostles, giving them his last and final charge, and in which the fate of all the world is determined. The meek and humble Jesus makes use of very sharp expressions, when he warns his disciples against those who should oppose or dispute those truths: “Beware (saith he) of false prophets;” beware of false teachers, such as corrupt sound doctrine in the essential and fundamental articles of faith.—Wheatly.

Many unbelievers, and some Christians, suppose opinions to be involuntary, and therefore harmless. But let them consider how far this will carry them. Nothing is more expressly revealed in Holy Scripture, than that he who does not believe the Christian religion shall be condemned. If it be said, that unbelief may arise from a disorder or from a defect in the understanding, every such case is, by implication, excepted. This sentence is deemed by us declaratory of the general will of God, and does not imply an absolute exclusion of every culpable individual from his mercy.—Croft.

The denial of our Lord’s Divinity, as it stands condemned by the laws both of our Church and State, so it has, from the very beginning, been esteemed a “damnable heresy;” and all impugners of it have been always excluded from the communion of the Church. Primitive writers call it an “abominable heresy,” “a God-denying apostasy,” and, in those ages, those who broached such doctrines were constantly deposed and excommunicated.—Randolph on the Trinity.

One sometimes finds in persons a wonderful inattention and a strange indifference with regard to the first and most fundamental doctrines of their religion. It might possibly be with some view to this kind of conduct, that the compiler of the Creed inserted what are called the damnatory clauses. He was desirous to excite their attention, and to rouse them from this unmeaning slumber; to convince them that something is to be believed, as well as practised; and that in matters of this importance men should not trifle with God and their own consciences, and halt between two opinions.—Horbery.

These clauses have occasioned much needless uneasiness. When such men, I say not as Chillingworth, for we have judged him weak in religious reasoning, but as Clarke, Tillotson, Secker, could be uneasy under them, I can ascribe it to nothing but the influence of religious terror; a sentiment which operates in all possible degrees; which makes us scruple to admit in religion what would occasion no difficulty in common affairs, lest our acquiescence should be owing to some corrupt or indirect motive. Scruples of this kind are owing to not freely admitting those limitations which common sense suggests in the application of every general proposition. Heresies are very numerous; defiling the purity of the faith, making men act on wrong principles, affording handles to infidelity, and dividing Christians amongst themselves, so as to defeat the ends of religious society, and probably lose some degree of future happiness; it seems needful, therefore, to draw the erroneous notions, which are so pernicious, into a small compass, and solemnly reject them; that the unwary may be cautioned, and the bold and busy innovator discouraged. And lest the unstable, who are tossed about with every wind of doctrine, should continue to indulge their childish fondness for novelty, and live on without any regular and permanent principles, it seems also needful to remind them of the last solemn declaration of our blessed Lord, not surely with a view to bias the judgment, but only to enforce the duty of a sober and serious attention to sacred truth, uninfluenced by passion or caprice.—Hey’s Lectures.

These clauses were inserted in this Creed, and in most of the ancient Creeds, the Arian as well as others, by no means to intimate the condemnation, for want of faith, of such as had no opportunity of receiving the Christian religion; but of such only as, having it duly preached to them, should receive it in an evil heart of unbelief, and, holding it in unrighteousness, should mutilate or corrupt its essentials. There is, surely, a wide difference between condemning with severity, and believing with sorrow and compassion that another is condemned. A man who pronounces this sentence, because he sees it pronounced in the word of God, might die for the conversion and retrieval of those on whom he is forced, by the conviction of his faith, to pronounce it.—Skelton.

Damnatory clauses, or anathemas, as they are angrily called, deriving their authority from Scripture, should be considered as awful admonitions, which it hath seemed good to Divine wisdom to announce generally, in order to condemn an indifference of mind in matters of religious principle; to correct a fond admiration of change or novelty; and to intimidate, under the severest penalties of God’s displeasure, the vain or interested from broaching their wild and pernicious heresies.—Bishop Cleaver.

Many have argued against the use of this Creed; and some, with strange vehemence, partly from the doctrines which it teaches, but chiefly from the condemnation which it pronounces on all who disbelieve them. Now the doctrines are undeniably the same with those that are contained in the Articles of our Church, in the beginning of our litany, in the conclusions of many of our collects, in the Nicene Creed, and, as we conceive, in that of the Apostles; in the doxology, in the form of baptism, and in numerous passages of both Testaments; only here they are somewhat more distinctly set forth, to prevent equivocation.—Archbishop Secker.

Whenever we go contrary to a stream, which has run in one channel for seventeen centuries, we ought to doubt our own opinions, and at least treat the general and concurring testimony of mankind with respect. If any one has his doubts on the intricacies of this question, let him first search the Scripture, and settle his principles from thence; if he afterwards wishes to pursue his researches, let him not recur to the crude and hasty publications of the present day, in which assertions are rashly made, without foundation in Scripture, antiquity, or the principles of any Church, but to those learned writers who managed this controversy fifty years ago in our own country; or, if he has learning and leisure sufficient, to the primitive fathers themselves.—Dean Vincent.

Whoever wrote this Creed, he meant nothing more than to collect things said in various Catholic writers, against the various heresies subsisting, and to simplify and arrange the expressions, so as to form a confession of faith the most concise, orderly, and comprehensive, possible. Not with any view of explaining any mysterious truths, but with the sole design of rejecting hurtful or heretical errors. And it may have been adopted on account of its excellence, in bringing the errors which were to be shunned into a small compass, in exposing them in a kind of poetic numbers, which strike and possess the ear; and may have been called “Athanasian,” only on account of its containing doctrines which have been defended with peculiar force and brilliancy by the great prelate of Alexandria.—Hey’s Lectures.

The Athanasian Creed only tells us what we must believe, if we believe a Trinity in unity, three persons and one God: and I challenge any man, who sincerely professes this faith, to tell me, what he can leave out of this exposition, without destroying the Divinity of some of the three persons, or the unity of the Godhead. If each person must be God and Lord, must not each person be uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal, almighty? If there be but one God, and one Lord, can there be three separated, uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal, almighty Gods; which must of necessity be three Gods, and three Lords! This Creed does not pretend to explain how there are three persons, each of which is God, and yet but one God, but only asserts the thing, that thus it is, and thus it must be, if we believe a Trinity in unity; which should make all men, who would be thought neither Arians nor Socinians, more cautious how they express the least dislike of it.—Sherlock on the Trinity.

Every Divine perfection and substantial attribute of Deity is common to the three: what is peculiar applies only to their relations, order, or office; paternity, filiation, procession—first, second, third persons—creation, redemption, sanctification. The Athanasian Creed is altogether illustrative of this economy; and if it be carefully considered under this point of view, I am persuaded it will appear to be exceedingly reasonable and judicious. There is something in the mere sound of the clauses which I doubt not beguiles it of its just praise. Some have forgotten, perhaps, and some have never known, its proper history. The numerous sects whose different apprehensions of the precise nature of the holy Trinity led men in those distant days into one, at least, of the two great errors, either that of “confounding the persons” or “dividing the substance,” are now perhaps no more. They may indeed subsist under other names; but men have long since ceased to talk of the Sabellians, Noëtians, Patripassians, Praxeans, Eunomians, Apollinarians, Photinians, Cerinthians, and even Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians; for these latter are the sects chiefly opposed in the Athanasian Creed. But there is not one clause of this ancient formulary that is not directed, in the simplest manner possible, against the different errors of all these several sects; their wild and discordant notions are all met by the constant reiteration of that one great truth, that though the Christian verity compels us to acknowledge every person of the holy Trinity to be God and Lord, yet the Catholic religion equally forbids us to say there be three Gods, or three Lords; though, therefore, each is uncreate, each eternal, each almighty, each God, and each Lord, yet these attributes, as the exclusive attributes of Deity, are common to the three; the omnipotence, the eternity, the Divinity, the power and dominion, the glory and majesty, is one; “such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.”—Nares on the Creeds.

Whilst the Apostles’ Creed compendiously sums up and declares the main articles of our Christian faith, and the Nicene Creed explains more fully the articles relating to the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Athanasian Creed stands as an excellent guard and defence against the subtleties of most kinds of heretics, who, were it once removed, would soon find means to enervate and evade the shorter Creeds, where the Christian faith is more simply declared.—Wheatly.

The intention of the Creed, as well as of our Lord in the Gospel, is only to say, that whoever rejects the doctrine of it, from presumptuous self-opinion, or wilful negligence, the case of such an one is desperate. But though we pass judgment on his errors without reserve, and, in general, on all who maintain them, yet personally and singly we presume not to judge of his condition in the next world.—Archbishop Secker.

The use of it is, to be a standing fence and preservative against the wiles and equivocations of most kinds of heretics. This was well understood by Luther when he called it “a bulwark to the Apostles’ Creed;” much to the same purpose with what is cited of Ludolphus Saxo (“tria sunt symbola; primum Apostolicum, secundum Nicenum, tertium Athanasii; primum factum est ad fidei instructionem, secundum ad fidei explanationem, tertium ad fidei defensionem”). And it was this and the like considerations that have all along made it to be of such high esteem among all the Reformed Churches, from the days of their great leader.—Waterland.

The Church of England proposes no Creeds to be believed upon their own authority, but because they are agreeable to the word of God. The articles of the Creed indeed are proposed as articles of faith. But they are only collections of some important truths to which that testimony is given. They are, at the highest, but extracts which are to be believed because there contained; and so to be believed as there delivered. Whatever doctrines are consonant to the Scriptures, she recommends to our faith; but what are contrary to the word of God, she pronounces not lawful for the Church to ordain. She expects her members to believe nothing as of Divine revelation, but what the records of that revelation plainly contain. Nor of the truths there discovered, does she impose the belief of any as a necessary term of communion, but what she apprehends the sacred oracles themselves to represent as a necessary term of salvation. These were the creeds of the Western Church before the Reformation; and because, at the Reformation, she withdrew from nothing but what was corrupt, therefore, these being catholic and sound, she still retains them.—Wheatly.

Why, it is often said, are we so zealous in enforcing doctrines merely speculative? The answer is, we believe them to be inculcated in Scripture, essential to the Christian religion, and not merely speculative. The Son and the Holy Ghost are each of them said to be sent by the Father, each of them contributes to the great work of our salvation. To refuse them Divine honour, is unquestionably to deny their Divine power. We do not presume to fix limits to Divine mercy; but surely we endanger our title to it, when we reject the conditions upon which it is granted. The humble Christian hopes for no benefit from the gospel covenant, but from a firm reliance on the merits of his Saviour, and the aid of the Holy Spirit.—Croft.

In the sacred Scripture there is no mention but of two sorts of men, whereof some believe, so that they are saved; some believe not, and they are damned. (Mark xvi. 16; John iii. 18.) But neither the Church, nor the individual rehearsing the creed, is responsible for these denunciations. It is a formulary which happens to express suitably and well the exact opinions of the Church of England, in regard to the two great mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation, as far as they can be understood. True it is, indeed, that in her eighth Article she asserts, that the three creeds, Nicene, Athanasian, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, “ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.” And has the Church of England no right to make this declaration? Is she to be the only society of Christians that shall not have permission to assert that her faith is the right faith? What dissenter from the Church of England would hesitate to assume this liberty? Who is there that scruples to speak thus exclusively of his own mode of thinking? Can anything be more candidly or unexceptionably stated, than her confidence that these creeds ought to be believed, because they may be proved by warrants of holy writ? In saying this, does she preclude any man from examination? Does she lock up the volume of holy writ? She appeals solely to Scripture for the truth of her doctrine, leaving all who oppose her to the mercies of God. She does not presume to say with those, whose cause has lately been strangely popular, and whose language in a sister kingdom is such to this day, that whoever presumes to separate from her, “eo ipso illis nulla est speranda salus!” She does not even venture to assert, with the celebrated reformer Calvin, whose famous Institutes were written on the model of the Apostles’ Creed, and who must, no doubt, have had a view, in saying it, to his own peculiar Church, “extra ecclesiæ gremium,” &c.; “out of the bosom of the Church there is no hope whatever of salvation, or remission of sins.” We may surely be permitted to admire that strange course of things, and confusion of circumstances, that have lately conspired to render those popular whose principles are truly exclusive and intolerant; and the Church in some respects unpopular, which is as truly tolerant. Her language is constantly the same, and perfectly apostolic: “Search the Scriptures.” “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”—Nares on the Creeds.

Let the gates of our communion be opened as wide as is consistent with the gospel of Christ; yet surely those will stand excluded, who hold errors expressly condemned in that gospel, and which that gospel was particularly and purposely wrote to guard against.—Randolph on the Trinity.

The commissioners in 1688, thirty eminent divines, appointed to review and correct the liturgy, close the rubric they had prepared in the following words,—“And the condemning clauses (viz. in the Athanasian Creed) are to be understood as relating only to those who obstinately deny the substance of the Christian faith.”

It is no hard matter for witty men to put very perverse senses on Scripture to favour their heretical doctrines, and to defend them with such sophistry as shall easily impose upon unlearned and unthinking men; and the best way in this case is, to have recourse to the ancient faith of the Christian Church, to learn from thence how these articles were understood and professed by them; for we cannot but think, that those who conversed with the apostles, and did not only receive the Scriptures, but the sense and interpretation of them, from the apostles, or apostolical men, understood the true Christian faith much better than those at a farther remove; and therefore, as long as we can reasonably suppose this tradition to be preserved in the Church, their authority is very venerable.—Sherlock on the Trinity.

These contentions were cause of much evil, yet some good the Church hath reaped by them, in that they occasioned the learned and sound in faith to explain such things as heresy went about to deprave. And in this respect the Creed of Athanasius, concerning that truth which Arianism so mightily did impugn, was both in the East and West Churches accepted as a treasure of inestimable price, by as many as had not given up even the very ghost of belief. That which heresy did by sinister interpretations go about to pervert in the first and most ancient apostolical creed, the same being by singular dexterity and plainness cleared from those heretical corruptions, partly by this creed of Athanasius. These catholic declarations of our belief, delivered by them who were so much nearer than we are unto the first publication thereof, and continuing needful for all men at all times to know, these confessions, as testimonies of our continuance in the same faith to this present day, we rather use than any other gloss or paraphrase devised by ourselves, which, though it were to the same effect, notwithstanding could not be of the like authority and credit.—Hooker.

The doctrinal part of the creed has been called a “bulwark;” and if it be maintained, it should be maintained as a fortification. In time of peace, the inconvenience of keeping up fortifications occasions their being sometimes neglected, but when war breaks out afresh, every one is clamorous in blaming the imprudence of such neglect. If we are at peace now with the powers which would attack us where our creed would be our defence, we are always liable to be at war with them again. We have seen how naturally all the heresies condemned in the creed arise, when men once become eager in solving the difficulties of the Trinity and the incarnation; and such eagerness might at any time arise, or any revolution, or great disturbance, or confusion; and in case of renewed attacks, our present creed would be a much better defence than any new one that would be made at the time it was wanted.—Hey’s Lectures.

What the consequence may be, should we part with our creed, may easily be inferred from what followed upon the dropping a single word (consubstantial, or, as expressed in our English creed, “being of one substance with the Father”) out of the [Nicene] creed at the Council of Ariminum. The Catholics, being deceived by the great and earnest importunity of the Arians for unity and peace, were at last prevailed upon. The word consubstantial was left out; and the Arians boasted over all the world, that the Nicene faith was condemned and Arianism established in a general council. It is candour, when good Catholics are divided about words, to bring them to a right understanding of one another, which will set them at peace and unity again. But it is tameness to give up the main bulwarks of the faith to fallacious adversaries and designing men, whose arts and aims, however disguised, are always known to strike at the foundation of religion.—Bingham and Wheatly.

To the sceptic, the Arian, and the Socinian, we do not expect to find such a creed acceptable, because it was designed to restrain the fantastic and pernicious opinions started on their part upon the subjects contained in it. But every firm and steady believer may still, and indeed ought to, hold high the value of the only creed delivered to us from antiquity, which states that first and great principle of Christian revelation, the importance and necessity of a just faith. Upon us, the ministers of the Church, especially, it is incumbent, as occasions offer, to explain and illustrate its design and uses to the more unlearned, as well as to obviate the crude exceptions made against its doctrines or language, to derive its due weight of authority from the venerable antiquity of its origin, and to draw an argument of its merits from the universal approbation with which it has been received. Who would not tremble at the proposal of laying waste a fence, which in any degree hath afforded protection to what was obtained for us at so inestimable a price; and of inviting, by a voluntary surrender of our present security, renewed instances of insult, in repeated and incessant attacks to be made upon the terms and obligations of our Christian covenant?—Bp. Cleaver.

There are no kinds of heretics but hope to make the vulgar understand their tenets respectively, and to draw them aside from the received faith of the Church: and, therefore, it behoves the pastors of the Church to have a standing form to guard the people against any such attempts. The Christian Churches throughout the world, ever since the multiplication of heresies, have thought it necessary to guard their people by some such forms as these in standing use amongst them. And they are not so much afraid of puzzling and perplexing the vulgar by doing it, as they are of betraying and exposing them to the attempts of seducers, should they not do it. The common people will be in no danger of running either into Sabellianism, or tritheism, if they attend to the Creed itself, (which fully obviates and confutes both those heresies,) instead of listening to those who first industriously labour to deceive them into a false construction of the Creed, and then complain of the common people’s being too apt to misunderstand it.—Waterland.

Those in authority should be very cautious how they give in to such schemes as, under the plausible pretence of pruning our vine, and reforming things in their own nature indifferent and alterable, would by degrees overturn our whole establishment.—Randolph on the Trinity.

We may, perhaps, be reminded, that some of our own most sanguine friends have wished to expunge it. But one of them lived to retract his opinion, and a friend of truth is not to be overawed by authority, however respectable, nor silenced by popular clamour.—Croft.

So long as there shall be any men left to oppose the doctrines which this Creed contains, so long will it be expedient, and even necessary, to continue the use of it, in order to preserve the rest; and, I suppose, when we have none remaining to find fault with the doctrines, there will be none to object against the use of the Creed, or so much as to wish to have it laid aside.—Waterland, Ath. Creed.

Whatever may be pretended, this is not a controversy about some metaphysical abstract notions of personality, subsistence, or moral distinctions in the Divine nature; in these there will be always room left for different speculations and sentiments. It is not a controversy about forms, but it is a controversy about the very object of religious worship. Should there be a falling away from this profession, should there be a denying of the Lord that bought us, or of the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier and Comforter, disowning them to be truly and properly by nature God, of the same essence and eternity as the Father, and with him the one God, not three Gods, with too much reason it might be said, the glory is departed from us, whether dissenters or of the Established Church, that hath been counted the head and great support of the Protestant Churches. Should we, or they, thus fall, those Protestants, whose confessions we have mentioned, yea, and all Christians abroad, must, upon their professed principles, renounce us as not holding the head.—London Ministers’ Cases, Trinity.

The Creed of Athanasius, and that sacred hymn of glory, than which nothing doth sound more heavenly in the ears of faithful men, are now reckoned as superfluities which we must in any case pare away, lest we cloy God with too much service. Yet cause sufficient there is why both should remain in use; the one as a most divine explication of the chiefest articles of our Christian belief, the other as an heavenly acclamation of joyful applause to his praises in whom we believe. Neither the one nor the other unworthy to be heard sounding, as they are, in the Church of Christ, whether Arianism live or die.—Hooker. For a detailed justification of the Athanasian Creed, see Redcliffe on the Athanasian Creed.

It is appointed to be said in the Church of England on the great festivals, and on certain holidays, in place of the Apostles’ Creed, at Morning Prayer. So that it may be said once a month at least.—Sparrow. Wheatly.

This Creed is called in the Roman offices the Psalm, Quicunque vult, and was printed for antiphonal chanting, as it is now recited in our choirs; being alternated, like the Psalms between minister and people in parish churches. The right notion that a creed is also a song of thanksgiving is thus significantly cherished. It has been objected to the Church of England, that she has disingenuously attributed this Creed to St. Athanasius: whereas in fact she has not decided the question. It is called indeed the Creed of St. Athanasius in the rubric before the Apostles’ Creed; but that is plainly an abbreviated term for the full designation prefixed to the Creed itself, “this confession of our Christian faith, commonly called the Creed of Saint Athanasius.” And even the running heading does not so designate it. The words “the Creed of Saint Athanasius,” was deliberately altered by the correctors of the sealed books for “at Morning Prayer,” the present heading, in which, as in all other corrections, the authentic copy was followed. See the fac-simile of the corrected sealed books in Stephens’s Book of Common Prayer with notes. The same remark may apply to the designation in the 8th Article, Athanasius’s Creed.

ATHEIST. (From ἀ and θέος, without God.) One who denies the being and moral government of God. There have been but few atheists in the strict sense of the word, under any system, and at any time. Some few perhaps still remain, and adopt the system of Spinosa, which supposes the universe to be one vast substance, impelled to all its movements by some internal force, which operates by a blind and irresistible necessity.

The heathen, who vied with heretics in giving names of opprobrium to true Christians, called the primitive Christians Atheists, because they did not worship their gods.

ATONEMENT. (See Propitiation, Covenant of Redemption, Sacrifice, and Jesus Christ.) The word atonement signifies the satisfying of Divine justice, as mentioned in the Article on the Covenant of Redemption. The etymology of the word conveys the idea of two parties, previously at variance, being set at one again, and hence at-one-ment, from originally signifying reconciliation, comes, by a natural metonymy, to denote that by which the reconciliation is effected. The doctrine of the atonement is thus stated by the Church: “The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.”—Article 2.

That our blessed Lord suffered is sufficiently clear from Scripture, and that it was not for himself, but for us, that this God-man lived so sorrowfully, and died so painfully, the Scripture is full and clear: and not only in general, that it was for our sakes he did it; but, in particular, it was for the reconciling his Father to us, and to purchase the pardon of our sins for us,—expressly telling us, that “he hath reconciled both (Jew and Gentile) unto God, in one body, by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” (Eph. ii. 16.) “Yea, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” (Rom. v. 10.) “So that us, who were sometimes alienated, and enemies in our minds by wicked works, now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present us holy, and unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight.” (Col. i. 21, 22.) And the reason is, because “it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” and, “having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in heaven or things in earth.” (Verse 19, 20.) And this reconciliation of God to us, he made by offering up himself a sacrifice for us. For “God sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” (1 John iv. 10,) “and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (Chap. ii. 2.) And therefore when we see him sweating great drops of blood under the burden of sin, we must not think they were his own sins that lay so heavy upon him: no, they were our sins, which he had taken off from us and laid upon himself; for he bore our griefs, and carried our sorrows; “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah liii. 4, 5.) So undoubted a truth is this comfortable assertion, that Jesus Christ by his death and sufferings reconciled his Father to us, and therefore was a sacrifice, not only for “original guilt,” but also for “actual sins of men.”—Beveridge.

ATTRITION. (See Contrition.) The casuists of the Church of Rome have made a distinction between a perfect and an imperfect contrition. The latter they call attrition, which is the lowest degree of repentance, or a sorrow for sin arising from a sense of shame, or any temporal inconvenience attending the commission of it, or merely from fear of the punishment due to it, without any resolution to sin no more: in consequence of which doctrine, they teach that, after a wicked and flagitious course of life, a man may be reconciled to God, and his sins forgiven, on his death-bed, by confessing them to the priest with this imperfect degree of sorrow and repentance. This distinction was settled by the Council of Trent. It might, however, be easily shown that the mere sorrow for sin because of its consequences, and not on account of its evil nature, is no more acceptable to God than hypocrisy itself can be.—Conc. Trident. sess. xiv. cap. 4.

AUDIENCE, COURT OF. The Court of Audience, which belongs to the archbishop of Canterbury, was for the disposal of such matters, whether of voluntary or contentious litigation, as the archbishop thought fit to reserve for his own hearing. This court was afterwards removed from the archbishop’s palace, and the jurisdiction of it exercised by the master-official of the audience, who held his court in the consistory palace at St. Paul’s. But now the three offices of official-principal of the archbishop, dean or judge of the peculiars, and official of the audience, being united in the person of the dean of arches, its jurisdiction belongs to him. The archbishop of York has likewise his Court of Audience.

AUGSBURGH, or AUGUSTAN, CONFESSION. In 1530, a diet of the German princes was convened by the emperor Charles V., to meet in that city, for the express purpose of pacifying the religious troubles, by which most parts of Germany were then distracted. “In his journey towards Augsburgh,” says Dr. Robertson, “the emperor had many opportunities of observing the dispositions of the Germans, in regard to the points in controversy, and found their minds everywhere so much irritated and inflamed, that nothing tending to severity or rigour ought to be attempted, till the other methods proved ineffectual. His presence seems to have communicated to all parties an universal spirit of moderation and desire of peace. With such sentiments, the Protestant princes employed Melancthon, the man of the greatest learning, as well as the most pacific and gentlest spirit among the Reformers, to draw up a confession of faith, expressed in terms as little offensive to the Roman Catholics as a regard to truth would admit. Melancthon, who seldom suffered the rancour of controversy to envenom his style, even in writings purely polemical, executed a task, so agreeable to his natural disposition, with moderation and success.”

The singular importance of this document of Protestant faith seems to require, in this place, a particular mention of its contents. It consists of twenty-one articles. In the first, the subscribers of it acknowledge the unity of God and the trinity of persons; in the second, original sin; in the third, the two natures and unity of person in Jesus Christ, and all the other articles contained in the symbol of the apostles, respecting the Son of God. They declare in the fourth, that men are not justified before God by their works and merits, but by the faith which they place in Jesus Christ, when they believe that God forgives their sins out of love for his Son. In the fifth, that the preaching of the gospel and the sacraments are the ordinary means used by God to infuse the Holy Ghost, who produces faith, whenever he wills, in those that hear his word. In the sixth, that faith produces the good works to which men are obliged by the commandments of God. In the seventh, that there exists a perpetual Church, which is the assembly of saints; and that the word of God is taught in it with purity, and the sacraments administered in a legitimate manner; that the unity of this Church consists in the uniformity of doctrine and sacraments; but that an uniformity of ceremonies is not requisite. In the eighth, they profess that the word of God and the sacraments have still their efficacy, although administered by wicked clergymen. In the ninth, that baptism is requisite for salvation, and that little children ought to be baptized. In the tenth, that, in the sacrament of the last supper, both the body and blood of the Lord are truly present, and distributed to those who partake of it. In the eleventh, that confession must be preserved in the Church, but without insisting on an exact enumeration of sins. In the twelfth, that penance consists of contrition and faith, or the persuasion, that, for the sake of Jesus Christ, our sins are forgiven us on our repentance; and that there is no true repentance without good works, which are its inseparable fruits. In the thirteenth, that the sacraments are not only signs of the profession of the gospel, but proofs of the love of God to men, which serve to excite and confirm their faith. In the fourteenth, that a vocation is requisite for pastors to teach in the Church. In the fifteenth, that those ceremonies ought to be observed which keep order and peace in the Church; but that the opinion of their being necessary to salvation, or that grace is acquired, or satisfaction done for our sins, by them, must be entirely exploded. In the sixteenth, that the authority of magistrates, their commands and laws, with the legitimate wars in which they may be forced to engage, are not contrary to the gospel. In the seventeenth, that there will be a judgment, where all men will appear before the tribunal of Jesus Christ; and that the wicked will suffer eternal torments. In the eighteenth, that the powers of free-will may produce an exterior good conduct, and regulate the morals of men towards society; but that, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, neither faith, regeneration, nor true justice can be acquired. In the nineteenth, that God is not the cause of sin, but that it arises only from the corrupt will of man. In the twentieth, that good works are necessary and indispensable; but that they cannot purchase the remission of sins, which is only obtained in consideration of faith, which, when it is sincere, must produce good works. In the twenty-first, that the virtues of the saints are to be placed before the people, in order to excite imitation; but that the Scripture nowhere commands their invocation, nor mentions anywhere any other mediator than Jesus Christ. “This,” say the subscribers of the Confession, “is the summary of the doctrine taught amongst us; and it appears from the exposition which we have just made, that it contains nothing contrary to Scripture; and that it agrees with that of the Catholic Church, and even with the Roman Church, as far as is known to us by their writers. This being so, those who wish that we should be condemned as heretics are very unjust. If there be any dispute between us, it is not upon articles of faith, but only upon abuses that have been introduced into the Church, and which we reject. This, therefore, is not a sufficient reason to authorize the bishops not to tolerate us, since we are agreed in the tenets of faith which we have set forth: there never has been an exact uniformity of exterior practice since the beginning of the Church, and we preserve the greater part of the established usages. It is therefore a calumny to say, that we have abolished them all. But, as all the world complained of the abuses that had crept into the Church, we have corrected those only which we could not tolerate with a good conscience; and we entreat your Majesty to hear what the abuses are which we have retrenched, and the reasons we had for doing it. We also entreat, that our inveterate enemies, whose hatred and calumnies are the principal cause of the evil, may not be believed.”

They then proceed to state the abuses in the Church of Rome, of which they complain. The first is the denial of the cup in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; the second, the celibacy of the clergy; the third, the form of the mass. On this head their language is very remarkable: “Our Churches,” they say, “are unjustly accused of having abolished the mass, since they celebrate it with great veneration: they even preserve almost all the accustomed ceremonies, having only added a few German hymns to the latter, in order that the people may profit by them.” But they object to the multiplicity of masses, and to the payment of any money to a priest for saying them. The fourth abuse of which they complain, is the practice of auricular confession: but, they observe, that they have only taken from it the penitent’s obligation to make to the priest a particular enumeration of his sins, and that they had retained the confession itself, and the obligation of receiving absolution from the priest. The fifth abuse is the injunction of abstinence from particular meats. Monastic vows they represent as the sixth abuse. The seventh and last abuse of which they complain, is that of ecclesiastical power. They say that “a view of the attempts of the popes to excommunicate princes, and dispose of their states, led them to examine and fix the distinction between the secular and ecclesiastical power, to enable themselves to give to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar, and to the popes and bishops what belongs to them.” That “ecclesiastical power, or the power of the keys, which Jesus Christ gave to his Church, consisted only of the power of preaching the gospel, of administering the sacraments, the forgiveness of sins, and refusing absolution to a false penitent: therefore,” say they, “neither popes nor bishops have any power to dispose of kingdoms, to abrogate the laws of magistrates, or to prescribe to them rules for their government;” and that, “if there did exist bishops who had the power of the sword, they derived this power from their quality of temporal sovereigns, and not from their episcopal character, or from Divine right, but as a power conceded to them by kings or emperors.”

It is not a little remarkable, that considerable differences, or various readings, are to be found in the printed texts of this important document, and that it is far from certain which copy should be considered the authentic edition. The German copies printed in 1530, in quarto and octavo, and the Latin edition printed in quarto in 1531, are in request among bibliographical amateurs; but there is a verbal, and, in some instances, a material, discrepancy among them. The Wittenberg edition, of 1540, is particularly esteemed, and has been adopted by the publishers of the “Sylloge Confessionum Diversarum,” printed in 1804, at the Clarendon press. [Later editions of the Sylloge include also the form of 1531.] One of the most important of these various readings occurs in the tenth article. In some of the editions which preceded that of 1540, it is expressed, “that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, and distributed to those who partake of our Lord’s supper; and the contrary doctrine is reprobated.” The edition of 1540 expresses that, “with the bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ are truly given to those who partake of our Lord’s supper.”

“In the Confession of Augsburgh,” says Dr. Maclaine, the learned translator of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, “there are three sorts of articles; one sort, adopted equally by the Roman Catholics and Protestants; another, that consists of certain propositions, which the papal party considered as ambiguous and obscure; and a third, in which the doctrine of Luther was entirely opposite to that of Rome. This gave some reason to hope, that, by the means of certain qualifications and modifications, conducted mutually in a spirit of candour and charity, matters might be accommodated at last. For this purpose, select persons were appointed to carry on the salutary work; at first, seven from each party, consisting of princes, lawyers, and divines; which number was afterwards reduced to three. Luther’s obstinate, stubborn, and violent temper rendering him unfit for healing divisions, he was not employed in these conferences; but he was constantly consulted by the Protestant party.”

The Confession was read, at a full meeting of the diet, by the chancellor of the elector of Saxony. It was subscribed by that elector, and three other princes of the German empire, and then delivered to the emperor.—Butler’s Confessions of Faith. Robertson’s Sylloge Confessionum.

AUGUSTINES. A religious order in the Church of Rome, who followed St. Augustine’s pretended rule, ordered them by Pope Alexander IV., in 1256. It is divided into several branches, as hermits of St. Paul, the Jeronymitans, monks of St. Bridget, the Augustines called Chaussez, who go without stockings, begun in 1574, by a Portuguese, and confirmed in 1600 and 1602, by Pope Clement VIII. As for the pretended rules of St. Augustine, they are reduced to three classes, the first comprehending that the monks ought to possess nothing in particular, nor call anything their own; that the wealthy who became monks ought to sell what they had, and give the money to the poor; that those who sued for the religious habit ought to pass under trial before they were admitted; that the monks ought to subtract nothing from the monastery, nor receive anything whatsoever, without the leave of their superior, to whom they ought to communicate those points of doctrine which they had heard discoursed of without the monastery; that if any one was stubborn towards his superior, after the first and second correction in secret he should be publicly denounced as a rebel; if it happened in the time of persecution that the monks were forced to retire, they ought immediately to betake themselves to that place where their superior was withdrawn; and if for the same reason a monk had saved anything belonging to the monastery, he should give it up as soon as possible to his superior. The second class imported that they were to love God and their neighbour; how they were to recite the psalms, and the rest of their office; the first part of the morning they ought to employ in manual works, and the rest in reading, and to return in the afternoon to their work again until the evening; that they ought to possess nothing of their own, be obedient to their superior, keep silence in eating, have Saturday allowed to provide themselves with necessaries; and it was lawful for them to drink wine on Sundays; that when they went abroad they must always go two together; that they were never to eat out of the monastery; that they should be conscientious in what they sold, and faithful in what they bought; that they ought not to utter idle words, but work with silence; and, lastly, that whoever neglected the practice of these precepts ought to be corrected and beaten, and that the true observers of them must rejoice and be confident of their salvation. As for the third, after having enjoined them to love God and their neighbour, they ought to possess nothing but in common; the superior ought to distribute everything in the monastery, according to each man’s necessity, and they should not incline their hearts to temporal things; that they ought to honour God in one another as being become his holy temples; they must attend prayers at canonical hours, and were not to be hindered at any other time; that they should pray with attention, and sing only what was really appointed to be sung; that they ought to apply themselves to fasting and abstinence with discretion; and that if any of them was not able to fast, he ought not to eat between meals unless he was sick; that they must mind what was read to them while they were at their meals; that none ought to be envious to see the sick better treated than the rest were, or that something more delicate was given to those of a weaker constitution; that those who were recovering ought to make use of comfortable things, and, when recovered, to return to the common usage; to be grave and modest in their habits; never to be far from their companion; to express modesty and stayedness in their outward behaviour; not to cast a lustful eye upon women, nor wish to be seen by them; nor when at church to harbour any thoughts of women; that when it was known a friar courted any woman, after having been forewarned several times, he ought to be corrected; and that if he would not submit to the correction, he should be turned out of the monastery; that all correction should be inflicted with charity; that they ought not to receive letters nor presents in secret; they ought to be contented with those habits that were given them; that all their works should be rendered in common; that if some of their relations sent them clothes, it should be in the superior’s power to give them to whom he pleased; that he who concealed anything of his own should be proceeded against as guilty of robbery; they were to wash their own clothes, or have them washed by others, with the superior’s leave; those who were in any office should serve their brethren without grudging; that they ought to shun all lawsuits; that they ought to ask their brethren forgiveness for any injury done them; to forbear ill language one to another; the superior was to be obeyed, but not to be proud of his dignity; that the monks ought to observe these rules out of love, and not slavish fear; and that this rule ought to be read once a week in the presence of the monks.

The Augustine monks, (commonly called Black Canons,) according to Fuller, were established in England later than the Benedictines, that is, in 1105, though of older existence in Europe. They were next to the Benedictines in power and wealth. The members of these two orders and their branches were called Monks, those of the Mendicant orders, as Dominicans and Franciscans, were called Friars. (See Monastery.) But Canon was the title more usually assigned to the Augustinians. This order was more numerous and powerful in Ireland than the Benedictines, though inferior to them in England. The branches of this order were the Premonstrants, (or White Canons,) the Victorines, and the Gilbertines. The Arroasians were merely reformed Augustinians, not a separate branch of the order. The Augustinians possessed two mitred abbeys, Waltham and Cirencester; one cathedral priory, Carlisle; one abbey, afterwards converted into a cathedral by Henry VIII., Bristol.

AUGUSTINE, or AUSTIN, FRIARS. These are not to be confounded with the above, being one of the minor Mendicant orders, observing the rule of St. Augustine. Fuller says they first entered England in 1252: “and had (if not their first) their finest habitation at St. Peter’s the Poor, London, thence probably taking the denomination of poverty. They were good disputants; on which account they are remembered still at Oxford by an act performed by candidates for Mastership, called Keeping of Augustines.” This exercise, with other ancient forms, was abolished by the University Statute towards the beginning of the present century.—Jebb.

AURICULAR CONFESSION. (See Confession, Absolution.) The confession of sins at the ear of the priest. The following is the chapter on confession in the Council of Trent which is obligatory on the Romish Church.

“From the institution of the sacrament of repentance already set forth, the Church has always understood, that an entire confession of sins was also appointed by the Lord; and that it is of Divine right necessary to all who have lapsed after baptism. Because our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left his priests, his vicars, to be, as it were, the presidents and judges, to whom all mortal sins, into which Christ’s faithful people should fall, should be brought; in order that by the power of the keys they might pronounce sentence of remission or retention. For it is plain that the priests cannot exercise this judgment, without knowledge of the cause, nor can they observe equity in enjoining penalties, if men declare their sins only generally, and not rather particularly and separately. From this it is inferred that it is right that the penitents should recount in confession all the deadly sins of which, upon examination, their conscience accuses them, even though they be most secret and only against the two last commandments, which not unfrequently grievously wound the soul, and are more dangerous than those which are openly practised; for as to venial sins, by which we are not excluded from the grace of God, and into which we more frequently fall, although they may be declared in confession, rightly, usefully, and without any presumption, as the usage of pious men declares, yet they may be passed over in silence without offence, and can be expiated by many other remedies. But since all mortal sins, even thoughts, make men the children of wrath and the enemies of God, it is necessary to seek from God the pardon of all, with open and modest confession. When, therefore, Christ’s faithful people desire to confess all the sins which occur to their memory, they expose them all beyond all doubt to the mercy of God to be pardoned. But they who do otherwise, and knowingly keep back any, propose nothing to the Divine mercy to be pardoned by the priest; for if a sick man is ashamed to uncover his wound to the physician, he cannot with medicine cure that of which he has no knowledge. It is, moreover, inferred that those circumstances should be explained in confession, which change the kind of the sin; because, without these, neither can the sins themselves be entirely disclosed by the penitents, nor known to the judges; nor can they rightly judge of the grievousness of the sin, nor impose upon the penitents the fitting punishments. Whence it is unreasonable to teach that these circumstances were sought out by idle men, or that only one circumstance should be confessed, namely, to have sinned against a brother. But it is impious to call this confession impossible, which is appointed to be performed in this manner, or to style it the torture of consciences: for it appears that nothing else is required of penitents in the Church, than that, after a man has diligently examined himself, and explored the recesses and hiding-places of his conscience, he should confess those sins by which he remembers that he has mortally offended his Lord and God. But the other sins which do not occur to him when taking diligent thought, are understood to be included altogether in the same confession; and for these we faithfully say with the prophet, ‘Cleanse thou me, O Lord, from my secret faults.’ But the difficulty of this sort of confession, and the shame of uncovering sins, would, indeed, appear grievous, if it were not lightened by the so many and great conveniences and consolations which are most assuredly conferred by absolution upon all who rightly approach this sacrament. But as regards the manner of secretly confessing to the priest alone, although Christ has not forbidden any man from publicly confessing his faults, in revenge for his sins, and humiliation of himself, both by way of example to others, and for the edification of the Church which he has offended; this is not, however, a Divine command, nor may it be advisedly enjoined by any human law, that sins, especially secret ones, should be disclosed by open confession. Wherefore, since that secret sacramental confession which the holy Church has used from the beginning, and still uses, has always been approved of by the holiest and most ancient fathers, with great consent and unanimity, the empty calumny is plainly refuted of those who are not ashamed to teach that it is contrary to the Divine command, and a human invention, which had its origin with the fathers who were assembled in the Lateran Council. For the Church did not order by the Lateran Council that Christ’s faithful people should confess, which she always had understood to be necessary, and appointed by Divine right, but that the command of confession should be complied with at least once in the year, by all and each who have come to years of discretion; whence now, in the universal Church, that wholesome custom of confessing in the sacred, and especially acceptable, time of Lent, is observed with great benefit to the souls of the faithful; which custom this holy synod highly approves, and receives as pious and worthy to be retained.”

Here an attempt is made to invest the Christian priesthood with the prerogative of the Most High, who is a searcher of the hearts, and a discerner of the thoughts; in forgetfulness of the very distinction which God drew between himself and all men—“man looketh to the outward part, the Lord trieth the heart.” As Christ has invested his ministers with no power to do this of themselves, the Tridentine Fathers have sought to supply what they must needs consider a grievous omission on his part, by enjoining all men to unlock the secrets of their hearts at the command of their priest, and persons of all ages and sexes to submit not only to general questions as to a state of sin or repentance, but to the most minute and searching questions as to their most inmost thoughts.

The extent to which the confessors have thought it right to carry these examinations on subjects concerning which the apostle recommends that they be not once named among Christians, and which may be seen either in “Dens’ Theology,” or “Burchard’s Decrees,” c. 19, Paris, 1549, affords a melancholy, painful, and sickening subject for contemplation; especially when it is considered that they were Christian clergy who did this, and that it was done in aid, as they supposed, of the Christian religion. The fearful effects of these examinations upon the priests themselves, we will do no more than allude to; he who may think it necessary to satisfy himself upon the point, may consult the cases contemplated and provided for (among others) by Cardinal Cajetan, in his Opuscula, Lugd. 1562, p. 114. In the Bull of Pius IV., Contra solicitantes in confessione, dated Ap. 16, 1561, (Bullarium Magn. Luxemb. 1727, ii. p. 48,) and in a similar one of Gregory XV., dated Aug. 30, 1622, (Gregory XV. Constit. Rom. 1622, p. 114,) there is laid open another fearful scene of danger to female confitents from wicked priests, “mulieres pœnitentes ad actus inhonestos dum earum audiunt confessiones alliciendo et provocando.” Against which flagrant dangers, and the preparatory steps of sapping and undermining the mental modesty of a young person by examinations of particular kinds, it is vain to think that the feeble bulls of the bishops of Rome can afford any security. These observations apply to the system of the Roman Church, peculiar to itself, of compelling the disclosure of the most minute details of the most secret thoughts and actions. As to encouraging persons whose minds are burthened with the remembrance of fearful sins, to ease themselves of the burthen by revealing it to one at whose hands they may seek guidance, and consolation, and prayer, it is a totally distinct question, and nothing but wilful art will attempt to confound them. On this point we see no reason to withdraw a regret which we have before expressed as to its disuse in the Church of England; for we cannot but believe that, were it more frequently had recourse to, many a mind would depart the world at peace with itself and with God, which now sinks to the grave under a bond of doubt and fear, through want of confidence to make use of ghostly remedies.—Perceval.

In the sixth canon of the Council of Trent it runs thus:—“If any shall deny that sacramental confession was instituted and is necessary for salvation by Divine right, or shall say that the custom of confessing secretly to the priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning, and continues to observe, is foreign to the institution and command of Christ, and is of human invention, let him be accursed.”

Here sacramental confession is affirmed to be of Divine institution, and auricular confession likewise, and he is accursed who shall deny it. This is bravely said; yet the Tridentine Fathers might have recollected that, in the Latin Church as late as 813, it was matter of dispute whether there was need to confess to a priest at all, as appears from the thirty-third canon of the Council of Cabaillon, which is as follows: “Quidam Deo solummodo confiteri debere dicunt peccata, quidam vero sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent: quod utrumque non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam. Ita dumtaxat ut et Deo, qui Remissor est peccatorum, confiteamur peccata nostra, et cum David dicamus, Delictum meum cognitum tibi feci, &c., et secundum institutionem apostoli, confiteamur alterutrum peccata nostra, et oremus pro invicem ut salvemur. Confessio itaque quæ Deo fit, purgat peccata, ea vero quæ sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter ipsa purgentur peccata,” &c. (Conc. vii. 1279.) Was Leo the Third asleep, that he could suffer such heresy to be broached and not denounced? But all the world knows, that, till 1215, no decree of pope or council can be adduced enjoining the necessary observance of such a custom. Then, at the Council of Lateran, Innocent III. commanded it. As the Latin Church affords no sanction to the assertion of the Tridentine Fathers, so is it in vain to look for it among the Greeks, for there, as Socrates (Hist. Eccles. v. 19) and Sozomen (Hist. Eccles. vii. 16) inform us, the whole confessional was abolished by Nectarius, the archbishop of Constantinople, in the 4th century, by reason of an indecency which was committed on a female penitent, when pursuing her penance; which, sure, he would not have ventured to have done had he deemed it a Divine institution. Sozomen, in his account of the confessional, says, that the public confession in the presence of all the people, which formerly obtained, having been found grievous, φορτικὸν ὡς εἰκὸς, a wellbred, silent, and prudent presbyter was set in charge of it; thus plainly denoting the change from public to auricular confessions. It was this penitential presbyter whose office was abolished by Nectarius, who acted by the advice of Eudæmon, συγχωρῆσαι δὲ ἕκαστον, τῷ ἰδίῳ συνειδότι τῶν μυστηρίων μετέχειν. And the reason he assigned is one which the Church of Rome would have done well to bear in mind; οὕτω γὰρ μόνως ἔχειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τὸ ἀβλασφήμετον. (See Perceval on Roman Schism, Hooker, Eccl. Pol. book vi. Bp. Taylor, Ductor Dubit. part ii. sect. 11.)

AUMBRIE. A little closet or locker. (See Church.)

AURORA. The title of a Latin metrical version of several parts of the Bible, by Petrus de Riga, canon of Rheims, in the 12th century.

AUTOCEPHALI. Αὐτοκεφαλοι, selfheaded, or independent. A name originally given to all metropolitans, as having no ecclesiastical superior, and being amenable only to the judgment of a synod. After the division of the Church into patriarchates, it was given to such metropolitans as preserved their independence, and were not subject to any patriarch—as the bishop of Constantia, or Salamis, in Cyprus. Bingham, book ii. chap. 18, specifies three kinds of autocephali. 1. All metropolitans, before patriarchates were established. 2. Certain metropolitans after the establishment of patriarchates, as those of Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Iberia: and the Churches of Britain before the coming of St. Augustin. To which may be added the Church of Ireland, before its submission to Rome in the 12th century. 3. Bishops immediately subject to the patriarch of the diocese, who was to them as a metropolitan. There were twenty-five such subject to the bishop of Jerusalem. The immediate suffragans of Rome are of the same class. Bingham considers a fourth class mentioned by Valesius on Euseb. lib. v. c. 23, as very doubtful; viz. bishops wholly independent of all others.

AUTO DA FE (Spanish); an Act of Faith. In the Spanish Church a solemn day is held by the Inquisition for the punishment of heretics, and the absolution of the innocent accused. They usually contrive the Auto to fall on some great festival, that the execution may pass with the more awe; and it is always on a Sunday. The Auto da Fe may be called the last act of the inquisitorial tragedy; it is a kind of gaol delivery, appointed as often as a competent number of prisoners in the Inquisition are convicted of heresy, either by their own voluntary or extorted confession, or on the evidence of certain witnesses. The process is this; in the morning they are brought into a great hall, where they have certain habits put on, which they are to wear in the procession, and by which they know their doom. The procession is led up by Dominican friars, after which come the penitents, being all in black coats without sleeves, and barefooted, with a wax candle in their hands. These are followed by the penitents who have narrowly escaped being burnt, who over their black coats have flames painted, with their points turned downwards. Next come the negative and relapsed, who are to be burnt, having flames on their habits pointing upwards. After these come such as profess doctrines contrary to the faith of Rome, who, besides flames pointing upwards, have their picture painted on their breasts, with dogs, serpents, and devils, all open-mouthed, about it. Each prisoner is attended by a familiar of the Inquisition; and those to be burnt have also a Jesuit on each hand, who are continually preaching to them to abjure. After the prisoners comes a troop of familiars on horseback; and after them the inquisitors, and other officers of the court, on mules; last of all the inquisitor-general on a white horse led by two men with black hats and green hatbands. A scaffold is erected large enough for two or three thousand people; at one end of which are the prisoners, at the other the inquisitors. After a sermon made up of encomiums of the Inquisition, and invectives against heretics, a priest ascends a desk near the scaffold, and, having taken the abjuration of the penitents, recites the final sentence of those who are to be put to death, and delivers them to the secular arm, earnestly beseeching at the same time the secular power not to touch their blood, or put their lives in danger. The prisoners, being thus in the hands of the civil magistrate, are presently loaded with chains, and carried first to the secular gaol, and from thence, in an hour or two, brought before the civil judge, who, after asking in what religion they intend to die, pronounces sentence on such as declare they die in the communion of the Church of Rome, that they shall be first strangled, and then burnt to ashes; on such as die in any other faith, that they be burnt alive. Both are immediately carried to the Ribera, the place of execution, where there are as many stakes set up as there are prisoners to be burnt, with a quantity of dry furze about them. The stakes of the professed, that is, such as persist in the heresy, are about four yards high, having a small board towards the top for the prisoner to be seated on. The negative and relapsed being first strangled and burnt, the professed mount their stakes by a ladder, and the Jesuits, after several repeated exhortations to be reconciled to the Church, part with them, telling them that they leave them to the devil, who is standing at their elbow to receive their souls, and carry them with him to the flames of hell. On this a great shout is raised, and the cry is, “Let the dogs’ beards be made,” which is done by thrusting flaming furzes, fastened to long poles, against their faces, till their faces are burnt to a coal, which is accompanied with the loudest acclamations of joy. At last fire is set to the furze at the bottom of the stake, over which the professed are chained so high, that the top of the flame seldom reaches higher than the seat they sit on, so that they rather seem roasted than burnt. The same diabolical ceremony was observed in Portugal.

AVE MARIA. A form of devotion used in the Church of Rome, comprising the salutation addressed by the angel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary. (Luke i. 28.) The words “Ave Maria” are the first two, in Latin, of the form as it appears in the manuals of the Romish Church, thus: “Hail Mary, (Ave Maria,) full of grace, the Lord is with thee,” &c. To which is appended the following petition: “Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and in the hour of our death. Amen.” Here we find, first, a misapplication of the words of Scripture, and then an addition to them. It was not used before the Hours, until the 16th century, in the Romish offices. It was then introduced into the Breviary by Cardinal Quignon. Cardinal Bona admits that it is modern.

“I cannot but observe,” says Bingham, “that among all the short prayers used by the ancients before their sermons, there is never any mention made of an Ave Mary, now so common in the practice of the Romish Church. Their addresses were all to God; and the invocation of the Holy Virgin for grace and assistance before sermons was a thing not thought of. They who are most concerned prove its use can derive its original no higher than the beginning of the fifteenth century.” But Mosheim (Eccl. Hist. Cant. xiv. Part ii. ch. iv.) says that Pope John XXII. [1316–33] ordered Christians to add to their prayers those words with which the angel Gabriel saluted the Virgin Mary.

AVOIDANCE. Avoidance is where there is a want of a lawful incumbent on a benefice, during which vacancy the Church is quasi riduata, and the possessions belonging to it are in abeyance. There are many ways by which avoidance may happen; by death; by cession, or acceptance of a benefice incompatible; by resignation; by consecration; for when a clerk is promoted to a bishopric, all his other preferments are void the instant he is consecrated, and the right of presentation belongs to the Crown, unless he has a dispensation from the Crown to hold them in commendam: by deprivation, either first by sentence declaratory in the ecclesiastical court for fit and sufficient causes allowed by the common law, such as attainder of treason or felony, or conviction of other infamous crimes in the king’s courts; for heresy, infidelity, gross immorality, and the like; or secondly, in pursuance of divers penal statutes, which declare the benefice void, for some nonfeasance or neglect, or else some malfeasance or crime; as for simony; for maintaining any doctrine in derogation of the king’s supremacy, or of the Thirty-nine Articles, or of the Book of Common Prayer: for neglecting after institution to read the liturgy and articles in the church, or make the declarations against Popery, or take the abjuration oath; for using any other form of prayer than the liturgy of the Church of England: or for absenting himself sixty days in one year from a benefice belonging to a Popish patron, to which the clerk was presented by either of the universities; in all which, and similar cases, the benefice is ipso facto void, without any formal sentence of deprivation. No person can take any dignity or benefice in Ireland until he has resigned all his preferments in England; and by such resignation the king is deprived of the presentation.—Stephens on the Laws relating to the Clergy, p. 91.

AZYMITES. A name given to the Latins, by those of the Greek Church, because they consecrate the holy eucharist in unleavened bread (έν άζυμοις). The more ancient custom was to consecrate a portion of the oblations of the faithful, and therefore of course in leavened bread. The wafer, or unleavened bread, is still retained in the Church of Rome, although the catechism of the Council of Trent admits that the eucharist may also be consecrated in common bread. In the Church of England unleavened bread was prescribed by Queen Elizabeth’s injunctions, and was generally used throughout her reign. At Westminster, it was retained until 1642, nor has it since been forbidden; but the use of leavened bread is now universal, as in the primitive Church.

BACHELOR. In the universities of the Church, bachelors are persons who have attained to the baccalaureate, or taken the first degree in arts, divinity, law, or physic. This degree in some universities has no existence, in some the Candidatus answers to it. It was first introduced in the thirteenth century, by Pope Gregory IX., though it is still unknown in Italy. Bachelors of Arts are not admitted to that degree at Oxford and Dublin till after having studied four years at those universities. At Cambridge, the regular period of matriculation is in the October term; and an undergraduate who proceeds regularly will be admitted to his B. A. in three years from the following January. Bachelors of Divinity, before they can acquire that degree either at Oxford or Cambridge, must be of fourteen years’ standing in the university. Bachelors of Laws, to acquire the degree in Oxford or Cambridge, must have previously studied the law six years. Bachelors of Canon Law are admitted after two years’ study, and sustaining an act according to the forms. Bachelors of Medicine must have studied two years in medicine, after having been four years M. A. in the university, and must have passed an examination; after which they are invested with the fur in order to be licensed. Bachelors of Music in the English and Irish universities must have studied music for a certain number of years, and are admitted to the degree after the composition and performance of a musical exercise. Anciently the grade of Bachelor, at least in arts, was hardly considered as a degree, but merely a step towards the Doctorate or Mastership. In fact, Bachelors in any faculty, as such, have no voice in the university convocations or senates. Bachelors in Divinity have, because they must necessarily have been Masters of Art previously. But Bachelors of Law and Medicine have no votes, unless they happen to be Masters of Arts also. In the French, as in the Scotch universities, the degree of Bachelor of Arts was taken while the student was still in statu pupillari, and in fact corresponded very much to the Sophisters in our universities, the A. M. in these places practically correspond to our degree of A. B.

BAMPTON LECTURES. A course of eight sermons preached annually at the university of Oxford, set on foot by the Reverend John Bampton, canon of Salisbury. According to the directions in his will, they are to be preached upon any of the following subjects:—To confirm and establish the Christian faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics; upon the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures; upon the authority of the writings of the primitive fathers, as to the faith and practice of the primitive Church; upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost; upon the articles of the Christian faith, as comprehended in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. For the support of this lecture he bequeathed his lands and estates to the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the university of Oxford for ever, upon trust that the vice-chancellor, for the time being, take and receive all the rents and profits thereof; and, after all taxes, reparations, and necessary deductions made, to pay all the remainder to the endowment of these divinity lecture sermons. He also directs in his will, that no person shall be qualified to preach these lectures, unless he have taken the degree of Master of Arts, at least, in one of the two universities of Oxford or Cambridge, and that the same person shall never preach the same sermon twice. A number of excellent sermons preached at this lecture are now before the public.

BAND. This part of the clerical dress, which is too well known to need description, is the only remaining relic of the ancient amice. (See Amice.) When the beard was worn, and when ruffs came in, this ancient part of clerical dress fell into disuse, but it was generally resumed after the Restoration. The band is not, however, an exclusively clerical vestment, being part of the full dress of the bar and of the universities, and of other bodies in which a more ancient habit is retained, as in some schools of old foundation. Formerly it was worn by graduates, and even under-graduates, at the universities; nor was the custom altogether extinct within memory. It is still worn by the scholars at Winchester, &c., and was anciently worn with the surplice by lay vicars, singing men, and sometimes by parish clerks.

BANGORIAN CONTROVERSY. This was a celebrated controversy within the Church of England in the reign of George I., and received its name from Hoadly, who, although bishop of Bangor, was little else than a Socinian heretic. Hoadly published “A Preservative against the Principles and Practice of the Nonjurors,” and soon after, a sermon, which the king had ordered to be printed, entitled, “The Nature of the Kingdom of Christ.” This discourse is a very confused production; nor, except in the bitterness of its spirit, is it easy, amidst the author’s “periods of a mile,” to discover his precise aim. To the perplexed arguments of Bishop Hoadly, Dr. Snape and Dr. Sherlock wrote replies; and a committee of convocation passed a censure upon the discourse. An order from government arrested the proceedings of the convocation. Snape and Sherlock were removed from their office of chaplains to the king; and the convocation has never yet been again permitted to assemble for the transaction of business. But the exertion of power on the part of the government was unable to silence those who were determined, at any sacrifice, to maintain God’s truth. This controversy continued to employ the press for many years, until those who held Low Church views were entirely silenced by the force of argument. Of the works produced by the Bangorian Controversy, perhaps the most important is Law’s Letters to Hoadly, which were reprinted in “The Scholar Armed,” and have since been republished. Law’s Letters have never been answered, and may indeed be regarded as unanswerable.

BANNER. In the chapels of orders of knighthood, as in St. George’s chapel, Windsor, the chapel of the order of the Garter; in Henry VII.’s chapel, at Westminster, the chapel of the order of the Bath; and in St. Patrick’s cathedral, the chapel of the order of St. Patrick; the banner of each knight, i. e. a little square flag bearing his arms, is suspended, at his installation, over his appropriate stall. The installation of a knight is a religious ceremony; hence the propriety of this act. The same decorations formerly existed in the chapel of Holyrood House, the chapel of the order of the Thistle.

Also it is not uncommon to see banners taken in battle suspended over the tombs of victorious generals. This is a beautiful way of expressing thankfulness to God for that victory which he alone can give; and it were much to be wished that a spirit of pride and vain-glory should never mingle with the religious feeling.

Banners were formerly a part of the accustomed ornaments of the altar, and were suspended over it, “that in the church the triumph of Christ may evermore be held in mind, by which we also hope to triumph over our enemy.”—Durandus.

BANNS OF MARRIAGE. “Bann” comes from a barbarous Latin word which signifies to put out an edict or proclamation. “Matrimonial banns” are such proclamations as are solemnly made in the church, or in some other lawful congregation of men, in order to the solemnization of matrimony.

Before any can be canonically married, except by a licence from the bishop’s court, banns are directed to be published in the church; and this proclamation should be made on three several solemn days, in all the churches of that place where the parties, willing to contract marriage, dwell. This rule is principally to be observed when the said parties are of different parishes; for the care of the Church to prevent clandestine marriages is as old as Christianity itself: and the design of the Church is, to be satisfied whether there be any “just cause or impediment,” why the persons so asked “should not be joined together in holy matrimony.”

The following are the regulations under which the Church of England now acts on this subject:—

No minister shall be obliged to publish the banns of matrimony between any persons whatsoever, unless they shall, seven days at least before the time required for the first publication, deliver or cause to be delivered to him a notice in writing of their true Christian and surnames, and of the houses of their respective abodes within such parish, chapelry, or extra-parochial place, where the banns are to be published, and of the time during which they have inhabited or lodged in such houses respectively. (26 George II. c. 33, s. 2.) And all banns of matrimony shall be published in the parish church, or in some public chapel wherein banns of matrimony have been usually published, (i. e. before the 25th of March, 1754,) of the parish or chapelry wherein the persons to be married shall dwell. (26 George II. c. 33, s. 1.) And where the persons to be married shall dwell in divers parishes or chapelries, the banns shall be published in the church or chapel belonging to such parish or chapelry wherein each of the said persons shall dwell. And where both or either of the persons to be married shall dwell in any extra-parochial place, (having no church or chapel wherein banns have been usually published,) then the banns shall be published in the parish church or chapel belonging to some parish or chapelry adjoining to such extra-parochial place. And the said banns shall be published upon three Sundays preceding the solemnization of marriage during the time of morning service, or of the evening service, if there be no morning service in such church or chapel on any of those Sundays, immediately after the second lesson. (26 George II. c. 33, s. 1.)

While the marriage is contracting, the minister shall inquire of the people by three public banns, concerning the freedom of the parties from all lawful impediments. And if any minister shall do otherwise, he shall be suspended for three years.

Rubric. And the curate shall say after the accustomed manner:—“I publish the banns of marriage between M. of ——, and N. of ——. If any of you know cause or just impediment why these two persons should not be joined together in holy matrimony, ye are to declare it. This is the first (second, or third) time of asking.”

And in case the parents or guardians, or one of them, of either of the parties, who shall be under the age of twenty-one years, shall openly and publicly declare, or cause to be declared, in the church or chapel where the banns shall be so published, at the time of such publication, his dissent to such marriage, such publication of banns shall be void. (26 George II. c. 3, s. 3.)

Rubric. And where the parties dwell in divers parishes, the curate of one parish shall not solemnize marriage between them, without a certificate of the banns being thrice asked, from the curate of the other parish.

Formerly the rubric enjoined that the banns should be published after the Nicene Creed; but the lamentable deficiency of publicity of which this arrangement was the cause, and the delay hence arising in consequence of some parishes being without any morning service on some Sundays, induced the legislature to make the provisions above cited. (26 George II. c. 33, s. 1.)

It is to be feared that much laxity prevails among parties to whom the inquiries as to parochial limits are intrusted; and that recent enactments have rather augmented than reformed such laxity. The constitutions and canons of 1603 guard cautiously against clandestine marriages. Canon 62 is as follows:—

Ministers not to marry any persons without banns or licence.—No minister, upon pain of suspension per triennium ipso facto, shall celebrate matrimony between any persons, without a faculty or licence granted by some of the persons in these our constitutions expressed, except the banns of matrimony have been first published three several Sundays, or holidays, in the time of Divine service, in the parish churches and chapels where the said parties dwell, according to the Book of Common Prayer. Neither shall any minister, upon the like pain, under any pretence whatsoever, join any persons so licensed in marriage at any unseasonable times, but only between the hours of eight and twelve in the forenoon; nor in any private place, but either in the said churches or chapels where one of them dwelleth, and likewise in time of Divine service; nor when banns are thrice asked, and no licence in that respect necessary, before the parents or governors of the parties to be married, being under the age of twenty and one years, shall either personally, or by sufficient testimony, signify to them their consents given to the said marriage.

Canon 63. Ministers of exempt churches not to marry without banns or license.—Every minister, who shall hereafter celebrate marriage between any persons contrary to our said constitutions, or any part of them, under colour of any peculiar liberty or privilege claimed to appertain to certain churches and chapels, shall be suspended per triennium by the ordinary of the place where the offence shall be committed. And if any such minister shall afterwards remove from the place where he hath committed that fault, before he be suspended, as is aforesaid, then shall the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place where he remaineth, upon certificate under the hand and seal of the other ordinary, from whose jurisdiction he removed, execute that censure upon him.

See also canon 70. By the statute 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 85, sec. 1, it is enacted, that where, by any law or canon in force before the passing of this act, it is provided that any “marriage may be solemnized after publication of banns, such marriage may be solemnized, in like manner, on production of the registrar’s certificate as hereinafter provided:” so that marriages may now be solemnized in the Church of England, without banns or licence, on production of the superintendent registrar’s certificate.

BAPTISM. (Βάπτειν, to wash.) Baptism is one of the two sacraments, which, according to the Catechism, “are generally necessary to salvation.” Our blessed Saviour says that “except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John iii. 3); and in explanation of his meaning he adds, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (ver. 5). Upon this the Church remarks: “Beloved, ye hear in this Gospel the express words of our Saviour Christ, that, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God: whereby ye may perceive the great necessity of this sacrament where it may be had. Likewise immediately before his ascension into heaven, as we read in the last chapter of St. Mark’s Gospel, he gave command to his disciples, saying, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.’ Which also showeth unto us the great benefit we reap thereby. For which cause, St. Peter the apostle, when, upon his first preaching of this gospel, many were pricked at the heart, and said unto him and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’ replied and said unto them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.’ The same apostle testifieth in another place, ‘even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’”—Office of Adult Baptism. The Church also states in the Catechism, that a sacrament, as baptism is, hath two parts, the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace: that the outward visible sign or form in baptism is water, wherein the person is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and that the inward and spiritual grace, which through the means of baptism we receive, is a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness; for being by nature born in sin and the children of wrath, we are hereby, i. e. by baptism, made children of grace. Therefore the Church, as soon as ever a child is baptized, directs the minister to say, “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning.” The Church here first declares that grace has been given, even the grace of regeneration, and then implies that the grace, if not used, may be lost. On this subject more will be said in the article on Regeneration. See also Infant Baptism.

Grotius (Annot. ad Matt. iii. 6) is of opinion, that the rite of baptism had its original from the time of the deluge; immediately after which he thinks it was instituted, in memory of the world having been purged by water. Some learned men think (W. Schickard, de Jur. Reg. cap. 5) it was added to circumcision, soon after the Samaritan schism, as a mark of distinction to the orthodox Jews. Spencer, who is fond of deriving the rites of the Jewish religion from the ceremonies of the Pagan, lays it down as a probable supposition, that the Jews received the baptism of proselytes from the neighbouring nations, who were wont to prepare candidates for the more sacred functions of their religion by a solemn ablution; that, by this affinity of sacred rites, they might draw the Gentiles to embrace their religion, and the proselytes (in gaining of whom they were extremely diligent, Matt. xxiii. 15) might the more easily comply with the transition from Gentilism to Judaism. In confirmation of this opinion, he observes, first, that there is no Divine precept for the baptism of proselytes, God having enjoined only the rite of circumcision, (Exod. xii. 48,) for the admission of strangers into the Jewish religion; secondly, that, among foreign nations, the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and others, it was customary that those who were to be initiated into their mysteries or sacred rites, should be first purified by dipping their whole body in water. Grotius, on Matt. xxvi. 27, adds, as a further confirmation of his opinion, that the “cup of blessing” likewise, added to the Paschal supper, seems plainly to have been derived from a Pagan original: for the Greeks, at their feasts, had one cup, called ποτήριον ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος, the cup of the good demon or god, which they drank at the conclusion of their entertainment, when the table was removed. Since, then, a rite of Gentile original was added to one of the Jewish sacraments, viz. the Passover, there can be no absurdity in supposing, that baptism, which was added to the other sacrament, namely, circumcision, might be derived from the same source. In the last place, he observes, that Christ, in the institution of his sacraments, paid a peculiar regard to those rites which were borrowed from the Gentiles; for, rejecting circumcision and the Paschal supper, he adopted into his religion baptism and the sacred cup; thus preparing the way for the conversion and reception of the Gentiles into his Church.

It is to be observed, under this head of Jewish baptism, that the proselyte was not to be baptized till the wound of circumcision was perfectly healed; that then the ceremony was performed by plunging him into some large, natural receptacle of water; and that baptism was never after repeated in the same person, or in any of his posterity, who derived their legal purity from the baptism of their ancestor.—Selden, de Jur. Nat. et Gent. lib. ii. cap. 1.

In the primitive Christian Church, (Tertull. de Baptismo,) the office of baptizing was vested principally in the bishops and priests, or pastors of the respective parishes; but, with the consent of the bishop, it was allowed to the deacons, and in cases of necessity even to laymen, to baptize; but never, under any necessity whatever, was it permitted to women to perform this office. Nor was it enough that baptism was conferred by a person called to the ministry, unless he was also orthodox in the faith. This became matter of great excitement in the Church; and hence arose the famous controversy between Cyprian and Stephen, bishop of Rome, concerning the rebaptizing those who had been baptized by heretics, Cyprian asserting that they ought to be rebaptized, and Stephen maintaining the contrary opinion.

The persons baptized were either infants or adults. To prove that infants were admitted to the sacrament of baptism, we need only use this argument. None were admitted to the eucharist till they had received baptism: but in the primitive Church children received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, as appears from what Cyprian relates concerning a sucking child, who so violently refused to taste the sacramental wine, that the deacon was obliged forcibly to open her lips and pour it down her throat. Origen writes, that children are baptized, “for the purging away of the natural filth and original impurity inherent in them.” We might add the testimonies of Irenæus and Cyprian; but it will be sufficient to mention the determination of an African synod, held A. D. 254, at which were present sixty-six bishops. The occasion of it was this. A certain bishop, called Fidus, had some scruples concerning the time of baptizing infants, whether it ought to be done on the second or third day after their birth, or not before the eighth day, as was observed with respect to circumcision under the Jewish dispensation. His scruples were proposed to this synod, who unanimously decreed, that the baptism of children was not to be deferred so long, but that the grace of God, or baptism, should be given to all, and most especially unto infants.—Justin Martyr, Second Apology; De Lapsis, § 20; In Lucam, Hom. xiv. Apud Cyprian. Epist. lix. § 2–4. Tertull. de Baptismo, c. 19.

As for the time, or season, at which baptism was usually administered, we find it to have been restrained to the two solemn festivals of the year, Easter and Whitsuntide: at Easter, in memory of Christ’s death and resurrection, correspondent to which are the two parts of the Christian life, represented and shadowed out in baptism, dying unto sin, and rising again unto newness of life; and at Whitsuntide, in memory of the Holy Ghost’s being shed upon the apostles, the same, in some measure, being represented and conveyed in baptism. It is to be observed, that these stated returns of the time of baptism related only to persons in health: in other cases, such as sickness, or any pressing necessity, the time of baptism was regulated by occasion and opportunity.

The place of baptism was at first unlimited; being some pond or lake, some spring or river, but always as near as possible to the place of public worship. Afterwards they had their baptisteries, or (as we call them) fonts, built at first near the church, then in the church-porch, and at last in the church itself. There were many in those days who were desirous to be baptized in the river Jordan, out of reverence to the place where our Saviour himself had been baptized.

The person to be baptized, if an adult, was first examined by the bishop, or officiating priest, who put some questions to him; as, first, whether he abjured the devil and all his works; secondly, whether he gave a firm assent to all the articles of the Christian faith: to both which he answered in the affirmative. Concerning these baptismal questions, Dionysius Alexandrinus, in his letter to Xistus, bishop of Rome, speaks of a certain scrupulous person in his church, who, being present at baptism, was exceedingly troubled, when he heard the questions and answers of those who were baptized. If the person to be baptized was an infant, these interrogatories were answered by his sponsores, or godfathers. Whether the use of sponsores was as old as the apostles’ days, is uncertain: perhaps it was not, since Justin Martyr, speaking of the method and form of baptism, says not a word of them.—Tertull. de Coron. Milit. Cyprian, Epist. vii. § 5. Justin Martyr, Apolog. 2. Apud Euseb. lib. vii. c. 9; Apolog. 2.

After the questions and answers, followed exorcism, the manner and end of which was this. The minister laid his hands on the person’s head, and breathed in his face, implying thereby the driving away, or expelling, of the devil from him, and preparing him for baptism, by which the good and holy Spirit was to be conferred upon him.

After exorcism, followed baptism itself: and first the minister, by prayer, consecrated the water for that use. Tertullian says, “any waters may be applied to that use; but then God must be first invocated, and then the Holy Ghost presently comes down from heaven, and moves upon them, and sanctifies them.” The water being consecrated, the person was baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” by which “dedication of him to the blessed Trinity, the person” (says Clemens Alexandrinus) “is delivered from the corrupt trinity, the devil, the world, and the flesh.”—Tertull. de Baptismo. Justin Martyr, Apolog. 2.

In performing the ceremony of baptism, the usual custom was to immerse and dip the whole body. Thus St. Barnabas, describing a baptized person, says, “We go down into the water full of sin and filth, but we ascend bearing fruit in our hearts.” And that all occasions of scandal and immodesty might be prevented in so sacred an action, the men and women were baptized in distinct apartments; the women having deaconesses to undress and dress them. Then followed the unction, by which (says St. Cyril) was signified, that they were now cut off from the wild olive, and were ingrafted into Christ, the true olive-tree; or else to show, that they were now to be champions for the gospel, and were anointed thereto, as the old Athletæ were against their solemn games. With this anointing was joined the sign of the cross, made upon the forehead of the person baptized; which being done, he had a white garment given him, to denote his being washed from the defilements of sin, or in allusion to the words of the apostle, “as many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” From this custom the feast of Pentecost, which was one of the annual seasons of baptism, came to be called Whitsunday, i. e. Whitesunday. This garment was afterwards laid up in the church, that it might be an evidence against such persons as violated or denied that faith which they had owned in baptism. Of this we have a remarkable instance under the Arian persecution in Africa. Elpidophorus, a citizen of Carthage, had lived a long time in the communion of the Church, but, apostatizing afterwards to the Arians, became a most bitter and implacable persecutor of the orthodox. Among several whom he sentenced to the rack, was one Miritas, a venerable old deacon, who, being ready to be put upon the rack, pulled out the white garment with which Elpidophorus had been clothed at his baptism, and, with tears in his eyes, thus addressed him before all the people. “These, Elpidophorus, thou minister of error, these are the garments that shall accuse thee, when thou shalt appear before the majesty of the Great Judge; these are they which girt thee, when thou camest pure out of the holy font; and these are they which shall bitterly pursue thee, when thou shalt be cast into the place of flames; because thou hast clothed thyself with cursing as with a garment, and hast cast off the sacred obligation of thy baptism.”—Epist. Cathol. § 9. Cave’s Primitive Christianity, p. i. c. 10. Epiph. Hæres. 79. Ambrose de Sacr. lib. i. c. 21. Gal. iii. 27. Victor. Utic. de Persecut. Vandal. lib. iii.

But though immersion was the usual practice, yet sprinkling was in some cases allowed, as in clinic baptism, or the baptism of such persons as lay sick in bed. It is true, this kind of baptism was not esteemed so perfect and effectual as that by immersion or dipping; for which reason, in some Churches, none were advanced to the order of the priesthood, who had been so baptized; an instance of which we have in Novatian, whose ordination was opposed by all the clergy upon that account; though afterward, at the entreaties of the bishop, they consented to it. Notwithstanding which general opinion, Cyprian, in a set discourse on this subject, declares that he thought this baptism to be as perfect and valid as that performed more solemnly by immersion.—Epist. Cornel. ad Fabium Antioch. apud Euseb. lib. vi. cap. 43. Epist. lxxvi. § 9. Apolog. 2.

When baptism was performed, the person baptized, according to Justin Martyr, “was received into the number of the faithful, who then sent up their public prayers to God, for all men, for themselves, and for those who had been baptized.”

As the Church granted baptism to all persons duly qualified to receive it, so there were some whom she debarred from the benefits of this holy rite. The author of the Apostolical Constitutions mentions several. Bingham, Orig. Eccles. b. xi. cap. 5, § 6, &c. Const. Apost. lib. viii. cap. 32. Such were panders, or procurers; whores; makers of images or idols; actors and stage-players; gladiators, charioteers, and gamesters; magicians, enchanters, astrologers, diviners, and wandering beggars. Concerning stage-players, the Church seems to have considered them in the very same light as the ancient heathens themselves did: for Tertullian (Tertull. de Spectac. cap. 22) observes that they who professed those arts were branded with infamy, degraded, and denied many privileges, driven from the court, from pleading, from the order of knighthood, and all other honours in the Roman city and commonwealth. It has been a question, whether the military life disqualified a man for baptism: but the contrary appears from the Constitutions, lib. viii. cap. 32, which admit soldiers to the baptism of the Church, on the same terms that St. John Baptist admitted them to his; namely, that they should do violence to no man, accuse no one falsely, and be content with their wages, Luke iii. 14. The state of concubinage is another case which has been matter of doubt. The rule in the Constitutions, lib. viii. c. 32, concerning the matter is this: a concubine, that is, a slave to an infidel, if she keep herself only to him, may be received to baptism; but, if she commit fornication with others, she shall be rejected. The Council of Toledo (Conc. Tolet. 1, can. 17) distinguishes between a man’s having a wife and a concubine at the same time, and keeping a concubine only: the latter case it considers as no disqualification for the sacraments, and only insists that a man be content to be joined to one woman only, whether wife or concubine, as he pleases.

Though baptism was esteemed by the Church as a Divine and heavenly institution, yet there wanted not sects, in the earliest ages, who either rejected it in whole or in part, or greatly corrupted it. The Ascodrutæ wholly rejected it, because they would admit of no external or corporeal symbols whatever. The Archontics, who imagined that the world was not created by the supreme God, but by certain ἄρχοντες, or powers, the chief of whom they called Sabaoth, rejected this whole rite, as a foreign institution, given by Sabaoth, the God of the Jews, whom they distinguished from the supreme God. The Seleucians and Hermians rejected baptism by water, on pretence that it was not the baptism instituted by Christ; because St. John Baptist, comparing his own baptism with that of Christ, says, “I baptize you with water, but he that cometh after me shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” Matt. iii. 11. They thought that the souls of men consisted of fire and spirit, and therefore that a baptism by fire was more suitable to their nature. Another sect which rejected water-baptism, were the Manichees, who looked upon it as of no efficacy towards salvation: but whether they admitted any other kind of baptism, we are not told. The Paulicians, a branch of this heresy, maintained that the word of the gospel is baptism, because our Lord said, “I am the living water.”—Bingham Orig. Eccles. b. x. cap. 2, § 1. Epiph. Hæres. 40. Theod. Hær. Fab. l. i. cap. 11. August. de Hæres. cap. 59. Philastr. de Hæres. Prædestinat. Hæres. 40. Euthym. Panoplia, Par. ii. tit. 21.

Though the ancient Church considered baptism as indispensably necessary to salvation, it was always with this restriction, provided it could be had: in extraordinary cases, wherein baptism could not be had, though men were desirous of it, they made several exceptions in behalf of other things, which in such circumstances were thought sufficient to supply the want of it. (Bingham, § 19, 20.) The chief of these excepted cases was martyrdom, which usually goes by the name of second baptism, or baptism in men’s own blood, in the writings of the ancients. (Cyprian. Ep. lxiii. ad Julian.) This baptism, they suppose, our Lord spoke of, when he said, “I have another baptism to be baptized with,” alluding to his own future martyrdom on the cross. In the Acts of the Martyrdom of Perpetua, there is mention of one Saturus, a catechumen, who, being thrown to a leopard, was, by the first bite of the wild beast, so bathed in blood, that the people, in derision of the Christian doctrine of martyrdom, cried out salvum lotum, salvum lotum, baptized and saved, baptized and saved. (Bingham, § 24.) But these exceptions and allowances were with respect to adult persons only, who could make some compensation, by acts of faith and repentance, for the want of the external ceremony of baptism. But, as to infants who died without baptism, the case was thought more difficult, because they were destitute both of “the outward visible sign and the inward spiritual grace of baptism.” Upon which account they who spoke the most favourably of their case, would only venture to assign them a middle state, neither in heaven nor hell.—Greg. Naz. Orat. 40. Sever. Catena in Johan. iii.

For the rest, the rite of baptism was esteemed as the most universal absolution and grand indulgence of the ministry of the Church; as conveying a general pardon of sin to every true member of Christ; and as the key of the sacraments, that opens the gate of the kingdom of heaven. Bingham, b. xix, c. i. § 9.

Baptism is defined by the Church of Rome (Alet’s Ritual) to be “a sacrament, instituted by our Saviour, to wash away original sin, and all those we may have committed; to communicate to mankind the spiritual regeneration, and the grace of Christ Jesus; and to unite them to him, as the living members to the head.”

When a child is to be baptized in that Church, the persons who bring it wait for the priest at the door of the Church, who comes thither in his surplice and purple stole, attended by his clerks. He begins with questioning the godfathers, whether they promise, in the child’s name, to live and die in the true Catholic and Apostolic faith, and what name they would give the child. Then follows an exhortation to the sponsors; after which the priest, calling the child by its name, asks it as follows: “What dost thou demand of the Church?” The godfather answers, “Eternal life.” The priest goes on; “If you are desirous of obtaining eternal life, keep God’s commandments, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” &c. After which he breathes three times in the child’s face, saying, “Come out of this child, thou evil spirit, and make room for the Holy Ghost.” This said, he makes the sign of the cross on the child’s forehead and breast, saying, “Receive the sign of the cross on thy forehead, and in thy heart.” Then, taking off his cap, he repeats a short prayer, and, laying his hand gently on the child’s head, repeats a second prayer: which ended, he blesses some salt, and, putting a little of it into the child’s mouth, pronounces these words: “Receive the salt of wisdom.” All this is performed at the church door.

The priest, with the godfathers and godmothers, coming into the church, and advancing towards the font, repeat the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. Being come to the font, the priest exorcises the evil spirit again, and, taking a little of his own spittle, with the thumb of his right hand, rubs it on the child’s ears and nostrils, repeating, as he touches the right ear, the same word (Ephatha, “be thou opened”) which our Saviour made use of to the man born deaf and dumb. Lastly, they pull off its swaddling-clothes, or strip it below the shoulders, during which the priest prepares the oils, &c.

The sponsors then hold the child directly over the font, observing to turn it due east and west; whereupon the priest asks the child, “whether he renounces the devil and all his works,” and, the godfather having answered in the affirmative, the priest anoints the child between the shoulders in the form of a cross. Then, taking some of the consecrated water, he pours part of it thrice on the child’s head, at each perfusion calling on one of the persons of the holy Trinity. The priest concludes the ceremony of baptism with an exhortation.

It is to be observed, that, in the naming the child, all profane names, such as those of the heathens and their gods, are never admitted; and that a priest is authorized to change the name of a child (though it be a Scripture name) who has been baptized by a Protestant minister. Benserade, we are told, had like to have had his Christian name, which was Isaac, changed, when the bishop confirmed him, had he not prevented it by a jest: for, when they would have changed his name, and given him another, he asked them, “What they gave him into the bargain;” which so pleased the bishop, that he permitted him to retain his former name.

The Romish Church allows midwives, in cases of danger, to baptize a child before it is come entirely out of its mother’s womb: where it is to be observed, that some part of the body of the child must appear before it can be baptized, and that it is baptized on the part which first appears: if it be the head it is not necessary to rebaptize the child; but if only a foot or hand appears, it is necessary to repeat baptism. A still-born child, thus baptized, may be buried in consecrated ground. A monster, or creature that has not the human form, must not be baptized: if it be doubtful whether it be a human creature or not, it is baptized conditionally thus, “If thou art a man, I baptize thee,” &c.

The Greek Church differs from the Romish, as to the rite of baptism, chiefly, in performing it by immersion, or plunging the infant all over in the water, which the relations of the child take care to have warmed, and throw into it a collection of the most odoriferous flowers.—Rycaut’s State of the Greek Church.

The Church of England (Article xxvii.) defines baptism to be, “not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened; but it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church: the promises of the forgiveness of sin, of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, faith is confirmed, and grace increased, by virtue of prayer to God.” It is added, “that the baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.”

In the rubrics of her liturgy, (see Office for Ministration of Public Baptism,) the Church prescribes, that baptism be administered only on Sundays and holy days, except in cases of necessity. She requires sponsors for infants; for every male child two godfathers and one godmother; and for every female two godmothers and one godfather. We find this provision made by a constitution of Edmond, archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 1236; and in a synod held at Worcester, A. D. 1240. By the 29th canon of our Church, no parent is to be admitted to answer as godfather to his own child.—Bp. Gibson’s Codex, vol. i. p. 439.

The form of administering baptism is too well known to require a particular account to be given of it. We shall only observe some of the more material differences between the form, as it stood in the first liturgy of King Edward, and that in our Common Prayer Book at present. First, in that of King Edward, we meet with a form of exorcism, founded upon the like practice of the primitive Church, which our reformers left out, when they took a review of the liturgy in the 5th and 6th of that king. It is as follows.

“Then let the priest, looking upon the children, say;

“I command thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that thou come out, and depart from these infants, whom our Lord Jesus Christ hath vouchsafed to call to his holy baptism, to be made members of his body, and of his holy congregation. Therefore, thou cursed spirit, remember thy sentence, remember thy judgment, remember the day to be at hand, wherein thou shalt burn in fire everlasting, prepared for thee and thy angels. And presume not hereafter to exercise any tyranny towards these infants, whom Christ hath bought with his precious blood, and by this his holy baptism calleth to be of his flock.”

The form of consecrating the water did not make a part of the office in King Edward’s liturgy, as it does in the present, because the water in the font was changed and consecrated but once a month. The form likewise itself was something different from that we now use, and was introduced with a short prayer, that “Jesus Christ, upon whom (when he was baptized) the Holy Ghost came down in the likeness of a dove, would send down the same Holy Spirit, to sanctify the fountain of baptism; which prayer was afterwards left out, at the second review.

By King Edward’s First Book, the minister is to “dip the child in the water thrice; first dipping the right side; secondly the left; the third time dipping the face toward the font.” This trine immersion was a very ancient practice in the Christian Church, and used in honour of the Holy Trinity: though some later writers say, it was done to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, together with his three days’ continuance in the grave. Afterwards, the Arians making an ill use of it, by persuading the people that it was used to denote that the three persons in the Trinity were three distinct substances, the orthodox left it off, and used only one single immersion.—Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 26. Greg. Nyss. de Bapt. Christi. Cyril, Catech. Mystag.

By the first Common Prayer of King Edward, after the child was baptized, the godfathers and godmothers were to lay their hands upon it, and the minister was to put on him the white vestment commonly called the Chrysome, and to say: “Take this white vesture, as a token of the innocency which, by God’s grace, in this holy sacrament of baptism, is given unto thee; and for a sign, whereby thou art admonished, so long as thou livest, to give thyself to innocence of living, that, after this transitory life, thou mayest be partaker of the life everlasting. Amen.” As soon as he had pronounced these words, he was to anoint the infant on the head, saying, “Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath regenerated thee by water and the Holy Ghost, and hath given unto thee remission of all thy sins; vouchsafe to anoint thee with the unction of his Holy Spirit, and bring thee to the inheritance of everlasting life. Amen.” This was manifestly done in imitation of the practice of the primitive Church.

The custom of sprinkling children, instead of dipping them in the font, which at first was allowed in case of the weakness or sickness of the infant, has so far prevailed, that immersion is at length almost excluded. What principally tended to confirm the practice of affusion or sprinkling, was, that several of our English divines, flying into Germany and Switzerland, during the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and returning home when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great zeal for the Protestant Churches beyond sea where they had been sheltered and received; and, having observed that at Geneva (Calvin, Instit. lib. iv. c. 15) and some other places baptism was administered by sprinkling, they thought they could not do the Church of England a greater piece of service than by introducing a practice dictated by so great an oracle as Calvin. This, together with the coldness of our northern climate, was what contributed to banish entirely the practice of dipping infants in the font.

Lay-baptism we find to have been permitted by both the Common Prayer Books of King Edward, and that of Queen Elizabeth, when an infant is in immediate danger of death, and a lawful minister cannot be had. This was founded upon the mistaken notion of the impossibility of salvation without the sacrament of baptism; but afterwards, when they came to have clearer notions of the sacraments, it was unanimously resolved in a convocation, held in the year 1575, that even private baptism, in a case of necessity, was only to be administered by a lawful minister.—Bp. Gibson’s Codex, tit. xviii. vol. i. ch. 9, p. 446.

It remains to be observed, that, by a provincial constitution, made in the year 1236, (26th of Hen. III.,) neither the water, nor the vessel containing it, which have been made use of in private baptism, are afterwards to be applied to common uses: but, out of reverence to the sacrament, the water is to be poured into the fire, or else carried into the church and put into the font; and the vessel to be burnt, or else appropriated to some use in the church. But no provision is made for the disposition of the water used in the font at church. In the Greek Church, particular care is taken that it be not thrown into the street like common water, but poured into a hollow place under the altar, (called θαλασσίδιον or χωνεῖον,) where it is soaked into the earth, or finds a passage.—Broughton. Bp. Gibson’s Codex, tit. xviii. c. 2, vol. i. p. 435. Dr. Smith’s Account of the Gr. Church.

BAPTISM, ADULT. “It was thought convenient, that some prayers and thanksgivings, fitted to special occasions, should be added; particularly an office for the baptism of such as are of riper years; which, although not so necessary when the former book was compiled, yet by the growth of anabaptism, through the licentiousness of the late times crept in amongst us, is now become necessary, and may be always useful for the baptizing of natives in our plantations, and others converted to the faith.”—Preface to the Book of Common Prayer.

Rubric. “When any such persons of riper years are to be baptized, timely notice shall be given to the bishop, or whom he shall appoint for that purpose, a week before at the least, by the parents or some other discreet persons; that so due care may be taken for their examination, whether they be sufficiently instructed in the principles of the Christian religion; and that they may be exhorted to prepare themselves with prayers and fasting for the receiving of this holy sacrament. And if they shall be found fit, then the godfathers and godmothers (the people being assembled upon the Sunday or holy day appointed) shall be ready to present them at the font, immediately after the second lesson, either at morning or evening prayer, as the curate in his discretion shall think fit. And it is expedient that every person thus baptized should be confirmed by the bishop, so soon after his baptism as conveniently may be; that so he may be admitted to the holy communion.”

BAPTISM, INFANT. Article 27. “The baptism of young children is in anywise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.”

Rubric. “The curates of every parish shall often admonish the people, that they defer not the baptism of their children longer than the first or second Sunday next after their birth, or other holy day falling between; unless upon a great and reasonable cause, to be approved by the curate.”

The practice of infant baptism seems to be a necessary consequence of the doctrine of original sin and of the grace of baptism. If it be only by union with Christ that the children of Adam can be saved; and if, as the apostle teaches, in baptism “we put on Christ,” then it was natural for parents to ask for permission to bring their little ones to Christ, that they might be partakers of the free grace that is offered to all; but though offered to all, to be applied individually. It may be because it is so necessary a consequence of the doctrine of original sin, that the rite of infant baptism is not enjoined in Scripture. But though there is no command in Scripture to baptize infants, and although for the practice we must plead the tradition of the Church Universal, still we may find a warrant in Scripture in favour of the traditional practice. We find it generally stated that the apostles baptized whole households, and Christ our Saviour commanded them to baptize all nations, of which infants form a considerable part. And in giving this injunction, we may presume that he intended to include infants, from the very fact of his not excluding them. For he was addressing Jews; and when the Jews converted a heathen to faith in the God of Israel, they were accustomed to baptize the convert, together with all the infants of his family. And, consequently, when our Lord commanded Jews, i.e. men accustomed to this practice, to baptize nations, the fact that he did not positively repel infants, implied an injunction to baptize them; and when the Holy Spirit records that the apostles, in obedience to that injunction, baptized whole households, the argument gains increased force. This is probably what St. Paul means, when, in the seventh chapter of the First Corinthians, verse 14, he speaks of the children of believers as being holy: they are so far holy, that they may be brought to the sacrament of baptism. From the apostles has come down the practice of baptizing infants, the Church requiring security, through certain sponsors, that the children shall be brought up to lead a godly and a Christian life. And by the early Christians the practice was considered sufficiently sanctioned by the passage from St. Mark, which is read in our baptismal office, in which we are told, that the Lord Jesus Christ, having rebuked those that would have kept the children from him, took them up in his arms and blessed them. He blessed them, and his blessing must have conveyed grace to their souls; therefore, of grace, children may be partakers. They may receive spiritual life, though it may be long before that life develope itself; and that life they may lose by sinning.

BAPTISM, LAY. We shall briefly state the history of lay baptism in our Church both before and after the Reformation. In the “Laws Ecclesiastical” of Edmund, king of England, A. D. 945, it is stated:—“Women, when their time of child-bearing is near at hand, shall have water ready, for baptizing the child in case of necessity.”

In the national synod under Otho, 1237, it is directed: “For cases of necessity, the priests on Sundays shall frequently instruct their parishioners in the form of baptism.” To which it is added, in the Constitutions of Archbishop Peckham, in 1279, “Which form shall be thus: I crysten thee in the name of the Fader, and of the Sone, and of the Holy Goste.”

In the Constitutions of the same archbishop, in 1281, it is ruled that infants baptized by laymen or women (in imminent danger of death) shall not be baptized again; and the priest shall afterwards supply the rest.

By the rubrics of the second and of the fifth of Edward VI. it was ordered thus: “The pastors and curates shall often admonish the people, that without great cause and necessity they baptize not children at home in their houses; and when great need shall compel them so to do, that then they minister it in this fashion:—First, let them that be present call upon God for his grace, and say the Lord’s Prayer, if the time will suffer; and then one of them shall name the child and dip him in the water, or pour water upon him, saying these words, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

In the manuscript copy of the Articles made in convocation in the year 1575, the twelfth is, “Item, where some ambiguity and doubt hath arisen among divers, by what persons private baptism is to be administered; forasmuch as by the Book of Common Prayer allowed by the statute, the bishop of the diocese is authorized to expound and resolve all such doubts as shall arise, concerning the manner how to understand and to execute the things contained in the said book; it is now, by the said archbishop and bishops, expounded and resolved, and every of them doth expound and resolve, that the said private baptism, in case of necessity, is only to be ministered by a lawful minister or deacon called to be present for that purpose, and by none other; and that every bishop in his diocese shall take order that this exposition of the said doubt shall be published in writing, before the first day of May next coming, in every parish church of his diocese in this province; and thereby all other persons shall be inhibited to intermeddle with the ministering of baptism privately, being no part of their vocation.” This article was not published in the printed copy; but whether on the same account that the fifteenth article was left out, (namely, because disapproved by the Crown,) does not certainly appear. However, the ambiguity remained till the conference at Hampton Court, in which the king said, that if baptism was termed private, because any but a lawful minister might baptize, he utterly disliked it, and the point was then debated; which debate ended in an order to the bishops to explain it, so as to restrain it to a lawful minister. Accordingly, in the Book of Common Prayer, which was set forth the same year, the alterations were printed in the rubric thus:—“And also they shall warn them, that without great cause they procure not their children to be baptized at home in their houses. And when great need shall compel them so to do, then baptism shall be administered on this fashion: First, let the lawful minister and them that be present call upon God for his grace, and say the Lord’s Prayer, if the time will suffer; and then the child being named by some one that is present, the said minister shall dip it in the water, or pour water upon it.” And other expressions, in other parts of the service, which seemed before to admit of lay baptism, were so turned, as expressly to exclude it.

BAPTISM, PRIVATE. Rubric. “The curates of every parish shall often warn the people, that without great cause and necessity, they procure not their children to be baptized at home in their houses.”

Canon 69. “If any minister being duly, without any manner of collusion, informed of the weakness and danger of death of any infant unbaptized in his parish, and thereupon desired to go or come to the place where the said infant remaineth, to baptize the same, shall either wilfully refuse so to do, or of purpose or of gross negligence shall so defer the time, as when he might conveniently have resorted to the place, and have baptized the said infant, it dieth through such his default unbaptized, the said minister shall be suspended for three months, and before his restitution shall acknowledge his fault, and promise before his ordinary that he will not wittingly incur the like again. Provided, that where there is a curate, or a substitute, this constitution shall not extend to the parson or vicar himself, but to the curate or substitute present.”

Rubric. “The child being named by some one that is present, the minister shall pour water upon it.

“And let them not doubt, but that the child so baptized is lawfully and sufficiently baptized, and ought not to be baptized again. Yet, nevertheless, if the child which is after this sort baptized do afterward live, it is expedient that it be brought into the church, to the intent that the congregation may be certified of the true form of baptism privately before administered to such child.”

BAPTISM, PUBLIC. At first baptism was administered publicly, as occasion served, by rivers; afterwards the baptistery was built, at the entrance of the church or very near it, which had a large basin in it, that held the persons to be baptized, and they went down by steps into it. Afterwards, when immersion came to be disused, fonts were set up at the entrance of churches.

By the “Laws Ecclesiastical” of King Edmund, it is directed that there shall be a font of stone, or other competent material, in every church; which shall be decently covered and kept, and not converted to other uses.

And by canon 81, There shall be a font of stone in every church and chapel where baptism is to be administered; the same to be set in the ancient usual places: in which only font the minister shall baptize publicly.

The rubric directs that the people are to be admonished, that it is most convenient that baptism shall not be administered but upon Sundays and other holy days, when the most number of people come together; as well for that the congregation there present may testify the receiving of them that be newly baptized into the number of Christ’s Church, as also because in the baptism of infants, every man present may be put in remembrance of his own profession made to God in his baptism. Nevertheless, if necessity so require, children may be baptized upon any other day.

And by canon 68, No minister shall refuse or delay to christen any child according to the form of the Book of Common Prayer, that is brought to the church to him upon Sundays and holy days to be christened (convenient warning being given him thereof before). And if he shall refuse so to do, he shall be suspended by the bishop of the diocese from his ministry by the space of three months.

The rubric also directs, that when there are children to be baptized, the parents shall give knowledge thereof over-night, or in the morning before the beginning of morning prayer, to the curate.

The rubric further directs, that there shall be for every male child to be baptized two godfathers and one godmother; and for every female, one godfather and two godmothers.

By the 29th canon it is related, that no parent shall be urged to be present, nor admitted to answer as godfather for his own child: nor any godfather or godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech, than by the Book of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf. Neither shall any persons be admitted godfather or godmother to any child at christening or confirmation, before the said person so undertaking hath received the holy communion.

According to the rubric, the godfathers and godmothers, and the people with the children, must be ready at the font, either immediately after the last lesson at morning prayer, or else immediately after the last lesson at evening prayer, as the curate by his discretion shall appoint.

The rubric appoints that the priest coming to the font, which is then to be filled with pure water, shall perform the office of public baptism.

It may be here observed, that the questions in the office of the 2 Edward VI., “Dost thou renounce?” and so on, were put to the child, and not to the godfathers and godmothers, which (with all due submission) seems more applicable to the end of the institution; besides that it is not consistent (as it seems) with the propriety of language, to say to three persons collectively, “Dost thou in the name of this child do this or that?”

By a constitution of Archbishop Peckham, the ministers are to take care not to permit wanton names, which being pronounced do sound to lasciviousness, to be given to children baptized, especially of the female sex; and if otherwise it be done, the same shall be changed by the bishop at confirmation; which being so changed at confirmation (Lord Coke says) shall be deemed the lawful name, though this appears to be no longer the case. In the ancient offices of Confirmation, the bishop pronounced the name of the child; and if the bishop did not approve of the name, or the person to be confirmed, or his friends, desired it to be altered, it might be done by the bishop’s then pronouncing a new name; but by the form of the present liturgy, the bishop doth not pronounce the name of the person to be confirmed, and therefore cannot alter it.

The rubric goes on to direct, The priest, taking the child into his hands, shall say to the godfathers and godmothers, “Name this child:” and then naming it after them, (if they shall certify him that the child may well endure it,) he shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily, saying, “N. I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” But if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it.

Here we may observe that the dipping by the office of the 2 Edward VI. was not all over; but they first dipped the right side, then the left, then the face towards the font.

The rubric directs that the minister shall sign the child with the sign of the cross. And to take away all scruple concerning the same, the true explication thereof, and the just reasons for retaining of this ceremony, are set forth in the thirtieth canon. The substance of which canon is this, that the first Christians gloried in the cross of Christ; that the Scripture sets forth our whole redemption under the name of the cross; that the sign of the cross was used by the first Christians in all their actions, and especially in the baptizing of their children; that the abuse of it by the Church of Rome does not take away the lawful use of it; that the same has been approved by the reformed divines, with sufficient cautions nevertheless against superstition in the use of it; that it is no part of the substance of this sacrament, and that the infant baptized is by virtue of baptism, before it be signed with the sign of the cross, received into the congregation of Christ’s flock as a perfect member thereof, and not by any power ascribed to the sign of the cross; and therefore, that the same, being purged from all Popish superstition and error, and reduced to its primary institution, upon those rules of doctrine concerning things indifferent which are consonant to the word of God and to the judgments of all the ancient fathers, ought to be retained in the Church, considering that things of themselves indifferent do, in some sort, alter their natures when they become enjoined or prohibited by lawful authority.

The following is Dr. Comber’s analysis of our baptismal office:—The first part of the office, or the preparation before baptism, concerns either the child or the sureties. As to the child, we first inquire if it want baptism; secondly, show the necessity of it in an exhortation; thirdly, we pray it may be fitted for it in the two collects. First, the priest asks if this child have been already baptized, because St. Paul saith, “there is but one baptism” (Ephes. iv. 5); and as we are born, so we are born again, but once. Secondly, the minister begins the exhortation, showing, 1. what reason there is to baptize this child, namely, because of its being born in original sin, (Psalm li. 5,) and by consequence liable to condemnation (Rom. v. 12); the only way to free it from which is baptizing it with water and the Holy Ghost. (John iii. 5.) And, 2. beseeching all present, upon this account, to pray to God, that, while he baptizes this child with water, God will give it his Holy Spirit, so as to make it a lively member of Christ’s Church, whereby it may have a title to “remission of sins.” Thirdly, the two collects follow, made by the priest and all the people for the child: the first collect commemorates how God did typify this salvation, which he now gives by baptism, in saving Noah and all his by water (1 Pet. iii. 21); and by carrying the Israelites safe through the Red Sea. (1 Cor. x. 2.) And it declares also how Christ himself, by being baptized, sanctified water for remission of sin: and upon these grounds we pray that God will by his Spirit cleanse and sanctify this child, that he may be delivered from his wrath, saved in the ark of his Church, and so filled with grace as to live holily here, and happily hereafter. The second collect, after owning God’s power to help this child, and to raise him from the death of sin to the life of righteousness, doth petition him to grant it may receive remission and regeneration, pleading with God to grant this request, by his promise to give to them that ask, that so this infant may be spiritually cleansed by God’s grace in its baptism, and come at last to his eternal kingdom, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

The next part of the preparation concerns the godfathers or sureties, who are, 1. encouraged in the gospel and its application, with the thanksgiving; 2. instructed in the preface before the covenant; 3. engaged in the questions and answers. The Jews had sureties at circumcision, who promised for the child till it came to age (Isaiah viii. 2); and the primitive Christians had sponsors to engage for such as were baptized, and since children cannot make a covenant themselves, it is charity to appoint (as the laws of men do) others to do it for them till they be of age; and this gives security to the Church, the child shall not be an apostate; provides a monitor both for the child and its parents, to mind them of this vow, and keep the memory of this new birth, by giving the child new and spiritual relations of godfathers and godmothers. Now to these the priest next addresseth, 1. in the Gospel (Mark x. 13–16); which shows how the Jews, believing that Christ’s blessing would be very beneficial to young children, brought them to him in their arms, and when the disciples checked them, Christ first declares that infants, and such as were like them, had the only right to the kingdom of heaven, and therefore they had good right to his love and his blessing, and to all means which might bring them to it, and accordingly he took them in his arms and blessed them. After this follows the explication, and applying this gospel to the sureties; for if they doubt, here they may see Christ’s love to infants, and their right to heaven and to this means, so that they may firmly believe he will pardon and sanctify this child, and grant it a title to his kingdom; and that he is well pleased with them, for bringing this child to his holy baptism; for he desires this infant, as well as we all, may come to know and believe in him. Wherefore, thirdly, here is a thanksgiving to be offered up by all, beginning with praising God for calling us into his Church, where we may know him and obtain the grace to believe, it being very proper for us to bless God for our being Christians, when a new Christian is to be made; and then follows a prayer, that we who are Christians may grow in grace, and that this infant may receive the Spirit in order to its regeneration and salvation. After which form of devotion, fourthly, there is a preface to the covenant, wherein the godfathers and godmothers are put in mind, first, what hath been done already, namely, they have brought the child to Christ, and begged of him in the collects to accept it, and Christ hath showed them in the Gospel that the child is capable to receive, and he willing to give it, salvation and the means thereof, upon the conditions required of all Christians, that is, repentance, faith, and new obedience. Secondly, therefore, they are required to engage in the name of this child, till it come of age, that it shall perform these conditions required on its part, that it may have a title to that which Christ doth promise, and will certainly perform on his part. Fifthly, the engagement itself follows, which is very necessary, since baptism is a mutual covenant between God and man, and therefore, in the beginning of Christianity, (when the Church consisted chiefly of such as were converted from the Jews and Heathens, after they came to age,) the parties baptized answered these very same questions, and entered into these very engagements, for themselves; which infants (who need the benefits of baptism as much as any) not being able to do, the Church lends them the feet of others to bring them, and the tongues of others to promise for them; and the priest stands in God’s stead to take this security in his name; he “demands,” therefore, of the sureties, first, if they in the name and stead of this child will renounce all sinful compliances with the devil, the world, and the flesh, which tempt us to all kinds of sin, and so are God’s enemies, and ours also, in so high a measure, that unless we vow never to follow and be led by them, we cannot be received into league and friendship with God: to this they reply in the singular number, as if the child spake by them, “I renounce them all.” Secondly, as Philip asked the eunuch if he did believe before he baptized him, (Acts viii. 37,) so the priest asks if they believe all the articles of the Christian faith, into which religion they are now to be entered; and therefore they must engage to hold all the fundamental principles thereof, revealed in Scripture and comprised in the Apostles’ Creed; and they are to answer, “All this I stedfastly believe.” Thirdly, that it may appear to be their own free act to admit themselves into this holy religion, they are asked if they will be baptized into this faith, and they answer, “That is my desire;” for who would not desire to be a child of God, a member of Christ, and an heir of heaven? But since these benefits of baptism are promised only to them who live holily, fourthly, it is demanded if they will keep God’s holy will and commandments as long as they live, since they now take Christ for their Lord and Master, and list themselves under his banner, and receive his grace in this sacrament, to renew and strengthen them to keep this vow? Upon these accounts they promise “they will” keep God’s commandments. And now the covenant is made between God and this infant, he hath promised it pardon, grace, and glory, and is willing to adopt it for his own child: and this child, by its sureties, hath engaged to forsake all evil ways, to believe all truth, and to practise all kind of virtue.—Dean Comber.

BAPTISM, REGISTRATION OF. When the minister has baptized the child he has a further duty to perform, in making an entry thereof in the parish register, which is a book in which formerly all christenings, marriages, and burials were recorded, and the use of which is enforced both by the canon law and by the statute.

The keeping of parochial registries of baptism, and also of burial, are, so far as regards the duties of clergymen in that respect, regulated by the statute 52 Geo. III. c. 146, whereby it is enacted that registers of public and private baptisms, marriages, and burials, solemnized according to the rites of our Church, shall be made and kept by the rector or other the officiating minister of every parish or chapelry, on books of parchment, or durable paper, to be provided by the king’s printer, at the expense of the parishes; and the particular form of the book, and of the manner of making the entries, are directed according to a form in the schedule to the act.

The register book is to be deemed the property of the parish; the custody of it is to be in the rector or other officiating minister, by whom it is to be kept in an iron chest provided by the parish, either in his own house, if he resides in the parish, or in the church, and the book is to be taken from the chest only for the purpose of making entries, being produced when necessary in evidence, or for some of the purposes mentioned in the act.

The act 6 & 7 W. IV., called the General Registration Act, provides that nothing therein contained shall affect the registration of baptisms or burials, as now by law established; so that whatever any parishioner, incumbent, or curate had respectively a right to insist upon, with regard to the regulation of baptisms, may be equally insisted upon by either party now. There are, however, enactments of 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 86, which are to be observed in addition to those of 52 Geo. III. c. 146.

If any child born in England, whose birth shall have been registered according to the provisions of 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 86, shall, within six calendar months after it has been so registered, have any name given to it in baptism, the parents or persons so procuring such name to be given may, within seven days afterwards, procure and deliver to the registrar a certificate according to a prescribed form, signed by the minister who shall have performed the rite of baptism, which certificate the minister is required to deliver immediately after the baptism, whenever it shall then be demanded, on payment of the fee of 1s., which he shall be entitled to receive for the same; and the registrar, or superintendant registrar, upon the receipt of that certificate, and upon payment of a fee of 1s., shall, without any erasure of the original entry, forthwith register that the child was baptized by such a name; and such registrar, or superintendant registrar, shall thereupon certify upon the certificate the additional entry so made, and forthwith send the certificate through the post to the registrar-general. Every rector, &c., and every registrar, &c., who shall have the keeping for the time being of any register book, shall, at all reasonable times, allow searches to be made, and shall give a copy certified under his hand of any entry or entries in the same, upon payment of a fee of 1s., for every search extending over a period of not more than one year, and 6d. additional for every half year, and 2s. 6d. for every single certificate.

BAPTISTERY. Properly a separate, or special, building for the administration of holy baptism. In this sense, a baptistery, originally intended and used for the purpose, does not occur in England; for that which is called the baptistery at Canterbury, and contains the font, was never so called, or so furnished, till the last century. The remains of an ancient baptistery chapel have lately been discovered in Ely cathedral; and the chapel is now in the course of restoration.

One of the most ancient baptisteries now existing is that of St. John Lateran at Rome, erected by Constantine. It is a detached building, and octagonal. In the centre is a large font of green basalt, into which the persons to be baptized descended by the four steps which still remain. It has two side chapels or exedræ. (See Eustace, Classical Tour in Italy.)

Detached baptisteries still exist in many cities in Italy: the most famous are those at Florence and Pisa. These served for the whole city; anciently no town churches but the cathedral church having fonts. (See Bingham, book viii. ch. 7, § 6.)

Sometimes the canopy to the font grows to so great amplitude as to be supported by its own pillars, and to receive persons within it at the baptismal service, and then it may be called a baptistery. This is the case at Trunch and at Aylsham, both in Norfolk. (See Font.)

BAPTISTS. A name improperly assumed by those who deny the validity of infant baptism, defer the baptism of their own children, and admit proselytes into their community by a second washing. They are more properly called Anabaptists, (see Anabaptists,) from their baptizing again; or Antipædobaptists, from their denying the validity of infant baptism. Their assumed name of Baptists would intimate that they alone truly baptize, and it ought not therefore to be allowed them. We ought no more to call them Baptists, than to call Socinians Unitarians, or Papists Catholics, as if we did not hold the Unity of the Godhead, and Socinians were distinguished from us by that article; or as if the Papists, and not we, were catholic or true Christians.

The following is the account of the denomination given by Burder. The members of this denomination are distinguished from all other professing Christians by their opinions respecting the ordinance of Christian baptism. Conceiving that positive institutions cannot be established by analogical reasoning, but depend on the will of the Saviour revealed in express precepts, and that apostolical example illustrative of this is the rule of duty, they differ from their Christian brethren with regard both to the subjects and the mode of baptism.

With respect to the subjects, from the command which Christ gave after his resurrection, and in which baptism is mentioned as consequent to faith in the gospel, they conceive them to be those, and those only, who believe what the apostles were then enjoined to preach.

With respect to the mode, they affirm that, instead of sprinkling or pouring, the person ought to be immersed in the water, referring to the primitive practice, and observing that the baptizer as well as the baptized having gone down into the water, the latter is baptized in it, and both come up out of it. They say, that John baptized in the Jordan, and that Jesus, after being baptized, came up out of it. Believers are said also to be “buried with Christ by baptism into death, wherein also they are risen with him;” and the Baptists insist that this is a doctrinal allusion incompatible with any other mode.

But they say that their views of this institution are much more confirmed, and may be better understood, by studying its nature and import. They consider it as an impressive emblem of that by which their sins are remitted or washed away, and of that on account of which the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey the Messiah. In other words, they view Christian baptism as a figurative representation of that which the gospel of Jesus is in testimony. To this the mind of the baptized is therefore naturally led, while spectators are to consider him as professing his faith in the gospel, and his subjection to the Redeemer. The Baptists, therefore, would say, that none ought to be baptized except those who seem to believe this gospel; and that immersion is not properly a mode of baptism, but baptism itself.

Thus the English and most foreign Baptists consider a personal profession of faith, and an immersion in water, as essential to baptism. The profession of faith is generally made before the congregation, at a church-meeting. On these occasions some have a creed, to which they expect the candidate to assent, and to give a circumstantial account of his conversion; but others require only a profession of his faith as a Christian. The former generally consider baptism as an ordinance, which initiates persons into a particular church; and they say that, without breach of Christian liberty, they have a right to expect an agreement in articles of faith in their own societies. The latter think that baptism initiates merely into a profession of the Christian religion, and therefore say that they have no right to require an assent to their creed from such as do not intend to join their communion; and, in support of their opinion, they quote the baptism of the eunuch, in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.

The Baptists are divided into the General, who are Arminians, and the Particular, who are Calvinists. Some of both classes allow mixed communion, by which is understood, that those who have not been baptized by immersion on the profession of their faith, (but in their infancy, which they themselves deem valid,) may sit down at the Lord’s table along with those who have been thus baptized. This has given rise to much controversy on the subject.

Some of both classes of Baptists are, at the same time, Sabbatarians, and, with the Jews, observe the seventh day of the week as the sabbath. This has been adopted by them from a persuasion that, all the ten commandments are in their nature strictly moral, and that the observance of the seventh day was never abrogated or repealed by our Saviour or his apostles.

In discipline, the Baptists differ little from the Independents. In Scotland they have some peculiarities, not necessary to notice.

BARDESANISTS. Christian heretics in the East, and the followers of Bardesanes, who lived in Mesopotamia in the second century, and was first the disciple of Valentinus, but quitted that heresy, and wrote not only against it, but against the Marcionite and other heresies of his time; he afterwards unhappily fell into the errors he had before refuted. The Bardesanists differed from the Catholic Church on three points:—1. They held the devil to be a self-existent, independent being. 2. They taught that our Lord was not born of a woman, but brought his body with him from heaven. 3. They denied the resurrection of the body.—Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. vi. c. 9. Epiph. Hæres. 5, 6. Origen, contr. Marcion, § 3.

BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF. The Epistle of St. Barnabas is published by Archbishop Wake, among his translations of the works of the Apostolical Fathers; and in the preliminary dissertation the reader will find the arguments which are adduced to prove this to be the work of St. Barnabas. By others it is referred to the second century, and is supposed to be the work of a converted Alexandrian Jew. Du Pin speaks of it as a work full of edification for the Church, though not canonical. By Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, by Eusebius and St. Jerome, the work is attributed to St. Barnabas, though they declare that it ought not to be esteemed of the same authority as the canonical books, “because, although it really belongs to St. Barnabas, yet it is not generally received by the whole Catholic Church.”—Wake. Du Pin.

BARNABAS’ DAY (ST.). 11th of June. This apostle was born in the island of Cyprus, and was descended from parents of the house of Levi. He became a student of the Jewish law, under Gamaliel, who was also the instructor of St. Paul. St. Barnabas was one of those who freely gave up his worldly goods into the common stock, which was voluntarily formed by the earliest converts to Christianity. After the conversion of St. Paul, St. Barnabas had the distinguished honour of introducing him into the society of the apostles; and was afterwards his fellow-labourer in many places, especially at Antioch, where the name of Christian was first assumed by the followers of Jesus. It has been said that St. Barnabas founded the Church of Milan, and that he was stoned to death at Salamis, in Cyprus; but these accounts are very uncertain. For the Epistle ascribed to him, see the preceding article.

BARNABITES. Called canons regular of St. Paul: an order of Romish monks approved by Pope Clement VII. and Pope Paul III. There have been several learned men of the order, and they have several monasteries in France, Italy, and Savoy: they call them by the name of canons of St. Paul, because their first founders had their denomination from their reading St. Paul’s Epistles; and they are named Barnabites for their particular devotion for St. Barnabas.—Du Pin.

BARSANIANS, or SEMIDULITES. Heretics that began to appear in the sixth age; they maintained the errors of the Gradanaites, and made their sacrifices consist in taking wheat flour on the top of their finger, and carrying it to their mouths.

BARTHOLOMEW’S DAY (ST.). 24th of August. The day appointed for the commemoration of this apostle. In the catalogue of the apostles, which is given by the first three of the evangelists, Bartholomew makes one of the number. St. John, however, not mentioning him, and recording several things of another disciple, whom he calls Nathanael, and who is not named by the other evangelists, this has occasioned many to be of the opinion that Bartholomew and Nathanael were the same person. St. Bartholomew is said to have preached the gospel in the Greater Armenia, and to have converted the Lycaonians to Christianity. It is also believed that he carried the gospel into India: and as there is no record of his return, it is not improbable that he suffered martyrdom in that country.

St. Bartholomew’s day is distinguished in history on account of that horrid and atrocious carnage, called the Parisian Massacre. This shocking scene of religious phrensy was marked with such barbarity as would exceed all belief, if it were not attested by authentic evidence. In 1572, in the reign of Charles IX., numbers of the principal Protestants were invited to Paris, under a solemn oath of safety, to celebrate the marriage of the king of Navarre with the sister of the French king. The queen dowager of Navarre, a zealous Protestant, was poisoned by a pair of gloves before the marriage was solemnized. On the 24th of August, being St. Bartholomew’s day, about morning twilight, the massacre commenced on the tolling of a bell of the church of St. Germain l’Auxerrois. The Admiral Coligni was basely murdered in his own house, and then thrown out of a window, to gratify the malice of the Duke of Guise. His head was afterwards cut off, and sent to the king and the queen mother; and his body, after a thousand indignities offered to it, was hung up by the feet upon a gibbet. The murderers then ravaged the whole city of Paris, and put to death more than ten thousand persons of all ranks. “This,” says Thuanus, “was a horrible scene. The very streets and passages resounded with the groans of the dying, and of those who were about to be murdered. The bodies of the slain were thrown out of the windows, and with them the courts and chambers of the houses were filled. The dead bodies of others were dragged through the streets, and the blood flowed down the channels in such torrents, that it seemed to empty itself into the neighbouring river. In short, an innumerable multitude of men, women with child, maidens, and children, were involved in one common destruction; and all the gates and entrances to the king’s palace were besmeared with blood. From Paris, the massacre spread throughout the kingdom. In the city of Meaux, the Papists threw into gaol more than two hundred persons; and after they had ravished and killed a great number of women, and plundered the houses of the Protestants, they executed their fury on those whom they had imprisoned, whom they killed in cold blood, and whose bodies were thrown into ditches, and into the river Maine. At Orleans they murdered more than five hundred men, women, and children, and enriched themselves with the plunder of their property. Similar cruelties were exercised at Angers, Troyes, Bourges, La Charité, and especially at Lyons, where they inhumanly destroyed more than eight hundred Protestants, whose bodies were dragged through the streets and thrown half dead into the river. It would be endless to mention the butcheries committed at Valence, Roanne, Rouen, &c. It is asserted that, on this dreadful occasion, more than thirty thousand persons were put to death. This atrocious massacre met with the deliberate approbation of the pope and the authorities of the Romish Church, and must convince every thinking man that resistance to Popish aggression is a work of Christian charity.

BARUCH (THE PROPHECY OF). One of the apocryphal books, subjoined to the canon of the Old Testament. Baruch was the son of Neriah, who was the disciple and amanuensis of the prophet Jeremiah. It has been reckoned part of Jeremiah’s prophecy, and is often cited by the ancient fathers as such. Josephus tells us, Baruch was descended of a noble family; and it is said, in the book itself, that he wrote this prophecy at Babylon; but at what time is uncertain.—Clem. Alexand. Pædag. ch. 10. Cyprian. de Testimon. ad Quirinum, lib. ii.

The subject of it is an epistle sent, or feigned to be sent, by king Jehoiakim, and the Jews in captivity with him at Babylon, to their brethren the Jews, who were left behind in the land of Judea, and in Jerusalem: there is prefixed an historical Preface, (Pref. to the Book of Baruch,) which relates, that Baruch, being then at Babylon, did, by the appointment of the king and the Jews, and in their name, draw up this epistle, and afterwards read it to them for their approbation; after which it was sent to Jerusalem, with a collection of money, to Joachim the high priest, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, and to the priests, and to all the people, to buy therewith burnt-offerings, and sin-offerings, and incense, &c.

It is difficult to determine in what language this prophecy was originally written. There are extant three copies of it; one in Greek, the other two in Syriac; but which of these, or whether any one of them, be the original, is uncertain.—Hieron. in Præfat. ad Jerem.

The Jews rejected this book, because it did not appear to have been written in Hebrew; nor is it in the catalogue of sacred books, given us by Origen, Hilary, Ruffinus, and others. But in the Council of Laodicea, in St. Cyril, Epiphanius, and Athanasius, it is joined with the prophecy of Jeremiah.

BASILIAN MONKS. Monks of the order of St. Basil, who lived in the fourth century. St. Basil, having retired into a desert in the province of Pontus, founded a monastery for the convenience of himself and his numerous followers; and for the better regulation of this new society, it is said that he drew up in writing certain rules which he wished them to observe, though some think that he did not compose these rules. This new order soon spread over all the East, and after some time passed into the West. Some authors pretend that St. Basil saw himself the spiritual father of more than 90,000 monks in the East only; but this order, which flourished during more than three centuries, was considerably diminished by heresy, schism, and a change of empire. They also say, that it has produced 14 popes, 1805 bishops, 3010 abbots, and 11,085 martyrs. This order also boasts of several emperors, kings, and princes, who have embraced its rule.—Tillemont, Hist. Eccles., tom. ix. The order of St. Basil prevails almost exclusively in the orthodox Greek Churches.

BASILICA. The halls of justice and of other public business among the Romans were thus called; and many of them, when converted into Christian churches, retained the same name. The general ground-plan of the basilica was also frequently retained in the erection of a church. The basilicas terminated with a conchoidal recess, or apsis, (see Apse,) where the prætor and magistrates sat: beneath this was a transverse hall or gallery, the origin of the transept, and below was the great hall with its side passages, afterwards called the nave and aisles.

The bishop of Rome had seven cathedrals called Basilicæ. Six of these were erected or converted into churches by Constantine, viz. St. John Lateran, (the regular cathedral of Rome,) the ancient church of St. Peter, on the Vatican Hill, St. Sebastian, St. Laurence, the Holy Cross, St. Mary the Greater; and one by Theodosius, viz. St. Paul. There are other very ancient churches in Rome, basilicas in form and name, but not cathedrals; for example, St. Clement’s church, supposed to have been originally the house of the apostolical bishop of that name, and the most ancient existing church in the world. Several Italian churches are called Basilicas; at Milan especially; often more than one in a city. (See Cathedrals.)—Jebb.

It is sometimes said, but without any certain foundation, that some of the churches in England with circular apsidal terminations of the chancel, (such as Kilpeck and Steetly,) were originally Roman basilicas. They rather derive their form from the Oriental country churches, which are uniformly apsidal. The most that can be said of them is, that they do, in some respects, resemble the basilicas in arrangement. But as to the cathedrals of England, the case is different: and since old Saxon or Norman churches were unquestionably debasements of the Roman style in their architectural features, it is possible that they derived from Rome the characteristics uniformly observed in the old basilicas. The conversion of the apses into sepulchral chapels for shrines, as at Westminster and Canterbury, as superstition increased, destroyed the ancient arrangements.—Jebb.

BASILIDIANS. A sect of the Gnostic heretics, the followers of Basilides, who taught that from the Unborn Father was born his Mind, and from him the Word, from him Understanding (φρόνησις), from him Wisdom and Power, and from them Excellencies, and Princes, and Angels, who made a heaven. He then introduced a successive series of angelic beings, each set derived from the preceding one, to the number of 365, and each the author of their own peculiar heaven. To all these angels and heavens he gave names, and assigned the local situations of the heavens. The first of them is called Abraxas, a mystical name, containing in it the number 365: the last and lowest is the one which we see; the creators of which made this world, and divided its parts and nations amongst them. In this division the Jewish nation came to the share of the prince of the angels; and as he wished to bring all other nations into subjection to his favourite nation, the other angelic princes and their nations resisted him and his nation. The Supreme Father, seeing this state of things, sent his first-begotten Mind, who is also called Christ, to deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the creators. He accordingly appeared to mankind as a man, and wrought mighty deeds. He did not, however, really suffer, but changed forms with Simon of Cyrene, and stood by laughing, while Simon suffered; and afterwards, being himself incorporeal, ascended into heaven. Building upon this transformation, Basilides taught his disciples that they might at all times deny him that was crucified, and that they alone who did so understood the providential dealings of the Most High, and by that knowledge were freed from the power of the angels, whilst those who confessed him remained under their power. Like Saturninus, however, but in other words, he asserted that the soul alone was capable of salvation, but the body necessarily perishable. He taught, moreover, that they who knew his whole system, and could recount the names of the angels, &c., were invisible to them all, and could pass through and see them, without being seen in return; that they ought likewise to keep themselves individually and personally unknown to common men, and even to deny that they are what they are; that they should assert themselves to be neither Jews nor Christians, and by no means reveal their mysteries.—Epiph. Hæres. xxiv. c. 1. Cave, Hist. Liter. Sæc. Gnosticum.

BASON (or BASIN) [so spelt in the sealed books] FOR THE OFFERTORY. “Whilst the sentences for the Offertory are in reading, the deacons, churchwardens, and other fit persons appointed for that purpose, shall receive the alms for the poor, and other devotions of the people, in a decent bason, to be provided by the parish for that purpose.”—Rubric.

It is clear from this expression, “other devotions,” that our reformers did not intend to interfere with the ancient destination of alms in the holy communion; but that they intended that all our gifts, whether for the relief of the poor—to which indeed the Church assigns the first place—or for any other good purpose, should be made as an offering to God; the word devotions signifying an act of giving up and dedicating to Almighty God, and accompanied with prayer. In Exeter cathedral, and others as we believe, the alms are still apportioned to these three purposes,—relief of the poor, support of the fabric of the church, and of the clergy. To this latter use in the early Church they were almost exclusively devoted, the clergy being the chief almoners for the poor, as the Church by her rightful office now is. It is often objected to giving largely in the Offertory that there are now poor laws; but surely the laws of the state should not cramp the free-will offerings of Christ’s people. Is it too much to make the Church the steward of our offerings for the cause of Christ? It were much to be wished that all gifts were again made through this quiet and authorized channel. It is quite within the province of the donor to specify the object on which he wishes the gift to be expended, and the clergy will gladly aid the people in obedience to their holy mother the Church.

BATH-KOL, or BATH-COL, signifies Daughter of the Voice. It is a name by which the Jewish writers distinguish what they call a revelation from God, after verbal prophecy had ceased in Israel, that is, after the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The generality of their traditions and customs are founded on this Bath-Kol. They pretend, that God revealed them to their elders, not by prophecy, but by secret inspiration, or tradition: and this they call the Daughter of the Voice. The Bath-Kol, as Dr. Prideaux shows, was a fantastical way of divination, invented by the Jews, like the Sortes Virgilianæ among the heathens. With the heathen, the words dipt at, in opening the works of Virgil, were the oracle by which they prognosticated those future events of which they desired to be informed. In like manner by the Jews, when they appealed to Bath-Kol, the next words which they heard were considered as the desired oracle. Some Christians, when Christianity began to be corrupted, used the Scriptures in the same manner as the heathens employed the works of Virgil.

BATTLE, or more properly BATTEL, Wager of. One of the forms of ordeal, or appeal to the judgment of God in the old Norman courts of this kingdom. (See Ordeal.) In cases of murder, and some others, when the evidence against the accused did not amount to positive proof, he was allowed to assert his innocence by this appeal. If a prosecutor appeared, before he could put in his charge, it was necessary, in cases of murder, that he should prove himself to be of the blood of the deceased. In cases of homicide, that he was allied to the slain as a relation, or vassal, or lord, and could speak of the death on the testimony of his own senses. The accused might then plead not guilty, and, at his option, throw down his glove, and declare his readiness to defend his innocence with his body. If the appellant took up the glove, and professed himself willing to prove the charge in the same manner, the judges, unless the guilt or innocence of the accused were evident, proceeded to award a trial by battle. The appellee, with the book of the Gospels in his right hand, and the right hand of his adversary in his left, took the following oath: “Hear me, thou whom I hold by the right hand, I am not guilty of the felony with which thou hast charged me. So help me God and His saints. And this will I defend with my body against thee, as this court shall award.” Then exchanging hands, and taking the book, the appellant swore, “Hear me, thou whom I hold by the hand. Thou art perjured, because thou art guilty. So help me God and His saints. And this will I prove against thee with my body, as this court shall award.” On the day appointed by the court, the two combatants were led to battle. Each had his head, arms, and legs bare, was protected by a square target of leather, and employed as a weapon a wooden stave one ell in length, and turned at the end. If the appellee was unwilling to fight, or in the course of the day was unable to continue the combat, he was immediately hanged, or condemned to forfeit his property, and lose his members. If he slew the appellant, or forced him to call out “Craven,” or protracted the fight till the stars appeared in the evening, he was acquitted. Nor did his recreant adversary escape punishment. If he survived the combat, he was fined sixty shillings, was declared infamous, and stript of all the privileges of a freeman.

In the court of chivalry the proceedings were different. When the cause could not be decided on the evidence of witnesses, or the authority of documents, the constable and mareschal required pledges from the two parties, and appointed the time of battle, the place, and the weapons,—a long sword, a short sword, and a dagger; but allowed the combatants to provide themselves with defensive armour according to their own choice. A spot of dry and even ground, sixty paces in length and forty in breadth, was enclosed with stakes seven feet high, around which were placed the serjeants-at-arms, with other officers, to keep silence and order among the spectators. The combatants entered at opposite gates; the appellant at the east, the defendant at the west end of the lists: and each severally swore that his former allegations and answers were true; that he had no weapons but those allotted by the court; that he wore no charms about him; and that he placed his whole confidence on God, on the goodness of his cause, and on his own prowess. Then taking each other by the hand, the appellant swore that he would do his best to slay his adversary, or compel him to acknowledge his guilt: the defendant, that he would exert all his powers to prove his own innocence. When they had been separately conducted to the gates at which they entered, the constable, sitting at the foot of the throne, exclaimed thrice, “Let them go,” adding to the third exclamation, “and do their duty.” The battle immediately began: if the king interposed, and took the quarrel into his own hands, the combatants were separated by the officers with their wands, and then led by the constable and mareschal to one of the gates, through which they were careful to pass at the same moment, as it was deemed a disgrace to be the first to leave the place of combat. If either party was killed, or cried “Craven,” he was stripped of his armour on the spot where he lay, was dragged by horses out of the lists, through a passage opened in one of the angles, and was immediately hanged or beheaded in presence of the mareschal.

Trial by battle was used not only in military and criminal cases, but also in one kind of civil action, namely, in writs of right, which were not to determine the jus possessionis, but the less obvious and more profound question of the jus proprietatis. In the simplicity of ancient times, it was thought not unreasonable that a matter of such difficulty should be left to the decision of Providence by the wager of battle. In this case the battle was waged by champions, because, in civil actions, if any party to the suit dies, the suit must abate, or end, and therefore no judgment could be given.

The last trial by battle that was waged in the court of Common Pleas at Westminster was in the thirteenth year of Queen Elizabeth, A. D. 1571, as reported by Sir James Dyer; and was held in Tothill Fields “non sine magnâ juris consultorum perturbatione.” There was afterwards one in the court of Chivalry in 1631, and another in the county palatine of Durham in 1628.

The Wager of Battle was accounted obsolete, until it was unexpectedly demanded and admitted in 1817, in a case of supposed murder; and it has since been abolished by act of parliament, 59 George III. c. 46.

BAY. (More anciently Severy.) One whole compartment of a building. As the whole structure consists of a repetition of bays, the description of one bay comprises most of the terms used in architectural nomenclature. The accompanying block figures are purposely composed of discordant parts, to comprise the greater number of terms.

EXTERIOR.

A.

Aisle.

I.

Basement.

II.

Parapet.

a.

Corbel table.

b.

Cornice.

c.

Gurgoyle.

III.

Buttress.

d.

Pedimental set-off.

e.

Plain set-off.

f.

Finial.

g.

Flying buttress, or arch-buttress.

IV.

Aisle roof.

C.

Clerestory.

INTERIOR.

A.

Aisle.

V.

Pier.

h.

Capital.

i.

Shaft.

k.

Base.

l.

Band.

VI.

Pier arch.

m.

Spandril.

VII.

Vaulting shaft.

n.

Corbel.

o.

Capital.

B.

Triforium.

VIII.

Triforium arcade.

p.

Blank arches.

q.

Pierced arches.

C.

Clerestory.

D.

Vault.

r.

Groining ribs.

s.

Bosses.

COMMON TO EXTERIOR & INTERIOR.

E.

Aisle windows.

t.

Jamb shafts.

u.

Tracery (Perpendicular).

v.

Mullions.

w.

Transom.

x.

Batement lights.

F.

Clerestory windows.

y.

Tracery (Geometrical).

z.

Cusping or foliation.

aa.

Tracery (Flowing).

bb.

Hood, in the exterior more correctly dripstone.

cc.

Corbel, or label.

DECORATIONS COMMON TO BOTH.

1.

Arcading (Norman to Decorated.)

2.

Panelling (Perpendicular).

3.

Niche.

4.

Panel.

5.

String.

BEADS, or BEDES. A word of Saxon origin, which properly signifies prayers; hence Bidding the Bedes meant desiring the prayers of the congregation, and from the forms used for this purpose before the Reformation is derived the Bidding of prayer, prescribed by the English canons of 1603. (See Bidding Prayer.) From denoting the prayers themselves, the word came to mean the little balls used by the Romanists in rehearsing and numbering their Ave-marias and Paternosters. (See Rosary.) A similar practice prevails among the dervises and other religious persons throughout the East, as well Mahometans as Buddhists and other heathens. The ancient form of the Bedes, or Bidding Prayer, is given in the Appendix to Collier’s Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. No. 54, which shows that our present Bidding Prayer was founded on that model.

BEATIFICATION. (See Canonization.) In the Romish Church, the act by which the pope declares a person happy after death. Beatification differs from canonization. In the former the pope does not act as a judge in determining the state of the beatified, but only grants a privilege to certain persons to honour him by a particular religious worship, without incurring the penalty of superstitious worshippers. In canonization, the pope blasphemously speaks as a judge, and determines, ex cathedrâ, on the state of the canonized. It is remarkable, that particular orders of monks assume to themselves the power of beatification.

BEDDERN, BEDERNA. The name still retained of the vicar’s college at York, and of the old collegiate building at Beverley. Query, whether it may be somewhat the same as Bedehouse, i. e. an hospital?—Jebb.

BEGUINES. A congregation of nuns, founded either by St. Begghe, duchess of Brabant, in the seventh century, or by Lambert le Begue, a priest and native of Liege, who lived in the twelfth century. They were established first at Liege, and afterwards at Nivelle, in 1207, or, as some say, in 1226. From this last settlement sprang the great number of Beguinages, which are spread over all Flanders, and which have passed from Flanders into Germany. In the latter country, some of them fell into extravagant errors, and persuaded themselves that it was possible in the present life to attain to the highest perfection, even to impeccability, and a clear view of God, and in short, to so eminent a degree of contemplation, that, after this, there was no necessity of submitting to the laws of mortal men, civil or ecclesiastical. The Council of Vienne, in 1311, condemned these errors, but permitted those who continued in the true faith to live in chastity and penitence, either with or without vows. There still subsist many communities of Beguines in Flanders.—Hist. des Ord. Relig. viii. c. i.

BEL AND THE DRAGON (THE HISTORY OF). An apocryphal and uncanonical book of Scripture. It was always rejected by the Jewish Church, and is extant neither in the Hebrew nor the Chaldee language, nor is there any proof that it ever was so. St. Jerome gives it no better title than “the fable of Bel and the Dragon.” It is, however, permitted to be read, as well as the other apocryphal writings, for the instruction and improvement of manners.

Selden (De Diis Syris, Syntagma ii. cap. 17) thinks, this little history ought rather to be considered as a sacred poem or fiction, than a true account. As to the Dragon, he observes, that serpents (dracones) made a part of the hidden mysteries of the Pagan religion; as appears from Clemens Alexandrinus, Julius Firmicus, Justin Martyr, and others. And Aristotle relates, that, in Mesopotamia, there were serpents which would not hurt the natives of the country, and infested only strangers. Whence it is not improbable that both the Mesopotamians themselves and the neighbouring people might worship a serpent, the former to avert the evil arising from those reptiles, the latter out of a principle of gratitude. But of this there is no clear proof, nor is it certain that the Babylonians worshipped a dragon or serpent.—Aristot. περὶ θαυμασιων ἀκουσματων.

BELFRY. The place where the bells are hung; sometimes being a small arch placed on the gable of the church, sometimes a tower or turret. The belfries were originally detached from the church, as may be still seen in many places in Italy. Instances of this have been known in England, as at Chichester, and at Salisbury (the belfry in the latter place was destroyed some years ago). The great central towers of our cathedrals and abbeys were not originally constructed for bells, but for lanterns, to give light to the central portion of the church. The bells were contained in the towers, or turrets, at the west end, or at the angles of the church. Many churches had more than one bell tower. In Canterbury cathedral the ring of bells is contained in the south-western tower; the small bell, or Bell-Hurry, which is rung just before the service, is placed in the great central tower.

BELIEVERS (πιστοὶ, or Faithful). A name given to the baptized in the early Church, as distinguished from the Catechumens. The believer was admitted to all the rites of Divine worship, and instructed in all the mysteries of the Christian religion.—Bingham.

BELLS. Bells of a small size are very ancient, but larger ones are of a much later date. The lower part of the blue robe worn by the Jewish high priest was adorned with pomegranates and gold bells. The kings of Persia are said to have had the hem of their robes adorned in like manner. The high priest probably gave notice to the people, and also desired permission to enter the sanctuary, by the sound of these bells, and by so doing escaped the punishment of death annexed to an indecent intrusion.

On the origin of church bells, Mr. Whitaker, in his “History of Manchester,” observes, that bells being used, among other purposes, by the Romans, to signify the times of bathing, were naturally applied by the Christians of Italy to denote the hours of devotion, and summon the people to church.

“Bells,” says Nicholls, “were not in use in the first ages of Christianity. For, before the Christians received countenance from the civil power, they were called together by a messenger, who went about from house to house, some time before the hour the congregation met. After this they made use of a sounding plank hanging by a chain, and struck with a hammer. The precise time when bells first came in use is not known. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, in Campania, in order to give notice to the most remote inhabitants when prayers began, hung up a large brass vessel, which, when struck upon by a hammer, gave such a sound as he desired for his purpose. This was about the year 420. Hence the two Latin names for a great bell—Nola, from the town; and Campana, from the country where they were first used.”

But, whatever may be the connexion of bells with the city of Nola, there is no ground for referring the first use of them to Paulinus; Bingham pronounces the opinion to be “certainly a vulgar error.” Others say they took the latter of these names, not from their being invented in Campania, but because it was there the manner of hanging and balancing them, now in use, was first practised; at least that they were hung on the model of a sort of balance invented or used in Campania.

The Greek Christians are usually said to have been unacquainted with bells till the ninth century, when their construction was first taught them by a Venetian. But it is not true that the use of bells was entirely unknown in the ancient Eastern churches, and that they called the people to church, as at present, with wooden mallets, like the clappers or cresselles, used instead of bells in many churches of the Romish communion, during the holy week. (See Cresselle.) Leo Allatius, in his Dissertation on the Greek Temples, proves the contrary from several ancient writers. He says bells first began to be disused among them after the taking of Constantinople by the Turks; who, it seems, prohibited them, lest their sound should disturb the repose of the souls which, according to them, wander in the air.

In Britain, bells were used in churches before the conclusion of the seventh century, in the monastic societies of Northumbria, and as early as the sixth, even in those of Caledonia. And they were therefore used from the first erection of parish churches among us. Those of France and England appear to have been furnished with several bells. In the time of Clothaire II., king of France, A. D. 610, the army of that king was frightened from the siege of Sens, by ringing the bells of St. Stephen’s Church. The second excerption of Egbert, about A. D. 750, which is adopted in a French capitulary of 801, commands every priest, at the proper hours, to sound the bells of his church, and then to go through the sacred offices to God. And the Council of Eanham, in 1009, requires all the mulcts for sins to be expended in the reparation of the church, clothing and feeding the ministers of God, and the purchase of church vestments, church books, and church bells. These were sometimes composed of iron in France; and in England, as formerly at Rome, were frequently made of brass; and, as early as the ninth century, there were many cast of a large size and deep note. Ingulphus mentions, that Turketulus, abbot of Croyland, who died about A. D. 870, gave a great bell to the church of that abbey, which he named Guthlac; and afterwards six others, viz. two which he called Bartholomew and Betelin, two called Turkettul and Tatwin, and two named Pega and Bega, all which rang together; the same author says, “Non erat tunc tanta consonantia campanarum in totâ Angliâ.” Not long after, Kinsius, archbishop of York, (1051–1061,) gave two great bells to the church of St. John, at Beverley, and at the same time provided that other churches in his diocese should be furnished with bells. Mention is made by St. Aldhelm, and William of Malmesbury, of bells given by St. Dunstan to churches in the West. The number of bells in every church gave occasion to a curious and singular piece of architecture in the campanile or bell tower: an addition which is more susceptible of the grander beauties of architecture than any other part of the edifice. It was the constant appendage to every parish church of the Saxons, and is actually mentioned as such in the laws of Athelstan.

The uses of church bells are summed up in the following monkish distichs:—

“Laudo Deum verum, plebem voco, congrego clerum,

Defunctos ploro, pestem fugo, festa decoro.”

“Funero plango, fulgura frango, sabbata pango,

Excito lentos, dissipo ventos, paco cruentos.”

Before bells were hung, they were formerly, and in the Romish communion they still are, washed, crossed, blessed, anointed with chrism, and named by the bishop. This ceremony was commonly styled baptizing them. (See Martène de Antiq. Eccl. Ritibus, ii. 296.) Some say that it was introduced by Pope John XIII., who occupied the pontifical chair from 965 to 972, and who first consecrated a bell in the Lateran church, and gave it the name of John the Baptist. But it is evidently of an older standing, there being an express prohibition of the practice in a capitular of Charlemagne in 789—ut clocæ non baptizentur.

The following are the regulations of the Church of England on the subject of bells.

By a constitution of Archbishop Winchelsea, the parishioners shall find, at their own expense, bells with ropes.

Canon 81. The churchwardens or questmen, and their assistants, shall not suffer the bells to be rung superstitiously, upon holy days or eves abrogated by the Book of Common Prayer, nor at any other times, without good cause to be allowed by the minister of the place, and by themselves.

Canon 111. The churchwardens shall present all persons, who by untimely ringing of bells do hinder the minister or preacher.

Canon 15. Upon Wednesdays and Fridays weekly, the minister at the accustomed hour of service shall resort to the church or chapel, and warning being given to the people by tolling of a bell, shall say the litany.

Canon 67. When any is passing out of this life, a bell shall be tolled, and the minister shall not then slack to do his last duty. And after the party’s death, (if it so fall out,) there shall be rung no more but one short peal, and one other before the burial, and one other after the burial.

Rubric concerning the service of the church. “And the curate that ministereth in every parish church or chapel, being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say the same in the parish church or chapel when he ministereth, and shall cause a bell to be tolled thereunto a convenient time before he begin, that the people may come to hear God’s word, and to pray with him.”

Although the churchwardens may concur in directing the ringing or tolling of the bells on certain public and private occasions, the incumbent may prevent the churchwardens from ringing or tolling them at undue hours, or without just cause. Proceedings may be instituted in the ecclesiastical court against churchwardens who have violently and illegally persisted in ringing the bells without consent of the incumbents.

Bells were used in Ireland at a very early period. Harris, in his edition of Ware, (vol. ii. p. 129,) quotes Bede as an authority for the use of bells in the sixth century, and observes on Molyneux’s opinion that the popular name of the round tower in Ireland was derived from a Germanico-Saxon word, signifying a bell. Mr. Petrie, in his recent laborious essay on the Irish Round Towers, has shown that these towers, as their name denotes, their form and locality suggest, and tradition teaches, were intended for ecclesiastical belfries. And in the same work, as well as in the documents collected by Irish antiquarians, it is shown that bells were known in Ireland as far back as the age of St. Patrick. Some of these ancient bells are still in existence.

Nankin, in China, was anciently famous for the largeness of its bells; but their enormous weight having brought down the tower in which they were hung, the whole building fell to ruin, and the bells have ever since been disregarded. One of these bells is near 12 English feet high, the diameter 7½ feet, its circumference 23 feet, and the thickness of the metal about the edges 7 inches; its figure almost cylindrical, except for a swelling in the middle. From these dimensions its weight is computed at 50,000 lbs.

In the churches of Russia the bells are numerous, and distinguished by their immense size; they are hung, particularly at Moscow, in belfries or steeples detached from the churches, with gilt or silvered cupolas, or crosses; and they do not swing, but are fixed immoveably to the beams, and rung by a rope tied to the clapper, and pulled sideways. One of these bells, in the belfry of St. Ivan’s church at Moscow, weighed 127,836 English lbs. It has always been esteemed a meritorious act of religion to present a church with bells, and the piety of the donor has been estimated by their magnitude. The emperor Bodis Godunof gave a bell of 288,000 lbs. to the cathedral of Moscow, but he was surpassed by the empress Anne, (or, as Dr. Clarke and others say, Alexis, in 1653,) at whose expense a bell was cast, weighing no less than 443,772 lbs., which exceeds in size every bell in the known world. Its height is 21 feet, the circumference at the bottom 67 feet 4 inches, and its greatest thickness 23 inches. The beam to which this vast machine was fastened being accidentally burnt by a fire in 1737, the bell fell down, and a fragment was broken off towards the bottom, which left an aperture large enough to admit two persons abreast without stooping.

In the Russian Divine service the number of strokes on the bell announces what part of it is beginning. Several blows are struck before the mass; three before the commencement of the liturgy; and, in the middle of it, a few strokes apprize the people without, that the hymn to the holy Virgin is about to be sung, when all work is immediately suspended, they bow and cross themselves, repeating silently the verse then singing in the church.—Overall. For some curious directions as to the chiming of the bells in ancient times in Lichfield cathedral, see Dugd. Monast. ed. 1830, vi. 1256.—Jebb.

BELL, BOOK, AND CANDLE. Between the seventh and the tenth century, the sentence of excommunication was attended with great solemnities. The most important was the extinction of lamps or candles by throwing them on the ground, with an imprecation, that those against whom the curse was pronounced might be extinguished or destroyed by the vengeance of God. The people were summoned to attend this ceremony by the sound of a bell, and the curses accompanying the ceremony were pronounced out of a book by the minister, standing in a balcony. Hence originated the phrase of cursing by bell, book, and candle.

BEMA. The name of the bishop’s throne in the primitive church, or, as some understand it, the whole of the upper end of the church, containing the altar and the apsis. This seat or throne, together with those of the presbyters, was always fixed at the upper end of the chancel, in a semicircle beyond the altar. For anciently, the seats of the bishops and presbyters were joined together, and both were called thrones. The manner of their sitting is related by Gregory Nazianzen in his description of the church of Anastasia, where he speaks of himself as bishop, sitting upon the high throne, and the presbyters on lower benches on each side of him.—Bingham. (See Apsis and Cathedral.)

BENEDICITE. A canticle used at Morning Prayer, after the first lesson. This canticle is so called because, in the Latin version, it so begins. It is called “The Song of the Three Children,” because Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (whom the prince of the eunuchs named Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, Dan. i. 7) are reported to have sung it in the burning fiery furnace, into which they were cast by order of Nebuchadnezzar for adhering stedfastly to their God, (Dan. iii. 19,) &c., and in which God preserved them in a miraculous manner (ver. 27).—Dr. Bennet.

This and the Te Deum are the only hymns used in our service that are of man’s composing. Our Church being careful, even beyond all the ancient Churches, in singing to God, to sing in the words of God.—Dr. Bisse. This statement of Dr. Bisse is not altogether correct. The hymns “Holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts,” and the “Gloria in Excelsis,” though suggested by Holy Scripture, are human compilations. And the metrical Veni Creator is also of man’s composing. The Benedicite was prescribed to be used in Lent, by King Edward VI.’s First Book.—Jebb.

BENEDICTINES. An order of monks who profess to follow the rules of St. Benedict. The Benedictines, being those only that are properly called monks, wear a loose black gown, with large white sleeves, and a capuche, or cowl, on their heads, ending in a point behind. In the canon law they are styled black friars, from the colour of their habit. The rules of St. Benedict, as observed by the English monks before the dissolution of the monasteries, were as follows: they were obliged to perform their devotions seven times in twenty-four hours, the whole circle of which devotions had respect to the passion and death of Christ: they were obliged always to go two and two together: every day in Lent they were obliged to fast till six in the evening; and abated of their usual time of sleeping and eating; but they were not allowed to practise any voluntary austerity without leave of their superior: they never conversed in their refectory at meals, but were obliged to attend to the reading of the Scriptures: they all slept in the same dormitory, but not two in a bed: they lay in their clothes: for small faults they were shut out from meals: for greater they were debarred religious commerce, and excluded from the chapel: incorrigible offenders were excluded from the monasteries. Every monk had two coats, two cowls, a table book, a knife, a needle, and a handkerchief; and the furniture of his bed was a mat, a blanket, a rug, and a pillow.

The time when this order came into England is well known, for in 596 Gregory the Great sent hither Augustine, prior of the monastery of St. Andrew at Rome, with several other Benedictine monks. Augustine became archbishop of Canterbury; and the Benedictines founded several monasteries in England, as also the metropolitan church of Canterbury. Pope John XXII., who died in 1354, after an exact inquiry, found, that, since the first rise of the order, there had been of it twenty-four popes, near 200 cardinals, 7000 archbishops, 15,000 bishops, 15,000 abbots of renown, above 4000 saints, and upwards of 37,000 monasteries. There have been likewise of this order twenty emperors and ten empresses, forty-seven kings, and above fifty queens, twenty sons of emperors, and forty-eight sons of kings, about one hundred princesses, daughters of kings and emperors, besides dukes, marquises, earls, countesses, &c., innumerable. This order has produced a vast number of eminent authors and other learned men. Rabanus set up the school of Germany. Alcuinus founded the university of Paris. Dionysius Exiguus perfected the ecclesiastical computation. Guido invented the scale of music, and Sylvester the organ. They boast to have produced Anselm, Ildephonsus, Venerable Bede, &c. There are nuns likewise who follow the order of St. Benedict: among whom those who call themselves mitigated, eat flesh three times a week, on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays; the others observe the rule of St. Benedict in its rigour, and eat no flesh unless they are sick. The Benedictines were the most extensive and powerful order in England. All the cathedral convents, with the exception of the Augustinian monastery of Carlisle, were of this order, as were four out of the five that were converted into cathedrals by Henry VIII., viz. Gloucester, Oxford, Peterborough, and Chester: and all the mitred abbeys, with the exception of Waltham and Cirencester, which were Augustinian. In Ireland they yielded in importance and numbers to the Augustinians. They were the great patrons of church architecture and of learning in England. The chief branches of the Benedictine order in England were the Cluniacs, founded by Bernon, abbot of Gigniac, in 913; and the Cistercian, founded by Robert, abbot of Molême, at Citeaux in Burgundy, in 1098. (See Cluniacs and Cistercians.)

BENEDICTION. A solemn act of blessing performed by the bishops and priests of the Church. In the Jewish Church, the priests, by the command of God, were to bless the people, by saying, “The Lord bless thee, and keep thee. The Lord make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee. The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” In the Church of England, several forms of blessing are used agreeing with the particular office of which they form a part. The ordinary benediction at the close of Divine service, from the end of the Communion office, is in these words: “The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord: and the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be amongst you, and remain with you always.” The former part of this is taken from Philippians iv. 7, and the latter may be considered as a Christian paraphrase of Numbers vi. 24, &c. Other forms of blessing, or modifications of the above, may be found in the offices for Confirmation, Matrimony, and Visitation of the Sick. The benediction at the end of the Communion Service must be said by the bishop, if he be present.

In the Romish Church, on Holy Thursday, the officiating priest blesses, consecrates, and exorcises, three sorts of oils. The first is that used in extreme unction; the second that of the Chrysma; the third that of the Catechumens; ending with this salutation, Ave sanctum oleum, “Hail holy oil!” after which the new-made holy oils are carried in procession into the sacristy.—Piscara, Praxis Cerem.

In Spain, and some parts of France bordering upon Spain, the custom of blessing meats at Easter is still preserved. This is supposed to be done in opposition to the heresy of the Priscillianists, which infected Spain and Guienne: for Priscillian held, that the devil, and not God, was the creator of flesh, and that the faithful ought to reject it as impure and wicked. This blessing is scarce ever used, except in those churches, and near those places, where that heresy formerly prevailed.—Alcet’s Ritual.

On Easter eve they perform the ceremony of blessing the new fire. At the ninth hour, the old fire is put out, and at the same time an Acolyth lights the new fire without the church. The officiating priest, with his attendants, walks in procession to the place where the ceremony is to be performed. After repeating a form of prayer, he makes the sign of the cross over the fire. In the mean time the Thuriferary puts some coals into the thurible, into which the priest throws some frankincense, having first blessed it: then he sprinkles the fire with holy water, saying, Asperges me, Domine, “Thou wilt sprinkle me, O Lord.” This ceremony of the holy fire seems to be borrowed from pagan superstition; for the ancient Romans used to renew the fire of Vesta in the month of March, as Ovid informs us;

Adde quod arcanâ fieri novus ignis in æde

Dicitur, et vires flamma refecta capit.

Add that the hallowed fire new vigour takes,

And round the sacred walls with added lustre breaks.

The principal use of this holy fire, among the Roman Catholics, is to light therewith the Paschal taper; which likewise receives its benediction, or blessing, by the priest’s putting five grains of incense, in the form of a cross, into the taper. This blessed taper must remain on the gospel-side of the altar from Easter eve to Ascension day.—Baudry, Manual. Cerem. Fast. lib. iii. 144. Piscara, Praxis Cerem.

The blessing of baptismal fonts (another piece of Popish superstition) is performed, among other ceremonies, by the priest’s blowing thrice on the water, and in three different places; and afterwards plunging a taper thrice into it, observing to sink it deeper the second time than the first, and the third than the second, saying at each immersion, Descendat in hanc plenitudinem fontis virtus Spiritus Sancti, i. e. “May the influence of the Holy Spirit descend on this water.”—Piscara, ibid.

On the eve before Christmas, the holy father blesses a sword, enriched with precious stones, wrought in the form of a dove; with a ducal hat fixed on the point of it, richly adorned with jewels. (Sacra Cerem. Eccl. Rom.) This he sends as a present to some prince, for whom he has a particular affection, or some great general, who has deserved it by fighting against the enemies of the Church. Pope Pius II. sent the hat and sword to Lewis XI., with four Latin verses engraved on the blade, by which his Holiness exhorted him to destroy the Ottoman empire. The popes, according to Aymon, ground this custom on what is said in the Second Book of the Maccabees, c. v., that “Judas the Maccabee, going to fight Nicanor, general of the army of Antiochus, saw in a dream the high priest Onias praying to God for the Jewish people, and the prophet Jeremiah presenting him with a sword, and saying these words; ‘Receive, Judas, this holy sword, which is given thee by the Lord, to destroy the enemies of Israel.’”

But one of the most extraordinary benedictions of this kind is that of bells; in the performance of which there is a great deal of pomp and superstition. (See Bells.)

BENEDICTUS. The Latin for “blessed,” which is the first word in one of the hymns to be said or sung after the second lesson in the Morning Service of the Church. The Benedictus is taken from Luke i., from the 68th to the 72nd verse, being part of the song of Zacharias the priest, concerning his son John the Baptist, who was to be the forerunner of Christ, but was then only in his infancy.

When the gospel was first published to the world, the angels sang praise; and all holy men, to whom it was revealed, entertained these “good tidings” with great joy. And since it is our duty also, whenever we hear the gospel read, to give glory to God, therefore the Church appoints this hymn, which was composed by holy Zacharias upon the first notice that God had sent a Saviour to mankind, and is one of the first evangelical hymns indited by God’s Spirit upon this occasion. Its original therefore is Divine, its matter unexceptionable, and its fitness for this place unquestionable.—Dean Comber.

This prophecy of Zacharias, called “Benedictus,” for the reason already mentioned, was uttered on the birth of John the Baptist; and is a thanksgiving for the redemption of mankind, of which he was to publish the speedy approach. It copies very nearly the style of the Jewish prophets, who described spiritual blessings by temporal imagery. Thus meaning to praise the “Father of mercies” (2 Cor. i. 3) for delivering all nations from the dominion of the wicked one, it “blesses the Lord God of Israel for saving his people from their enemies, and from the hand of those that hate them.” Now this kind of language was laid aside after our Saviour’s ascension; and therefore the prophecy before us is not of later date, but genuine. Yet it sufficiently explains to what sort of “salvation” it refers, by mentioning “the remission of sins, the giving of light to them that sat in darkness, and the guiding of their feet into the way of peace.” And so it may teach us both the fitness and the method of assigning to the Old Testament predictions an evangelical interpretation. The people, in repeating it, should remember, that the words, “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest,” belong, not to our Saviour, but to the Baptist. And it is easily to be apprehended, that if, in the dawning which preceded “the Sun of righteousness,” (Mal. iv. 2,) good Zacharias offered up his thanks with such transport, we, to whom he shines out in full splendour, ought to recite it with double gratitude.—Abp. Secker.

Though the hundredth psalm is almost constantly used after the second lesson, there seems no good reason why this hymn should be laid aside. They are both equally indited by the Holy Spirit, and both admirably calculated to assist the devotion and elevate the affections of a Christian congregation: and the hymn, being placed first, seems to have been intended for more general use than the psalm.—Waldo.

The Church hath appointed two songs of praise and thanksgiving to be used, either of them after each lesson, but not so indifferently but that the former practice of exemplary Churches and reason may guide us in the choice. For the “Te Deum,” “Benedictus,” “Magnificat,” and “Nunc Dimittis,” being the most expressive jubilations and rejoicings for the redemption of the world, may be said more often than the rest, especially on Sundays and other festivals of our Lord.—Bishop Sparrow.

The Benedictus was used exclusively after the second lesson in the First Book of King Edward VI.

BENEFICE. In the ecclesiastical sense of the word, means a church endowed with a revenue for the performance of Divine service, or the revenue itself assigned to an ecclesiastical person, by way of stipend for the service he is to do that church.

As to the origin of the word, we find it as follows, in Alcet’s Ritual: “This word was anciently appropriated to the lands, which kings used to bestow on those who had fought valiantly in the wars; and was not used in this particular signification, but during the time that the Goths and Lombards reigned in Italy, under whom those fiefs were introduced, which were peculiarly termed Benefices, and those who enjoyed them, Beneficiarii, or vassals. For notwithstanding that the Romans also bestowed lands on their captains and soldiers, yet those lands had not the name of Benefices appropriated to them, but the word benefice was a general term, which included all kinds of gifts or grants, according to the ancient signification of the Latin word. In imitation of the new sense, in which that word was taken with regard to fiefs, it began to be employed in the Church, when the temporalities thereof began to be divided, and to be given up to particular persons, by taking them out of those of the bishops. This the bishops themselves first introduced, purposely to reward merit, and assist such ecclesiastics as might be in necessity. However, this was soon carried to greater lengths, and at last became unlimited, as has since been manifest in the clericate and the monasteries. A benefice therefore is not merely a right of receiving part of the temporalities of the Church, for the service a person does it; a right, which is founded upon the gospel, and has always subsisted since the apostolic age; but it is that of enjoying a part of the temporalities of the Church, assigned and determined in a special form, so as that no other clergyman can lay any claim or pretension to it.—And in this age it is not barely the right of enjoying part of the temporalities of the Church; but is likewise a fixed and permanent right, in such a manner that it devolves on another, after the death of the incumbent; which anciently was otherwise; for, at the rise of benefices, they were indulged to clergymen only for a stated time, or for life; after which they reverted to the Church.”

It is not easy to determine when the effects of the Church were first divided. It is certain that, till the 4th century, all the revenues were in the hands of the bishops, who distributed them by their Œconomi or stewards; and they consisted chiefly in alms and voluntary contributions. When the Church came to have inheritances, part of them were assigned for the maintenance of the clergy, of which we find some footsteps in the 5th and 6th centuries; but the allotment seems not to have been a fixed thing, but to have been absolutely discretional, till the 12th century.

Benefices are divided by the canonists into simple and sacerdotal. The first sort lays no obligation, but to read prayers, sing, &c. Such kind of Beneficiaries are canons, chaplains, chantors, &c. The second is charged with the cure of souls, the guidance and direction of consciences, &c. Such are rectories, vicarages, &c. The canonists likewise specify three ways of vacating a benefice; viz. de jure, de facto, and by the sentence of a judge. A benefice is void de jure, when a person is guilty of crimes, for which he is disqualified by law to hold a benefice; such are heresy, simony, &c. A benefice is void both de facto and de jure, by the natural death, or resignation, of the incumbent. Lastly, a benefice is vacated by sentence of the judge, when the incumbent is dispossessed of it by way of punishment for immorality, or any crime against the state.

The Romanists, again, distinguish benefices into regular and secular. Regular benefices are those held by a religious or monk of any order, abbey, priory, or convent. Secular benefices are those conferred on the secular priests; of which sort are most of their cures.

The Church distinguishes between dignities and benefices. The former title is only applicable to bishoprics, deaneries, archdeaconries, and prebends: the latter comprehends all ecclesiastical preferments under those degrees; as rectories and vicarages. It is essential to these latter, that they be bestowed freely, reserving nothing to the patron; that they be given as a provision for the clerk, who is only an usu-fructuary, and hath no inheritance in them; and that all contracts concerning them between patron and incumbent be, in their own nature, void.

BENEFICIARIES, or BENEFICIATI. The inferior, non-capitular members of cathedrals, &c., were so called in many Churches abroad; as possessing a benefice or endowment in the Church. They very much corresponded to our minor canons and vicars choral, &c.—Jebb.

BENEFIT OF CLERGY. The privilegium clericale, or, in common speech, the benefit of the clergy, had its origin from the pious regard paid by Christian princes to the Church of Christ. The exemptions which they granted to the Church were principally of two kinds: 1. Exemption of places consecrated to religious offices from criminal arrests, which was the foundation of sanctuaries. (See Sanctuary, Asylum.) 2. Exemptions of the persons of the clergy from criminal process before the secular magistrate in a few particular cases, which was the true origin and meaning of the privilegium clericale. Originally the law was held that no man should be admitted to the privilege of the clergy but such as had the habitum et tonsuram clericalem. But, in process of time, a much wider and more comprehensive criterion was established, every one that could read being accounted a clerk or clericus, and allowed the benefit of clerkship, whether in holy orders or not.

BEREANS. An obscure sect of seceders from the Scottish establishment, which originated in the exclusion of one Barclay from the parish of Fettercairn, in Kincardineshire, in 1773. They adopted the name of Bereans in allusion to the text—“These (the Bereans) were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts xvii. 11.) The Bereans reject all natural religion,—they take faith to be a simple credence of God’s word,—they consider personal assurance of the essence of faith, and unbelief as the unpardonable sin. They deny any spiritual interpretation to the historical books of the Old Testament, and reckon the Psalms so exclusively typical or prophetical of Christ, as to be without application to the experience of individual Christians.

BEREFELLARII. In the collegiate church of Beverley the seven inferior clergymen, ranking next after the prebendaries, were so called. The origin of the name is unknown; though it appears from ancient records, that it was a popular and vulgar one; their proper designation being Rectores Chori; that is, a sort of minor canons. They were also called Personæ. (See Rector Chori, and Persona.)—See Dugdale’s Monasticon, ed. 1830, vi. 1307.—Jebb.

BERENGARIANS. A denomination, in the eleventh century, which adhered to the opinions of Berenger, archdeacon of Angers, the learned and able opponent of Lanfranc, whose work has been in part recovered, and was printed a few years since at Berlin. “It was never my assertion,” says he, “that the bread and wine on the altar are only sacramental signs. Let no one suppose that I affirm that the bread was not become the body of Christ from being simple bread by consecration on the altar. It plainly becomes the body of Christ, but not the bread which in its matter and essence is corruptible, but in as far as it is capable of becoming what it was not, it becomes the body of Christ, but not according to the manner of the production of his very body, for that body, once generated on earth so many years ago, can never be produced again. The bread, however, becomes what it never was before consecration, and from being the common substance of bread, is to us the blessed body of Christ.” His followers, however, did not hold to his doctrines, which, in themselves, were a Catholic protest against Romish errors.—Cave, Hist. Literar. Sæc. Hildebrand.

BIBLE. (See Scripture and Canon of Scripture.) The name applied by Christians by way of eminence to the sacred volume, in which are contained the revelations of God. The names and numbers of the canonical books will be found under the word Scripture.

The division of the Scriptures into chapters, as they are at present, took place in the middle ages. Some attribute it to Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reigns of John and Henry III. But the real author of this invention was Hugo de Sancto Caro, commonly called Hugo Cardinalis, from his being the first Dominican raised to the degree of cardinal. This Hugo flourished about the year 1240. He wrote a Comment on the Scriptures, and projected the first Concordance, which is that of the Latin Vulgate Bible. As the intention of this work was to render the finding of any word or passage in the Scriptures more easy, it became necessary to divide the book into sections, and the sections into subdivisions. These sections are the chapters into which the Bible has been divided since that time. But the subdivision of the chapters was not then in verses as at present. Hugo subdivided them by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, which were placed in the margin at an equal distance from each other, according to the length of the chapters. About the year 1445, Mordecai Nathan, a famous Jewish Rabbi, improved Hugo’s invention, and subdivided the chapters into verses, in the manner they are at present.

The first English Bible we read of was that translated by Wickliff, about the year 1360. A translation of the New Testament by Wickliff was printed by Lewis, about 1731, and the whole of Wickliff’s translation has lately been published at Oxford. J. de Trevisa, who died about 1398, is also said to have translated the whole Bible; but whether any copies of his translation are remaining, does not appear. The first printed Bible in our language was that translated by W. Tindal, assisted by Miles Coverdale, printed abroad in 1526; but most of the copies were bought up and burnt by Bishop Tunstal and Sir Thomas More. Of this edition but two copies are known to exist, one of which was discovered by Archdeacon Cotton, in St. Paul’s Library. It only contained the New Testament, and was revised and republished by the same person in 1530. The prologues and prefaces added to it reflect on the bishops and clergy; but this edition was also suppressed, and the copies burnt. In 1532, Tindal and his associates finished the whole Bible, except the Apocrypha, and printed it abroad; but while he was afterwards preparing a second edition, he was taken up and burnt for heresy in Flanders. On Tindal’s death, his work was carried on by Coverdale, and John Rogers, superintendent of an English Church in Germany, and the first martyr in the reign of Queen Mary, who translated the Apocrypha, and revised Tindal’s translation, comparing it with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German, and adding prefaces and notes from Luther’s Bible. The earliest edition was printed in 1535, it is supposed at Zurich; though the book has no place nor name. He dedicated the whole to Henry VIII. in 1537, under the borrowed name of Thomas Matthews; whence this has been usually called Matthews’ Bible. It is supposed to have been printed at Hamburgh, and licence obtained for publishing it in England, by the favour of Archbishop Cranmer, and the Bishops Latimer and Shaxton. The first Bible printed by authority in England, and publicly set up in churches, was this same Tindal’s version, revised and compared with the Hebrew, and in many places amended, by Miles Coverdale, afterwards bishop of Exeter; and examined after him by Archbishop Cranmer, who added a preface to it; whence this was called Cranmer’s, or the great Bible. It was printed in 1539 by Grafton and Whitchurch, and in 1540 by Whitchurch, (some copies have “Richard Grafton,”) and published in 1540; and, by a royal proclamation, every parish was obliged to set one of the copies in their church, under the penalty of forty shillings a month: yet, two years after, the Popish bishops obtained its suppression by the king. It was restored under Edward VI., suppressed again under Queen Mary’s reign, and restored again in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, and a new edition of it given, 1562, printed by Harrison. Some English exiles at Geneva, in Queen Mary’s reign, viz. Goodman, Gilbie, Sampson, Cole, Whittingham, and Knox, made a new translation, printed there in 1560, the New Testament having been printed in 1557; hence called the Geneva Bible, containing the variations of readings, marginal annotations, &c., on account of which it was much valued by the Puritan party in that and the following reigns. Coverdale has also been supposed to have had a part in this version; but from what is known of his movements, it appears impossible that he should have been concerned in it. Archdeacon Cotton says, “The first edition of this version was for many years the most popular one in England, as its numerous editions may testify. After the appearance of King James’s translation, the use of it seems to have declined; yet a fondness for its notes still lingered; and we have several instances of their being attached to editions of the royal translation, one of which kind was printed so lately as 1715.” Archbishop Parker resolved on a new translation for the public use of the Church; and engaged the bishops and other learned men to take each a share or portion; these, being afterwards joined together and printed, with short annotations, in 1568, in large folio, by Richard Jugge, made, what was afterwards called, the Great English Bible, and commonly the Bishops’ Bible. In 1569 it was also published in octavo, in a small but fine black letter; and here the chapters were divided into verses, but without any breaks for them, in which the method of the Geneva Bible was followed, which was the first English Bible where any distinction of verses was made. It was afterwards printed in large folio, with corrections, and several prolegomena, in 1572; this is called Matthew Parker’s Bible. The initial letters of each translator’s name were put at the end of his part; ex. gr. at the end of the Pentateuch, W. E. for William Exon; that is, William [Alley], bishop of Exeter, whose allotment ended there; at the end of Samuel, R. M. for Richard Menevensis, or Richard [Davies], bishop of St. David’s, to whom the second allotment fell, and so with the rest. The archbishop overlooked, directed, examined, and finished the whole. This translation was used in the churches for forty years, though the Geneva Bible was more read in private houses, being printed above twenty times in as many years. King James bore to the Geneva version an inveterate hatred, on account of the notes, which, at the Hampton Court conference, he charged as partial, untrue, seditious, &c. The Bishops’ Bible, too, had its faults. The king frankly owned that he had seen no good translation of the Bible in English; but he thought that of Geneva the worst of all. After the translation of the Bible by the bishops, two other private versions had been made of the New Testament; the first by Laurence Thompson, from Beza’s Latin edition, with the notes of Beza, published in 1582, in quarto, and afterwards in 1589, varying very little from the Geneva Bible; the second by the Romanists at Rheims, in 1584, called the Rhemish Bible, or Rhemish translation. These translators finding it impossible to keep the people from having the Scriptures in their vulgar tongue, resolved to give a version of their own, as favourable to their cause as might be. It was printed on large paper, with a fair letter and margin. One complaint against it was, its retaining a multitude of Hebrew and Greek words untranslated, for want, as the editors express it, of proper and adequate terms in the English to render them by; as the words azymes, tunike, holocaust, prepuce, pasche, &c.: however, many of the copies were seized by Queen Elizabeth’s searchers, and confiscated; and Thomas Cartwright was solicited by Secretary Walsingham to refute it; but after some progress had been made in it, Archbishop Whitgift prohibited his proceeding further, judging it improper that the doctrine of the Church of England should be committed to the defence of a Puritan. He appointed Dr. Fulke in his place, who refuted the Rhemists with great spirit and learning. Cartwright’s Refutation was also afterwards published in 1618, under Archbishop Abbot. About thirty years after their New Testament, the Roman Catholics published a translation of the Old, at Douay, 1609 and 1610, from the Vulgate, with annotations, so that the English Roman Catholics have now the whole Bible in their mother tongue; though it is to be observed, they are forbidden to read it without a licence from their superiors: and it is a curious fact, that there is not an edition of the Bible which does not lie under the ban of one or of all the popes, most of them being in the Index Expurgatorius. The last English Bible was that which proceeded from the Hampton Court conference in 1603: where, many exceptions being made to the Bishops’ Bible, King James gave order for a new one: not, (as the preface expresses it,) for a translation altogether new, nor yet to make a good one better, or, of many good ones, one best. Fifty-four learned men were appointed to this office by the king, as appears by his letter to the archbishop, dated 1604; which being three years before the translation was entered upon, it is probable seven of them were either dead, or had declined the task; since Fuller’s list of the translators makes but forty-seven, who, being ranged under six divisions, entered on their province in 1607. It was published in 1611 in fol. by Barker, with a dedication to James, and a learned preface; and is commonly called King James’s Bible. After this, all the other versions dropped, and fell into disuse, except the Epistles and Gospels in the Common Prayer Book, which were still continued according to the Bishops’ translation till the alteration of the liturgy in 1661, and the Psalms and Hymns, which are to this day continued as in the old version. See for a full list of the editions of the English Bible, Archd. Cotton’s List of the Editions of the English Bible, &c.

The New Testament was translated into Irish in the 16th century. Nicholas Walsh, chancellor of St. Patrick’s, and John Kearney, treasurer of the same cathedral, began this work in 1573. In 1577 Walsh was appointed bishop of Ossory, but still proceeded in his undertaking, till he was murdered in 1585. Some years before this, Nehemiah Donnellan (who was archbishop of Tuam in 1595) had joined Walsh and Kearney in their undertaking. This translation was completed by William O’Donnell, or Daniel, successor of Donnellan in the archiepiscopal see, and published in 1603. Bishop Bedell procured the Old Testament to be translated by Mr. King, who being ignorant of the original languages, executed it from the English version. Bedell revised it, comparing it with the Hebrew, the LXX., and the Italian version of Diodati. He supported Mr. King, during the undertaking, with his utmost ability, and, when the translation was finished, would have printed it at his own house, if he had not been prevented by the troubles in Ireland. This translation (together with Archbishop Daniel’s version of the New Testament) was printed in London in 1685, at the expense of the celebrated Robert Boyle.—King’s Primer of the Church History of Ireland. Horne’s Introduction to the Holy Scriptures.

The Welsh version (the New Testament only) was published in the 16th century. The act of 5 Eliz. c. 28, directed that the Bible and Prayer Book should be translated into Welsh; committing the direction of this version to the four Welsh bishops. The translators were, Thomas Huet, precentor of St. David’s, Richard Davies, bishop of St. David’s, and William Salesbury. It was printed in London in 1567. The former edition was revised, and the Old Testament translated, chiefly by William Morgan, bishop of Llandaff, afterwards of St. Asaph. This was printed in 1588, and was revised by Richard Parry, bishop of St. Asaph, and reprinted in 1620: the basis of all subsequent editions.—Horne’s Introd.

The Manx version of the Bible was begun by the exertions of Bishop Wilson, by whom the Gospel of St. Matthew only was printed. His successor, Bishop Hilderley, had the New Testament completed and printed between the years 1756 and 1760. The Old Testament was completed two days before his death in 1772.—Horne’s Introd. Butler’s Life of Bishop Hilderley.

By the 80th canon, “a Bible of the largest volume” is one of those things which the churchwardens are bound to provide for every parish church.

BIDDING PRAYER. The formulary which the Church of England, in the 55th of the canons of 1603, directs to be used before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, is called the Bidding Prayer, because in it the preacher is directed to bid or exhort the people to pray for certain specified objects. The custom of bidding prayers is very ancient, as may be seen in St. Chrysostom’s and other liturgies, where the biddings occur frequently, and are called Allocutions.

The 55th canon of the Convocation of 1603, is as follows: “Before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, the preachers and ministers shall move the people to join with them in prayer, in this form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may: ‘Ye shall pray for Christ’s Holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially for the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland. And herein I require you most especially to pray for the king’s most excellent Majesty, our sovereign Lord James, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, and supreme governor in these his realms, and all other his dominions and countries, over all persons, in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as temporal. Ye shall also pray for our gracious Queen Anne, the noble Prince Henry, and the rest of the king and queen’s royal issue. Ye shall also pray for the ministers of God’s holy word and sacraments, as well archbishops and bishops, as other pastors and curates. Ye shall also pray for the king’s most honourable council, and for all the nobility and magistrates of this realm, that all and every of these in their several callings may serve truly and faithfully, to the glory of God, and the edifying and well-governing of His people, remembering the account that they must make. Also ye shall pray for the whole commons of this realm, that they may live in the true faith and fear of God, in humble obedience to the king, and brotherly charity one to another. Finally, let us praise God for all those which are departed out of this life in the faith of Christ, and pray unto God that we may have grace to direct our lives after their good example, that, this life ended, we may be made partakers with them of the glorious resurrection in the life everlasting,’ always concluding with the Lord’s Prayer.”

The special pleading of some Presbyterians and their advocates, renders it necessary to observe, that the Church of Scotland alluded to, is not the present Presbyterian establishment.

The assertion made by the adversaries of the Church of England is this, that the 55th canon bids us pray for the Church of Scotland, and must have recognised “that Church under a Presbyterian form as it now is, because none other, at that time, existed.”

Now we may commence our observations by remarking upon the extreme improbability of the alleged fact, that those who passed the 55th canon should contemplate in the Bidding Prayer, the Presbyterian community of Scotland, and regard it as a sister to the Churches of England and Ireland.

The leading members of the Convocation were, Andrewes, Overall, and King, eminent men, and of most decided views on Church government. Can the student of ecclesiastical history refrain from smiling when he is told that a Convocation of the English clergy, headed by these divines, who had already given a character to the age in which they lived, intended to place the “Holy Kirk,” as the Presbyterians styled their denomination, on the same footing as the Churches of England and Ireland?

The president of the Convocation was Bancroft. Dr. Sumner has taught us how immense are the powers which the president of a Convocation possesses, and how unscrupulously those powers can be used to silence the Convocation, if it be suspected that the majority of the members differ in opinion from the president. Bishop Bancroft was certainly not more likely to be tolerant of opposition than our present primate, and what Bancroft’s opinion of Presbyterianism was, is stated in a sermon which he published. Of “the Holy Kirk,” as the Presbyterians called themselves, Bancroft said that “they perverted the meaning of the Scriptures for the maintenance of false doctrine, heresy, and schism,” and he likens that “Holy Kirk” to “the devil’s chapel in the churchyard in which Christ hath erected his Church.” We consider Bancroft’s language as unjustifiably violent; but such being his language, it is monstrous to suppose that he intended to place that Kirk, in his estimation so unholy, on the same footing as the Churches of England and Ireland, or that he would not have discontinued the Convocation, if he had suspected that it would recognise that Kirk as a sister Church.

The king who gave his consent to the canons, and who, in giving his consent, acted, not as a sovereign in these days, on the advice of his ministers, but on his own authority, was James I. And King James’s opinion on Presbyterianism was sufficiently decided, and by this time well known:

“That bishops ought to be in the Church, I have ever maintained as an apostolic institution, and so the ordinance of God; contrary to the Puritans, and likewise to Bellarmine, who denies that bishops have their jurisdiction immediately from God. (But it is no wonder he takes the Puritans’ side, since Jesuits are nothing but Puritanpapists.) And as I ever maintained the state of bishops and the ecclesiastical hierarchy for order’ sake, so was I ever an enemy to the confused anarchy or parity of the Puritans, as well appeareth in my Basilicon Doron. Heaven is governed by order, and all the good angels there; nay, hell itself could not subsist without some order; and the very devils are divided into legions, and have their chieftains: how can any society then upon earth exist without order and degrees? And therefore I cannot enough wonder with what brazen face this Answerer could say, that I was a Puritan in Scotland and an enemy to Protestants: I that was persecuted by Puritans there, not from my birth only, but ever since four months before my birth? I that, in the year of God 1584, erected bishops, and depressed all their popular parity, I then being not eighteen years of age? I that in my said book to my son do speak ten times more bitterly of them nor of the Papists; having in my second edition thereof affixed a long apologetic preface, only in odium Puritanorum? I that, for the space of six years before my coming into England, laboured nothing so much as to depress their parity and reerect bishops again? Nay, if the daily commentaries of my life and actions in Scotland were written, (as Julius Cæsar’s were,) there would scarcely a month pass in all my life, since my entering into the 13th year of my age, wherein some accident or other would not convince the cardinal of a lie in this point. And surely I give a fair commendation to the Puritans in that place of my book, where I affirm that I have found greater honesty with the Highland and Border thieves than with that sort of people.”—Premonition to the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance, p. 44.

Now is it credible that a monarch, despotic in his disposition, and peculiarly despotic in what related to the Church; in an age when the supremacy was asserted and exercised with as much of inconsiderate tyranny as the most determined liberal of the present age could wish or recommend,—is it credible that a despotic sovereign, holding these opinions, would give his sanction to a canon which would raise the system he dreaded and abhorred to a parity with the Church of England and Ireland?

Certainly the advocates of Presbyterianism must be prepared to believe things very incredible to men of reasoning minds, if they can believe this to be probable.

But if we refer to history, what we find to be thus improbable, is proved to be impossible. “The Church, under a Presbyterian form, as it now is,” did not at that time exist as a recognised body, or an establishment. We will refer for proof, in the first place, to the Compendium of the Laws of Scotland, published by authority, where we read that “From the time that the Assembly of Perth was held, (1597,) the Presbyterian Constitution of the Church, as established in 1592, and the legitimate authority of its General Assemblies and other judicatories, may be regarded as subverted by the interferences of King James the Sixth. On the 19th December, 1597, soon after the Assemblies of Perth and Dundee, he brought his projects under the consideration of parliament; when an act was passed ordaining that such pastors and ministers as his Majesty should at any time please to invest with the office, place, and dignity of bishop, abbot, or other prelate, should, in all time hereafter, have vote in parliament, in the same way as any prelate was accustomed to have; declaring that all bishoprics presently vacant, or which might afterwards become vacant, should be given by his Majesty to actual preachers and ministers. Henceforward, therefore, and indeed from the Assembly at Perth, (1597,) the Church of Scotland must be regarded as Episcopalian;”—in principle, we may add, though not fully developed.”—Compendium of the Laws of the Church of Scotland, part ii. p. 36.

In the year 1600, “the Presbyterian form of government was, after eight years of intolerable agitation, abolished by the king, with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the ministers and the applause of the people, whose opinions seem to have been changed by experience of its tyranny.”—Stephens’s History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 417.

The Scottish parliament had also passed an act, in 1597, “That such pastors and ministers as his Majesty should promote to the place, dignity, and title of a bishop, or other prelate, at any time, should have a voice in parliament, as freely as any ecclesiastical prelate had in times past.” In the year 1600, the king informed the Assembly, that “there was a necessity of restoring the ancient government of the Church;” and, consequently, under the sanction of parliament, “persons were nominated to the bishoprics that were void,” before the end of the year.—Skinner’s Church History, vol. ii. pp. 234–236.

And so we find that what, reasoning a priori, we should consider so improbable as to be almost incredible, was in point of fact impossible, “The Church of Scotland under a Presbyterian form, as it now is,” could not be intended by the canon, for such a Church did not exist as a recognised body in the state. On the contrary, as early as 1598, an act of the Scottish parliament had secured to the bishops and other ecclesiastical prelates to be appointed by the king their seats in parliament. And before the year 1600, bishops were nominated to the sees of Aberdeen, Argyle, Dunkeld, Brechin, and Dunblane. David Lindsay and George Gladstone were in that year designated to the sees of Ross and Caithness.

But it is said, these were not persons whom we regard as bishops; they were not consecrated, they were only titular bishops. Every child who has looked into ecclesiastical history knows this. But what do the advocates of Presbyterianism take by the fact? The fact is this, Presbyterianism was legally abolished: Episcopacy was legally established: the bishops were nominated: but the bishops designate were not yet consecrated. Can it be doubted to what the canon referred? It is absolutely certain that it could not refer to Presbyterianism; to what, then, did it refer? Ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland were in a transitional state. It was known that the king intended to introduce the substance of Episcopacy as well as the form. His principles were known. His power undoubted. The act of parliament enabled him to designate bishops. He had designated them; but he himself said, “I cannot make you bishops,” that was to be done by consecration. The Church of Scotland was in the very act of being formed and organized. The Convocation, acting prospectively, spoke of it as it was about to be, and as it soon after became. The bishops designate were consecrated in 1610.

But we must not stop here. So far from true is it, that “the Church of Scotland under a Presbyterian form, as it now is,” was the Church contemplated by the 55th canon, that by other canons passed in this very Convocation of 1603, the Presbyterians were actually excommunicated.

The Presbyterians had anathematized the Church of England. We have only to refer to the “Book of the universal Kirk,” to see that at the fourth session of the General Assemblie, held at Dundee, in 1580, the following was enacted: “Forasmeickle as the office of a bischop, as it is now usit, and commonly taken within this realme, hes no sure warrand, auctoritie, nor good ground out of the Book and Scriptures of God, but is brocht in by the folie and corruptions of [men’s] invention, to the great overthrow of the Kirk of God; the haill assembly of the Kirk, in ane voice, after liberty given to all men to reason in the matter, none opposing themselves in defending the said pretendit office, finds and declares the samein pretendit office, useit and termeit, as above said, unlawfull in the selfe, as have had neither foundation ground, nor warrant within the Word of God.”—Pt. ii. 453.

This was subsequently ratified in the second session of the General Assembly, holden at Edinburgh, in 1592. Again, in the Conference connected with the General Assembly, holden at Montrose, in 1600, it was maintained by the Kirk, that “The Anglican Episcopal dignities, offices, places, titles, and all Ecclesiastical Prelacies, are flat repugnant to the Word of God;” and that “all corruptions of these bishopricks are damned and rejected.”

So spake the sect which the advocates of Presbyterianism maintain that we place in our Bidding Prayer on the same footing as the Churches of England and Ireland. How the members of this “Holy Kirk” spoke of the Prayer Book, we learn from the president of the Convocation himself. Their language was, “That it (the Prayer Book) is full of corruption, confusion, and profanation; that it contains at least five hundred errors; that the orders therein described are carnal, beggarly, dung, dross, lousy, and anti-Christian. They say we eat not the Lord’s supper, but play a pageant of our own, to make the poor silly souls believe they have an English Mass; and so put no difference betwixt truth and falsehood, betwixt Christ and anti-Christ, betwixt God and the devil!”—See Bancroft’s Sermon, p. 284.

Such were the feelings and principles and charity and forbearance of the Presbyterians of that age; and how does the Church of England deal with such persons? Let the Church of England speak for herself through the canons of 1603:—

Canon 4. “Whosoever shall affirm, That the form of God’s worship in the Church of England, established by law, and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments, is a corrupt, superstitious, or unlawful worship of God, or containeth anything in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures; let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored, but by the bishop of the place, or archbishop, after his repentance, and public revocation of such his wicked errors.”

Canon 6. “Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, That the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England by law established are wicked, anti-Christian, or superstitious, or such as, being commanded by lawful authority, men, who are zealously and godly affected, may not with any good conscience approve them, use them, or, as occasion requireth, subscribe unto them; let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored until he repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”

Canon 7. “Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, That the government of the Church of England, under his Majesty, by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, and the rest that bear office in the same, is anti-Christian, or repugnant to the word of God; let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and so continue until he repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”

Canon 8. “Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, or teach, That the form and manner of making and consecrating bishops, priests, or deacons, containeth anything that is repugnant to the word of God; or that they who are made bishops, priests, or deacons in that form, are not lawfully made, nor ought to be accounted, either by themselves or by others, to be truly either bishops, priests, or deacons, until they have some other calling to those divine offices; let him be excommunicated ipso facto, not to be restored until he publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”

Canon 9. “Whosoever shall hereafter separate themselves from the communion of saints, as it is approved by the apostles’ rules in the Church of England, and combine themselves together in a new brotherhood, accounting the Christians who are conformable to the doctrine, government, rites, and ceremonies of the Church of England, to be profane, and unmeet for them to join with in Christian profession; let them be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored, but by the archbishop, after their repentance, and public revocation of such their wicked errors.”

We can conceive nothing in the records of absurdity, more absurd than the idea that the very parties by whom Presbyterians were excommunicated, should be the parties to speak of their denomination as a sister Church. At the time when the 55th canon was enacted, the two kingdoms had been united, and the king of the two kingdoms had expressed his determination to unite the two Churches; he had already taken measures to effect his purpose, and in a few years he succeeded in his object. The Convocation, acting under his commands, excommunicated the Presbyterians, whom he hated, and held out the hand of fellowship to the Church, which he was rearing amidst the ecclesiastical anarchy of Scotland. “True,” says a learned writer: “the bishops were not consecrated till a few years later, but when the law of the land had recognised their estate, and the men were known and appointed, it appears to me a verbal shuffle, and something more, (unintentional, of course,) to say, ‘the Church of Scotland was then, as now, Presbyterian.’”

The reader who desires to see the subject more fully treated, is referred to Chancellor Harington’s most able Letter on the 55th Canon. To Chancellor Harington the writer of this article is indebted for the extract from the Premonition. It is quoted, but imperfectly, in Macrie’s Life of Andrew Melville.

BIER. A carriage on which the dead are carried to the grave. It is to be provided by the parish.

BIRTH-DAYS. In the ancient Church, this term, in its application to martyrs, and the festivals in honour of them, expressed the day on which they suffered death, or were born into the glory and happiness of the kingdom above. In this sense it stood distinct from the time of their natural birth into the world, which was considered as an event so inferior, that its ordinary designation was merged in that of a translation to the joys of a better world. “When ye hear of a birthday of saints, brethren,” says Peter Chrysologus, bishop of Ravenna in the 5th century, “do not think that that is spoken of in which they are born on earth, of the flesh, but that in which they are born from earth into heaven, from labour to rest, from temptations to repose, from torments to delights, not fluctuating, but strong, and stable, and eternal: from the derision of the world to a crown and glory. Such are the birthdays of the martyrs that we celebrate.”

BISHOP. (See Orders, Apostolical Succession, Succession, Archbishop.) This is the title now given to those who are of the highest order in the Christian ministry. The English word comes from the Saxon bischop, which is a derivative from the Greek Ἐπισκοπος, an overseer or inspector.

The doctrine of Scripture, as it relates to the office of bishop, may be briefly stated thus:—As the Lord Jesus Christ was sent by the Father, so were the apostles sent by him. “As my Father hath sent me,” he says soon after his resurrection, “even so send I you.” Now, how had the Father sent him? He had sent him to act as his supreme minister on earth; as such to appoint under him subordinate ministers, and, to do what he then did when his work on earth was done, to hand on his commission to others. The apostles, in like manner, were sent by Christ to act as his chief ministers in the Church, to appoint subordinate ministers under them, and then, as he had done, to hand on their commission to others. And on this commission, after our Lord had ascended up on high, the apostles proceeded to act. They formed their converts into Churches: these Churches consisted of baptized believers, to officiate among whom subordinate ministers, priests, and deacons were ordained; while the apostle who formed any particular Church exercised over it episcopal superintendence, either holding an occasional visitation, by sending for the clergy to meet him, (as St. Paul summoned to Miletus the clergy of Ephesus,) or else transmitting to them those pastoral addresses, which, under the name of Epistles, form so important a portion of Holy Scripture. At length, however, it became necessary for the apostles to proceed yet further, and to do as their Lord had empowered them to do, to hand on their commission to others, that at their own death the governors of the Church might not be extinct. Of this we have an instance in Titus, who was placed in Crete by St. Paul, to act as chief pastor or bishop; and another in Timothy, who was in like manner set over the Church of Ephesus. And when Timothy was thus appointed to the office of chief pastor, he was associated with St. Paul, who, in writing to the Philippians, commences his salutation thus: “Paul and Timotheus to the servants of Jesus Christ who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” Now we have here the three orders of the ministry clearly alluded to. The title of bishop is, doubtless, given to the second order: but it is not for words, but for things, that we are to contend. Titles may be changed, while offices remain; so senators exist, though they are not now of necessity old men; and most absurd would it be to contend that, when we speak of the emperor Constantine, we can mean that Constantine held no other office than that held under the Roman republic, because we find Cicero also saluted as emperor. So stood the matter in the first age of the gospel, when the chief pastors of the Church were generally designated apostles or angels, i. e. messengers sent by God himself. In the next century, the office remaining, the designation of those who held it was changed, the title of Apostle was confined to the Twelve, including St. Paul; and the chief pastors who succeeded them were thenceforth called bishops, the subordinate ministers being styled priests and deacons. For when the name of bishop was given to those who had that oversight of presbyters, which presbyters had of their flocks, it would have been manifestly inconvenient, and calculated to engender confusion, to continue the episcopal name to the second order. And thus we see, as Christ was sent by the Father, so he sent the apostles; as the apostles were sent by Christ, so did they send the first race of bishops; as the first race of bishops was sent by the apostles, so they sent the second race of bishops, the second the third, and so down to our present bishops, who thus trace their spiritual descent from St. Peter and St. Paul, and prove their Divine authority to govern the Churches over which they are canonically appointed to preside.

The three orders of the ministry in the New Testament stand thus: 1st order, Apostle. 2nd order, Bishop, Presbyter, or Elder. 3rd order, Deacon. Afterwards, the office remaining the same, there was a change in the title, and the ministers of Christ were designated thus: 1st order, Bishop, formerly Apostle. 2nd order, Presbyter or Elder. 3rd order, Deacon.

The offices of an apostle and a bishop are thus distinguished by the learned Barrow: “The apostleship is an extraordinary office, charged with instruction and government of the whole world; but episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to one place, and requiring a special attendance there.”—See Consecration of Bishops.

The judgment of the Church of England with respect to the primitive existence of the episcopal order is this: “It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church,—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.”—Preface to the Ordination Service.

BISHOPS’ BIBLE. (See Bible.)

BISHOPS, ELECTION OF. When cities were at first converted to Christianity, the bishops were elected by the clergy and people: for it was then thought convenient that the laity, as well as the clergy, should concur in the election, that he who was to have the inspection of them all might come in by general consent.

But as the number of Christians increased, this was found to be inconvenient; for tumults were raised, and sometimes murders committed, at such popular elections. To prevent such disorders, the emperors, being then Christians, reserved the election of bishops to themselves; but the bishop of Rome, when he had obtained supremacy in the Western Church, was unwilling that the bishops should have any dependence upon princes; and therefore brought it about that the canons in cathedral churches should have the election of their bishops, which elections were usually confirmed at Rome.

But princes had still some power in those elections; and in England we read, that, in the Saxon times, all ecclesiastical dignities were conferred by the king in parliament.

From these circumstances arose the long controversy about the right of investiture, a point conceded, so far as our Church is concerned, by Henry I., who only reserved the ceremony of homage to himself from the bishops in respect of temporalities. King John afterwards granted his charter, by common consent of the barons, that the bishops should be eligible by the chapter, though the right of the Crown in former times was acknowledged. This was afterwards confirmed by several acts of parliament. This election by the chapter was to be a free election, but founded upon the king’s congé d’ élire: it was afterwards to have the royal assent; and the newly-elected bishop was not to have his temporalities assigned until he had sworn allegiance to the king; but it was agreed, that confirmation and consecration should be in the power of the pope, so that foreign potentate gained in effect the disposal of all the bishoprics in England.

But the pope was not content with this power of confirmation and consecration; he would oftentimes collate to the bishoprics himself: hence, by the statute of the 26 Edward III. sec. 6, it was enacted as follows, viz. The free elections of archbishops, bishops, and all other dignities and benefices elective in England, shall hold from henceforth in the manner as they were granted by the king’s progenitors, and the ancestors of other lords, founders of the said dignities and other benefices. And in case that reservation, collation, or provision be made by the court of Rome, of any archbishopric, bishopric, dignity, or other benefice, in disturbance of the free elections aforesaid, the king shall have for that time the collations to the archbishoprics and other dignities elective which be of his advowry, such as his progenitors had before that free election was granted; since that the election was first granted by the king’s progenitors upon a certain form and condition, as to demand licence of the king to choose, and after the election to have his royal assent, and not in other manner; which conditions not kept, the thing ought by reason to resort to its first nature.

Afterwards, by the 25 Henry VIII. c. 20, all Papal jurisdiction whatsoever in this matter was entirely taken away: by which it is enacted—That no person shall be presented and nominated to the bishop of Rome, otherwise called the pope, or to the see of Rome, for the office of an archbishop or bishop; but the same shall utterly cease, and be no longer used within this realm.

And the manner and order as well of the election of archbishops and bishops, as of the confirmation of the election and consecration, is clearly enacted and expressed by that statute. By the statute of the 1 Edward VI. c. 2, all bishoprics were made donative, and it has been supposed by some, that the principal intent of this act was to make deans and chapters less necessary, and thereby to prepare the way for a dissolution of them.

But this statute was afterwards repealed, and the matter was brought back again, and still rests upon the statute of the 25th Henry VIII. c. 20.

When a bishop dies, or is translated, the dean and chapter certify the queen thereof in Chancery, and pray leave of the queen to make election. Thereupon the sovereign grants a licence to them under the great seal, to elect the person, whom by her letters missive she has appointed; and they are to choose no other. Within twenty-six days after the receipt of this licence they are to proceed to election, which is done after this manner: the dean and chapter having made their election, must certify it under their common seal to the queen, and to the archbishop of the province, and to the bishop elected; then the queen gives her royal assent under the great seal, directed to the archbishop, commanding him to confirm and consecrate the bishop thus elected. The archbishop subscribes it thus, viz. Fiat confirmatio, and grants a commission to his vicar-general to perform all acts requisite to that purpose. Upon this the vicar-general issues a citation to summon all persons who oppose this election, to appear, &c., which citation (in the province of Canterbury) is affixed by an officer of the Arches, on the door of Bow church, and he makes three proclamations there for the opposers, &c. to appear. After this, the same officer certifies what he has done to the vicar-general; and no person appearing, &c., at the time and place appointed, &c., the proctor for the dean and chapter exhibits the royal assent, and the commission of the archbishop directed to his vicar-general, which are both read, and then accepted by him. Afterwards the proctor exhibits his proxy from the dean and chapter, and presents the newly-elected bishop to the vicar-general, returns the citation, and desires that three proclamations may be made for the opposers to appear; which being done, and none appearing, he desires that they may proceed to confirmation, in pœnam contumaciæ; and this is subscribed by the vicar-general in a schedule, and decreed by him accordingly. Then the proctor exhibits a summary petition, setting forth the whole process of election; in which it is desired that a certain time may be assigned to him to prove it, and this is likewise desired by the vicar-general. Then he exhibits the assent of the queen and archbishop once more, and that certificate which he returned to the vicar-general, and of the affixing the citation on the door of Bow church, and desires a time may be appointed for the final sentence, which is also decreed. Then three proclamations are again made for the opposers to appear, but none coming they are pronounced contumaces; and it is then decreed to proceed to sentence, and this is in another schedule read and subscribed by the vicar-general. On one memorable occasion, see Reg. v. Abp. of Canterbury, Q. B., Jan. 25, 1848, the court of Q. B. pronounced this to be a mere useless form and ceremony. It was a time when political and party feeling ran higher, perhaps, than at any time since the reign of James II., and it is hoped that, should a similar case occur, justice would be done to the Church. Then the bishop elect takes the oath of supremacy, canonical obedience, and that against simony, and then the dean of the Arches reads and subscribes the sentence. The dean and chapter are to certify this election in twenty days after the delivery of the letters missive, or they incur a premunire. And if they refuse to elect, then the queen may nominate a person by her letters patent. So that, to the making a bishop, these things are requisite, viz. election, confirmation, consecration, and investiture. Upon election, the person is only a bishop Nomine, and not In re, for he has no power of jurisdiction before consecration.

In the time of the Saxons, as indeed was generally the case throughout Europe, all bishops and abbots sat in state councils, by reason of their office, as they were spiritual persons, and not upon account of any tenures; but after the Conquest the abbots sat there by virtue of their tenures, and the bishops in a double capacity, as bishops and likewise as barons by tenure. When, in the 11th year of Henry II., Archbishop Becket was condemned in parliament, there was a dispute who should pronounce the sentence, whether a bishop, or a temporal lord: those who desired that a bishop should do it, alleged that they were ecclesiastical persons, and that it was one of their own order who was condemned; but the bishops replied, that this was not a spiritual but a secular judgment; and that they did not sit there merely as bishops, but as barons; and told the House of Peers, Nos barones, vos barones pares hic sumus. In the very year before, in the tenth of Henry II., it was declared by the Constitutions of Clarendon, that bishops, and all other persons who hold of the king in capite, have their possessions of him sicut baroniam, et sicut cæteri barones, debent interesse judiciis curiæ regis, &c.; and that they ought to sit there likewise as bishops; that is, not as mere spiritual persons, vested with a power only to ordain and confirm, &c., but as they are the governors of the Church. It is for this reason that, on the vacancy of a bishopric, the guardian of the spiritualities is summoned to the parliament in the room of the bishop; and the new bishops of Bristol, Chester, Gloucester, Oxford, and Peterborough, which were made by Henry VIII., and the bishops of Ripon and Manchester, have no baronies, and yet they sit in parliament as bishops of those sees by the king’s writ. This view of the case is confirmed by the analogy of Scotland, where the bishops sat in parliament as representing the spirituality, one of the estates of the realm. The bishops of Ireland were, from the time of the submission of that country to Henry II., elected exactly as in England, under the king’s licence, and by virtue of a congé d’élire directed to the chapters. The statute of provisors was in force in Ireland as well as England; and although, from the unsettled state of the country, irregular elections occasionally took place in distant provinces, it can be clearly shown that this was in consequence of the weakness of the Crown, and in contradiction to the law. (See Ware’s Irish Bishops, passim, and Cotton’s Facti Ecclesiæ Hibern.) The right of election was taken away from the chapters, as in England, in the reign of Henry VIII., and never restored. The Irish bishops are, in consequence, still nominated, as their English brethren were till Queen Elizabeth’s reign, by letters patent.

BLASPHEMY. (From the Greek word, βλασφημέω, quasi βλάπτω τὴν φήμην.) An injury to the reputation of any, but now used almost exclusively to designate that which derogates from the honour of God, whether by detracting from his person or attributes, or by attributing to the creature what is due to God alone.

Blasphemy is a crime both in the civil and canon law, and is punishable both by the statute and common law of England.

The sin of blasphemy incurred the public censure of the primitive Christian Church. They distinguished blasphemy into three sorts. 1. The blasphemy of apostates, whom the heathen persecutors obliged, not only to deny, but to curse Christ. 2. The blasphemy of heretics, and other profane Christians. 3. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. The first sort we find mentioned in Pliny, who, giving Trajan an account of some Christians, whom the persecutions of his times had made to apostatize, tells him, they all worshipped his images, and the images of the gods, and cursed Jesus Christ. And that this was the common way of renouncing their religion, appears from the demand of the proconsul to Polycarp, and Polycarp’s answer. He bid him revile Christ: to which Polycarp replied; “These eighty-six years I have served him, and he never did me any harm; how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?”—These blasphemers, as having added blasphemy to apostasy, were reckoned among the apostates, and punished as such, to the highest degree of ecclesiastical censure.—Bingham, Origin. Eccles. b. xvi. ch. 7, § 1. Plin. Ep. 97, lib. x. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. 15.

The second sort of blasphemers were such as made profession of the Christian religion, but yet, either by impious doctrines or profane discourses, derogated from the majesty and honour of God and his holy religion. This sense of blasphemy included every kind of heresy; whence the same punishment the Church had appointed for heretics, was the lot of this kind of blasphemers. And that in this notion of blasphemy they included all impious and profane language, appears from Synesius’s treatment of Andronicus, governor of Ptolemais. He was contented to admonish him for his other crimes; but, when he added blasphemy to them, saying, no one should escape his hands, though he laid hold of the very foot of Christ, Synesius thought it high time to proceed to anathemas and excommunication.—Bingham, ibid. § 2.

The third sort of blasphemy was that against the Holy Ghost: concerning which the opinions of the ancients varied. Some applied it to the sin of lapsing into idolatry and apostasy, and denying Christ in time of persecution. Others made it to consist in denying Christ to be God; in which sense Hilary charges the Arians with sinning against the Holy Ghost. Origen thought that whoever, after having received the gifts of the Holy Ghost by baptism, afterwards ran into sin, was guilty of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost. Athanasius refutes this notion, and delivers his own opinion in the following manner. “The Pharisees, in our Saviour’s time, and the Arians, in our own, running into the same madness, denied the real Word to be incarnate, and ascribed the works of the Godhead to the devil and his angels.—They put the devil in the place of God—which was the same thing as if they had said, that the world was made by Beelzebub, that the sun rose at his command, and the stars moved by his direction.—For this reason Christ declared their sin unpardonable, and their punishment inevitable and eternal.” St. Ambrose likewise defines this sin to be a denying the Divinity of Christ. There are others, who make it to consist in denying the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. Epiphanius calls these blasphemers πνευματόμαχοι, “fighters against the Holy Ghost.” Others, again, place this sin in a perverse and malicious ascribing the operations of the Holy Spirit to the power of the devil; and that against express knowledge and conviction of conscience.

That the ancients did not look upon the sin against the Holy Ghost, in the several kinds of it here mentioned, as absolutely irremissible, or incapable of pardon, appears from hence, that they did not shut the door of repentance against such offenders, but invited them to repent, and prayed for their conversion, and restored them to communion, upon their confession, and evidences of a true repentance. Wherever they speak of it as unpardonable both in this world and the next, they always suppose the sinner to die in obduracy, and in resistance to all the gracious motions and operations of the Holy Spirit. Whence it must be concluded, that they did not think the sin against the Holy Ghost, whatever it was, in its own nature unpardonable, but only that it becomes so through final impenitence. Thus the author of the book, “Of True and False Repentance,” under the name of St. Austin, says, they only sin against the Holy Ghost, who continue impenitent to their death. And Bacchiarius, an African writer about the time of St. Austin, says this sin consists in such a despair of God’s mercy, as makes men give over all hopes of recovering that state, from which they are fallen.—Synes. Ep. 58. Bingham, ibid. § 3. Cypr. Ep. 10. Hilar. in Mat. Can. 12, p. 164. Athan. in illud, Quicunque dixerit verbum, &c., p. 975. Ambros. Comment. in Luc. lib. vii. c. 12. Epiphan. Hæres. lxxiv. Aug. Quæst. in Vet. et Nov. Test. 102. Bingham, ibid. Aug. de vera et falsa Pœnit. cap. iv. Bacchiar. Epist. de recipiend. lapsis.

St. Austin speaks often of this crime, and places it in a continued resistance of the motions and graces of the Holy Spirit, and persisting in impenitency to our death. “Impenitency is the blasphemy, which has neither remission in this world, nor in the world to come; but of this no one can judge so long as a man continues in this life. A man is a Pagan to-day; but how knowest thou but he may become a Christian to-morrow? To-day he is an unbelieving Jew; to-morrow he may believe in Christ. To-day he is an heretic; to-morrow he may embrace the Catholic truth.” Out of this notion of St. Austin, the schoolmen, according to their usual chymistry, have extracted five several species of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; viz. despair, presumption, final impenitency, obstinacy in sin, and opposition to the known truth.

If we consider the Scripture account of this sin, nothing can be plainer than that it is to be understood of the Pharisees imputing the miracles, wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, to the power of the devil. Our Lord had just healed one possessed of a devil, upon which the Pharisees gave this malicious turn to the miracle; “This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.” (Matt. xii. 24.) This led our Saviour to discourse of the sin of blasphemy, and to tell his disciples; “Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men,” (Ver. 31.) The Pharisees therefore were the persons charged with this sin, and the sin itself consisted in ascribing what was done by the finger of God to the agency of the devil. And the reason why our Lord pronounced it unpardonable is plain, because the Jews, by withstanding the evidence of miracles, resisted the strongest means of their conviction. From all which it will follow, that no person now can be guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost, in the sense in which our Saviour originally intended it; though there may be sins which bear a very near resemblance to it.—August., Serm. xi. de Verbis Domini. Brouqhton.

BLOOD. From the earliest times the clergy have been forbidden to sit in judgment on capital offences, or in cases of blood; a rule still maintained among us; for the bishops, who, as peers of parliament, are a component part of the highest court of judicature in the kingdom, always retire when such cases are before the House.

BODY. The Church is called a body. (Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. x. 17; xii. 13; Eph. iv. 4; Col. iii. 15.) Like every other body, society, or corporation, it has a prescribed form of admission, baptism; a constant badge of membership, the eucharist; peculiar duties, repentance, faith, obedience; peculiar privileges, forgiveness of sins, present grace, and future glory; regularly constituted officers, bishops, priests, and deacons. The Church is the body, of which Christ is the Head.

BOHEMIAN BRETHREN. A sect which sprung up in Bohemia in the year 1467. In 1503 they were accused by the Roman Catholics to King Ladislaus II., who published an edict against them, forbidding them to hold any meetings, either privately or publicly. When Luther declared himself against the Church of Rome, the Bohemian Brethren endeavoured to join his party. At first, that reformer showed a great aversion to them; but the Bohemians sending their deputies to him in 1535, with a full account of their doctrines, he acknowledged that they were a society of Christians whose doctrine came near to the purity of the gospel. This sect published another confession of faith in 1535, in which they renounced anabaptism, which they at first professed; upon this an union was concluded with the Lutherans, and afterwards with the Zuinglians, whose opinions from thenceforth they continued to follow.

BOUNTY, QUEEN ANNE’S. (See Annates.)

BOWING AT THE NAME OF JESUS. (See East.) It is enjoined by the eighteenth canon of the Constitutions of the Church of England, that “When in time of Divine service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed; testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures, their inward humility, Christian resolution, and due acknowledgment that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promises of God to mankind, for this life and the life to come, are fully and wholly comprised.” We do not bow when our Lord is spoken of as Christ; for when we speak of him as the Christ, we speak of his office, the anointed, the prophet, priest, and king of our race, which implies his Divine nature. But Jesus is the name of his humanity, the name he was known by as man; whenever, therefore, we pronounce that name, we bow, to signify that he who for our sakes became man, is also God.

With reference to turning to the east when we say the Creed, and bowing at the name of Jesus, Dr. Bisse remarks: As to the first, it was the custom of the ancient Church to turn to the altar or east, not only at the confessions of faith, but in all the public prayers. And therefore Epiphanius, speaking of the madness of the impostor Elxæus, counts this as one instance of it among other things, that he forbade praying towards the east. (Lib. i. Hæres. 18.) Now this is the most honourable place in the house of God, and is therefore separated from the lower and inferior parts of the Church, answering to the Holy of Holies in the Jewish tabernacle, which was severed by a veil from the sanctuary; and the holy table or altar in the one answers to the mercy-seat in the other. As then the Jews worshipped, “lifting up their hands towards the mercy-seat,” (Psal. xxviii. 2,) and even the cherubim were formed with their faces looking towards it, (Exod. xxv. 19,) so the primitive Christians did in their worship look towards the altar, of which the mercy-seat was a type. And therefore the altar was usually called “the tabernacle of God’s glory,” his “chair of state,” “the throne of God,” “the type of heaven,” “heaven itself:” for these reasons did they always in praying look towards it. But in rehearsing our Creeds this custom is still more proper and significant, for we are appointed to perform it “standing;” by this posture declaring our resolution to stand by, or defend, that faith, which we have professed: so that all these times we resemble, not so much an assembly, as an army: as then in every well-marshalled army all look and move one way, so should we always do in a regular assembly; but especially at the confessions of faith all “Christ’s faithful soldiers” should show, by this uniformity of gesture, that they hold the unity of faith.

The other usage, of bowing at the name of Jesus, seems founded on that Scripture, where it is declared, that “God hath given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father,” (Isa. xlv. 23; Phil. ii. 9,) &c. Now though the rubric be silent herein, yet the canon of our Church thus enjoins. Now if such reverence be due to that great and ever-blessed name, when it is mentioned in the lesson or sermon, how much more in the Creeds, when we mention it with our own lips, making confession of our faith in it, adding the very reason given in the canon, that we believe in him as “the only Son,” or “only-begotten Son of God,” the Saviour of the world; and when too we do this “standing,” which is the proper posture for doing reverence!—Dr. Bisse.

BOWING TO THE ALTAR. A reverent custom still practised at Windsor chapel, in college chapels and cathedrals, of which the synod of 1640 said, “We heartily commend it to all good and well-affected people, that they be ready to tender to the Lord their reverence and obeisance, both at their coming in and going out of church, according to the most ancient custom of the primitive Church in the purest times.” “In the practice or omission of this rite, we desire that the rule of charity prescribed by the apostle may be observed, which is, that they which use this rite despise not those who use it not, and they who use it not, condemn not them who use it.”

BOYLE’S LECTURE. A lecture founded under the will of the Hon. Robert Boyle, in 1691, which consists of a course of eight sermons, to prove the truth of Christianity against infidels, and to answer new difficulties, &c., without entering into controversies existing among Christians.

BRANDENBURG, CONFESSION OF. A formulary, or confession of faith, drawn up in the city of Brandenburg by order of the elector, with a view to reconcile the tenets of Luther with those of Calvin, and to put an end to the disputes occasioned by the Confession of Augsburgh.

BRASSES. Monumental slabs of brass, much used in the middle ages, with effigies carved in outline upon them. An historical and descriptive account of brasses used as sepulchral memorials would occupy too much space for this work. Perhaps as much of the history as we shall be expected to give is included in the following paragraph from the “Manual of Monumental Brasses,” (Oxford, 1848,) to which we may refer for a full discussion on this subject.

“The earliest brass of which we have any record was that of Simon de Beauchamp, who died before 1208, thus mentioned by Leland, “He lyith afore the highe altare of S. Paule’s chirch in Bedeford, with this epitaphie graven in bras, and set on a flat marble stone:—

De Bello Campo jacet hic sub marmore Simon

Fundator de Neweham.”

Several others of the thirteenth century, now lost, are enumerated by Gough.”

At the present time, the earliest brass known is that of Sir John d’Abernon, 1277; one other of the same century still remains at Trumpington. From this period their numbers gradually increased until about the middle of the sixteenth century, when they became less common. The latest observed example is at St. Mary Cray, Kent, 1776. It is remarkable that the earliest brasses are quite equal, in beauty of form and execution, to any of a later date. From the early part of the fifteenth century a gradual decline of the art is visible, and towards the end of the sixteenth century it became utterly degenerate.

It seems needless to add, that the interest of brasses is derived, in a great degree, from the light which they throw on mediæval costume, and the habits of our ancestors. The destruction of brasses at the Reformation was great; at the Rebellion still greater. The mention of this spoliation by Drake, the historian of York, is worth volumes of mere particulars. “Let no man hereafter say, ‘Exegi monumentum ære perennius;’ for now an æris sacra fames has robbed us of most of the ancient monumental inscriptions that were in the church. At the Reformation this hairbrained zeal began to show itself against painted glass, stone statues, and grave-stones, many of which were defaced and utterly destroyed, along with other more valuable monuments of the church, till Queen Elizabeth put a stop to these most scandalous doings by an express act of parliament. In our late civil wars, and during the usurpation, our zealots began again these depredations on grave-stones, and stripped and pillaged to the minutest piece of metal. I know it is urged that their hatred to Popery was so great, that they could not endure to see an “orate pro animâ,” or even a cross, over a monument without defacing it; but it is plain that it was more the poor lucre of the brass, than zeal, which tempted these miscreants to this act, for there was no gravestone which had an inscription cut on itself that was defaced by anything but age throughout this whole church.”

BRAWLING. The act of quarrelling, and, in its more limited and technical sense, the act of quarrelling within consecrated precincts. If any person shall, by words only, quarrel, chide, or brawl in any church or churchyard, it shall be lawful unto the ordinary of the place, where the same offence shall be done, and proved by two lawful witnesses, to suspend every person so offending; if he be a layman, from the entrance of the church; and if he be a clerk, from the ministration of his office, for so long time as the said ordinary shall think meet according to the fault. (5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 4, s. 1.)

BREVIARY. A daily office or book of Divine service in the Romish Church. So called from being a compilation in an abbreviated form, convenient for use, of the various books anciently used in the service, as antiphoners, psalters, &c. After the prayers of the liturgy, or missal, those held in the greatest veneration by Roman Catholics are the prayers contained in the church office, or canonical hours. This office is a form of prayer and instruction combined, consisting of psalms, lessons, hymns, prayers, anthems, versicles, &c., combined in an established order, separated into different hours of the day. It is divided into seven, or rather eight parts; and, like the English liturgy, it has a reference to the mystery or festival celebrated. The festival, and therefore the office, begins with vespers, i. e. with the evening prayer, about six o’clock, or sunset. This office is called, on the eves of Sundays and holidays, the first Vespers. Next follows compline, to beg God’s protection during sleep. At midnight come the three nocturns, as they are called, or matins, the longest part of the office. Lauds, or matin lauds, or the morning praises of God, are appointed for the cock-crowing, or before the break of day. At six o’clock, or sunrise, prime shall be recited; and tierce, sext, and none, every third hour afterwards. (See Canonical Hours.) These canonical hours of prayer are still regularly observed by many religious orders, but less regularly by the secular clergy, even in the choir. When the office is recited in private, though the observance of regular hours may be commendable, it is thought sufficient if the whole be gone through any time in the twenty-four hours. The church office, exclusive of the mass and occasional services, is contained in what is called the breviary. In consequence of a decree of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V. ordered a number of learned and able men to compile the breviary; and by his bull, Quod a nobis, July, 1566, sanctioned it, and commanded the use thereof to the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church all over the world. Clement VIII., in 1602, finding that the breviary of Pius V. had been altered and depraved, restored it to its pristine state; and ordered, under pain of excommunication, that all future editions should strictly follow that which he then printed at the Vatican. Lastly, Urban VIII., in 1631, had the language of the whole work, and the metres of the hymns, revised. The value which the Church of Rome sets upon the breviary, may be known from the strictness with which she demands the perusal of it. Whoever enjoys any ecclesiastical revenue; all persons of both sexes, who have professed in any of the regular orders; all subdeacons, deacons, and priests, are bound to repeat, either in public or in private, the whole service of the day, out of the breviary. The omission of any one of the eight portions of which that service consists is declared to be a mortal sin, i. e. a sin that, unrepented, would be sufficient to exclude from salvation. The person guilty of such an omission loses all legal right to whatever portion of his clerical emoluments is due for the day or days wherein he neglected that duty, and cannot be absolved till he has given the forfeited sums to the poor. Such are the sanctions and penalties by which the reading of the breviary is enforced. The scrupulous exactness with which this duty is performed by all who have not secretly cast off their spiritual allegiance is quite surprising. The office of the Roman Catholic Church was originally so contrived, as to divide the psalter between the seven days of the week. Portions of the old Scriptures were also read alternately, with extracts from the legends of the saints, and the works of the fathers. But as the calendar became crowded with saints, whose festivals take precedence of the regular church service, little room is left for anything but a few psalms, which are constantly repeated, a very small part of the Old Testament, and mere fragments of the Gospels and Epistles.

The lessons are taken partly out of the Old and New Testaments, and partly out of the Acts of the Saints, and writings of the holy fathers. The Lord’s Prayer, the Hail Mary, or Angelical Salutation, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Confiteor, are frequently said. This last is a prayer, by which they who use it acknowledge themselves sinners, beg pardon of God, and the intercession on their behalf of the angels, of the saints, and of their brethren upon earth. No prayers are more frequently in the mouths of Roman Catholics than these four; to which we may add the doxology, repeated during the psalmody in every office, but though not uniformly at the end of every psalm, and in other places. In every canonical hour a hymn is also said, often composed by Prudentius, or some other ancient father. The Roman breviary contains also a small office, in honour of the Blessed Virgin, and likewise what is called the office of the dead. We there find, also, the penitential and the gradual psalms, as they are called, together with the litanies of the saints, and of the Virgin Mary of Loretto, which are the only two that have the sanction of the Church. The breviary is generally printed in four volumes, one for each season of the year.

BRIEFS (see Bulls) are pontifical letters issued from the court of Rome, sealed in red wax, with the seal of the fisherman’s ring: they are written in Roman characters, and subscribed by the secretary of briefs, who is a secretary of state, (usually either a bishop or a cardinal,) required to be well versed in the legal style of papal documents, and in the sacred canons. The word Brief, in our Prayer Book, signifies the sovereign letters patent, authorizing a collection for a charitable purpose; as they are now styled, Queen’s letters. These are directed to be read among the notices after the Nicene Creed.

BROACH. In strictness any spire, but generally used to signify a spire, the junction of which with the tower is not marked by a parapet. Lancet and Geometrical spires are generally thus treated; Decorated, frequently; Perpendicular, rarely.

BULL in Cœna Domini. This is the name given to a bull in the Church of Rome, which is publicly read on the day of the Lord’s supper, viz. Holy Thursday, by a cardinal deacon in the pope’s presence, accompanied with the other cardinals and the bishops. The same contains an excommunication of all that are called, by that apostate Church, heretics, stubborn and disobedient to the holy see. And after the reading of this bull, the pope throws a burning torch into the public place, to denote the thunder of this anathema. It is declared expressly, in the beginning of the bull of Pope Paul III., of the year 1536, that it is the ancient custom of the sovereign pontiffs to publish this excommunication on Holy Thursday, to preserve the purity of the Christian religion, and to keep the union of the faithful; but the original of this ceremony is not inserted in it. The principal heads of this bull concern heretics and their upholders, pirates, imposers of new customs, those who falsify the bulls and other apostolic letters; those who abuse the prelates of the Church; those that trouble or would restrain ecclesiastical jurisdiction, even under pretence of preventing some violence, though they might be counsellors or advocates, generals to secular princes, whether emperors, kings, or dukes; those who usurp the goods of the Church, &c. All these cases are reserved to the pope, and no priest can give absolution in such a case, if it be not at the point of death. The Council of Tours, in 1510, declared the bull in Cœna Domini void in respect of France, which has often protested against it, in what relates to the king’s prerogative, and the liberties of the Gallican Church; and there are now but few other Popish princes or states that have much regard to it. So much has the authority of the papal chair declined since the Reformation, even over those who still remain in the communion of what they call the Roman Catholic Church.

BULLS (see Briefs) are pontifical letters, in the Romish Church, written in old Gothic characters upon stout and coarse skins, and issued from the apostolic chancery, under a seal (bulla) of lead; which seal gives validity to the document, and is attached, if it be a “Bull of Grace,” by a cord of silk; and if it be a “Bull of Justice,” by a cord of hemp.

The seal of the fisherman’s ring corresponds, in some degree, with the privy seal; and the bulla, or seal of lead, with the great seal of England.

The bulla is, properly, a seal of empire. The imperial bulla is of gold; and it was under a seal of this description that King John resigned the crown of England to the Pope.

Briefs and Bulls differ from each other.

1. Briefs are issued from the Roman court by the apostolic secretary, sealed with red wax by the fisherman’s ring. Bulls are issued by the apostolic chancellor, under a seal of lead, having on one side impressed the likeness of St. Peter and St. Paul; and, on the other, the name of the reigning pope.

2. Briefs are written upon fine and white skins. Bulls, upon those which are thick, coarse, and rude.

3. Briefs are written in Roman characters, in a legible, fair, and elegant manner. Bulls, though in Latin, are written in old Gothic characters, without line or stop, or that regard to spelling which is observed in briefs.

4. Briefs are dated “a die nativitatis;” Bulls dated “a die incarnationis.”

5. Briefs have the date abbreviated; Bulls have it given in length.

6. Briefs begin in a different form, with the name of the pope: thus “Clem. Papa XII. &c.” Bulls begin with the words “[Clemens] Episcopus servus servorum Dei;” by way of distinct heading.

7. Briefs are issued before the pope’s coronation, but Bulls are not issued till afterwards. (See on this subject, Corrad. in Praxi Dispens. lib. ii. c. 7, n. 29; Rosam de Executione Liter. Apostol. c. 2, n. 67; Cardinal de Luca. in relat. Romanæ Curiæ, discurs, 7, and other canonists.)

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned differences between Briefs and Bulls, and that greater weight is usually attached to a bull than to a brief, on account of its more formal character, still Briefs have the same authority as Bulls on all the matters to which they relate; both being equally acts of the pope, though issued from different departments of his Holiness’s government.

BURIAL. (See Cemetery, Dead.) Christians in the first centuries used to bury their dead in the places used also by the heathen, in caves or vaults by the wayside, or in fields out of their cities. The heathen used to burn the bodies of the dead, and collect the ashes in urns, but Christians thought it to be a barbarity and insult to destroy a body appointed to a glorious resurrection. They therefore restored the older and better practice of laying the remains decently in the earth. Their persecutors, knowing their feelings on this subject, often endeavoured to prevent them from burying their dead, by burning the bodies of their martyrs, as they did that of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna; or by throwing their ashes into rivers, as they did those of the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne in France, A. D. 177. And although the heathen seemed to think it unlucky and of evil omen to perform their funerals by day, carrying out their dead after night-fall, and by torch-light; the Christians used to follow their deceased friends to the grave, in the light of the sun, with a large attendance of people walking in procession, sometimes carrying candles in token of joy and thanksgiving, and chanting psalms. It was also the custom, before they went to the grave, to assemble in the church, where the body was laid, and a funeral sermon was sometimes preached. The holy communion was administered on these occasions to the friends of the deceased, for which a service, with an appropriate Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, was set forth in our own Church in the First Book of King Edward VI., and in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, A. D. 1560. The office for the Burial of the Dead used by the English Church corresponds in all respects with the offices of the primitive Church, particularly as regards the psalms, the anthem, “Man that is born of a woman,” &c., and the portions of Scripture appointed to be read.

No person can be buried in the church, or in any part of it, without the consent of the incumbent, to whom alone the common law has given this privilege, because the soil and freehold of the church is in the parson only. But upon the like ground of freehold, the common law has one exception to the necessity of the leave of the parson, namely, where a burying-place within the church is prescribed for as belonging to a manor house. By the common law of England, any person may be buried in the churchyard of the parish where he dies, without paying anything for breaking the soil, unless a fee is payable by prescription, or immemorial usage. But ordinarily a person may not be buried in the churchyard of another parish than that wherein he died, at least without the consent of the parishioners or churchwardens, whose parochial right of burial is invaded thereby, and perhaps also of the incumbent whose soil is broken; but where a person dies on his journey or otherwise, out of the parish, or where there is a family vault or burial-place in the church, or chancel, or aisle of such other parish, it may be otherwise. Burial cannot be legally refused to dead bodies on account of debt, even although the debtor was confined in prison at the time of his death.

By canon 68. “No minister shall refuse or delay to bury any corpse that is brought to the church or churchyard, (convenient warning being given him thereof before,) in such manner and form as is prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. And if he shall refuse so to do, except the party deceased were denounced excommunicated majori excommunicatione, for some grievous and notorious crime, (and no man able to testify of his repentance,) he shall be suspended by the bishop of the diocese from his ministry by the space of three months.” But by the rubric before the office for Burial of the Dead, the said office likewise shall not be used for any that die unbaptized, or that have laid violent hands upon themselves. The proper judges, whether persons who died by their own hands were out of their senses, are doubtless the coroner’s jury. The minister of the parish has no authority to be present at viewing the body, or to summon or examine witnesses. And therefore he is neither entitled nor able to judge in the affair; but may well acquiesce in the public determination, without making any private inquiry. Indeed, were he to make one, the opinion which he might form from thence could usually be grounded only on common discourse and bare assertion. It cannot be justifiable to act upon these in contradiction to the decision of a jury after hearing witnesses upon oath. Even though there may be reason to suppose that the coroner’s jury are frequently too favourable in their judgment, in consideration of the circumstances of the family of the deceased with respect to the forfeiture, and their verdict is in its own nature traversable, yet the burial may not be delayed until that matter upon trial shall finally be determined. On acquittal of the crime of self-murder by the coroner’s jury, the body in that case not being demanded by the law, it seems that the clergyman may and ought to admit that body to Christian burial.

The rubric directs that the priests and clerks meeting the corpse at the entrance of the churchyard, and going before it either into the church or towards the grave, shall say or sing as is there appointed. By which it seems to be discretionary in the minister, whether the corpse shall be carried into the church or not. And there may be good reason for not bringing it into the church, especially in cases of infection.

Canon 67. After the party’s death there shall be rung no more than one short peal, and one before the burial, and one other after the burial.

The corpse that is buried belongs to no one, but is subject to ecclesiastical cognizance, if abused or removed; and a corpse, once buried, cannot be taken up or removed without licence from the ordinary, if it is to be buried in another place, or the like; but in the case of a violent death the coroner may take up the body for his inspection, if it is interred before he comes to view it.—Dr. Burn.

With reference to the Order for the Burial of the Dead in the Book of Common Prayer, we must note that the ignorance and corruption of the latter centuries had not vitiated any of the sacred administrations more than this of burial; on which the fancies of purgatory and prayers for the dead had so great an influence, that most of the forms now extant consist of little else but impertinent and useless petitions for the dead. Our Protestant reformers therefore, remembering St. Augustine’s rule, that all this office is designed rather for the comfort of the living, than the benefit of the dead, have justly rejected these superstitions; and contrived this present form wholly for the instruction, admonition, and comfort of the attendants on this solemnity, and therein have reduced this matter to its prime intention and use. It is not easy to tell exactly what the primitive form of burial was; but the psalms were a principal part of it, as all the fathers testify. They are now also a chief part of this office, and the rest is generally taken out of Holy Scripture, being such places as are most proper to the occasion, so as to form altogether a most pious and practical office.—Dean Comber.

Although all persons are for decency to be put under ground, yet that some are not capable of Christian burial appears not only from the canons of the ancient Church, but also from the following rubric prefixed to our office at the last review: “Here it is to be noted, that the office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or excommunicate, or have laid violent hands upon themselves.”

The persons capable of Christian burial are only those within the pale of the Church, for the rubric excludes all others from this privilege; which is agreeable to the sense of all nations, who have generally thought fit to punish some kinds of malefactors with the want of these rites after their death, as well to afflict the criminal, while he lives, with apprehensions of the disgrace to be done to his body, which is naturally dear to all men; as to perpetuate the odium of the crime, while the corpse is exposed to public scorn after the offender hath parted with his life. Thus murderers were punished among the Romans: and among the Greeks, robbers of temples and sacrilegious persons, as also those that betrayed their country, with divers other notorious transgressors. But none have been so justly and so universally deprived of that natural right, which all men seem to have in a grave, as those who break that great law of nature, the law of self-preservation, by laying violent hands upon themselves. Among the Jews, these were forbidden to be buried, and among the ancient Romans also. And when many of the Milesian virgins made themselves away, the rest were restrained from so vile a crime by a decree, that whosoever so died, she should not be buried, but her naked body should be exposed to the common view. And, to confirm the equity of these customs, we find the Christian councils, as well abroad as at home, have forbidden the clergy to bury those that killed themselves; as doth also our present rubric in imitation of those ancient constitutions. And for very great reason, namely, to terrify all from committing so detestable and desperate a sin, as is the wilful destroying of God’s image, the casting away of their own souls, as well as their opportunities of repentance: the Church hereby declaring, that she hath little hopes of their salvation, who die in an act of the greatest wickedness, which they can never repent of after it be committed.

To these are to be added all that die under the sentence of excommunication, who in the primitive times were denied Christian burial also, with the intent of bringing the excommunicated to seek their absolution and the Church’s peace for their soul’s health, ere they leave this world; and, if not, of declaring them cut off from the body of Christ, and by this mark of infamy distinguishing them from obedient and regular Christians.

This office is also denied to infants not yet admitted into the Church by baptism; not so much to punish the infants, who have done no crime, as the parents, by whose neglect this too often happens. And perhaps this external and sensible kind of punishment may move them to be more careful to accomplish the office in due time, than higher and more spiritual considerations will do.

Not that the Church determines anything concerning the future state of those that depart before they are admitted to baptism; but since they have not been received within the pale of the Church, we cannot properly use an office at their funeral, which all along supposes the person that is buried to have died in her communion.

Whether this office is to be used over such as have been baptized by the dissenters or sectaries, who have no regular commission for the administering of the sacraments, has been a subject of dispute; people generally determining on one side, or the other, according to their different sentiments of the validity or invalidity of such disputed baptisms.—Wheatly.

All other persons that die in the communion of the visible Church are capable of these rites of Christian burial, according to the rules and practice both of the primitive and the present ages.—Dean Comber.

Though this rubric was not drawn up till 1661, and none of the regulations which it enjoins, excepting only what relates to persons excommunicate, was before that time specified in any of our articles, or ecclesiastical constitutions, yet it must not be considered as a new law, but merely as explanatory of the ancient canon law, and of the previous usage in England.—Shepherd.

The Order for the Burial of the Dead is much modified from the service in the First Book of King Edward VI. The psalms were the 116th, 139th, and 146th: the prayers were in many respects different; and there are certain passages omitted in the Second Book. The psalms in the First Book were omitted in the subsequent revisals, and the lesson was recited after the anthem, “I heard a voice from heaven:” and the present psalms were not inserted till the last Review.

At solemn funerals it has not been unusual to combine the Burial Service with the office of Evening Prayer, substituting the psalms and lessons for those of the day; but the regularity of this usage is questionable.—Jebb.

BUTTRESS. An external support to a wall, so arranged as to counteract the lateral thrust of roofs and vaulting.

The buttress is not used in Classic architecture, where the thrust is always vertical; and in Romanesque it is hardly developed. It is, in fact, a correlative of the pointed arch, especially when used in vaulting, and so first attains considerable depth in the Lancet period. In the Tudor period, when it had to support fan vaulting of vast expanse and weight, its depth or projection was proportionably increased.

The flying buttress, arch-buttress, or cross-springer, is an arch delivering the weight to be supported at a distance, as of a spire at the angle of the tower, of a clerestory at the aisle buttress, or of the chapter-house roof at Lincoln, to the heavy masses of masonry prepared at a distance to receive it.

The pinnacles which frequently terminate buttresses are intended to add to the weight of the supporting mass. (See Bay.)

CABBALA. (Hebrew.) Tradition. Among the Jews, it principally means the mystical interpretations of their Scriptures, handed down by tradition. The manner in which Maimonides explains the Cabbala, or Traditions of the Jews, is as follows: “God not only delivered the law to Moses on Mount Sina, but the explanation of it likewise. When Moses came down from the mount, and entered into his tent, Aaron went to visit him, and Moses acquainted Aaron with the laws he had received from God, together with the explanation of them. After this, Aaron placed himself at the right hand of Moses, and Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, were admitted; to whom Moses repeated what he had just before told to Aaron. These being seated, the one on the right, the other on the left hand of Moses, the seventy elders of Israel, who composed the Sanhedrim, came in. Moses again declared the same laws to them, with the interpretations of them, as he had done before to Aaron and his sons. Lastly, all who pleased of the common people were invited to enter, and Moses instructed them likewise in the same manner as the rest. So that Aaron heard four times what Moses had been taught by God upon Mount Sina; Eleazar and Ithamar three times; the seventy elders twice; and the people once. Moses afterwards reduced the laws, which he had received, into writing, but not the explanations of them; these he thought it sufficient to trust to the memories of the above-mentioned persons, who, being perfectly instructed in them, delivered them to their children, and these again to theirs, from age to age.”

The Cabbala, therefore, is properly the Oral Law of the Jews, delivered down, by word of mouth, from father to son; and it is to these interpretations of the written law our Saviour’s censure is to be applied, when he reproves the Jews for “making the commands of God of none effect through their traditions.”

Some of the Rabbins pretend that the origin of the Cabbala is to be referred to the angels; that the angel Raziel instructed Adam in it; the angel Japhiel, Shem; the angel Zedekiel, Abraham, &c. But the truth is, these explications of the Law are only the several interpretations and decisions of the Rabbins on the Law of Moses; in the framing of which they studied principally the combinations of particular words, letters, and numbers, and by that means pretended to discover clearly the true sense of the difficult passages of Scripture.

This is properly called the Artificial Cabbala, to distinguish it from simple tradition: and it is of three sorts. The first, called Gematria, consists in taking letters as figures, and explaining words by the arithmetical value of the letters of which they are composed. For instance, the Hebrew letters of Jabo-Schiloh (Shiloh shall come) make up the same arithmetical number as Messiach (the Messiah): from whence they conclude that Shiloh signifies the Messiah.

The second kind of Artificial Cabbala, which is called Notaricon, consists in taking each particular letter of a word for an entire diction. For example, of Rereschith, which is the first word of Genesis, composed of the letters B. R. A. S. C. H. J. T., they make Bura-Rakia-Arex-Schamaim-Jain-Tehomoth, i. e. he created the firmament, the earth, the heavens, the sea, and the deep. Or in forming one entire diction out of the initial letters of many: thus, in Atah-Gibbor-Leholam-Adonai, (Thou art strong for ever, O Lord,) they put the initial letters of this sentence together, and form the word Agla, which signifies either, I will reveal, or, a drop of dew, and is the Cabbalistic name of God.

The third kind, called Themura, consists in changing and transposing the letters of a word: thus of the word Bereschith (the first of the book of Genesis) they make A-betisri, the first of the month Tisri, and infer from thence that the world was created on the first day of the month Tisri, which answers very nearly to our September.

The Cabbala, according to the Jews, is a noble and sublime science, conducting men by an easy method to the profoundest truths. Without it, the Holy Scriptures could not be distinguished from profane books, wherein we find some miraculous events, and as pure morality as that of the law, if we did not penetrate into the truths locked up under the external cover of the literal sense. As men were grossly deceived, when, dwelling upon the sensible object, they mistook angels for men; so also they fall into error or ignorance when they insist upon the surface of letters or words, which change with custom, and ascend not up to the ideas of God himself, which are infinitely more noble and spiritual.

Certain visionaries among the Jews believe that our blessed Lord wrought his miracles by virtue of the mysteries of the Cabbala. Some learned men are of opinion, that Pythagoras and Plato learned the Cabbalistic art of the Jews in Egypt; others, on the contrary, say the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato furnished the Jews with the Cabbala. Most of the heretics, in the primitive Christian Church, fell into the vain conceits of the Cabbala; particularly the Gnostics, Valentinians, and Basilidians.—Broughton.

CABBALISTS. Those Jewish doctors who profess the study of the Cabbala. In the opinion of these men, there is not a word, letter, or accent in the law, without some mystery in it. The first Cabbalistical author that we know of is Simon, the son of Joachai, who is said to have lived a little before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. His book, entitled Zohar, is extant; but it is agreed that many additions have been made to it. The first part of this work is entitled Zeniutha, or Mystery; the second Idra Rabba, or the Great Synod; the third, Idra Latta, or the Little Synod, which is the author’s last adieu to his disciples.—Broughton.

CAINITES, or CANIANS. Christian heretics, a sect of the Gnostics of the second century: they were called according to Cain’s name, who, they say, was formed by a celestial and almighty power, and that Abel was made by a weak one: they held that the way to be saved was to make trial of all manner of things, and to satisfy their lusts with all wicked actions: they fancied a great number of angels, to which they gave barbarous names, attributing to each of them a particular sin; so that when they were about any wicked action, they invoked the angel whom they fancied to preside over it. They composed a book called St. Paul’s Ascension to Heaven, which they filled with blasphemies and execrable impieties, as if they were the secret words which that apostle heard in his ecstasy: they had a particular veneration for Cain, Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, the Sodomites, and especially for Judas, on whose Gospel they relied, because his treachery occasioned the death of Christ; and they made use of a Gospel that bore that false disciple’s name.

CALENDAR. The word calendar is derived from calendæ, the first day of the Roman month. Our calendar in the Prayer Book consists of several columns. The first shows the days of the month in their numerical order; the second contains the letters of the alphabet affixed to the days of the week; the third, as printed in the larger Common Prayer Books, (and as it ought to be in all,) has the calends, nones, and ides, which was the method of computation used by the old Romans and primitive Christians, and is still useful to those who read ecclesiastical history.

The last four columns contain the course of lessons for morning and evening prayer for ordinary days throughout the year. The intermediate column, namely, the fourth, contains, together with the holy days observed by the Church of England, such Popish holy days as it was thought best to retain. The reasons why the names of these saints’ days and holy days were resumed into the calendar are various. Some of them being retained upon account of our courts of justice, which usually made their returns on these days, or else upon the days before or after them, which were called in the writs, Vigil., Fest., or Crast., as in Vigil. Martin, Fest. Martin, Crast. Martin, and the like. Others are probably kept in the calendar for the sake of such tradesmen, handicraftsmen, and others, as are wont to celebrate the memory of their tutelar saints: as the “Welshmen do of St. David, the shoemakers of St. Crispin, &c. And again, churches being in several places dedicated to some or other of these saints, it has been the usual custom in such places to have wakes or fairs kept upon those days; so that the people would probably be displeased, if, either in this, or the former case, their favourite saint’s name should be left out of the calendar. Besides, the histories which were writ before the Reformation do frequently speak of transactions happening upon such a holy day, or about such a time, without mentioning the month, relating one thing to be done at Lammas-tide, and another about Martinmas, &c.; so that were these names quite left out of the calendar, we might be at a loss to know when several of these transactions happened. For this and the foregoing reasons our second reformers under Queen Elizabeth (though all those days had been omitted in both books of King Edward VI., excepting St. George’s day, Lammas day, St. Laurence, and St. Clement, which two last were in his Second Book) thought convenient to restore the names of them to the calendar, though not with any regard of being kept holy by the Church. For this they thought prudent to forbid, as well upon the account of the great inconveniency brought into the Church in the times of Popery, by the observation of such a number of holy days, to the great prejudice of labouring and trading men, as by reason that many of those saints they then commemorated were oftentimes men of none of the best characters. Besides, the history of these saints, and the accounts they gave of the other holy days, were frequently found to be feigned and fabulous. An effort to reform the calendar was made in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, but was never carried into effect. By the acts 24 Geo. ii. c. 23, and 25 Geo. ii. c. 30, the calendar was reformed, and the new style introduced: in consequence of which the calendar (only so far as its astronomical errors were concerned) has attained to that form in which it is now prefixed to the Prayer Book. See Stephens’s Book of Common Prayer, with notes, where both the ancient and modern calendar are given at length.—Wheatly.

CALL TO THE MINISTRY. There are two sorts of motions or calls to the ministry. First, the outward; whereby those who have a right of recommending a person to the execution of any ecclesiastical office, do fix upon him as one in their judgment qualified for it; and the bishop, approving their judgment, does admit him into such office in due manner, as the laws of God and the rites of the Church do require. But the inward call is something preceding this, and is required by our Church as a qualification for the latter. Now it has been some matter of doubt what is meant here by being “inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost.” But I think no one can judge, that the compilers of this office did ever entertain such enthusiastical notions, as to imagine that no persons were to be admitted into any degree of the ecclesiastical orders, without having a special revelation from the Holy Spirit, that God had particularly commissioned them to take upon them that office, as St. Paul says of himself, that he was “an apostle called of God.” (Rom. i. 1; 1 Cor. i. 1.) For such calls as these were miraculous and extraordinary, and remained not much longer than the apostolical times. It remains, therefore, that this motion or call must be something in a more ordinary and common way.

Now we know that the Scripture teaches, that the common and ordinary graces, and all good dispositions and resolutions, are attributed to the Holy Spirit of God. “Every good and perfect gift cometh from above.” (Jam. i. 17.) “It is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do, of his good pleasure.” (Phil. ii. 13.) The apostle calls the ordinary graces of love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance, “the fruits of the Spirit.” (Gal. v. 22, 23.) Thus the belief of the gospel is called “the spirit of faith.” (2 Cor. iv. 13.) And it is said expressly, that “no one saith that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” (1 Cor. xii. 3.) Now, I conceive, all that is here meant by “inward motion of the Holy Ghost,” is his ordinary motion, by which Christians are stirred up to every good resolution which they make, or good action which they do. And whereas a resolution to take upon one the office of the ministry, without any bad design mixing with it, is a good resolution, so he that takes it up may be properly said to be moved by the Holy Ghost to do it. For it must be undoubtedly owned, that such a resolution is a good and pious one, since the apostle says plainly, laying it down as an undoubted truth, “This is a true saying, if a man desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” (1 Tim. iii. 1.) And, to be sure, in those times it seldom happened, that this or any other ecclesiastical office was desired, but only from a pure view of doing good. For these were exposed the foremost to the rage of the persecutors, and men must be actuated by a noble zeal for the gospel, to lay themselves under the necessity of being exposed to the most grievous sufferings, or laying down their lives for the sake of it. And in these times, likewise, men may, and frequently, I doubt not, do, take upon them the ecclesiastical employs upon very good aims. Therefore the meaning of this question is, whether, after an impartial examination of their hearts, they find that they do not take this sacred employ upon them, barely for a maintenance in the world, or that thereby they may acquire those superior dignities and profits, which in these peaceable ages of Christianity some of the clergy do partake of; but only that they think they may be serviceable in God’s vineyard, and are willing to contribute the best of their labours therein, “for the promoting of God’s glory and the edifying of his people.” I do not think the question intends, that all who are to be ordained should profess that they would be desirous of this office, though there were no temporal advantages attending it, and though it exposed men not only to starving, but to apparent persecution and death; for then most, even the best persons, as times go now, might justly scruple the answering to such a question: but I take it to mean no more than that, since they are to take upon them some employ or other for their own subsistence and the benefit of the community, they choose to take upon them the office of the ministry, wherein they think they can act more for God’s glory and the benefit of their Christian brethren, than by exercising any temporal calling; and that they verily believe, that it was not without the assistance of God’s good Spirit that they formed this judgment and resolution.—Dr. Nicholls.

The candidate for deacon’s orders has the question of the inward call put to him thus: Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost, to take upon you this office and ministration to serve God, in promoting his glory, and the edifying of his people?

This is a great question indeed, and that which no man can give a true and positive answer to, without having searched narrowly into his own heart, and seriously considered the bent and inclinations of his soul. But it is a question very necessary to be propounded, for the Holy Ghost now supplies the place and room of our blessed Saviour in his Church militant here on earth. And therefore, as it was by him that the several offices themselves were at first constituted, so it is by him that men are called to the execution of them; and it is by him alone that all ecclesiastical ministrations, performed by such officers, are made effectual to the purposes for which they are appointed; and therefore the Church is bound to take care that none be admitted into her ministry but such as she believes and hopes to be called to it by the Holy Ghost. But she can have no ground to believe this, but only from the persons themselves, none but themselves being acquainted with the motions of God’s Spirit upon their own hearts. And therefore the bishop requires them to deal plainly and faithfully with him and the Church, and to tell him whether they really trust that they are moved by the Holy Ghost to take this office upon them? To which every one is bound to answer, “I trust so:” not that he knows it, or is certain of it, for it is possible that his heart may deceive him in it, but that he trusts or hopes it is so.

But what ground can any one have to trust that he is moved by the Holy Ghost to take the ministry upon him? To that I answer in short, that if a man finds that, upon due examination, the bishop of the diocese, where he is to serve, is satisfied of his abilities and qualifications for the ministry; and that his great end and design in undertaking it is to serve God, for the promoting of his glory and the edifying of his people; he hath good grounds to trust, that he is moved to it by the Holy Ghost, it being only by him that any man can be duly qualified for it, and moved to take it upon him, out of so good and pious a design as that is. But if either of these things be wanting; as, if a man be not fitted for the office, he may conclude he is not called to it by the Holy Ghost, for he neither calls nor useth any but fit instruments in what he doth; or, if a man be moved to it out of a design, not to do good, but to get applause or preferment in the world, he may thence infer that he is not moved to it by the Spirit of God, but by the spirit of pride and covetousness, and then can have no ground to expect that the Holy Ghost should ever bless and assist him in the execution of his office. According to these rules, therefore, they who are to be ordained may discern whether they can truly give the answer required to this great question that will be propounded to them. As for their qualifications for it, the bishop hath already approved of them; but as to their main end and design in undertaking the ministry, that must be left to God and their own consciences, who alone know it, and so can best judge whether they can truly say that they “trust they are moved to it by the Holy Ghost.”—Bp. Beveridge.

The following is Calvin’s definition of the inward call in his book of Institutes, which being published about ten years before the Ordinal of Edward the Sixth, might probably be a guide to our Reformers in framing this question: “That it is the good testimony of our own heart, that we have taken this office, neither for ambition, covetousness, nor any evil design, but out of a true fear of God, and a desire to edify the Church.” Now this we may know by duly considering, whether it were the external honours and revenues that are annexed to this profession, or any other worldly end, that first or chiefly did incline us to the ministry. If so, we were moved by carnal objects, and led on by our own corrupt will and affections. But if our principal motives were spiritual, that is, a zeal for God’s glory, and a desire to promote the salvation of souls, then we were “moved by the Spirit, and inwardly called by God.” I grant we cannot but know there are honours and rewards piously and justly annexed to this holy function; and, as men, we cannot but hope for a competency of them; yea, this may be a subordinate motive. But I may say of the priesthood, as Christ of the kingdom of heaven, it must be sought in the first place for itself, and the other only as additional consequences thereof. (Matt. vi. 33.) We must love the duties of this calling; reading, study, praying, preaching, &c., more than the rewards. Yea, if persecution should ever strip the Church of these provisions, as it hath often done, we must not cast off our holy ministrations. (1 Cor. ix. 16.)

This inward call thus explained is the first and one of the principal qualifications for him that is to be employed about heavenly things. And therefore it is inserted, not only into ours, but other reformed offices for ordination; where it is inquired, “if they believe that God by the Church calls them to this ministry, and if they did not seek for worldly riches or glory,” as in the liturgy of the Belgic Church. Our candidates know this question will be asked: wherefore let them examine their hearts strictly, and answer it in the sincerity of their souls; not doubting but that good Spirit, who excited them to this work, will assist and bless all their performances.—Dean Comber.

We may here observe, that the first question put to those who are to be ordained priests, concerning their being moved by the Holy Ghost to take that office upon them, is now omitted. For, these having been ordained deacons before, it is supposed that they were then moved by the Spirit of Christ to take the ministry of his gospel upon them, and there is no need of any further call from him. For being once called by him, though it was but to the lowest office of his own institution, the Church takes it for granted that it is his pleasure they should be promoted to any higher office, if there be sufficient reason and occasion for it.—Bp. Beveridge.

CALOYERS. A general name given to the monks of the Greek Church. It is taken from the Greek καλεγόροι, which signifies “good old men.”—Hist. des Ord. Relig. P. i. cap. 19. These religious consider St. Basil as their father and founder, and look upon it as a crime to follow any other rule than his. There are three degrees among them; the novices, who are called Archari; the ordinary professed, called Microchemi; and the more perfect, called Megalochemi. They are likewise divided into Cœnobites, Anchorets, and Recluse.

The Cœnobites are employed in reciting their office from midnight to sunset; and as it is impossible, in so long an exercise, they should not be overtaken with sleep, there is one monk appointed to wake them; and they are obliged to make three genuflexions at the door of the choir, and, returning, to bow to the right and left to their brethren. The Anchorets retire from the conversation of the world, and live in hermitages in the neighbourhood of the monasteries. They cultivate a little spot of ground, and never go out but on Sundays and holidays, to perform their devotions at the next monastery; the rest of the week they employ in prayer and working with their hands. As for the Recluse, they shut themselves up in grottos and caverns on the tops of mountains, which they never go out of, abandoning themselves entirely to Providence. They live on the alms sent them by the neighbouring monasteries.

In the monasteries, the religious rise at midnight, and repeat a particular office, called from thence Mesonycticon; which takes up the space of two hours: after which, they retire to their cells till five o’clock in the morning, when they return to the church to say matins. At nine o’clock they repeat the Terce, Sexte, and Mass; after which they repair to the refectory, where is a lecture read till dinner. Before they leave the refectory, the cook comes to the door, and, kneeling down, demands their blessing. At four o’clock in the afternoon, they say vespers; and at six go to supper. After supper, they say an office, from thence called Apodipho; and at eight, each monk retires to his chamber and bed till midnight. Every day, after matins, they confess their faults on their knees to their superior.

They have four Lents. The first and greatest is that of the Resurrection of our Lord. They call it the Grand Quarantain, and it lasts eight weeks. During this Lent, the religious drink no wine, and their abstinence is so great, that if they are obliged, in speaking, to name milk, butter, or cheese, they always add this parenthesis, Timitis agias saracostis, i. e. “Saving the respect due to holy Lent.” The second Lent is that of the holy Apostles, which begins eight days after Whit-Sunday: its duration is not fixed, it continuing sometimes three weeks, and at other times longer. During this Lent, they are allowed to drink wine. The third Lent is that of the Assumption of our Lady: it lasts fourteen days; during which they abstain from fish, excepting on Sundays, and the day of the Transfiguration of our Lord. The fourth Lent is that of Advent, which they observe after the same manner as that of the Apostles.

The Caloyers, besides the usual habit of the monastic life, wear over their shoulders a square piece of stuff, on which are represented the cross, and the other marks of the passion of our Saviour, with these letters, JC. XC. VC., i. e. Jesus Christus Vincit.

All the monks are obliged to labour for the benefit of their monastery, as long as they continue in it. Some have the care of the fruits, others of the grain, and others of the cattle. The necessity the Caloyers are under of cultivating their own lands, obliges them to admit a great number of lay-brothers, who are employed the whole day in working.

Over all these Caloyers there are visitors or exarchs, who visit the convents under their inspection, only to draw from them the sums which the patriarch demands of them. Yet, notwithstanding the taxes these religious are obliged to pay, both to their patriarch and to the Turks, their convents are very rich.

The most considerable monastery of the Greek Caloyers in Asia, is that of Mount Sinai, which was founded by the emperor Justinian, and endowed with sixty thousand crowns revenue. The abbot of this monastery, who is also an archbishop, has under him two hundred religious. This convent is a large square building, surrounded with walls fifty feet high, and with but one gate, which is blocked up to prevent the entrance of the Arabs. On the eastern side there is a window, through which those within draw up the pilgrims in a basket, which they let down by a pulley. Not many miles beyond this, they have another, dedicated to St. Catharine. It is situated in the place where Moses made the bitter waters sweet. It has a garden, with a plantation of more than ten thousand palm-trees, from whence the monks draw a considerable revenue. There is another in Palestine, four or five leagues from Jerusalem, situated in the most barren place imaginable. The gate of the convent is covered with the skins of crocodiles, to prevent the Arabs setting fire to it, or breaking it to pieces with stones. It has a large tower, in which there is always a monk, who gives notice by a bell of the approach of the Arabs, or any wild beasts.

The Caloyers, or Greek monks, have a great number of monasteries in Europe; among which that of Penteli, a mountain of Attica, near Athens, is remarkable for its beautiful situation, and a very good library. That of Calimachus, a principal town of the island of Chios, is remarkable for the occasion of its foundation. It is called Niamogni, i. e. “The sole Virgin,” its church having been built in memory of an image of the holy Virgin, miraculously found on a tree, being the only one left of several which had been consumed by fire. Constantin Monomachus, emperor of Constantinople, being informed of this miracle, made a vow to build a church in that place, if he recovered his throne, from which he had been driven; this vow he executed in the year 1050. The convent is large, and built in the manner of a castle. It consists of about two hundred religious, and its revenues amount to sixty thousand piasters, of which they pay five hundred yearly to the Grand Seignor.

There is in Amourgo, one of the islands of the Archipelago called Sporades, a monastery of Greek Caloyers, dedicated to our Lady: it is a large and deep cavern, on the top of a very high hill, and is entered by a ladder of fifteen or twenty steps. The church, refectory, and cells of the religious, who inhabit this grotto, are dug out of the sides of the rock with admirable artifice.

But the most celebrated monasteries of Greek Caloyers are those of Mount Athos in Macedonia. They are twenty-three in number; and the religious live in them so regularly, that the Turks themselves have a great esteem for them, and often recommend themselves to their prayers. Everything in them is magnificent; and, notwithstanding they have been under the Turk for so long a time, they have lost nothing of their grandeur. The principal of these monasteries are De la Panagia and Anna Laura. The religious, who aspire to the highest dignities, come from all parts of the East to perform here their noviciate, and, after a stay of some years, are received, upon their return into their own country, as apostles.

The Caloyers of Mount Athos have a great aversion to the pope, and relate that a Roman pontiff, having visited their monasteries, had plundered and burned some of them, because they would not adore him.

There are female Caloyers, or Greek nuns, who likewise follow the rule of St. Basil. Their nunneries are always dependent on some monastery. The Turks buy sashes of their working, and they open their gates freely to the Turks on this occasion. Those of Constantinople are widows, some of whom have had several husbands. They make no vow, nor confine themselves within their convents. The priests are forbidden, under severe penalties, to visit these religious.—Broughton.

CALVINISTS. Those who interpret Scripture in accordance with the views of John Calvin, who was born at Noyon, A. D. 1509, and afterwards settled at Geneva, and who established a system both of doctrine and of discipline peculiarly his own.

The essential doctrines of Calvinism have been reduced to these five: particular election, particular redemption, moral inability in a fallen state, irresistible grace, and the final perseverance of the saints. These are termed, by theologians, the five points; and ever since the synod of Dort, (see Dort,) when they were the subjects of discussion between the Calvinists and Arminians, and whose decrees are the standard of modern Calvinism, frequent have been the controversies agitated respecting them. Even the Calvinists themselves differ in the explication of them: it cannot therefore be expected that a very specific account of them should be given here. Generally speaking, however, they comprehend the following propositions:—

1st, That God has chosen a certain number in Christ to everlasting glory, before the foundation of the world, according to his immutable purpose, and of his free grace and love, without the least foresight of faith, good works, or any conditions performed by the creature; and that the rest of mankind he was pleased to pass by, and ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sins, to the praise of his vindictive justice.

2ndly, That Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and death, made an atonement only for the sins of the elect.

3dly, That mankind are totally depraved in consequence of the fall; and, by virtue of Adam’s being their public head, the guilt of his sin was imputed, and a corrupt nature conveyed to all his posterity, from which proceeds all actual transgression; and that by sin we are made subject to death, and all miseries, temporal, spiritual, and eternal.

4thly, That all whom God has predestinated to life, he is pleased, in his appointed time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.

And 5thly, That those whom God has effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, shall never finally fall from a state of grace.

CAMALDOLI. A religious order of Christians founded by St. Romuald, about the end of the tenth century: this man gave his monks the rule of St. Bennet’s order, with some particular constitutions, and a white habit, after a vision he had of several persons clothed so, who were going up on a ladder to heaven. He was of a noble family of Ravenna, and having found on the Apennine hills near Arezzo a frightful solitary place, called Campo Maldoli, he began to build a monastery there, about the year 1009, and this monastery gave its name to all the order. The congregation of hermits of St. Romuald, or of Mount Couronne, is a branch of the Camaldoli, to which it was joined in 1532. Paul Justinian, of Venice, began its establishment in 1520, and founded the chief monastery in the Apennine, in a place called the Mount of the Crown, ten miles from Perugia, and dedicated to our Saviour in 1555.—Hist. des Ord. Relig.

CAMERONIANS. A party of Presbyterians in Scotland, so called from Archibald Cameron, a field preacher, who was the first who separated from communion with the other Presbyterians, who were not of his opinion concerning the ministers that had accepted of his indulgence from King Charles II. He considered the acceptance of the indulgence to be a countenancing of the supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs. The other Presbyterians wished the controversy to drop, till it could be determined by a general assembly; but the Cameronians, through a transport of zeal, separated from them, and some who associated with them ran into excess of frenzy; declaring that King Charles II. had forfeited his right to the crown and society of the Church, by his breaking the solemn league and covenant, which was the terms on which he received the former; and by his vicious life, which, de jure, they said, excluded him from the latter; they pretended both to dethrone and excommunicate him, and for that purpose made an insurrection, but were soon suppressed. Since the accession of King William III. to the crown, they complied with and zealously served the government; and as regards their former differences in Church matters, they were also laid aside, the preachers of their party having submitted to the General Assembly of the Scottish establishment in 1690, of which they still continue members.

CAMISARDS. The popular name of the Protestants who rose in the Cevennes against the oppression of Louis XIV. of France. There are various etymologies of the word; the most probable is that which derives it from camisa or chemise, in allusion to the blouse or smock-frock which was generally worn.

CANCELLI. (See Chancel.)

CANDLES. (See Lights on the Altar.)

CANDLEMAS DAY. A name formerly given to the festival of the Purification of the Virgin Mary, observed in our Church, February 2. In the mediæval Church, this day was remarkable for the number of lighted candles which were borne about in processions, and placed in churches, in memory of him who, in the words of Simeon’s song at the Purification, came to be “a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel.” From this custom the name is supposed to be derived.

CANON. The laws of the Church are called canons, the word canon being derived from a Greek word, which signifies a rule or measure.

Since the Church is a society of Christians, and since every society must have authority to prescribe rules and laws for the government of its own members, it must necessarily follow that the Church has this power; for otherwise there would be great disorder amongst Christians. This power was exercised in the Church before the Roman empire became Christian, as appears by those ancient canons which were made before that time, and which are mentioned in the writings of the primitive fathers; by the apostolical canons, which, though not made by the apostles themselves, are nevertheless of great antiquity; and by various canons which were made in councils held in the second century, which were not directory alone, but binding, and to be observed by the clergy, under the penalty of deprivation; and by the laity, under pain of excommunication. Under this title we will mention: 1. Foreign canons. 2. Such as have been received here. 3. The power of making new canons.

(I.) As to the first, Constantine the Great, the first emperor who gave Christians some respite from persecution, caused general councils and national and provincial synods to be assembled in his dominions; where, amongst other things, rules were made for the government of the Church, which were called canons; the substance of which was at first collected out of the Scriptures, or the ancient writings of the fathers. We will not trouble the reader with a long history of provincial constitutions, synodals, glossaries, sentences of popes, summaries, and rescripts, from which the canon law has, by degrees, been compiled, since the days of that emperor; it is sufficient to state, that they were collected by Ivo, bishop of Chartres, about the 14th year of our King Henry I., in three volumes, which are commonly called the Decrees. These decrees, corrected by Gratian, a Benedictine monk, were published in England in the reign of King Stephen; and the reason of the publication at that time might be to decide the quarrel between Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, and Henry, bishop of Winchester, the king’s brother, who being made a legate, the archbishop looked upon it as a diminution of his power, and an encroachment upon that privilege which he had as legatus natus. (See Legate.) These decrees were received by the clergy of the Western Church, but never by those of the East, which is one reason why their priests continued to marry, which the clergy of the West were, by these decrees, forbidden to do.

The next, in order of time, were the Decretals (see Decretals,) which are canonical epistles written by popes alone, or assisted by some cardinals, to determine any controversy; and of these there are likewise three volumes. The first volume of these Decretals was compiled by Raimundus Barcinus, who was chaplain to Gregory IX., and were published by him about the 14th year of King Henry III., A. D. 1226. This was appointed to be read in all schools, and was to be taken for law in all ecclesiastical courts. About sixty years afterwards, Simon, a monk of Walden, began to read these laws in the university of Cambridge, and the next year in Oxford. The second volume was collected and arranged by Boniface VIII., and published about the 27th year of our King Edward I., A. D. 1298. The third volume was collected by Clement V., and published in the Council of Vienna, and likewise here, in the 2nd year of Edward II., A. D. 1308, and from him were called Clementines.

These decretals were never received in England, or anywhere else, but only in the pope’s dominions, which are therefore called by canonists Patriæ obedientiæ, as particularly the canon concerning the investiture of bishops by a lay hand. John Andreas, a celebrated canonist in the fourteenth century, wrote a commentary on these decretals, which he entitled Novellæ, from a very beautiful daughter he had of that name, whom he bred a scholar: the father being a professor of law at Bologna, had instructed his daughter so well in it, that she assisted him in reading lectures to his scholars, and, therefore, to perpetuate her memory, he gave that book the title of Novellæ.

About the tenth year of King Edward II., John XXII. published his Extravagants. But as to the Church of England, even at that time, when the papal authority was at the highest, none of these foreign canons, or any new canons, made at any national or provincial synod here, had any manner of force if they were against the prerogative of the king, or the laws of the land. It is true that every Christian nation in communion with the pope sent some bishops, abbots, or priors, to those foreign councils, and generally four were sent out of England; and it was by those means, together with the allowance of the civil power, that some canons made there were received here, but such as were against the laws were totally rejected.

Nevertheless, some of these foreign canons were received in England, and obtained the force of laws by the general approbation of the king and people (though it may be difficult to know what these canons are); and it was upon this pretence that the pope claimed an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, independent of the king, and sent his legates to England with commissions to determine causes according to those canons, which were now compiled into several volumes, and called Jus Canonicum: these were not only enjoined to be obeyed as laws, but publicly to be read and expounded in all schools and universities as the civil law was read and expounded there, under pain of excommunication to those who neglected. Hence arose quarrels between kings and several archbishops and other prelates, who adhered to those papal usurpations.

(II.) Besides these foreign canons, there were several laws and constitutions made here for the government of the Church, all of which are now in force, but which had not been so without the assent and confirmation of the kings of England. Even from William I. to the time of the Reformation, no canons or constitutions made in any synods were suffered to be executed if they had not the royal assent. This was the common usage and practice in England, even when the papal usurpation was most exalted; for if at any time the ecclesiastical courts did, by their sentences, endeavour to force obedience to such canons, the courts at common law, upon complaint made, would grant prohibitions. So that the statute of submission, which was afterwards made in the 25th year of Henry VIII., seems to be declarative of the common law, that the clergy could not de jure, and by their own authority, without the king’s assent, enact or execute any canons. These canons were all collected and explained by Lyndwood, dean of the Arches, in the reign of Henry VI., and by him reduced under this method.

1. The canons of Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, made at a council held at Oxford, in the 6th year of Henry III.

2. The canons of Otho, the pope’s legate, who held a council in St. Paul’s church, in the 25th year of Henry III., which from him were called the Constitutions of Otho; upon which John de Athon, one of the canons of Lincoln, wrote a comment.

3. The canons of Boniface, of Savoy, archbishop of Canterbury, in the 45th of Henry III., which were all usurpations upon the common law, as concerning the boundaries of parishes, the right of patronage, and against trials of the right of tithes in the king’s courts against writs of prohibition, &c. Although he threatened the judges with excommunication (some of the judges being at that time clergymen) if they disobeyed the canons, yet they proceeded in these matters according to the laws of the realm, and kept the ecclesiastical courts within their proper jurisdiction. This occasioned a variance between the spiritual and temporal lords; and upon this the clergy, in the 31st of Henry III., exhibited several articles of their grievances to the parliament, which they called Articuli Cleri: the articles themselves are lost, but some of the answers to them are extant, by which it appears that none of these canons made by Boniface was confirmed.

4. The canons of Cardinal Ottobon, the pope’s legate, who held a synod at St. Paul’s, in the 53rd of Henry III., in which he confirmed those canons made by his predecessor Otho, and published some new ones; and by his legantine authority commanded that they should be obeyed: upon these canons, likewise, John de Athon wrote another comment.

5. The canons of Archbishop Peckham, made at a synod held at Reading, in the year 1279, the 7th of Edward I.

6. The canons of the same archbishop, made at a synod held at Lambeth, two years afterwards.

7. The canons of Archbishop Winchelsea, made in the 34th of Edward I.

8. The canons of Archbishop Reynolds, at a synod held at Oxford, in the year 1322, the 16th of Edward II.

9. The canons of Symon Mepham, archbishop of Canterbury, made in the year 1328, the 3rd of Edward III.

10. Of Archbishop Stratford.

11. Of Archbishop Simon Islip, made 1362, the 37th of Edward III.

12. Of Symon Sudbury, archbishop of Canterbury, made in the year 1378, the 2nd of Richard II.

13. Of Archbishop Arundel, made at a synod at Oxford, in the year 1403, the 10th of Henry IV.

14. Of Archbishop Chichely, in the year 1415, the 3rd of Henry V.

15. Of Edmond and Richard, archbishops of Canterbury, who immediately succeeded Stephen Langton.

It was intended to reform these canons soon after the Reformation; and Archbishop Cranmer and some other commissioners were appointed for that purpose by Henry VIII. and Edward VI. The work was finished, but the king dying before it was confirmed, it remains unconfirmed to this day. The book is called “Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum ex Authoritate Regis Henry VIII. inchoata et per Edward VI. prorecta:” it was put into elegant Latin by Dr. Haddon, who was then university orator of Cambridge, assisted by Sir John Cheke, who was tutor to Edward VI. The above canons made by our Church before the Reformation, are, of course, binding on our Church now, and are acted upon in the ecclesiastical courts, except where they are superseded by subsequent canons, or by the provisions of an act of parliament.

(III.) The next thing to be considered is, the authority of making canons at this day; and this is grounded upon the statute 25 Henry VIII., commonly called the act of submission of the clergy, by which they acknowledge that the convocation had been always assembled by the king’s writ; and they promised in verbo sacerdotis, not to attempt, claim, or put in use, or enact, promulge, or execute, any new canons in convocation, without the king’s assent or licence. Then follows this enacting clause, viz. That they shall not attempt, allege, or claim, or put in use, any constitutions or canons without the king’s assent; and so far this act is declarative of what the law was before. The clause before mentioned extends to such canons as were then made both beyond sea and in England, viz. to foreign canons, that they should not be executed here until received by the king and people as the laws of the land, and to canons made here which were contrary to the prerogative, or to the laws and customs of the realm. This appears by the proviso, that no canons shall be made or put in execution within this realm, which shall be contrary to the prerogative or laws. But the next are negative words, which relate wholly to making new canons, viz. “nor make, promulge, or execute any such canons without the king’s assent.” These words limit the clergy in point of jurisdiction, viz. that they shall not make any new canons but in convocation: and they cannot meet there without the king’s writ; and when they are met and make new canons, they cannot put them in execution without a confirmation under the great seal. Some years after this statute, the clergy proceeded to act in convocation, without any commission from Henry VIII. But the canons which they made were confirmed by that king and some of his successors, as particularly the injunctions published in the 28th year of Henry VIII., for the abolishing superstitious holy days; those for preaching against the use of images, relics, and pilgrimages; those for repeating the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and Ten Commandments in the English tongue. Henry VIII. sometimes acted by the advice of his bishops, out of convocation, as about the injunctions published in the 30th year of Henry VIII., for admitting none to preach but such as were licensed; those for keeping a register of births, weddings, and burials; and for the abolishing the anniversary of Thomas à Becket. The like may be said of those injunctions published in the 2nd year of Edward VI., prohibiting the carrying of candles on Candlemas day, and ashes in Lent, and palms on Palm Sunday. Queen Elizabeth, in the second year of her reign, published several injunctions by the advice of her bishops. And two years afterwards she published a book of orders without the confirmation of her parliament. When she was settled in her government, all Church affairs were debated in convocation. Several canons were made in her reign, and confirmed by her letters patent: but as she did not bind her heirs and successors to the observance of them, those canons expired with her reign. In all these reigns the old canons were still in force, but in the first year of King James, 1603, the clergy being lawfully assembled in convocation, the king gave them leave, by his letters patent, to treat, consult, and agree on canons: these they presented to him, and he gave them his royal assent; and by other letters patent, for himself, his heirs and successors, ratified and confirmed the same. These canons thus established were not then invented, but were collected out of ordinances which lay dispersed in several injunctions published in former reigns, and out of canons and other religious customs which were made and used in those days; and being thus confirmed, are the laws of the land, and by the same authority as any other part of the law; for being authorized by the king’s commission, according to the form of the statute 25 Henry VIII., they are warranted by act of parliament; and such canons made and confirmed, shall bind in ecclesiastical matters as much as any statute. An act of parliament may forbid the execution of any canon; but it has been usual to respect all those which enjoin some moral duty; yet a canon not confirmed by an act of parliament cannot alter any other law. It is agreed that canons made in convocation, and confirmed by letters patent, bind in all ecclesiastical affairs; that no canons in England are absolutely confirmed by parliament, yet they are part of the laws of the land, for the government of the Church, and in such case bind the laity as well as the clergy; that though such canons cannot alter the common law, statutes, or royal prerogative, yet they may alter other canons, otherwise the convocation could not make new canons. All that is required in making such canons is, that the clergy confine themselves to Church affairs, and do not meddle with things which are settled by the common law. But though no canons are absolutely confirmed by act of parliament, yet those which are neither contrary to the laws of the land, nor to the queen’s prerogative, and which are confirmed by her, are made good, and allowed to be so, by the statute 25 Henry VIII. And as to those canons which tend to promote the honour of God and service of religion, they must necessarily bind our consciences. Such are those which enjoin the sober conversation of ministers, prohibiting their frequenting taverns, playing at dice, cards, or tables; this was anciently prohibited by the Apostolical Canons, and in the old articles of Visitation here, and in several diocesan synods. Such are those canons, also, which relate to the duties of ministers in praying, preaching, administering sacraments, and visiting the sick.

It may be as well, for the convenience of students, to insert here, from Bishop Halifax’s Analysis of the Civil Law, a few explanations of the method of quoting the Jus Canonicum. The Decretum of Gratian (which must not be confounded with the Decretals) is divided into, 1. Distinctions. 2. Causes. 3. Treatise concerning consecration. The Decretals are divided into, 1. Gregory IX. Decretals in 5 books. 2. The sixth Decretal. (Boniface, 1298.) 3. The Clementine Constitutions (of Pope Clement V.). Now in the Decretum, 1st part, e. g. “1 dist. c. 3,” Lex, [or i. d. Lex,] is the first distinction, 3rd Canon, beginning with the word Lex. In the Decretum, 2nd part, e. g. “3 qu. 9, c. 2,” means the third cause, ninth question, 2nd Canon. The 3rd part of the Decretum is quoted as the first, with the addition of the words de consecratione.

In the Decretals (the first division) is given the name of title, number of chapter, with the addition of extra, or a capital X. E. g. “c. 3, extra de usuris,” means the 3rd chapter of Gregory’s Decretals, inscribed “de usuris,” i.e. the 19th of the 5th book. “c. cum contingat 36 X. de off. et Pot. Jud. del.,” means the 36th chapter beginning with “cum contingat,” of the Title in Gregory’s decrees, inscribed “de officio.” The sixth Decretal, and the Clementine Constitutions, are quoted the same way, except that instead of extra, or X., is subjoined in sexto, or in 6; and in Clementini, or in Clem. The Extravagants of John XXII. are contained in one book, xiv. titles. The following are the

CANONS OF 1603.

Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, treated upon by the Bishop of London, President of the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury, and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of the said Province; and agreed upon with the King’s Majesty’s Licence, in their Synod begun at London, Anno Domini 1603, and in the year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord JAMES, by the Grace of God, King of England, France, and Ireland, the First, and of Scotland the Thirty-seventh: and now published for the due observation of them, by his Majesty’s Authority under the Great Seal of England.

James, by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c., to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: Whereas our Bishops, Deans of our Cathedral Churches, Archdeacons, Chapters, and Colleges, and the other Clergy of every Diocese within the Province of Canterbury, being summoned and called by virtue of our Writ directed to the Most Reverend Father in God, John, late Archbishop of Canterbury, and bearing date the one and thirtieth day of January, in the first year of our reign of England, France, and Ireland, and of Scotland the thirty-seventh, to have appeared before him in our Cathedral Church of St. Paul in London, the twentieth day of March then next ensuing, or elsewhere, as he should have thought it most convenient, to treat, consent, and conclude upon certain difficult and urgent affairs mentioned in the said Writ; did thereupon, at the time appointed, and within the Cathedral Church of St. Paul aforesaid, assemble themselves, and appear in Convocation for that purpose, according to our said Writ, before the Right Reverend Father in God, Richard Bishop of London, duly (upon a second Writ of ours, dated the ninth day of March aforesaid) authorized, appointed, and constituted, by reason of the said Archbishop of Canterbury his death, President of the said Convocation, to execute those things, which, by virtue of our first Writ, did appertain to him the said Archbishop to have executed if he had lived.

We, for divers urgent and weighty causes and considerations as thereunto especially moving, of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, did, by virtue of our Prerogative Royal, and Supreme Authority in causes Ecclesiastical, give and grant by our several Letters Patent under our Great Seal of England, the one dated the twelfth day of April last past, and the other the twenty-fifth day of June then next following, full, free, and lawful liberty, licence, power, and authority unto the said Bishop of London, President of the said Convocation, and to the other Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, Chapters, and Colleges, and the rest of the Clergy before mentioned, of the said Province, that they from time to time, during our first Parliament now prorogued, might confer, treat, debate, consider, consult, and agree of and upon such Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, as they should think necessary, fit, and convenient, for the honour and service of Almighty God, the good and quiet of the Church, and the better government thereof, to be from time to time observed, performed, fulfilled, and kept as well by the Archbishops of Canterbury, the Bishops, and their Successors, and the rest of the whole Clergy of the said Province of Canterbury in their several callings, offices, functions, ministries, degrees, and administrations; as also by all and every Dean of the Arches, and other Judge of the said Archbishop’s Courts, Guardians of Spiritualities, Chancellors, Deans, and Chapters, Archdeacons, Commissaries, Officials, Registrars, and all and every other Ecclesiastical Officers, and their inferior Ministers, whatsoever, of the same Province of Canterbury, in their and every other of their distinct Courts, and in the order and manner of their and every of their proceedings: and by all other persons within this realm, as far as lawfully, being members of the Church, it may concern them, as in our said Letters Patent amongst other clauses more at large doth appear. Forasmuch as the Bishop of London, President of the said Convocation, and others, the said Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, Chapters, and Colleges, with the rest of the Clergy, having met together at the time and place before mentioned, and then and there, by virtue of our said authority granted unto them, treated of, concluded, and agreed upon certain Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, to the end and purpose by us limited and prescribed unto them; and have thereupon offered and presented the same unto us, most humbly desiring us to give our royal assent unto their said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, according to the form of a certain Statute or Act of Parliament, made in that behalf in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of King Henry the Eighth, and by our said Prerogative Royal and Supreme Authority, in Causes Ecclesiastical, to ratify by our Letters Patent under our Great Seal of England, and to confirm the same, the title and tenor of them being word for word as ensueth:

The Table of the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical.

Of the Church of England.

1.

The King’s Supremacy over the Church of England, in Causes Ecclesiastical, to be maintained.

2.

Impugners of the King’s Supremacy censured.

3.

The Church of England a true and apostolical Church.

4.

Impugners of the public Worship of God, established in the Church of England, censured.

5.

Impugners of the Articles of Religion, established in the Church of England, censured.

6.

Impugners of the Rites and Ceremonies, established in the Church of England, censured.

7.

Impugners of the Government of the Church of England, by Archbishops, Bishops, &c., censured.

8.

Impugners of the Form of consecrating and ordering Archbishops, Bishops, &c. in the Church of England, censured.

9.

Authors of Schism in the Church of England censured.

10.

Maintainers of Schismatics in the Church of England censured.

11.

Maintainers of Conventicles censured.

12.

Maintainers of Constitutions made in Conventicles censured.

Of Divine Service, and Administration of the Sacraments.

13.

Due Celebration of Sundays and Holy-days.

14.

The prescript Form of Divine Service to be used on Sundays and Holy-days.

15.

The Litany to be read on Wednesdays and Fridays.

16.

Colleges to use the prescript Form of Divine Service.

17.

Students in Colleges to wear Surplices in time of Divine Service.

18.

A reverence and attention to be used within the Church in time of Divine Service.

19.

Loiterers not to be suffered near the Church in time of Divine Service.

20.

Bread and Wine to be provided against every Communion.

21.

The Communion to be thrice a Year received.

22.

Warning to be given beforehand for the Communion.

23.

Students in Colleges to receive the Communion four times a Year.

24.

Copes to be worn in Cathedral Churches by those that administer the Communion.

25.

Surplices and Hoods to be worn in Cathedral Churches, when there is no Communion.

26.

Notorious Offenders not to be admitted to the Communion.

27.

Schismatics not to be admitted to the Communion.

28.

Strangers not to be admitted to the Communion.

29.

Fathers not to be Godfathers in Baptism, and Children not Communicants.

30.

The lawful use of the Cross in Baptism explained.

Ministers, their Ordination, Function, and Charge.

31.

Four solemn times appointed for the making of Ministers.

32.

None to be made Deacon and Minister both in one day.

33.

The Titles of such as are to be made Ministers.

34.

The Quality of such as are to be made Ministers.

35.

The Examination of such as are to be made Ministers.

36.

Subscription required of such as are to be made Ministers. The Articles of Subscription. The Form of Subscription.

37.

Subscription before the Diocesan.

38.

Revolters after Subscription censured.

39.

Cautions for Institution of Ministers into Benefices.

40.

An Oath against Simony at Institution into Benefices.

41.

Licences for Plurality of Benefices limited, and Residence enjoined.

42.

Residence of Deans in their Churches.

43.

Deans and Prebendaries to preach during their Residence.

44.

Prebendaries to be resident upon their Benefices.

45.

Beneficed Preachers, being resident upon their Livings, to preach every Sunday.

46.

Beneficed Men, not Preachers, to procure monthly Sermons.

47.

Absence of Beneficed Men to be supplied by Curates that are allowed Preachers.

48.

None to be Curates but allowed by the Bishop.

49.

Ministers, not allowed Preachers, may not expound.

50.

Strangers not admitted to preach without showing their Licence.

51.

Strangers not admitted to preach in Cathedral Churches without sufficient Authority.

52.

The Names of strange Preachers to be noted in a Book.

53.

No public Opposition between Preachers.

54.

The Licences of Preachers refusing Conformity to be void.

55.

The Form of a Prayer to be used by all Preachers before their Sermons.

56.

Preachers and Lecturers to read Divine Service, and administer the Sacraments twice a Year at the least.

57.

The Sacraments not to be refused at the hands of unpreaching Ministers.

58.

Ministers reading Divine Service, and administering the Sacraments, to wear Surplices, and Graduates therewithal Hoods.

59.

Ministers to catechize every Sunday.

60.

Confirmation to be performed once in three Years.

61.

Ministers to prepare Children for Confirmation.

62.

Ministers not to marry any Persons without Banns or Licence.

63.

Ministers of exempt Churches not to marry without Banns or Licence.

64.

Ministers solemnly to bid Holy-days.

65.

Ministers solemnly to denounce Recusants and Excommunicates.

66.

Ministers to confer with Recusants.

67.

Ministers to visit the Sick.

68.

Ministers not to refuse to christen or bury.

69.

Ministers not to defer Christening, if the Child be in danger.

70.

Ministers to keep a Register of Christenings, Weddings, and Burials.

71.

Ministers not to preach, or administer the Communion, in private Houses.

72.

Ministers not to appoint public or private Fasts or Prophecies, or to exorcise, but by Authority.

73.

Ministers not to hold private Conventicles.

74.

Decency in Apparel enjoined to Ministers.

75.

Sober Conversation required in Ministers.

76.

Ministers at no time to forsake their Calling.

Schoolmasters.

77.

None to teach School without Licence.

78.

Curates desirous to teach, to be licensed before others.

79.

The duty of Schoolmasters.

Things appertaining to Churches.

80.

The Great Bible, and Book of Common Prayer, to be had in every Church.

81.

A Font of Stone for Baptism in every Church.

82.

A decent Communion-Table in every Church.

83.

A Pulpit to be provided in every Church.

84.

A Chest for Alms in every Church.

85.

Churches to be kept in sufficient Reparations.

86.

Churches to be surveyed, and the decays certified to the high Commissioners.

87.

A Terrier of Glebe-lands and other Possessions belonging to Churches.

88.

Churches not to be profaned.

Churchwardens or Questmen, and Side-men or Assistants.

89.

The choice of Churchwardens, and their Account.

90.

The choice of Side-men, and their joint office with Churchwardens.

Parish-Clerks.

91.

Parish-Clerks to be chosen by the Minister.

Ecclesiastical Courts belonging to the Archbishop’s Jurisdiction.

92.

None to be cited into divers Courts for Probate of the same Will.

93.

The Rate of Bona notabilia liable to the Prerogative Court.

94.

None to be cited into the Appeals or Audience, but dwellers within the Archbishop’s Diocese, or Peculiars.

95.

The Restraint of double Quarrels.

96.

Inhibitions not to be granted without the Subscription of an Advocate.

97.

Inhibitions not to be granted, until the Appeal be exhibited to the Judge.

98.

Inhibitions not to be granted to factious Appellants, unless they first subscribe.

99.

None to marry within the Degrees prohibited.

100.

None to marry under Twenty-one Years, without their Parents’ consent.

101.

By whom licences to marry without Banns shall be granted, and to what sort of persons.

102.

Security to be taken at the granting of such Licences, and under what Conditions.

103.

Oaths to be taken for the Conditions.

104.

An Exception for those that are in Widowhood.

105.

No sentence for Divorce to be given upon the sole confession of the parties.

106.

No Sentence for Divorce to be given but in open Court.

107.

In all sentences for Divorce, Bond to be taken for not marrying during each other’s life.

108.

The Penalty for Judges offending in the Premises.

Ecclesiastical Courts belonging to the Jurisdiction of Bishops and Archdeacons, and the Proceedings in them.

109.

Notorious Crimes and Scandals to be certified into Ecclesiastical Courts by Presentment.

110.

Schismatics to be presented.

111.

Disturbers of Divine Service to be presented.

112.

Non-Communicants at Easter to be presented.

113.

Ministers may present.

114.

Ministers shall present Recusants.

115.

Ministers and Churchwardens not to be sued for presenting.

116.

Churchwardens not bound to present oftener than twice a year.

117.

Churchwardens not to be troubled for not presenting oftener than twice a year.

118.

The old Churchwardens to make their Presentments before the new be sworn.

119.

Convenient time to be assigned for framing Presentments.

120.

None to be cited into Ecclesiastical Courts by process of Quorum Nomina.

121.

None to be cited into several Courts for one Crime.

122.

No Sentence of Deprivation or Deposition to be pronounced against a Minister, but by the Bishop.

123.

No Act to be sped but in open Court.

124.

No Court to have more than one Seal.

125.

Convenient Places to be chosen for the keeping of open Courts.

126.

Peculiar and inferior Courts to exhibit the original Copies of Wills into the Bishop’s Registry.

Judges Ecclesiastical, and their Surrogates.

127.

The Quality and Oath of Judges.

128.

The Quality of Surrogates.

Proctors.

129.

Proctors not to retain Causes without the lawful Assignment of the Parties.

130.

Proctors not to retain Causes without the Counsel of an Advocate.

131.

Proctors not to conclude in any Cause without the Knowledge of an Advocate.

132.

Proctors prohibited the Oath, In animam domini sui.

133.

Proctors not to be clamorous in Court.

Registrars.

134.

Abuses to be reformed in Registrars.

135.

A certain Rate of Fees due to all Ecclesiastical Officers.

136.

A Table of the Rates and Fees to be set up in Courts and Registries.

137.

The whole Fees for showing Letters of Orders, and other Licences, due but once in every Bishop’s time.

Apparitors.

138.

The Number of Apparitors restrained.

Authority of Synods.

139.

A National Synod the Church Representative.

140.

Synods conclude as well the absent as the present.

141.

Depravers of the Synod censured.

CANONS OF 1640. On the 27th May, 1640, the archbishop of Canterbury stated before the convocation that the Canons agreed upon in the sacred synod had been read before the king and the privy-council, and unanimously approved. The first Canon is concerning the regal power; and,

I. Enacts that every parson, vicar, curate, or preacher, shall, under pain of suspension, on four Sundays in each year, at morning prayer, read certain explanations of the regal power, to the effect:—

(1.) That the sacred order of kings is of Divine right, that a supreme power is given by God in Scripture to kings to rule all persons civil and ecclesiastical.

(2.) That the care of God’s Church is committed to kings in the Scripture.

(3.) That the power to call and dissolve national and provincial councils within their own territories is the true right of princes.

(4.) That it is treason against God and the prince for any other to set up any independent co-active power, either papal or popular, within the prince’s territory.

(5.) That subjects who resist their natural prince by force resist God’s ordinance, and shall receive damnation.

(6.) That as tribute is due from subjects to their prince, so those subjects have not only possession of, but a true and just title to, all their goods and estates; that as it is the duty of subjects to supply their king, so is it his duty to defend them in their property.

Forbids, under pain of excommunication, all persons to preach or teach anything contrary to the tenor of these explanations.

II. For the better keeping of the day of his Majesty’s most happy inauguration.

Orders all persons to keep the morning of the said day in coming diligently to church, and that due inquiry be made by bishops and others as to how the day is observed, in order that offenders may be punished.

III. For suppressing the growth of Popery.

Orders all ecclesiastical persons, bishops, &c., having exempt or peculiar jurisdiction, and all officials, and others having the cure of souls, to confer privately with the parties, and by Church censures, &c., to reduce those who are misled into Popish superstition to the Church of England.

Such private conferences to be performed by the bishop himself, or by some one or more persons of his appointment.

The said ecclesiastical persons to inform themselves of all persons, above the age of twelve years, in every parish, who do not come to church, or receive the holy eucharist, and who say or hear mass.

Ministers, churchwardens, &c., to present all such persons.

If neither private conferences nor Church censures will avail with such offenders, their names shall be certified by the bishop of the diocese unto the justices of assize.

Marriages, burials, and christenings of recusants, celebrated otherwise than according to the form of the Church of England, to be declared by churchwardens and others at visitations.

Diligent inquiry to be made as to who are employed as schoolmasters of the children of recusants. Churchwardens to give upon oath the names of those who send their children to be brought up abroad.

IV. Against Socinianism.

Forbids any one to print, sell, or buy any book containing Socinian doctrines upon pain of excommunication, and orders all ordinaries to signify the names of offenders to the metropolitan, in order to be by him delivered to the king’s attorney-general, that proceedings may be taken against them.

No preacher to vent such doctrine in a sermon, under pain of excommunication, and for a second offence deprivation. No university student or person in holy orders, except graduates in divinity, to have any Socinian book in his possession: all books so found to be burned: diligent inquiry to be made after offenders.

V. Against sectaries.

Declares that all the enactments of the canon against Popish recusants shall, as far as they are applicable, stand in full force against all Anabaptists, Brownists, Separatists, Familists, and other sects.

That the clauses in the canons against Socinianism, referring to Socinian books, shall stand in full force against all books devised against the discipline and government of the Church of England.

Orders all church and chapel wardens and questmen to present at visitations the names of those disaffected persons who neglected the prayers of the church, and came in for sermon only, thinking thereby to avoid the penalties enacted against such as wholly absented themselves.

VI. An oath enjoined for the preventing of all innovations in doctrine and government.

Declares that all archbishops, bishops, and all other priests and deacons shall, to secure them against suspicion of Popery or other superstition, take the oath which it prescribes.

Offenders, after three months’ delay granted them, if they continue obstinate, to be deprived.

Orders that the following shall also be compelled to take the prescribed oath, viz. all masters of arts, bachelors and doctors in divinity, law, or physic, all licensed practitioners of physic, all registrars, proctors, and schoolmasters, all graduates of foreign universities who come to be incorporated into an English university, and all persons about to be ordained or licensed to preach or serve any cure.

VII. A declaration concerning some rites and ceremonies.

Declares the standing of the communion table sideways under the east window of every chancel or chapel, to be in its own nature indifferent, and that therefore no religion is to be placed therein, or scruple to be made thereof.

That although at the Reformation all Popish altars were demolished, yet it was ordered by Queen Elizabeth’s injunction, that the holy tables should stand where the altars stood, and that, accordingly, they have been so continued in the royal chapels, most cathedrals, and some parish churches, that all churches and chapels should conform to the example of the cathedral mother churches in this particular, saving always the general liberty left to the bishop by law during the time of administration of the holy communion. Declares that this situation of the holy table does not imply that it is or ought to be esteemed a true and proper altar, whereon Christ is again really sacrificed; but it is, and may be, by us called an altar in that sense in which the primitive Church called it an altar.

Orders that in order to prevent profane abuses of the communion table, it shall be railed in.

Orders that at the words “draw near,” &c., all communicants shall with all humble reverence approach the holy table.

Recommends to all good and well-affected members of the Church, that they do reverence and obeisance both at their coming in and going out of the church, chancel, or chapel, according to the custom of the primitive Church and the Church of England in the reign of Elizabeth.

VIII. Of preaching for conformity.

Orders all preachers, under pain of suspension, to instruct the people in their sermons twice a year at least, that the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England are lawful and commendable, and to be submitted to.

IX. One Book of Articles of inquiry to be used at all parochial visitations.

Declares that the synod had caused a summary or collection of visitatory articles (out of the rubrics of the service book and the canons and warrantable rules of the Church) to be made and deposited in the records of the archbishop of Canterbury, and that no bishop or other ordinary shall, under pain of suspension, cause to be printed, or otherwise to be given in charge to the churchwardens or others which shall be sworn to make presentments, any other articles or forms of inquiry upon oath, than such as shall be approved by his metropolitan.

X. Concerning the conversation of the clergy.

Charges all clergymen carefully to abstain from all excess and disorder, and that by their Christian and religious conversation they shine forth as lights to others in all godliness and honesty.

Requires all to whom the government of the clergy is committed, to set themselves to countenance godliness, and diligently to labour to reform their clergy where they require it.

XI. Chancellor’s patents.

Forbids bishops to grant any patent to any chancellor, commissary, or official, for longer than the life of the grantee, nor otherwise than with the reservation to himself and his successors of the power to execute the said place, either alone or with the chancellor, if the bishop shall please to do so; forbids, under the heaviest censures, to take any reward for such places.

XII. Chancellors alone not to censure any of the clergy in sundry cases.

All cases involving suspension or any higher censure to be heard by the bishop or by his chancellor, together with two grave, dignified, or beneficed ministers of the diocese.

XIII. Excommunication and absolution not to be pronounced but by a priest.

No excommunications or absolutions to be valid, unless pronounced by the bishop, or by some priest appointed by the bishop; such sentence of absolution to be pronounced either in open consistory, or, at least, in a church or chapel, the penitent humbly craving it on his knees.

XIV. Concerning commutations and the disposing of them.

No chancellor or other to commute penance without the bishop’s privity; or if by himself, he shall render strict account of the moneys received, which shall be applied to charitable and public uses.

XV. Touching concurrent jurisdiction.

That in places wherein there is concurrent jurisdiction, no executor be cited into any court or office for the space of ten days after the death of the testator.

XVI. Concerning licences to marry.

No licence shall be granted by any ordinary to any parties, except one of the parties have been living in the jurisdiction of the said ordinary for one month immediately before the licence be desired.

XVII. Against vexatious citations.

No citations grounded only upon pretence of a breach of law, and not upon presentment or other just ground, shall issue out of any ecclesiastical court, except under certain specified circumstances, and except in cases of grievous crime, such as schism, incontinence, misbehaviour in church, &c.

These canons were ratified by the king under the great seal, June 30th, 1640. An attempt was made at the time to set aside their authority, upon the plea that convocation could not lawfully continue its session after the dissolution of parliament, which took place on the 5th of May; but the opinion of all the judges taken at the time was unanimously in favour of the legality of their proceeding, as appears by the following document:—

“The convocation being called by the king’s writ under the great seal, doth continue until it be dissolved by writ or commission under the great seal, notwithstanding the parliament be dissolved.

“14th May, 1640.

“Jo. Finch.

“C. S. H. Manchester.

“John Bramston.

“Edward Littleton.

“Ralphe Whitfield.

“Jo. Bankes.

“Ro. Heath.”

An act of parliament, passed in the thirteenth year of Charles II., leaves to these canons their full canonical authority, whilst it provides that nothing contained in that statute shall give them the force of an act of parliament.

The acts of this convocation were unanimously confirmed by the synod of York.—Cardwell, vol. ii. p. 593, vol. i. p. 380. Wilkins, Conc. vol. iv. p. 538.

These canons, though passed in convocation, are not in force for the following reason: In 1639 a parliamentary writ was directed to the bishops to summon these clergy to parliament ad consentiendum, &c., and the convocation writ to the archbishops ad tractand. et consentiend. The parliament met on the 13th of April, 1640, and was dissolved on the 15th of May following. Now though the convocation, sitting by virtue of the first writ directed to the bishops, must fall by the dissolution of that parliament, yet the lawyers held that they might sit till dissolved by like authority. But this being a nice point, a commission was granted about a week after the dissolution of the parliament for the convocation to sit, which commission the king sent to them by Sir Harry Vane, his principal Secretary of State, and by virtue thereof they were turned into a provincial synod. The chief of the clergy then assembled desired the king to consult all the judges of England on this matter, which was done: and upon debating it in the presence of his council, they asserted under their hands the power of convocation in making canons. Upon this the convocation sat a whole month, and composed a Book of Canons, which was approved by the king by the advice of his privy-council, and confirmed under the broad seal. The objection against the Canons was that they were not made pursuant to the statute 25 Hen. VIII., because they were made in a convocation, sitting by the king’s writ to the archbishops, after the parliament was dissolved, though there is nothing in the statute which relates to their sitting in time of parliament only.

After the Restoration, when an act was passed to restore the bishops to their ordinary jurisdiction, a proviso was made that the act should not confirm the Canons of 1640. This clause makes void the royal confirmation. Hence we may conclude that canons should be made in a convocation, the parliament sitting; that being so made, they are to be confirmed by the sovereign; and that without such confirmation they do not bind the laity, much less any order or rule made by a bishop alone, where there is neither custom nor canon for it.—Burn.

Canon is used in the service of the Roman Church to signify that part of the communion service, or the mass, which follows immediately after the Sanctus and Hosanna; corresponding to that part of our service which begins at the prayer, “We do not presume,” &c. It is so called as being the fixed rule of the Liturgy, which is never altered. Properly speaking, the canon ends just before the Lord’s Prayer, which is recited aloud; the canon being said in a low voice. In the First Book of King Edward VI., the word is used in this sense, viz. in the Visitation of the Sick, after the Gospel, the service proceeds as follows:

“The Preface. The Lord be with you.

Answer. And with thy spirit.

¶ Lift up your hearts, &c.

Unto the end of the canon.”

The Anaphora of the Greek Church somewhat resembles the canon of the Roman. (See Anaphora.)—Jebb.

CANON. (See Deans and Chapters.) The name of canon, as applied to an officer in the Church, is derived from the same Greek word already alluded to, which also signifies the roll or catalogue of the Church, in which the names of the ecclesiastics were registered; hence the clergy so registered were denominated Canonici or Canons. Before the Reformation, they were divided into two classes, Regular and Secular. The Secular were so called, because they canonized in seculo, abroad in the world.

Regular canons were such as lived under a rule, that is, a code of laws published by the founder of that order. They were a less strict sort of religious than the monks, but lived together under one roof, had a common dormitory and refectory, and were obliged to observe the statutes of their order.

The chief rule for these canons is that of St. Augustine, who was made bishop of Hippo in the year 395. But they were but little known till the tenth or eleventh century, were not brought into England till after the Conquest, and seem not to have obtained the name of Augustine canons till some years after. The general opinion is, that they came in after the beginning of the reign of King Henry I., about the year 1105.

Their habit was a long black cassock, with a white rochet over it, and over that a black cloak and hood; from whence they were called Black Canons Regular of St. Augustine.

The monks were always shaved, but these canons wore beards, and caps on their heads.

There were about 175 houses of these canons and canonesses in England and Wales.

But besides the common and regular sort of these canons, there were also the following particular sorts.

As first, such as observed St. Augustine’s rule, according to the regulations of St. Nicholas of Arroasia; as those of Harewolde in Bedfordshire, Nutley or Crendon in Buckinghamshire, Hertland in Devonshire, Brunne in Lincolnshire, and Lilleshul in Shropshire.

Others there were of the rule of St. Augustine, and order of St. Victor; as at Keynsham and Worsping in Somersetshire, and Wormsley in Herefordshire.

Others of the order of St. Augustine, and the institution of St. Mary of Meretune, or Merton; as at Buckenham in Norfolk.

The Præmonstratenses were canons who lived according to the rule of St. Augustine, reformed by St. Norbert, who set up this regulation about the year 1120, at Præmonstratum in Picardy, a place so called because it was said to have been foreshown, or Præmonstrated, by the Blessed Virgin, to be the head seat and mother of the church of the order. These canons were, from their habit, called White Canons. They were brought into England soon after the year 1140, and settled first at Newhouse in Lincolnshire. They had in England a conservator of their privileges, but were nevertheless often visited by their superior at Premonstre, and continued under his jurisdiction till the year 1512, when they were exempted from it by the bull of Pope Julius II., confirmed by King Henry VIII.; and the superiority of all the houses of this order in England and Wales, was given to the abbot of Welbeck in Nottinghamshire. There were about thirty-five houses of this order.

The Sempringham or Gilbertine canons were instituted by St. Gilbert at Sempringham in Lincolnshire, in the year 1148. He composed his rule out of those of St. Augustine and St. Benedict, (the women following the Cistercian regulation of St. Benedict’s rule, and the men the rule of St. Augustine,) with some special statutes of their own. The men and women lived in the same houses, but in such different apartments that they had no communication with each other; and increased so fast, that St. Gilbert himself founded thirteen monasteries of this order; viz. four for men alone, and nine for men and women together, which had in them 700 brethren and 1500 sisters. At the dissolution of the monasteries there were about twenty-five houses of this order in England and Wales.

Canons regular of the Holy Sepulchre were instituted in the beginning of the 12th century, in imitation of the regulars instituted in the church of the Holy Sepulchre of our Saviour at Jerusalem. The first house they had in England was at Warwick, which was begun for them by Henry de Newburgh, earl of Warwick, who died in the year 1123, and perfected by his son Roger. They are sometimes called canons of the Holy Cross, and wore the same habit with the other Austin canons, distinguished only by a double red cross upon the breast of their cloak or upper garment. The endeavours of these religious for regaining the Holy Land coming to nothing after the loss of Jerusalem, in the year 1188, this order fell into decay, their revenues and privileges were mostly given to the Maturine friars, and only two houses of them continued to the dissolution.—Burn.

CANON OF SCRIPTURE. (See Scripture, and Bible.) The books of Holy Scripture as received by the Church, who, being the “witness and keeper of Holy Writ,” had authority to decide what is and what is not inspired.

That the Holy Scriptures are a complete rule of faith is proved, first, by the authority of the Holy Scriptures. And this is so plainly laid down therein, that nothing but a strange prejudice and resolution to support a cause could contradict it. Those words of St. Paul are very full to this purpose. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.) Moses expressly forbids that any one should “add unto the word that I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it.” (Deut. iv. 2.) “Whatsoever I command unto you to observe and do it, thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” (Deut. xii. 32.) The same prohibition is given out in the New Testament. For St. John, closing his Book of Revelation, and with that our Christian canon, so that it may not improbably seem to bear relation to the whole New Testament, forbids any addition or diminution, with a curse annexed to it: “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev. xxii. 18, 19.) But the substance of this had been before declared by St. Paul: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. i. 8.) And as for the endeavour of some to piece out God’s written word by tradition, our Saviour warns us against this, when he blames the Pharisees for it; namely, in “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” (Matt. xv. 9,) and “making the commandment of God of none effect by their traditions.” (Ver. 3, 6.)

Secondly, by reason, drawn from the nature of the thing, and the whole order of the gracious dispensation of the gospel, with which God hath been pleased to bless mankind, this is no more than we might expect. For our Saviour having first made known the gospel to the world by his own preaching and suffering, and propagated it throughout the several parts thereof by the preaching of his apostles, in order to be conveyed down to successive generations, this could not well be effected without a written word. For to have delivered down the gospel truths by word of mouth, or oral tradition, would have made it subject to as many errors as the prejudices, fancies, and mistakes of the several relators could have given it. Now since God has been pleased to make use of this method to convey these truths which he has revealed unto us, it is but reasonable to think that all the truths which he has judged necessary for our salvation, and which he has required of us to believe, are contained in this written word. For why God should leave some of the gospel truths to be conveyed in a purer, and others in a more corrupt, channel, some by Scripture and others by tradition, is unaccountable: why, since he designed the Scripture to be in some measure the rule of faith, he should not at the same time render it a complete one; why this Divine law of God must be eked out by human traditions, which have been uncertain in the best times, and pernicious in some, and which strangely vary according to different countries and ages;—these notions highly reflect upon the Divine wisdom and goodness, and are taken up only to defend the corrupt practices of the Romish Church, which that Church is resolved to maintain at any rate, rather than to part with them.

The like reasons are alleged by the ancient divines of the Church.—Dr. Nicholls.

The ancient fathers always speak of the Scriptures as containing a complete rule of faith and practice; and appeal to them, and to them only, in support of the doctrines which they advance.—Bp. Tomline.

CANON LAW. The canon law which regulates the discipline of the Romish Church consists, 1. Of the Decree of Gratian, (Decretum Gratiani,) a compilation made by a Benedictine monk, whose name it bears, at Bologna in Italy, in 1150, and made up of the decrees of different popes and councils, and of several passages of the holy fathers and other reputable writers.

2. Of the Decretals, collected by order of Pope Gregory IX., in the year 1230, in five books.

3. Of the compilation made by order of Boniface VIII., in 1297, known by the name of the Sixth Book of Decretals, because added to the other five, although it is itself divided into five books.

4. Of the Clementines, as they are called, or Decretals of Pope Clement V., published in the year 1317 by John XXII.

5. Of other decretals, known under the name of Extravagantes, so called because not contained in the former decretals. These Extravagantes are two-fold;—the first, called common, containing constitutions of various popes down to the year 1483; and, secondly, the particular ones of John XXII.

These, containing besides the decrees of popes and the canons of several councils, constitute the body of the canon law. The constitutions of subsequent popes and councils have also the force of canons, although not hitherto reduced into one body, nor digested, as the others, under proper heads, by any competent authority. These, together with some general customs, or peculiar ones of different places, having the force of laws, and certain conventions entered into between the popes and different Roman Catholic states, determine the discipline of the Church of Rome.

CANONICAL. That which is done in accordance with the canons of the Church.

CANONICAL HOURS. The first, third, the sixth, and the ninth hours of the day, that is, six, nine, twelve, and three o’clock, are so denominated. Bishop Patrick remarks that “the Universal Church anciently observed certain set hours of prayer, that all Christians throughout the world might at the same time join together to glorify God; and some of them were of opinion that the angelic host, being acquainted with those hours, took that time to join their prayers and praises with those of the Church.” The directions in the Apostolical Constitutions are as follows: “Offer up your prayers in the morning, at the third hour, at the sixth, and at the ninth, and in the evening; in the morning returning thanks that the Lord hath sent you light, and brought you through the perils of the night; at the third hour, because at that hour the Lord received sentence of condemnation from Pilate; at the sixth, because at that hour he was crucified; at the ninth, because at that hour all things were in commotion at the crucifixion of our Lord, as trembling at the bold attempt of the wicked Jews, and at the injury offered to their Master; in the evening, giving thanks that he has given thee the night to rest from thy daily labours.”

In the Church of Rome, the canonical hours begin with vespers, i. e. evening prayer, about six o’clock, or sunset; next follows compline, to beg God’s protection during sleep; at midnight, the three nocturns or matins, the longest part of the office. Lauds or morning praises of God are appointed for cock-crowing, or before break of day; at six o’clock, or sunrise, prime should be recited; and terce, sext, and none, every third hour afterwards.

CANONICAL OBEDIENCE. (See Orders.) The obedience which is due, according to the canons, to an ecclesiastical superior. Every clergyman takes an oath of canonical obedience to his bishop when he is instituted to a benefice, or licensed to a cure.

CANONISATION. (See Beatification, and Saints.) A ceremony in the Romish Church, by which persons deceased are ranked in the catalogue of saints. It succeeds beatification. When a person is to be canonised, the pope holds four consistories. In the first, he causes the petition of those who request the canonisation to be examined by three auditors of the rota, and directs the cardinals to revise all the necessary instruments. In the second, the cardinals report the matter to the pope. In the third, which is held in public, the cardinals pay their adoration to the pope, and an advocate makes a pompous oration in praise of the person who is to be created a saint. This advocate expatiates at large on the supposed miracles which the person has wrought, and even pretends to know from what motives he acted. In the fourth consistory, the pope, having summoned together all the cardinals and prelates, orders the report concerning the deceased to be read, and then takes their votes, whether he is to be canonised or not. On the day of canonisation, the church of St. Peter is hung with rich tapestry, on which are embroidered the arms of the pope, and those of the prince who desires the canonisation. The church is most brilliantly illuminated, and filled with thousands of Romanists, who superstitiously think that the more respect they show to the saint, the more ready will he be to hear their prayers, and offer them to God. During this ceremony the pope and all the cardinals are dressed in white. It costs the prince who requests the canonisation a great sum of money, as all the officers belonging to the Church of Rome must have their fees; but this is considered a trifle, when it is expected that the saint will intercede in heaven for his subjects, who, indeed, poor as they are, generally pay all the expenses attending the ceremony.

Canonisation of saints was not known to the Christian Church till towards the middle of the tenth century. So far as we are able to form an opinion, the Christians in that age borrowed this custom from the heathens; for it was usual with both the Greeks and Romans to deify all those heroes and great men who had rendered themselves remarkable. It is not allowed to enter into inquiries prior to canonisation, till at least fifty years after the death of the person to be canonised. This regulation, however, though now observed, has not been followed above a century. Thomas Becket was canonised within three years of his death. It has been properly objected against canonisation, that it is performed by human beings, who assume a power of rendering some one an object of divine worship, who in this life was no more than mortal; that it is a direct violation of the Saviour’s command, “Judge not;” and that it lies at the foundation of that idolatry of which the Church of Rome is justly charged.—Broughton.

CANONRY. A canonry is a name of office, and a canon is the officer; in like manner as a prebendary; and a prebend is the maintenance or stipend both of the one and the other.—Gibson. It is not easy to assign a reason why this name should have been given to members of cathedral churches. Some have thought it was because a great number of them were regular priests, and obliged to observe the canons or rules of their respective orders, or founders, or visitors. According to Nicholls, the name is of a higher origin, and not so directly from the Greek word κάνων, regula, a statute or ordinance, as from the Latin word canon, an allowance or stated quantity of provision. Thus it is used by Cicero. So the collection of the respective quotas of the provinces sent in corn to Rome for the subsistence of the poorer citizens was called the canon. Afterwards, when Christianity prevailed, the word was adapted to an ecclesiastical use, and those clergymen that had the canon, or sportula, taken from the common bank of the church offerings delivered out to them for their maintenance, come to be called canonici. As the church revenues were divided into four parts—one for the maintenance of the bishop, a second for the fabric of the church, and a third for the poor, so a fourth part was divided among the subordinate clergy, who lived in a collegiate manner about the bishop.

It seems most likely, however, that the word canon meant to designate one who resided at the cathedral church constantly, and followed the rule of Divine service there. So the application of the word at home and abroad would seem to indicate. Thus, till a very late enactment, 3 & 4 Vic. c. 113, the word canon was restricted in cathedrals of the old foundation to the residentiaries. Prebendary was statutably applied to all, because all had a præbenda, either fixed stipend, or an estate in fee: while in the cathedrals of new foundation all were called indifferently canons or prebendaries, because all were equally bound to residence. The act referred to has now directed that all shall be styled canons (except perhaps the prebendaries retained, but without their ancient stipends or estates) in the cathedrals of old foundation. Nevertheless, all canons are still really prebendaries, as long as they have any property. In Ireland, the only prebendaries denominated canons, are those of Kildare. These form the lesser chapter.

Canons in most cathedrals were divided into two classes, major, or minor. (See Minor Canons.)

The fellowships of the collegiate church in Manchester, since its elevation into a cathedral, have been recently erected into canonries, and the warden of former times is now called dean.

Canonry, or chanonrie, in Scotland, was the same as the cathedral precinct in England. Thus at Aberdeen the canonry included the cathedral, bishop’s palace, prebendal houses, gardens, and an hospital, all surrounded by a stone wall. (Kennedy’s Annals of Aberdeen.) The cathedral town of Rosemarkie, or Fortrose, in the diocese of Ross, was sometimes called the canonry town, or channery town.

CANTICLES. This literally signifies songs, but it is peculiarly applied to a canonical book of the Old Testament, called in Hebrew the Song of Songs, that is, the most excellent of all songs. The word canticle in our Prayer Book is applied to the Benedicite, and was so first used in King Edward’s Second Book.

CAPITAL. The highest member of a pillar.

The capital consists of the abacus, the bell, the neck, or astragal, and each of these varies in the several styles, as well in form as in relative importance. A few of the more prominent variations may be enumerated.

In the Saxon period, the abacus is usually a low, flat, unmoulded slab; the rest of the capital, if it has any character, approaches that of the succeeding style.

In the Norman capital the abacus is square, of considerable thickness, generally slightly bevelled at the lower side, and sometimes moulded. The bell, resting on a cylindrical shaft, and fitted with a square abacus, is circular at the bottom, and becomes square at the top, and the way of resolving the round into the square gives it its peculiar character. In examples, however, of any richness, the abundance of decoration often obscures its constructive character.

In the period of transition to Early English, the abacus sometimes becomes octagonal, seldom, however, a regular octagon, but a square with the corners slightly cut off. It is also sometimes circular. The upper surface continues flat, but the under part is more frequently moulded. The bell often approaches the Classic capital in design, and sometimes even in treatment, as at Canterbury; but this is a rare amount of excellence. More frequently a lotus-like flower rises from the neck, and curls beneath the abacus. The neck is still a mere round bead.

In the next, or Lancet period, the abacus more frequently becomes circular, the top is seldom flat, the mouldings usually consist of two rounds, with a deep undercut, hollow between, the upper one a little overhanging the under, and in the hollow a trail of nail-head or dog-tooth is often found. The bell, also, is deeply undercut, and in some instances, where effect is sought in moulding rather than in carving, it is repeated; but, in moderately rich examples, the bell is usually covered with foliage of which the stems spring from the neck, generally crossing one another as they rise, and breaking into leaves near the top, where they throw off a profusion of crisped foliage, which curls under the abacus; a stray leaf, in very rich and rather late examples, sometimes shooting up, over the hollow, to the upper member of the abacus. The whole treatment of this foliage in capitals and corbels, where it follows the same law, has sometimes a boldness and a grace, though it never deserts its conventional type, of which no description, and no engraving even, except on a large scale, can convey an idea. The neck of the Early English capital is generally either a rounded bowtel of rather more than half a cylinder, or a semi-hexagon, the latter with the sides sometimes slightly hollowed.

In the Geometrical period, the abacus continues round. It is no longer, except in rare instances, flat at the top: the scroll moulding begins to appear, and sometimes a hollow intervenes between it and the first member of the bell. The bell, when moulded, rather follows the routine of the last style; but, when foliated, the leaves or flowers, without losing anything of the force and boldness of the latter, have a naturalness never approached in any other style: we begin to recognise the oak, the hawthorn, or the maple, as familiar friends, and no longer need to employ conventional terms to designate their foliage, or the method of its treatment.

In the Decorated period, the scrollmoulding is almost constantly employed for the abacus and for the neck; the ball-flower sometimes occurs in the hollow of the abacus, but not so frequently as the dog-tooth in the Lancet period. The mouldings of the bell are generally the roll and fillet, or the scroll, in some of their forms; and the foliage entirely loses the nature of the Geometrical, without recovering the force of the Early English. It surrounds the bell as a chaplet, instead of creeping up it, and, instead of indicating the shape which it clothes, converts the whole between the neck and the abacus into a flowered top.

In the next and last period, the abacus is sometimes so nearly lost in the bell, or the bell in the abacus, that it is hard to separate them. The form of both becomes generally octagonal, and a great poverty of design is apparent: this is the case in ordinary instances of pillars with entire capitals. In later examples, and where there are greater pretensions, the capital does not extend to the whole pillar, but the outer order of the arches is continued to the base, without the intervention of a capital, only the inner order being supported and stopped by an attached shaft, or bowtel, with its capital, and so the capital loses all its analogy with the classic architrave, and no longer carries the eye along in a horizontal line.

CAPITULAR. A term often used in foreign countries to designate a major canon or prebendary; a capitular member of a cathedral or collegiate church.

CAPITULARIES. Ordinances of the kings of France, in which are many heads or articles which regard the government of the Church, and were done by the advice of an assembly of bishops. The original of the word comes from capitula, which were articles that the prelates made and published to serve as instructions to the clergy of their dioceses, so that at last this name of capitularies was given to all the articles which related to ecclesiastical affairs. Those of Charlemagne and Louis the Meek were collected in four books by the abbot Angesius; those of King Lothaire, Charles and Louis, sons of Louis the Meek, were collected by Bennet the Levite, or deacon, into three books, to which there have been since four or five additions; and Father Simon published those of Charles the Bald.

CAPUCHINS. Monks of the order of St. Francis. They owe their original to Matthew de Bassi, a Franciscan of the duchy of Urbino, who, having seen St. Francis represented with a sharp-pointed capuche, or cowl, began to wear the like in 1525, with the permission of Pope Clement VII. His example was soon followed by two other monks, named Louis and Raphael de Fossembrun; and the pope, by a brief, granted these three monks leave to retire to some hermitage, and retain their new habit. The retirement they chose was the hermitage of the Camaldolites near Massacio, where they were very charitably received.

This innovation in the habit of the order gave great offence to the Franciscans, whose provincial persecuted these poor monks, and obliged them to fly from place to place. At last they took refuge in the palace of the Duke de Camerino, by whose credit they were received under the obedience of the conventuals, in the quality of Hermits Minors, in the year 1527. The next year, the pope approved this union, and confirmed to them the privilege of wearing the square capuche, and admitting among them all who would take the habit. Thus the order of the Capuchins, so called from wearing the capuche, began in the year 1528.

Their first establishment was at Colmenzono, about a league from Camerino, in a convent of the order of St. Jerome, which had been abandoned; but, their numbers increasing, Louis de Fossembrun built another small convent at Montmelon, in the territory of Camerino. The great number of conversions which the Capuchins made by their preaching, and the assistance they gave the people in a contagious distemper with which Italy was afflicted the same year, 1528, gained them an universal esteem.

In 1529, Louis de Fossembrun built for them two other convents, the one of Alvacina in the territory of Fabriano, the other at Fossembrun in the duchy of Urbino. Matthew de Bassi, being chosen their vicar-general, drew up constitutions for the government of this order. They enjoined, among other things, that the Capuchins should perform Divine service without singing; that they should say but one mass a day in their convents; they directed the hours of mental prayer, morning and evening, the days of disciplining themselves, and those of silence; they forbade the monks to hear the confessions of seculars, and enjoined them always to travel on foot; they recommended poverty in the ornaments of their church, and prohibited in them the use of gold, silver, and silk; the pavilions of the altars were to be of stuff, and the chalices of tin.

This order soon spread itself all over Italy and into Sicily. In 1573, Charles IX. demanded of Pope Gregory XIII. to have the order of Capuchins established in France, which that pope consented to; and their first settlement in that kingdom was in the little town of Picpus near Paris, which they soon quitted to settle at Meudon, from whence they were introduced into the capital of the kingdom. In 1606, Pope Paul V. gave them leave to accept of an establishment which was offered them in Spain. They even passed the seas to labour on the conversion of the infidels; and their order is become so considerable, that it is at present divided into more than sixty provinces, consisting of near 1600 convents, and 25,000 monks, besides the missions of Brazil, Congo, Barbary, Greece, Syria, and Egypt.

Among those who have preferred the poverty and humility of the Capuchins to the advantages of birth and fortune, was the famous Alphonso d’Este, duke of Modena and Reggio, who, after the death of his wife Isabella, took the habit of this order at Munich, in the year 1626, under the name of Brother John-Baptist, and died in the convent of Castlenuovo, in 1644. In France, likewise, the great duke de Joyeuse, after having distinguished himself as a general, became a Capuchin in September, 1587.

Father Paul (of Ecclesiastical Benefices, cap. 53) observes, that “The Capuchins preserve their reputation by reason of their poverty, and that if they should suffer the least change in their institution, they would acquire no immoveable estates by it, but would lose the alms they now receive.” He adds: “It seems, therefore, as if here an absolute period were put to all future acquisitions and improvements in this gainful trade; for whoever should go about to institute a new order, with a power of acquiring estates, such an order would certainly find no credit in the world; and if a profession of poverty were a part of the institution, there could be no acquisitions made whilst that lasted, nor would there be any credit left when that was broke.”—Hist. des Ord. Relig. T. vii. c. 27.

There is likewise an order of Capuchin Nuns, who follow the rule of St. Clare. Their first establishment was at Naples in 1538, and their foundress the venerable mother Maria Laurentia Longa, of a noble family of Catalonia—a lady of the most uncommon piety and devotion. Some Capuchins coming to settle at Naples, she obtained for them, by her credit with the archbishop, the church of St. Euphebia, without the city; soon after which she built a monastery of virgins, under the name of Our Lady of Jerusalem, into which she retired in 1534, together with nineteen young women, who engaged themselves by solemn vows to follow the third rule of St. Francis. The pope gave the government of this monastery to the Capuchins; and, soon after, the nuns quitted the third rule of St. Francis, to embrace the more rigorous rule of St. Clara, from the austerity of which they had the name of Nuns of the Passion, and that of Capuchines from the habit they took, which was that of the Capuchins.

After the death of their foundress, another monastery of Capuchines was established at Rome, near the Quirinal palace, and was called the monastery of the Holy Sacrament; and a third, in the same city, built by Cardinal Baronius. These foundations were approved, in the year 1600, by Pope Clement VIII., and confirmed by Gregory XV. There were afterwards several other establishments of Capuchines, in particular one at Paris, in 1604, founded by the Duchesse de Mercœur, who put crowns of thorns on the heads of the young women whom she placed in her monastery.—Broughton.

CAPUTIUM. (See Hood.)

CARDINAL. This is the title given to one of the chief governors of the Romish Church. The term has long been in use, and originally signified the same as præcipuus, principalis, id quod rei cardo est, synonymous with prælatus; or else it was derived from cardinare or incardinare, to hinge or join together, and was applied to the regular clergy of the metropolitan church. In Italy, Gaul, &c., such churches early received the title of cardinal churches; the ministers of these churches were also called cardinals.

The following statements comprise the important historical facts relative to the office of cardinal:

1. The institution of the office has been ascribed by respectable Roman Catholic writers to Christ himself, to the apostle of their faith, to the Roman bishop Evaristus, to Hyginus, Marcellus, Boniface III., and others. But we only know that cardinals, presbyters, and deacons occur in history about the sixth and seventh centuries, who were, however, not itinerant, but stationary church officers for conducting religious worship. The deacons and presbyters of Rome especially bore this name, who composed the presbytery of the bishop of the place. The title was also conferred upon the suffragan bishops of Ostia, Albano, and others in the immediate vicinity, but without any other rights than those which were connected appropriately with the ministerial office.

2. The import of the term was varied still more in the ninth century, and especially in the eleventh, by Nicolaus II., who in his constitution for the election of the Roman pontiff, not only appointed his seven suffragan bishops as members of the pope’s ecclesiastical council, but also constituted them the only legitimate body for the election of the pope. To these he gave the name of cardinal bishops of the Church of Rome, or cardinals of the Lateran Church.

This is the important period in history when the first foundation was laid for rendering the hierarchy of the Church independent both of the clergy and of the secular power. This period has not been noticed so particularly by historians as its importance requires. They seem especially to have overlooked the fact, that the famous Hildebrand, (Gregory VII.,) in the year 1073, concerted these measures for the independence of the Church, as the following extract will show: “It was the deep design of Hildebrand, which he for a long time prosecuted with unwearied zeal, to bring the pope wholly within the pale of the Church, and to prevent the interference, in his election, of all secular influence and arbitrary power. And that measure of the council which wrested from the emperor a right of so long standing and which had never been called in question, may deservedly be regarded as the master-piece of popish intrigue, or rather of Hildebrand’s cunning. The concession which disguised this crafty design of his was expressed as follows: that the emperor should ever hold from the pope the right of appointing the pope.”

3. As might have been expected, this privilege was afterwards contested by the princes of the German States, especially by those of Saxony and the House of Hohenstaufen. But these conflicts uniformly resulted in favour of the ambitious designs of the pope. A momentary concession, granted under the pressure of circumstances, became reason sufficient for demanding the same ever afterwards as an established right. In the year A. D. 1179, Alexander III., through the canons of the Lateran, confirmed yet more the independent election of the pope, so that, after this, the ratification of the emperor was no longer of any importance. Something similar was also repeated by Innocent III., A. D. 1215, and Innocent IV., A. D. 1254. The former had already, in the year A. D. 1198, renounced the civil authority of Rome, and ascended the papal throne. In the year 1274, the conclave of cardinals for the election of the pope was fully established by Gregory X., and remains the same to this day.

4. The college of cardinals, which, until the twelfth century, had been restricted to Rome and its vicinity, has since been greatly enlarged, so as to become the supreme court of the Romish Church throughout the world. Priests of illustrious name in other provinces and countries have been elevated to the dignity of cardinals. Of this, Alexander III. gave the first example in the year 1165, by conferring the honour upon Galdinus Sala, archbishop of Milan, and upon Conrad, archbishop of Mentz. But, to the injury of the Church, the greater part have ever been restricted to the limits of Rome and Italy.

5. The formal classification of the cardinals into three distinct orders, 1. cardinal bishops; 2. cardinal presbyters; 3. cardinal deacons, was made by Paul II. in the fifteenth century. He also gave them, instead of the scarlet robe which they had worn since the year 1244, a purple robe, from whence they derived the name of the purple; a title indicative, not merely of their superiority to bishops and archbishops, but of their regal honours and rights. Boniface VIII. gave them the title of eminentissimi, most eminent; and Pius V., in the year 1567, decrees that no other should have the name of cardinal.

6. The number of cardinals was at first not less than seven; and, after having ranged from seven to fifty-three, it was reduced again in the year 1277 to the minimum above-mentioned. The General Assembly of the Church of Basil limited the number to twenty-four; but the popes from this time increased them at their pleasure. Under Leo X. there were sixty-five cardinals: Paul IV. and Pius V. decreed that the maximum should be seventy—equal in number to the disciples of our Lord. These were arranged under the following grades: 1. Six cardinal bishops, with the following titles:—the bishops of Ostia, Porta, Albano, Frascati, Sabina, and Palæstrina; 2. Fifty cardinal priests, who were named after the parochial and cathedral churches of Rome; 3. Fourteen cardinal deacons, who were named after the chapels. This number was seldom full; but, since 1814, they have again become quite numerous.—Augusti.

The canons in some foreign cathedrals are called cardinals; as at Milan and Salerno. In the cathedral of St. Paul’s, London, two of the minor canons are still so designated. Their statutable duties are to superintend the behaviour of the members of the choir, in order to the correction of offenders by the dean and chapter, and to see to the burial of the dead, &c.—Jebb.

CARMELITES, or WHITE FRIARS. Monks of the order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. They pretend to derive their original from the prophets Elijah and Elisha; and this occasioned a very warm controversy between this order and the Jesuits, about the end of the seventeenth century; both parties publishing several works, and petitioning the popes Innocent XI. and Innocent XII.; the latter of whom silenced them both, by a brief of the 20th November, 1698.

What we know of their original is, that, in the twelfth century, Aimerie, legate of the holy see in the east, and patriarch of Antioch, collected together several hermits in Syria, who were exposed to the violence and incursions of the barbarians, and placed them on Mount Carmel, formerly the residence of the prophets Elijah and Elisha; from which mountain they took the name of Carmelites. Albert, patriarch of Jerusalem, gave them rules in 1205, which Pope Honorius III. confirmed in 1224.

The peace concluded by the emperor Frederic II. with the Saracens, in the year 1229, so disadvantageous to Christendom, and so beneficial to the infidels, occasioned the Carmelites to quit the Holy Land under Alan, the fifth general of the order. He first sent some of the monks to Cyprus, who landed there in the year 1238, and founded a monastery in the forest of Fortania. Some Sicilians, at the same time, leaving Mount Carmel, returned to their own country, where they founded a monastery in the suburbs of Messina. Some English departed out of Syria, in the year 1440, to found others in England. Others of Provence, in the year 1244, founded a monastery in the desert of Aigualates, a league from Marseilles; and thus, the number of their monasteries increasing, they held their first European general chapter in the year 1245, at their monastery of Aylesford, in England.

After the establishment of the Carmelites in Europe, their rule was in some respects altered: the first time, by Pope Innocent IV., who added to the first article a precept of chastity, and relaxed the eleventh, which enjoins abstinence at all times from flesh, permitting them, when they travelled, to eat boiled flesh. This pope likewise gave them leave to eat in a common refectory, and to keep asses or mules for their use. Their rule was again mitigated by the popes Eugenius IV. and Pius II. Hence the order is divided into two branches, viz. the Carmelites of the ancient observance, called the moderate or mitigated, and those of the strict observance, who are the barefooted Carmelites; a reform set on foot, in 1540, by S. Theresa, a nun of the convent of Avila, in Castile: these last are divided into two congregations, that of Spain and that of Italy.

The habit of the Carmelites was at first white, and the cloak laced at the bottom with several lists; but Pope Honorius IV. commanded them to change it for that of the Minims. Their scapulary is a small woollen habit, of a brown colour, thrown over their shoulders. They wear no linen shirts, but instead of them linsey-woolsey.—Broughton.

CAROLS. Hymns sung by the people at Christmas in memory of the song of the angels, which the shepherds heard at our Lord’s birth.

CARPOCRATIANS. Heretics who sprang up in the second century; followers of Carpocrates, of the island of Cephalenia, according to Epiphanius, or, according to Theodoret and Clemens Alexandrinus, of the city of Alexandria. This Carpocrates was a man of the worst morals, and addicted to magic. Eusebius says expressly, he was the father of the heresy of the Gnostics; and it is true that all the infamous things imputed to the Gnostics are ascribed likewise to the Carpocratians. It is sufficient to mention two of their principles: the one is, a community of wives; the other, that a man cannot arrive at perfection, nor deliver himself from the power of the princes of this world, as they expressed it, without having passed through all sorts of criminal actions; laying it down for a maxim, that there is no action bad in itself, but only from the opinion of men. This induced them to establish a new kind of metempsychosis, that those who have not passed through all sorts of actions in the first life, may do it in a second, and, if that be not sufficient, in a third, and so on, till they have discharged this strange obligation. Accordingly, they are charged with committing the most infamous things in their Agapæ, or love-feasts.

As to their theology, they attributed the creation of the world to angels; they said that Jesus Christ was born of Joseph and Mary in a manner like other men; that his soul alone was received into heaven, his body remaining on the earth; and, accordingly, they rejected the resurrection of the body.

They marked their disciples at the bottom of the right ear with a hot iron, or with a razor.

They had images of Jesus Christ as well in painting as in sculpture, which they said were made by Pilate; they kept them in a little box or chest. They had likewise the images of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophers. They put crowns on all these images, and paid them the same superstitious honours which the Pagans did to their idols, adoring them, and offering sacrifice to them. A woman of this sect, named Marcellina, came to Rome, in the pontificate of Anicetus, where she made a great many proselytes. She worshipped the images of Jesus Christ, Paul, Homer, and Pythagoras, and offered incense to them.

Carpocrates had a son, named Epiphanes, who, by means of the Platonic philosophy, gave a greater extent to the fabulous opinions of the Carpocratians. He died at seventeen years of age, but in that short time had acquired so great a reputation among the disciples of his father, that, after his death, he was revered by them as a god, insomuch that they built a temple to him in the island of Cephalenia, and the Cephalenians, every first day of the month, solemnized the feast of his apotheosis, offering sacrifices to him, and singing hymns to his honour.

Epiphanius relates of himself, that in his youth he accidentally fell into company with some women of this sect, who revealed to him the most horrible secrets of the Carpocratians. They were armed with beauty sufficient to make an impression on a person of his age; but, by the grace of God, he says, he escaped the snare which the devil had laid for him. (See Gnostics.)—Brouqhton.

CARTHUSIANS. A religious order, founded in the year 1080 by one Bruno, a very learned man, a native of Cologne, and canon of Cologne, and afterwards Canon Scholaster or Theologal, (i. e. a lecturer in theology,) at Rheims. The occasion of its institution is related as follows: a friend of Bruno’s, Raimond Diocre, an eminent canon of Paris, who had been looked upon as a good liver, being dead, Bruno attended his funeral. Whilst the service was performing in the church, the dead man, who lay upon a bier, raised himself up and said, “By the just judgment of God, I am accused.” The company being astonished at this unusual accident, the burial was deferred to the next day, when the concourse of people being much greater, the dead man again raised himself up and said, “By the just judgment of God, I am judged:” and on a third similar occasion, “By the just judgment of God, I am condemned.” This miracle, it is pretended, wrought such an effect on Bruno and six more, that they immediately retired to the desert of Chartreux, in the diocese of Grenoble, in Dauphiné, where Hugh, bishop of that diocese, assigned them a spot of ground, and where Bruno, A. D. 1084, (or 1086, according to Baronius,) built his first monastery, under the following rigid institutes:—

His monks were to wear a hair-cloth next their body, a white cassock, and over it a black cloak: they were never to eat flesh; to fast every Friday on bread and water; to eat alone in their chambers, except upon certain festivals; and to observe an almost perpetual silence; none were allowed to go out of the monastery, except the prior and procurator, and they only about the business of the house.

The Carthusians, so called from the place of their first institution, are a very rigid order. They are not to go out of their cells, except to church, without leave of their superior. They are not to speak to any person, even their own brother, without leave. They may not keep any part of their portion of meat or drink till the next day, except herbs or fruit. Their bed is of straw, covered with a felt or coarse cloth; their clothing, two haircloths, two cowls, two pair of hose, a cloak, &c., all coarse. Every monk has two needles, some thread, scissors, a comb, a razor, a hone, an ink-horn, pens, chalk, two pumice-stones; likewise two pots, two porringers, a basin, two spoons, a knife, a drinking cup, a water-pot, a salt, a dish, a towel; and for fire, tinder, flint, wood, and an axe.

In the refectory they are to keep their eyes on the meat, their hands on the table, their attention on the reader, and their heart fixed on God. When allowed to discourse, they are to do it modestly, not to whisper, nor talk aloud, nor to be contentious. They confess to the prior every Saturday. Women are not allowed to come into their churches, that the monks may not see anything which may provoke them to lewdness.

It is computed there are a hundred and seventy-two houses of Carthusians, whereof five are of nuns, who practise the same austerities as the monks. They are divided into sixteen provinces, each of which has two visitors. There have been several canonised saints of this order; four cardinals, seventy archbishops and bishops, and a great many very learned writers.

The story of the motive of St. Bruno’s retirement into the desert was inserted in the Roman Breviary, but was afterwards left out, when that Breviary was reformed, by order of Pope Urban VIII.; and this gave occasion to several learned men of the seventeenth century to publish writings on that subject, some to vindicate the truth of the story, and others to invalidate it. It is rejected by Pagius, the learned annotator on Baronius, who says it was invented two centuries after Bruno’s time.—Jebb.

In the year 1170, Pope Alexander III. took this order under the protection of the holy see. In 1391, Boniface IX. exempted them from the jurisdiction of the bishops. In 1420, Martin V. exempted them from paying the tenths of the lands belonging to them; and Julius II., in 1508, ordered that all the houses of the order, in whatever part of the world they were situated, should obey the prior of the Grand Chartreuse, and the general chapter of the order.

The convents of this order are generally very beautiful and magnificent; that of Naples, though but small, surpasses all the rest in ornaments and riches. Nothing is to be seen in the church and house but marble and jasper. The apartments of the prior are rather those of a prince than of a poor monk. There are innumerable statues, bas-reliefs, paintings, &c., together with very fine gardens; all which, joined with the holy and exemplary life of the good monks, draws the curiosity of all strangers who visit Naples.

The Carthusians settled in England about the year 1140. They had several monasteries here, particularly at Witham, in Somersetshire; Hinton, in the same county; Beauval, in Nottinghamshire; Kingston-upon-Hull; Mount Grace, in Yorkshire; Eppewort, in Lincolnshire; Shene, in Surrey, and one near Coventry. In London they had a famous monastery, since called, from the Carthusians who settled there, the Charter House.—See Du Pin, and Baronius.

CARTULARIES, according to Jerom de Costa, were papers wherein the contracts, sales, exchanges, privileges, immunities, and other acts that belong to churches and monasteries were collected, the better to preserve the ancient deeds, by rendering frequent reference to them less necessary.

CASSOCK. The under dress of all orders of the clergy; it resembles a long coat, with a single upright collar. In the Church of Rome it varies in colour with the dignity of the wearer. Priests wear black; bishops, purple; cardinals, scarlet; and popes, white. In the Church of England, black is worn by all the three orders of the clergy, but bishops, upon state occasions, often wear purple coats. The 74th English canon enjoins that beneficed clergymen, &c. shall not go in public in their doublet and hose, without coats or cassocks.—Jebb.

CASUIST. One who studies cases of conscience.

CASUISTRY. The doctrine and science of conscience and its cases, with the rules and principles of resolving the same; drawn partly from natural reason or equity, and partly from the authority of Scripture, the canon law, councils, fathers, &c. To casuistry belongs the decision of all difficulties arising about what a man may lawfully do or not do; what is sin or not sin; what things a man is obliged to do in order to discharge his duty, and what he may let alone without breach of it. The most celebrated writers on this subject, of the Church of England, are Bishop Jeremy Taylor, in his “Ductor Dubitantium;” and Bishop Sanderson, in his “Cases of Conscience.” There was a professor of casuistry in the university of Cambridge, but the title of the professorship has lately been altered to Moral Philosophy.

CASULA. (See Chasible.)

CATACOMBS. Burying-places near Rome; not for Christians only, but for all sorts of people. There is a large vault about three miles from Rome, used for this purpose; there is another near Naples. That at Naples consists of long galleries cut out of the rock, of three stories, one above another. These galleries are generally about twenty feet broad, and fifteen high. Those at Rome are not above three or four feet broad, and five or six feet high. They are very long, full of niches, shaped according to the sizes of bodies, wherein the bodies were put, not in coffins, but only in burial clothes. Many inscriptions are still extant in them; and the same stone sometimes bears on one side an inscription to heathen deities and marks of Christianity on the other. But see a large account of these in Bishop Burnet’s Travels, in his fourth letter; also “The Church in the Catacombs,” by Dr. C. Maitland; and Macfarlane’s “Catacombs of Rome.”

The name “Catacombs” is now generally applied to the stone vaults for the dead constructed in the public cemeteries of England.

CATAPHRYGES. Christian heretics, who made their appearance in the second century; they had this name given to them because the chief promoters of this heresy came out of Phrygia. They followed Montanus’s errors. (See Montanists.)

CATECHISM, is derived from a Greek term, (κατηχέω,) and signifies instruction in the first rudiments of any art or science, communicated by asking questions and hearing and correcting the answers. From the earliest ages of the Church the word has been employed by ecclesiastical writers in a more restrained sense, to denote instruction in the principals of the Christian religion by means of questions and answers.—Dean Comber. Shepherd.

By canon 59, “Every parson, vicar, or curate, upon every Sunday and holy day, before evening prayer, shall, for half an hour or more, examine and instruct the youth and ignorant persons of his parish, in the ten commandments, the articles of the belief, and in the Lord’s Prayer; and shall diligently hear, instruct, and teach them the catechism set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. And all fathers, mothers, masters, and mistresses shall cause their children, servants, and apprentices, which have not learned the catechism, to come to the church at the time appointed, obediently to hear, and to be ordered by the minister, until they have learned the same. And if any minister neglect his duty herein, let him be sharply reproved upon the first complaint, and true notice thereof given to the bishop or ordinary of the place. If after submitting himself he shall willingly offend therein again, let him be suspended. If so the third time, there being little hope that he will be therein reformed, then excommunicated, and so remain until he be reformed. And likewise, if any of the said fathers, mothers, masters, or mistresses, children, servants, or apprentices, shall neglect their duties, as the one sort in not causing them to come, and the other in refusing to learn, as aforesaid, let them be suspended by their ordinaries, (if they be not children,) and if they so persist by the space of a month, then let them be excommunicated.”

And by the rubric, “The curate of every parish shall diligently upon Sundays and holy days, after the second lesson at evening prayer, openly in the church instruct and examine so many children of his parish sent unto him, as he shall think convenient, in some part of the catechism. And all fathers and mothers, masters and dames, shall cause their children, servants, and apprentices (who have not learned their catechism) to come to the church at the time appointed, and obediently to hear, and be ordered by the curate, until such time as they have learned all that therein is appointed for them to learn.”

In the office of public baptism the minister directs the godfathers and godmothers to “take care that the child be brought to the bishop, to be confirmed by him, so soon as he or she can say the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the ten commandments in the vulgar tongue, and be further instructed in the Church Catechism set forth for that purpose.”

The catechism of children is enjoined by God, (Deut. vi. 7; Prov. xxii. 6; Ephes. vi. 4,) and was always practised by pious men, (Gen. xviii. 19; 1 Chron. xxviii. 9; 2 Tim. i. 5,) and it is Christ’s especial charge to ministers, to feed his lambs. (John xxi. 15.) The Jewish doctors took care of this. (Luke ii. 42.) And in the Christian churches there was a peculiar officer who was the catechist; and all the new converts, who were to be baptized at Easter, were catechized all the forty days of Lent. But since we have few such now, and generally baptize infants, who cannot at that time understand the covenant which is entered into, therefore we are bound to take more care to make them understand it afterward, by instructing them in the “Catechism of the Church;” which is drawn up according to the primitive forms by way of question and answer, (Acts viii. 37; 1 Pet. iii. 21,) being not a large system of divinity to puzzle the heads of young beginners, but, like those of the ancients, a short and full explication of the baptismal vow; teaching them, first, what their baptismal vow is, namely, what were the benefits promised on God’s part, Quest. I., II., and what were the duties promised on their part, to renounce all evil, to believe all divine truth, and to keep God’s commandments, Quest. III.; together with their grateful owning of this covenant, Quest. IV. Secondly, the parts of the vow are explained: first, as to the matter of them, in repeating and expounding the creed, Quest. V., VI., and repeating and explaining the ten commandments, Quest. VII., VIII., IX., X., XI. Secondly, as to the means to enable them to keep them, which are prayer and the holy sacraments: and the duty of prayer is taught them in the Lord’s Prayer, and the explication thereof, Quest. XII., XIII. The due use of the sacraments is taught them, first in general, as to their number, nature, and necessity, Quest. XIV., XV. Secondly in particular, baptism, Quest. XVI.–XX.; and the Lord’s supper, Quest. XXI.–XXV. This is all that is absolutely necessary to be known in order to salvation, and all that the primitive Church did teach their catechumens. And if children be but made to repeat this perfectly, and understand it fully, they will increase in knowledge as they grow in years.—Dean Comber.

It is the peculiar glory of Christianity to have extended religious instruction, of which but few partook at all before, and scarce any in purity, through all ranks and ages of men, and even women. The first converts to it were immediately formed into regular societies and assemblies; not only for the joint worship of God, but the further “edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. iv. 12); in which good work some of course were stated teachers, or, to use the apostle’s own expression, “catechizers in the word:” others taught or catechized. (Gal. vi. 6.) For catechizing signifies, in Scripture at large, instructing persons in any matter, but especially in religion. And thus it is used, Acts xviii. 25, where we read, “This man was instructed in the way of the Lord;” and Luke i. 4, where, again, we read, “That thou mayest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.” The original word, in both places, is catechized.

But as the different advances of persons in knowledge made different sorts of instructions requisite, so, in the primitive Church, different sorts of teachers were appointed to dispense it. And they who taught so much only of the Christian doctrine, as might qualify the hearers for Christian communion, had the name of catechists appropriated to them: whose teaching being usually, as was most convenient, in a great measure by way of question and answer, the name of Catechism hath now been long confined to such instruction as is given in that form. But the method of employing a particular set of men in that work only, is in most places laid aside.

Under the darkness of Popery almost all religious instruction was neglected. “Very few,” to use the words of one of our homilies, “even of the most simple people, were taught the Lord’s Prayer, the articles of the faith, or the ten commandments, otherwise than in Latin, which they understood not;” so that one of the first necessary steps taken towards the Reformation in this country, was a general injunction, that parents and masters should first learn them in their own tongue, then acquaint their children and servants with them: which three main branches of Christian duty, comprehending the sum of what we are to believe, to do, and to petition for, were soon after formed, with proper explanations of each, into a catechism. To this was added, in process of time, a brief account of the two sacraments; all together making up that very good, though still improveable, “form of sound words” (2 Tim. i. 13) which we may now use.—Abp. Secker.

As to the form of our catechism, it is drawn up after the primitive manner, by way of question and answer: so Philip catechized the eunuch, (Acts viii. 37,) and so the persons to be baptized were catechized in the first ages. And, indeed, the very word catechism implies as much; the original κατηχέω, from whence it is derived, being a compound of ἠχὼ, which signifies an echo, or repeated sound. So that a catechism is no more than an instruction first taught and instilled into a person, and then repeated upon the catechist’s examination.

As to the contents of our catechism, it is not a large system or body of divinity, to puzzle the heads of young beginners, but only a short and full explication of the baptismal vow. The primitive catechisms, indeed, (that is, all that the catechumens were to learn by heart before their baptism and confirmation,) consisted of no more than the renunciation, or the repetition of the baptismal vow, the creed, and the Lord’s prayer: and these, together with the ten commandments, at the Reformation, were the whole of ours. But it being afterwards thought defective as to the doctrine of the sacraments, (which in the primitive times were more largely explained to baptized persons,) King James I. appointed the bishops to add a short and plain explanation of them, which was done accordingly in that excellent form we see; being penned by Bishop Overall, then dean of St. Paul’s, and allowed by the bishops. So that now (in the opinion of the best judges) it excels all catechisms that ever were in the world; being so short, that the youngest children may learn it by heart; and yet so full, that it contains all things necessary to be known in order to salvation.

In this also its excellency is very discernible, namely, that as all persons are baptized, not into any particular Church, but into the Catholic Church of Christ; so here they are not taught the opinion of this or any other particular Church or people, but what the whole body of Christians all the world over agree in. If it may anywhere seem to be otherwise, it is in the doctrine of the sacraments; but even this is here worded with so much caution and temper, as not to contradict any other particular Church, but so as that all sorts of Christians, when they have duly considered it, may subscribe to everything that is here taught or delivered.—Wheatly.

The country parson, says Herbert, values catechizing highly.... He exacts of all the doctrine of the catechism; of the younger sort, the very words; of the elder, the substance. Those he catechizeth publicly; these privately, giving age honour, according to the apostle’s rule. He requires all to be present at catechizing; first, for the authority of the work; secondly, that parents and masters, as they hear the answers proved, may, when they come home, either commend or reprove, either reward or punish; thirdly, that those of the elder sort, who are not well grounded, may then by an honourable way take occasion to be better instructed; fourthly, that those who are well grown in the knowledge of religion, may examine their grounds, renew their vows, and by occasion of both enlarge their meditation. Having read Divine service twice fully, and preached in the morning, and catechized in the afternoon, he thinks he hath, in some measure, according to poor and frail man, discharged the public duties of the congregation.—Herbert’s Country Parson.

With respect to the catechetical instruction of youth, I would remind you, that it was the primitive method, employed by the apostles and their immediate followers, and in after ages by the whole succession of the catholic and apostolic Church, for training up and organizing the visible community of Christians in sound principles of faith, in the love of God and man, and in purity of life and conversation. It is observable, accordingly, that in exact proportion as catechizing has been practised or neglected, in the same proportion have the public faith and morals been seen to flourish or decline.... In the earlier ages of the Church, catechetical schools were established in the great cities of the empire; over which men of the profoundest learning, and most brilliant talents, felt themselves honoured when they were called to preside; while each particular church had its catechists; and the catechumens formed a regular and ascertained class or division of every congregation. And it is not too much to say, that, next to an established liturgy, and beyond all prescribed confessions of faith, the single ordinance of catechetical instruction has, under Providence, been the great stay and support, throughout Christendom, of orthodox, unwavering Christianity.... Let not the common prejudice be entertained, that catechizing is a slight and trifling exercise, to be performed without pain and preparation on your part. This would be so, if it were the mere rote-work asking and answering of the questions in our Church Catechism: but to open, to explain, and familiarly to illustrate those questions, in such a manner, as at once to reach the understanding and touch the affections of little children, is a work which demands no ordinary acquaintance at once with the whole scheme of Christian theology, with the philosophy of the human mind, and with the yet profounder mysteries of the human heart. It has, therefore, been well and truly said, by I recollect not what writer, that a boy may preach, but to catechize requires a man.—Bp. Jebb.

CATECHIST. The person who catechizes. There were officers of this name in the ancient Church; but they did not form a distinct order. Sometimes the bishop catechized, sometimes the catechists were selected from the inferior orders, as readers, &c.—(See Bingham.)

CATECHUMENS. A name given, in the first ages of Christianity, to the Jews or Gentiles who were being prepared and instructed to receive baptism. It comes from the Greek word κατηχεῖν, which signifies to teach by word of mouth, or viva voce: and of that word this other, κατηχούμενος, is formed, which denotes him that is so taught: these had people on purpose to instruct them. Eusebius makes mention of Pantænus, Clemens, and Origen, who were catechists in the Church of Alexandria, and had a peculiar place in the church where they used to teach, and the same was called the place of the catechumens, as appears by the canons of the Council of Neocæsarea: they tell us the catechumens were not permitted to be present at the celebration of the holy eucharist; but, immediately after the Gospel was read, the deacons cried with a loud voice: “Withdraw in peace, you catechumens,” for so the book of the Apostolical Constitutions will have it. The service from the beginning to the Offertory was called Missa catechumenorum. The catechumens, not being baptized, were not to receive, nor so much as permitted to see, the consecrated elements of the eucharist. Some writers suppose that they received some of the consecrated bread, called eulogicæ; but Bingham shows that this idea is founded on a misconstruction of a passage in St. Augustine, and that the use of eulogicæ was not known in the Church, until long after the discipline of the catechumens had ceased. According to a canon of the Council of Orange, they were not permitted to pray with the faithful or those in full communion. There were several degrees of favour in the state of the catechumens: at first they were instructed privately, or by themselves, and afterwards admitted to hear sermons in the church; and these last were called audientes. There was a third sort of catechumens, called orantes or genuflectentes, because they were present and concerned in some part of the prayers: to which we may add a fourth degree of catechumens, which were the competentes; for so they were called when they desired to be baptized.

CATENA. From a Greek word signifying a chain. By a Catena Patrum is meant a string or series of passages from the writings of various fathers, and arranged for the elucidation of some portions of Scripture, as the Psalms or Gospels. They seem to have originated in the short scholia or glosses which it was customary in MSS. of the Scriptures to introduce in the margin. These by degrees were expanded, and passages from the homilies or sermons of the fathers were added to them. The most celebrated catena is the Catena Aurea of Thomas Aquinas. It was translated at Oxford, under the superintendence of Mr. Newman, of Oriel College. The subsequent conduct of that gentleman has led those who were willing to attach some authority to the work to examine it carefully, and the result has been, the detection that Thomas Aquinas has sometimes falsified the quotations he has made from the fathers; and the whole, as a commentary, is inferior to the commentaries of modern theologians.

CATHARISTS. The last surviving sect of Manichæans, or Gnostics, who gave themselves that name, (from καθαρὸς, pure,) to indicate their superior purity. There were many different degrees of error among them, but the following tenets were common to all:—That matter was the source of all evil; that the Creator of the visible world was not the same as the Supreme Being; that Christ had not a real body, nor was properly speaking born, nor really died; that the bodies of men were the production of the evil principle, and were incapable of sanctification and a new life; and that the sacraments were but vain institutions, and without power. They rejected and despised the Old Testament, but received the New with reverence. The consequence of such doctrines was, of course, that they made it the chief object of their religion to emancipate themselves from whatever was material, and to macerate their bodies to the utmost; and their perfect disciples, in obedience to this principle, renounced animal food, wine, and marriage. The state of their souls, while united with the body, was in their estimation a wretched incarceration, and they only escaped from some portion of the horrors of such a dungeon, by denying themselves all natural enjoyments, and escaping from the solicitations of all the senses.

The Catharists in the twelfth century spread themselves from Bulgaria over most of the European provinces, but they met everywhere with extensive persecution, and are not heard of after that time.

CATHEDRAL. The chief church in every diocese is called the Cathedral, from the word cathedra, a chair, because in it the bishop has his seat or throne. The cathedral church is the parish church of the whole diocese (which diocese was therefore commonly called parochia in ancient times, till the application of this name to the lesser branches into which it was divided, caused it for distinction’ sake to be called only by the name of diocese): and it has been affirmed, with great probability, that if one resort to the cathedral church to hear Divine service, it is a resorting to the parish church within the natural sense and meaning of the statute.

By the 5th canon of the 5th Council of Carthage it is ordained, that every bishop shall have his residence at his principal or cathedral church, which he shall not leave, to betake himself to any other church in his diocese; nor continue upon his private concerns, to the neglect of his cure, and hinderance of his frequenting the cathedral church.—Bingham.

By the constitutions of Archbishop Langton, 1222, it is enjoined, bishops shall be at their cathedrals on some of the greater feasts, and at least in some part of Lent.

By the constitutions of Otho, 1237, bishops shall reside at their cathedral churches, and officiate there on the chief festivals, on the Lord’s days, and in Lent, and in Advent.

By the constitutions of Othobon, in 1268, bishops shall be personally resident to take care of their flock, and for the comfort of the churches espoused to them, especially on solemn days, in Lent and Advent, unless their absence is required by their superiors, or for other just cause.

Canon 24. “In all cathedral and collegiate churches, the holy communion shall be administered upon principal feast days, sometimes by the bishop, (if he be present,) and sometimes by the dean, and sometimes by a canon or prebendary; the principal minister using a decent cope, and being assisted with the gospeller and epistler agreeably, according to the advertisements published in the seventh year of Queen Elizabeth (hereafter following). The said communion to be administered at such times, and with such limitation, as is specified in the Book of Common Prayer. Provided that no such limitation by any construction shall be allowed of, but that all deans, wardens, masters, or heads of cathedral and collegiate churches, prebendaries, canons, vicars, petty canons, singing men, and all others of the foundation, shall receive the communion four times yearly at the least.”

Canon 42. “Every dean, master, or warden, or chief governor of any cathedral or collegiate church, shall be resident there fourscore and ten days, conjunctim or divisim, in every year at the least, and then shall continue there in preaching the word of God, and keeping good hospitality; except he shall be otherwise let with weighty and urgent causes, to be approved by the bishop, or in any other lawful sort dispensed with.”

Canon 43. “The dean, master, warden, or chief governor, prebendaries and canons, in every cathedral and collegiate church, shall preach there, in their own persons, so often as they are bound by law, statute, ordinance, or custom.”

Canon 44. “Prebendaries at large shall not be absent from their cures above a month in the year; and residentiaries shall divide the year among them; and, when their residence is over, shall repair to their benefices.”

And by Canon 51, “the deans, presidents, and residentiaries of any cathedral or collegiate church, shall suffer no stranger to preach unto the people in their churches, except they be allowed by the archbishop of the province, or by the bishop of the same diocese, or by either of the universities. And if any in his sermon shall publish any doctrine either strange, or disagreeing from the word of God, or from any of the Thirty-nine Articles, or from the Book of Common Prayer, the dean or the residents shall by their letters, subscribed with some of their hands that heard him, so soon as may be, give notice of the same to the bishop of the diocese, that he may determine the matter, and take such order therein as he shall think convenient.”

The passage of the advertisements published in the seventh year of Queen Elizabeth, referred to in Canon 24, is as follows: “Item, in the ministration of the holy communion in cathedral and collegiate churches, the principal minister shall use a cope with gospeller and epistoler agreeably; and at all other prayers to be said at the communion table, to use no copes but surplices. Item, that the dean and prebendaries wear a surplice, with a silk hood, in the choir; and when they preach in the cathedral or collegiate church, to wear a hood.” And at the end of the service book in the second year of Edward VI., it is ordered that “in all cathedral churches, the archdeacons, deans, and prebendaries, being graduates, may use in the choir, beside their surplices, such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees, which they have taken in any university within this realm.”

Churches collegiate and conventual were always visitable by the bishop of the diocese, if no special exemption was made by the founder thereof. And the visitation of cathedral churches belongs unto the metropolitan of the province, and to the king when the archbishopric is vacant.—Burn.

All cathedrals throughout the world had a body of clergy and ministers belonging to them; which were divided into various orders and degrees; they were gradually incorporated in Western Christendom, but not in the East. (See Chapter.) In England no diocese has more than one cathedral. There are many instances of a plurality of cathedrals even in the same city, as at Rome, Milan, &c., and formerly in France. These churches were called concathedrals. One instance exists in Ireland, viz. in Dublin, where Christ Church and St. Patrick’s enjoy all the rights of cathedrals; and while the congé d’ élire existed, conjointly elected the archbishop; and their united consent must still be given to all acts which require the sanction of a chapter. This plurality of cathedrals in one see is not to be confounded with a plurality of cathedrals under the same bishop, when, as generally in Ireland, he has under his charge two or more dioceses. One Irish diocese (Meath) has no cathedral; and two others (Kilmore and Ardagh) have no cathedral chapters. These anomalies are not, as some have supposed, remnants of a primitive order of things; for it can be proved that they did not originally exist in the respective dioceses now mentioned; but were the consequences of poverty, barbarism, and other unhappy causes which mutilated the external framework of the Irish church.—Jebb.

With reference to the architecture of a cathedral: the normal plan of an English cathedral is in the form of a Latin cross; a cross, that is, whose transverse arms are less than the lower longitudinal limb; and, in a general architectural description, its parts are sufficiently distinguished as nave, choir, and transept, with their aisles, western towers, and central tower; but in more minute description, especially where ritual arrangements are concerned, these terms are not always sufficiently precise, and we shall hardly arrive at the more exact nomenclature, without tracing the changes in a cathedral church from the Norman period to our own.

In a Norman cathedral, the east end, or architectural choir, usually terminated in an apse, (see Apse,) surrounded by the continuation of the choir aisles. The aisles formed a path for processions at the back of the altar, and were called the processionary. The bishop’s throne was placed behind the altar, and the altar itself in the chord of the apse; and westward of this was a considerable space, unoccupied in ordinary cases, which was called the presbytery. The choir, or place in which the daily service was performed, was under the central tower, with perhaps one or two bays of the nave in addition; so that the ritual and the architectural choir did not coincide, but the ritual choir occupied the tower and a considerable portion of the architectural nave. This arrangement seems unnatural, and even inconvenient; but it was perhaps required by the connexion of the cathedral with the monastic or other offices of the establishment; for these were arranged around a quadrangle, of which the architectural nave, or western limb of the church, formed one side, and length was gained to the quadrangle, without disproportionate enlargement of the church, by making the western limb sufficiently large to receive part, at least, of the ritual choir. (See Monastery.)

The transept was not originally symbolical in its form; but was derived from the transverse hall or gallery in the ancient basilicas at the upper end of the nave, its length equal to the breadth of the nave and aisles. The accidental approximating to the form of the cross was doubtless perceived by later Christian architects, who accordingly in many instances lengthened the transept so as to make the ground-plan of the church completely cuneiform.—Jebb.

In the transepts and aisles, and also in the crypt, which generally extended beneath the whole eastern limb of the church, were numerous altars, and little chapels were often thrown out, of an apsidal form, for their altars. One chapel, especially, was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, and called the Lady chapel, but its place does not seem to have been constant.

Subsequent churches were of course subject to many variations, but they generally followed much this course. First, the apse was taken down, and the eastern arm of the cross was extended considerably, so as to enlarge the presbytery, or part in which the altar stood, and to add a retrochoir in place of the old processionary behind it; and this change was probably connected always in prospect, and often at once, with the carrying up of the choir eastward of the great tower, or in other words, reconciling the ritual with the architectural arrangement. After this yet another addition was made to the east end, which was often nearly equal to the nave in length; and the Lady chapel was built beyond the presbytery and retrochoir.

In the course of these arrangements the several screens, the rood screen and the altar screen, had to be removed. The rood screen was placed within the eastern arch of the tower, which may now be called its proper place, wherever the church has received its usual additions. This screen is now almost universally used as an organ loft; and it is obvious to remark, that though the organ intercepts the view from the west end of the church, it certainly does not do so more than the rood and its accompaniments formerly did. The altar screen first became necessary at the enlarging of the space behind the altar: it formed the separation of the presbytery from the retrochoir. In some instances this arrangement has been disturbed of late years, but always with bad effect.

The modifications of these plans and arrangements are various, but oftener on the side of excess than of defect. The Lady chapel is not always at the extreme east. At Ely, for instance, and once at Peterborough, it was at the north. The great transept is never omitted (Manchester can hardly be called an exception, since it has only lately been made a cathedral); but a second transept to the east of the tower was often added, as at Canterbury, Lincoln, and Salisbury. Sometimes, as at Durham, the second transept is carried to the extreme east end of the church, which it crosses in the form of a T. Sometimes there was a western transept, treated in the same way as at Ely and Peterborough; and at Durham, Ely, and Lincoln was another considerable addition, called the Galilee porch. At Canterbury, the whole arrangement of the east end is very remarkable, the crown of Archbishop Becket taking the usual place of the Lady chapel. The shrines of reputed saints, and chantry monuments inserted in different portions of the fabric, with too little respect for its general effect, are constant additions to the plan; but it would be useless to attempt to reduce these to a general rule, and endless to enumerate particular cases.

The cathedrals in Ireland and Scotland were originally very small. That of Armagh, the largest, it is supposed, of ancient date, and originally built by St. Patrick, was without transepts, which were added many ages after. The most interesting relics of very ancient cathedrals in Ireland are at Tuam and Clonfert. Many of them in Scotland, as Elgin, were modelled on the plan of Lincoln cathedral.—Poole.

CATHOLIC. (καθ’ ὅλον.) Universal or general. “The Church,” says St. Cyril, “is called catholic, because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely all the truths which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it subjugates, in order to godliness, every class of men, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals every sort of sins which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and every kind of spiritual gifts.”—Catechetical Lectures, xviii. 23.

The term was first applied to the Christian Church to distinguish it from the Jewish, the latter being confined to a single nation, the former being open to all who should seek admission into it by holy baptism. Hence, the Christian Church is general or universal. The first regularly organized Christian Church was formed at Jerusalem. When St. Peter converted three thousand souls, (Acts ii. 41,) the new converts were not formed into a new Church, but were added to the original society. When Churches were formed afterwards at Samaria, Antioch, and other places, these were not looked upon as entirely separate bodies, but as branches of the one holy Catholic or Apostolic Church. St. Paul says, (1 Cor. xii. 13,) “By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body;” and, (Eph. iv. 4,) “There is one body and one Spirit.” A Catholic Church means a branch of this one great society, as the Church of England is said to be a Catholic Church; the Catholic Church includes all the Churches in the world under their legitimate bishops.

When in after-times teachers began to form separate societies, and to call them by their own name, as the Arians were named from Arius, the Macedonians from Macedonius; and, in later times, Calvinists from Calvin, Wesleyans from Wesley; the true churchmen, refusing to be designated by the name of any human leader, called themselves Catholics, i. e. members, not of any peculiar society, but of the Universal Church. And the term thus used not only distinguished the Church from the world, but the true Church from heretical and schismatical parties. Hence, in ecclesiastical history, the word catholic means the same as orthodox, and a catholic Christian denotes an orthodox Christian.

From this may be seen the absurdity of calling those who receive the decrees of the Council of Trent Catholics. The Romanists, or Papists, or Tridentines, belong to a peculiar society, in which Romanism or Romish errors are added to orthodox truth. When we call them Catholics, we as much as call ourselves Heretics, we as much as admit them to be orthodox; and they gladly avail themselves of this admission, on the part of some ignorant Protestants, to hold up an argument against the Church of England. Let the member of the Church of England assert his right to the name of Catholic, since he is the only person in England who has a right to that name. The English Romanist is a Romish schismatic, and not a Catholic.

CATHOLIC EPISTLES. The Epistles of St. James, St. Peter, St. Jude, and St. John are called Catholic Epistles, either because they were not written to any particular person, or Church, but to Christians in general, or to Christians of several countries: or because, whatever doubts may at first have been entertained respecting some of them, they were all acknowledged by the Catholic or Universal Church, at the time this appellation was attached to them, which we find to have been common in the fourth century.

CAVEAT. A caveat is a caution entered in the spiritual court, to stop probates, administrations, licences, &c., from being granted without the knowledge of the party that enters the caveat.

CELESTINES. A religious order of Christians, which derives its name from its founder, Pietro de Morone, afterwards Celestin V., a hermit, who followed the rules of St. Bennet, who founded the order in 1254, and got the institution confirmed by Pope Urban VIII. in 1264, and by Gregory X. in 1273, at the second general Council of Lyons: this order soon multiplied in Italy, and was brought into France in 1300, by Philip the Fair, who sent to Peter of Sorrel, a singer of the Church of Orleans, or according to others, of that of Amiens, his ambassador then at Naples, to beg of the abbot-general of it twelve of this order, to be sent into France. When they were arrived, the king gave them two monasteries, one in the forest of Orleans, at a place called Ambert, and the other in the forest of Compiegne, in Mount Chartres. Charles, dauphin and regent of France, in 1352, while King John, his father, was prisoner in England, sent for six of these monks of Mount Chartres, to establish them at Paris, at a place called Barrez, where there was, till the Revolution, a monastery of that order: and that prince, in 1356, gave them every month a purse under the seal of the chancelery, which gift was confirmed by a patent in 1361, at King John’s return. When Charles came to the crown himself, he made them a gift of a thousand livres of gold, with twelve acres of the best timber in the forest of Moret, to build their church with, whereof he himself laid the first stone, and had it consecrated in his presence. After which he settled a considerable parcel of land upon the same monastery. The Celestines were called hermits of St. Damian before their institutor became pope. Their first monastery was at Monte Majella, in the kingdom of Naples.

CELIBACY. The state of unmarried persons: a word used chiefly in speaking of the single life of the Romish clergy, or the obligation they are under to abstain from marriage.

At the time of the Reformation, scarcely any point was more canvassed than the right of the clergy to marry. The celibacy of the clergy was justly considered as a principal cause of irregular and dissolute living; and the wisest of the Reformers were exceedingly anxious to abolish a practice, which had been injurious to the interests of religion, by its tendency to corrupt the morals of those who ought to be examples of virtue to the rest of mankind. The marriage of priests was so far from being forbidden by the Mosaic institution, that the priesthood was confined to the descendants of one family, and consequently there was not only a permission, but an obligation upon the Jewish priests to marry. Hence we conclude that there is no natural inconsistency, or even unsuitableness, between the married state and the duties of the ministers of religion. Not a single text in the New Testament can be interpreted into a prohibition against the marriage of the clergy under the gospel dispensation; but, on the contrary, there are many passages from which we may infer that they are allowed the same liberty upon this subject as other men enjoy. One of the twelve apostles, namely, St. Peter, was certainly a married man (Matt. viii. 14); and it is supposed that several of the others were also married. Philip, one of the seven deacons, was also a married man (Acts xxi. 9); and if our Lord did not require celibacy in the first preachers of the gospel, it cannot be thought indispensable in their successors. St. Paul says, “Let every man have his own wife” (1 Cor. vii. 2); and that marriage is honourable in all, (Heb. xiii. 4,) without excepting those who are employed in the public offices of religion. He expressly says, that “a bishop must be the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. iii. 2); and he gives the same direction concerning elders, priests, and deacons. When Aquila travelled about to preach the gospel, he was not only married, but his wife Priscilla accompanied him (Acts xviii. 2); and St. Paul insists that he might have claimed the privilege “of carrying about a sister or wife, (1 Cor. ix. 5,) as other apostles did.” The “forbidding to marry” (1 Tim. iv. 3) is mentioned as a character of the apostasy of the latter times. That the ministers of the gospel were allowed to marry for several centuries after the days of the apostles appears certain. Polycarp mentions Valens, presbyter of Philippi, who was a married man, and there are now extant two letters of Tertullian, a presbyter of the second century, addressed to his wife. Novatus was a married presbyter of Carthage, as we learn from Cyprian, who was, in the opinion of some historians, himself a married man; and so was Cæcilius, the presbyter who converted him, and Numidius, another presbyter of Carthage. That they were allowed to cohabit with their wives after ordination appears from the charge which Cyprian brought against Novatus, that he had struck and abused his wife, and by that means caused her to miscarry. In the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, a motion was made, that a law might pass to oblige the clergy to abstain from all conjugal society: but it was strenuously opposed by Paphnutius, a famous Egyptian bishop, who, although himself unmarried, pleaded that marriage was honourable, and that so heavy a burden as abstaining from it ought not to be laid upon the clergy. Upon which the motion was laid aside, and every man left to his liberty, as before. All that Valesius, after Bellarmine, has to say against this is, that he suspects the truth of the thing, and begs leave to dissent from the historian; which is but a poor evasion in the judgment of Du Pin himself, who, though a Romanist, makes no question but that the Council of Nice decreed in favour of the married clergy. The same thing is evident from other councils of the same age; as the councils of Gangra, Ancyra, Neocæsarea, Eliberis, and Trullo. We have also a letter from Hilary of Poictiers, written to his daughter when he was in exile; and from what can be collected concerning her age, it seems probable that she was born when he was a bishop. At the same time it must be owned, that many things are said in praise of a single life in the writings of the ancient fathers; and the law of celibacy had been proposed, before or about the beginning of the fourth century, by some individuals. The arguments are forcible which are used, but there is one general answer to them all: the experiment has been made, and it has failed. In a country where there are no nunneries, the wives of the clergy are most useful to the Church. Siricius, who, according to Dufresnoy, died in the year 399, [397, Barenius,] was the first pope who forbade the marriage of the clergy; but it is probable that this prohibition was little regarded, as the celibacy of the clergy seems not to have been completely established till the papacy of Gregory VII., at the end of the eleventh century, and even at that time it was loudly complained of by many writers. The history of the following centuries abundantly proves the bad effects of this abuse of Church power. The old English and Welsh records show that the clergy were married as late as the eleventh century. See the Liber Landavensis, passim.

CELLITES. A certain religious order of Popish Christians, which has houses in Antwerp, Louvain, Mechlin, Cologne, and in other towns in Germany and the Netherlands, whose founder was one Mexius, a Roman, mentioned in the history of Italy, where they are also called Mexians.

CEMETERY means originally a place to sleep in, and hence by Christians, who regard death as a kind of sleep, it is applied to designate a place of burial. Cemetery is derived from κοιμάω, to sleep, because the primitive Christians spoke of death as a sleep, from which men are to awake at the general resurrection. The first Christian sepulchres were crypts or catacombs. The custom of burying in churches was not practised for the first 300 years of the Christian era; and severe laws were passed against burying even in cities. The first step towards the practice of burying in churches, was the transferring of the relics of martyrs thither: next, sovereigns and princes were allowed burial in the porch: in the sixth century churchyards came into use. By degrees the practice prevailed from the ninth to the thirteenth century, encouraged first by special grants from popes, and by connivance, though contrary to the express laws of the Church.—See Bingham. (See 9 & 10 Vict. c. 68, entitled “An Act for better enabling the Burial Service to be performed in one chapel, where contiguous burial-ground shall have been provided for two or more parishes or places.”)

The following is a list of the several acts of parliament recently passed relating to church building, and to cemeteries and churchyards:—43 Geo. III. c. 108; 51 Geo. III. c. 115; 56 Geo. III. c. 141; 58 Geo. III. c. 45; 59 Geo. III. c. 134; 3 Geo. IV. c. 72; 5 Geo. IV. c. 103; 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 72; 9 Geo. IV. c. 42; 1 & 2 Wm. IV. c. 38; 2 & 3 Wm. IV. c. 61; 1 Vict. c. 75; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 107; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 49; 3 & 4 Vict. c. 60; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 56; 8 & 9 Vict. c. 70; 9 & 10 Vict. c. 88; 10 & 11 Vict. c. 65; 11 & 12 Vict. c. 37; 11 & 12 Vict. c. 71.

In the neighbourhood of London are several cemeteries endowed with privileges under acts of parliament specially applicable to them. The principal is that of Kensall Green, established 2 & 3 Wm. IV., and consecrated by the bishop of London in 1832; the South London, at Norwood, was established 6 & 7 Wm. IV., 1836. There are four others in the neighbourhood of London. There are large cemeteries also at Manchester, Liverpool, Reading, and several other towns.

In 1850 was passed the act 13 & 14 Vict. c. 52, which gave to the General Board of Health very extensive powers for abolishing existing places of sepulture, whether in the neighbourhood of churches or not, and for establishing public cemeteries. This very elaborate act, containing seventy-seven sections and four schedules, has hitherto been found impracticable, except in so far as it relates to the appointment of a new commissioner of the Board of Health to work the act. In the year 1852 was passed the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 85, making provision for interments in the metropolis. In 1853, by 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134, most of the provisions of the act of 1852 were extended to all England.

CENOBITES. A name formerly given to such as entered into a monastic life, and lived in communities, to distinguish them from such as passed their lives in wildernesses and alone, as hermits and anchorites. The word is derived from κοινόβιον, vitæ communis societas.

CENOTAPH. (κενοτάφιον, from κενὸς and τάφος, an empty tomb.) A memorial of a deceased person, not erected over his body. So far as churches may be considered memorials of the saints whose name they bear, they are analogous either to monuments, when the bodies of the saints there repose, (as, for instance, St. Alban’s, and the ancient church at Peransabulo,) or to cenotaphs, when, as is far more generally the case, the saint is buried far off. A great part of the monuments which disfigure Westminster Abbey and St. Paul’s are cenotaphs.

CENSURES ECCLESIASTICAL. The penalties by which, for some remarkable misbehaviour, Christians are deprived of the communion of the Church, or clergymen are prohibited to execute the sacerdotal office. These censures are, excommunication, suspension, and interdict; or else, irregularity, which hinders a man from being admitted into holy orders.

The canonists define an ecclesiastical censure to be a spiritual punishment, inflicted by some ecclesiastical judge, whereby he deprives a person baptized of the use of some spiritual things, which conduce, not only to his present welfare in the Church, but likewise to his future and eternal salvation. It differs from civil punishments, which consist only in things temporal; as confiscation of goods, pecuniary mulcts or fines, and the like; but the Church, by its censures, does not deprive a man of all spirituals, but only of some in particular. This definition speaks of such things as conduce to eternal salvation, in order to manifest the end of this censure; for the Church, by censures, does not intend the destroying of men’s souls, but only the saving them; by enjoining repentance for past errors, a return from contumacy, and an abstaining from future sins.

CENTURIES, MAGDEBURG. A celebrated and extraordinary ecclesiastical history, projected by Flacius Illyricus, and prosecuted by him, in conjunction with several others, many of them divines of Magdeburg. Their names were, Nicolaus Gallus, Johannes Wigandus, and Matthias Judex, all ministers of Magdeburg, assisted by Caspar Nidpruckius, an Imperial Counsellor, Johannes Baptista Heincelius, an Augustinian, Basil Faber, and others. The centuriators thus describe the process employed in the composition of their work. Five directors were appointed to manage the whole design; and ten paid agents supplied the necessary labour. Seven of these were well-informed students, who were employed in making collections from the various pieces set before them. Two others, more advanced in years, and of greater learning and judgment, arranged the matter thus collected, submitted it to the directors, and, if it were approved, employed it in the composition of the work. As fast as the various chapters were composed, they were laid before certain inspectors, selected from the directors, who carefully examined what had been done, and made the necessary alterations; and, finally, a regular amanuensis made a fair copy of the whole.

At length, in the year 1560, (though probably printed in 1559,) appeared the first volume of their laborious undertaking. It was printed at Basle. But the city in which the first part of it was composed has given it a distinctive title; and the first great Protestant work on Church history has been always commonly known as the Magdeburg Centuries.

It was in every point of view an extraordinary production. Though the first modern attempt to illustrate the history of the Church, it was written upon a scale which has scarcely been exceeded. It brought to light a large quantity of unpublished materials; and cast the whole subject into a fixed and regular form. One of its most remarkable features is the elaborate classification. This was strictly original, and, with all its inconveniences, undoubtedly tended to introduce scientific arrangement and minute accuracy into the study of Church history. Each century is treated separately, in sixteen heads or chapters. The first of these gives a general view of the history of the century; then follow, 2. The extent and propagation of the Church. 3. Persecution and tranquillity of the Church. 4. Doctrine. 5. Heresies. 6. Rites and Ceremonies. 7. Government. 8. Schisms. 9. Councils. 10. Lives of Bishops and Doctors. 11. Heretics. 12. Martyrs. 13. Miracles. 14. Condition of the Jews. 15. Other religions not Christian. 16. Political condition of the world.

Mr. Dowling (from whose excellent work on the study of Ecclesiastical History this article is taken) adds, that this peculiarity of form rendered the work of the centuriators rather a collection of separate treatises, than a compact and connected history; while, their object being to support a certain form of polemical theology, their relations are often twisted to suit their particular views.

CERDONIANS. Heretics of the second century, followers of Cerdon. The heresy consisted chiefly in laying down the existence of two contrary principles; in rejecting the law, and the prophets as ministers of a bad God; in ascribing, not a true body, but only the phantasm of a body, to our blessed Lord, and in denying the resurrection.—Tertullian. Epiphanius.

CEREMONY. This word is of Latin origin, though some of the best critics in antiquity are divided in their opinions, in assigning from what original it is derived. Joseph Scaliger proves by analogy, that as sanctimonia comes from sanctus, so does ceremonia from the old Latin word cerus, which signifies sacred or holy. The Christian writers have adapted the word to signify external rites and customs in the worship of God; which, though they are not of the essence of religion, yet contribute much to good order and uniformity in the church. If there were no ornaments in the church, and no prescribed order of administration, the common people would hardly be persuaded to show more reverence in the sacred assemblies than in other ordinary places, where they meet only for business or diversion. Upon this account St. Augustine says, “No religion, either true or false, can subsist without some ceremonies.” Notwithstanding this, some persons have laid it down, as a fundamental principle of religion, that no ceremony, or human constitution, is justifiable, but what is expressly warranted in the word of God. This dogma Mr. Cartwright has reduced into a syllogistical demonstration. “Wheresoever faith is wanting, there is sin. In every action not commanded, faith is wanting; ergo, in every action not commanded, there is sin.” But the falsity of this syllogism is shown at large by Hooker, in his second book of Ecclesiastical Polity, by arguments drawn from the indifference of many human actions—from the natural liberty God has afforded us—from the examples of holy men in Scripture, who have differently used this liberty—and from the power which the Church by Divine authority is vested with. That apostolical injunction, “Let all things be done with decency, and in order,” (1 Cor. xiv. 40,) is a much better demonstration, that the Church has a power to enjoin proper ceremonies, for the good order and comeliness of ecclesiastical conventions, than Mr. Cartwright’s syllogism is for the people’s contempt of them when enjoined.—Nicholls.

We still keep, and esteem, not only those ceremonies which we are sure were delivered us from the apostles, but some others too besides, which we thought might be suffered without hurt to the Church of God; for that we had a desire that all things in the holy congregation might, as St. Paul commandeth, be done with comeliness, and in good order. But as for all those things which we saw were either very superstitious, or utterly unprofitable, or noisome, or mockeries, or contrary to the Holy Scriptures, or else unseemly for sober and discreet people, whereof there be infinite numbers now-a-days, where the Roman religion is used; these, I say, we have utterly refused without all manner of exception, because we would not have the right worshipping of God to be defiled any longer with such follies.—Bp. Jewell.

Wise Christians sit down in the mean now under the gospel, avoiding a careless and parsimonious neglect on the one side, and a superstitious slovenliness on the other: the painted looks and lascivious gaudiness of the Church upon the hills, and the careless, neglected dress of some Churches in the valley.—Bp. Hall.

Far be it from me to be a patron of idolatry or superstition in the least degree, yet I am afraid lest we, who have reformed the worship of God from that pollution, (and blessed be his name therefor!) by bending the crooked stick too much the other way, have run too far into the other extreme.—Mede.

It may be objected, that my superior may enjoin me such a law, as my conscience tells me is scandalous to my brother, not convenient, not edifying, &c.; what shall I do in this condition? If I conform, I sin against my conscience (Rom. xiv. 23); if I do not, I sin against his authority. Answer, that text of Rom. xiv. 23, hath only reference to things not only indifferent in their own nature, but left free from any superior command interposing, and therefore the text is not ad idem; for though such laws may be of things indifferent, yet being commanded by just authority, the indifference by that command determineth, and they become necessary.—L’Estrange.

The Reformation gave such a turn to weak heads, that had not weight enough to poise themselves between the extremes of Popery and fanaticism, that everything older than yesterday was looked upon to be Popish and anti-Christian. The meanest of the people aspired to the priesthood, and were readier to frame new laws for the Church, than obey the old.—Sherlock.

It is a rule in prudence, not to remove an ill custom when it is well settled, unless it bring great prejudices, and then it is better to give one account why we have taken it away, than to be always making excuses why we do it not. Needless alteration doth diminish the venerable esteem of religion, and lessen the credit of ancient truths. Break ice in one place, and it will crack in more.—Archbishop Bramhall.

Our Saviour and his apostles did use indifferent things, which were not prescribed in Divine worship. Thus he joined in the synagogue worship, (John xviii. 20, &c.,) though (if the place itself were at all prescribed) the manner of that service was not so much as hinted at. Thus he used the cup of charity in the Passover, though it was not instituted. (Luke xxii. 17.) The feast of dedication was a human institution, yet he vouchsafed to be present at it. Nay, he complied with the Jews in the very posture of the Passover, which they changed to sitting, though God had prescribed standing. The apostles also observed the hours of prayer, which were of human institution. (Acts iii. 1.) Now if Christ and his apostles did thus under the Jewish law, which was so exact in prescribing outward ceremonies, certainly we may do the same under the gospel. I may add, that the primitive Christians not only complied with the Jews in such rites as were not forbidden, but also had some ritual observations taken up by themselves. Thus they washed the disciples’ feet in imitation of Christ, and used love-feasts, till they thought it convenient to lay them aside. From whence it appears, that prescription is not necessary to make a rite lawful; it is enough if it be not forbidden.—Bennet.

Calvin, in his book of the True Way of Reformation, saith, he would not contend about ceremonies, not only those which are for decency, but those that are symbolical. Œcolampadius looked on the gesture at the sacrament as indifferent. Bucer thought the use of the sign of the cross after baptism neither indecent nor unprofitable. Crocius says, that the nature of ceremonies is to be taken from the doctrine which goes along with them; if the doctrine be good, the rites are so, or, at least, are tolerable; if it be false, then they are troublesome, and not to be borne; if it be impure, and lead to idolatry, then the ceremonies are tainted with the poison of it.—Stillingfleet.

No abuse of any gesture, though it be in the most manifest idolatry, doth render that gesture simply evil, and for ever after unlawful to be used in the worship of God upon that account. For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it; and if anything otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it, then it is plain that it is not in its own nature sinful, but by accident, and with respect to somewhat else. This is clear from Scripture; for if rites and ceremonies, after they have been abused by idolaters, become absolutely evil, and unlawful to be used at all, then the Jews sinned in offering sacrifices—erecting altars—burning incense to the God of heaven—bowing down themselves before him—wearing a linen garment in the time of Divine worship—and observing other things and rites which the heathens observe in the worship of false gods. Kneeling at prayers, and standing, and sitting, and lifting up the hands and eyes to heaven, and bowing of the body, together with prayer, and praise, and singing, have been all notoriously abused to idolatry, and are so to this day.—Bennet. Nay, this principle would render Christianity impracticable; because there is no circumstance, no instrument, no ministry in worship, but may have been in some way or other abused by Pagan or Romish idolatries.—Bennet.

Bucer, in a letter to Johannes a Lasco, says, “If you will not admit such liberty and use of vesture to this pure and holy Church, because they have no commandment of the Lord, nor no example for it, I do not see how you can grant to any Church, that it may celebrate the Lord’s supper in the morning, &c.; for we have received for these things no commandment of the Lord, nor any example; yea, rather, the Lord gave a contrary example.”

The word ceremony occurs in the title page of the Prayer Book, in the prefatory section, (of Ceremonies,) in the 34th Article, and the vi., xiv., xviii., and xxx. Canons, &c. It is plainly a different thing from Common Prayer, (i. e. the ordinary public service as contrasted with the occasional services,) the administration of sacraments, or rites.

Dr. Nicholls says that the cross in baptism, and, it may be, the marriage ring, are perhaps the only ceremonies enjoined in the Book of 1662, which can in a strict and proper sense be called so. But, as is observed in a note to Stephens’s Common Prayer Book with notes, (vol. i. p. 139,) “Dr. Nicholls uses ceremony in a limited sense, which is by no means sanctioned by our best writers and divines. Ceremonia in its classical sense was a general term for worship. Johnson’s definition, outward rite, external form in religion, is fully supported by his references, and especially Hooker, who, throughout his book, applies it to all that is external in worship. It seems that rite and ceremony are thus to be distinguished. A rite is an act of religious worship, whether including ceremonies or not. A ceremony is any particular of religious worship, (included in a rite,) which prescribes action, position, or even the assumption of any particular vesture. The latter sense is plainly recognised by Hooker. (Eccl. Pol. book iv. sect. i.; book v. sect. 29.) The Preface to the Book of Common Prayer speaks first of common prayer, viz. the offices intended for the common and periodical use of all at stated times; next, the administration of the sacraments; next, of other rites and ceremonies; i. e. the occasional services, whether public or private, and all the methods of administration which these involve. Now among ceremonies, the prescribed procession in the Marriage and Burial Services, the standing at certain parts of the service, the bowing at the name of Jesus, as prescribed by the 18th canon, ought to be included.” It may be observed, that the 18th canon expressly calls the bowing just mentioned, a ceremony, as also in the 30th canon, the sign of the cross.—See Hooker, book iii. sect. 11, and book v. sect. 6.

CERINTHIANS. Ancient heretics, the followers of Cerinthus. This man, who was a Jew by birth, attempted to form a new and singular system of doctrine and discipline, by combining the doctrines of Christ with the opinions and errors of the Jews and Gnostics. He taught that the Creator of the world, whom he considered also as the Sovereign and Lawgiver of the Jews, was a Being endued with the greatest virtues, and derived his birth from the Supreme God; that this Being gradually degenerated from his former virtue; that, in consequence of this, the Supreme Being determined to destroy his empire, and, for that purpose, sent upon earth one of the ever happy and glorious æons whose name was Christ; that this Christ chose for his habitation the person of Jesus, into whom he entered in the form of a dove, whilst Jesus was receiving baptism of John in the waters of Jordan; that Jesus, after this union with Christ, opposed the God of the Jews, at whose instigation he was seized and crucified by the Hebrew chiefs; that when Jesus was taken captive, Christ ascended on high, and the man Jesus alone was subjected to the pain of an ignominious death.

CESSION. This is where the incumbent of any living is promoted to a bishopric; the church in that case is void by cession.

CHALDEANS. A modern sect of Christians in the East, in obedience to the see of Rome. Dr. Grant, in his Nestorians, quotes with approval the following passage from Smith and Dwight’s Researches in Armenia: which is also confirmed by Mr. Badger, in his Nestorians and their Rituals (vol. i. p. 177–181). “In 1681, the Nestorian metropolitan of Diarbekir, having quarrelled with his patriarch, was first consecrated by the pope Patriarch of the Chaldeans. The sect was as new as the office, and created for it. Converts to Papacy from the Nestorians” [not from the Jacobites, as Mr. Badger corrects Dr. Grant] “were dignified with the name of the Chaldean Church. It means no more than Papal Syrians, as we have in other parts Papal Armenians and Papal Greeks.” (See Nestorians.)

CHALDEE LANGUAGE. This was a dialect of the Hebrew, almost identical with the old Syriac, spoken formerly in Assyria, and the vernacular language of the Jews after the Babylonish captivity. The following parts of the Old Testament are written in Chaldee: Jer. x., xi.; Dan. ii. 4 to the end of chap. vii.; Ezra iv. 8 to vi. 19, and vii. 12–17.—Jebb.

CHALDEE PARAPHRASE, in the Rabbinical style, is called Targum. There are three Chaldee paraphrases in Walton’s Polyglot, viz. 1. Of Onkelos. 2. Of Jonathan, son of Uzziel. 3. Of Jerusalem. The first of these is supposed to have been composed about the time that our blessed Lord was on earth. It comprises the Pentateuch. The second, comprising the Prophets and Historical Books, is supposed to have been composed about the same time as the former. The Jerusalem Targum is considered a compilation not earlier than the eighth century. It comprises the Pentateuch.—Another Targum, falsely ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, was probably written two centuries after Christ, if not later. There are other inferior Targums.—See Horne on the Scriptures.

CHALICE. (Lat. calix.) This word was formerly (as by Shakspeare) used to denote any sort of cup, but is now usually restricted to the cup in which the consecrated wine for the eucharist is administered. The primitive Christians, desirous of honouring the holy purpose for which it was used, had it made of the most costly substances their circumstances would allow—of glass, crystal, onyx, sardonyx, and gold.

By a canon of the Council of Rheims, in Charles the Great’s time, all churches were obliged to have chalices of some purer metal. The ancient chalices were of two kinds: the greater, which were in the nature of our flagons, containing a large quantity of wine, which was all consecrated in them together; and the lesser, which were otherwise called “ministeriales,” because the priest delivered the wine to be drunk out of them; for communion in one kind was not then invented by the Romish Church.—Dr. Nicholls. (See Cup.)

CHAMFER. The flat slope formed by cutting away an angle in timber, or masonry. The chamfer is the first approach to a moulding, though it can hardly itself be called one. The chamfer plane, in speaking of mouldings, is used for the plane at an angle of 45°, or thereabouts, with the face of the wall, in which some of the mouldings often, and sometimes all of them, lie. The resolution of the chamfer into the square is called a stop-chamfer; it is often of considerable elegance.

CHANCEL. The upper part of the church, containing the holy table, and the stalls for the clergy. It is called the Chori in cathedrals, college chapels, and large churches: and in many of the ancient English parish churches is inferior in height and width to the nave. (See Choir.)—Jebb. (Cancellus.) So called a Cancellis, from the lattice-work partition betwixt the choir and the body of the church, so framed as to separate the one from the other, but not to intercept the sight. By the rubric before the Common Prayer, it is ordained that “the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past,” that is to say, distinguished from the body of the church in manner aforesaid; against which distinction Bucer (at the time of the Reformation) inveighed vehemently, as tending only to magnify the priesthood; but though the king and the parliament yielded so far as to allow the daily service to be read in the body of the church, if the ordinary thought fit, yet they would not suffer the chancel to be taken away or altered.

The chancel is the freehold of the rector, and part of his glebe, and therefore he ought to repair it: but if the rectory is impropriate, then the impropriator must do it: and this he is enjoined to do, not only by the common law, but by the canons of the Church; for in the gloss upon the Constitutions of Othobon it is said, that chancels must be repaired by those who are thereunto obliged; which words must refer to the common custom of England, by which rectors are obliged to repair the chancels. As to seats in the chancel, it has been made a question, whether the ordinary may place any person there? The objections against it are,—1. Because it is the freehold of the rector. 2. Because he is to repair it. But these are not sufficient reasons to divest the ordinary of that jurisdiction; for the freehold of the church is in the parson, and yet the bishop hath a power of placing persons there.

Unhappy disputes have arisen concerning the situation of the Lord’s table in the chancels. The first, in the beginning of the Reformation, was, whether those of the altar fashion, which had been used in the Popish times, and on which the masses were celebrated, should be kept up. This point was first started by Bishop Hooper, in a sermon before King Edward VI.; and, after this, altars were ordered to be taken down; and, instead of them, a table to be set up, in some convenient place of the chancel. In the first liturgy it was directed, that the priest officiating should stand before the midst of the altar. In the second, that the priest shall stand on the north side of the table. And thus the first dispute was at an end. But then there followed another controversy, whether the table, placed in the room of the altar, ought to stand altar-wise? i. e. in the same place and situation of the altar. In some churches the tables were placed in the middle of the chancels; in others, at the east part thereof, next to the wall. Bishop Ridley endeavoured to make a compromise in his church of St. Paul’s, suffering the table to stand in the place of the old altar; but, beating down the wainscot partition behind, laid all the choir open to the east, leaving the table then to stand in the middle of the chancel. Under this diversity of usage matters continued during this king’s reign; but when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, and a new review of the liturgy was made, the present clause was added—“and the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past.” Whereby an indulgence is given to those cathedral or collegiate churches, where the table stood altar-wise, and fastened to the east part of the chancel, to retain their ancient practice; but the general rule is otherwise, especially as to parish churches; as in the rubric before the Communion, “the table having, at the communion time, a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel, where morning or evening prayer shall be appointed to be said.” So that, by these authorities, where tables were fixed, they ought to remain as they were; and, at the time of the communion, they might either stand at the east wall of the church, or in other place more convenient. But this latitude being granted, several inconveniences arose. Great irreverence was used towards the holy table, hats and gloves were thrown upon it, and the churchwardens and overseers were frequently writing their accounts thereon, the processioning boys eating their loaves and cakes, and dogs leaping up at the bread, to the great scandal of our reformation, not only among the Papists, but also among the Protestant churches abroad. Archbishop Laud, out of zeal to reform these abuses, endeavoured to have the communion table set altar-wise, at the east end of the chancel, and to be railed in, engaging many of the bishops to press this in their visitation articles: and it is one of the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, “that the holy table in every church be decently made, and set in the place where the altar stood; and there commonly covered, as thereto belongeth, and so stand, saving when the communion of the sacrament is to be distributed; at which time, the same shall be so placed in good sort within the chancel,” &c. Great contentions were for many years kept up in this controversy, till the civil war came on, and all things, civil and sacred, were overwhelmed with confusion. Since the Restoration, no positive determination therein being made, the dispute has happily died, and the tables have generally been settled altar-wise, and railed in; the generality of parishioners esteeming it a decent situation.—Nicholls.

CHANCELLOR. In ancient times, emperors and kings esteemed so highly the piety of bishops, that they gave them jurisdiction in particular causes, as in marriages, adultery, last wills, &c., which were determined by them in their consistory courts. But when many controversies arose in these and other causes, it was not consistent with the character of a bishop to interpose in every litigious matter, neither could he despatch it himself; and therefore it was necessary for the bishop to depute some subordinate officer, experienced both in the civil and canon law, to determine those ecclesiastical causes: and this was the original of diocesan chancellors. For, in the first ages of the Church, the bishops had officers who were called ecclesiecdici, that is, church lawyers, who were bred up in the knowledge of the civil and canon law, and their business was to assist the bishop in his jurisdiction throughout the whole diocese. But probably they were not judges of ecclesiastical courts, as chancellors are at this day, but only advised and assisted the bishops themselves in giving judgment; for we read of no chancellors here in all the Saxon reigns, nor after the Conquest, before the time of Henry II. That king, requiring the attendance of bishops in his state councils, and other public affairs, it was thought necessary to substitute chancellors in their room, to despatch those causes which were proper for the bishop’s jurisdiction.

In a few years a chancellor became such a necessary officer to the bishop, that he was not to be without him; for if he would have none, the archbishop of the province might enjoin him to depute one, and if he refuse, the archbishop might appoint one himself; because it is presumed that a bishop alone cannot decide so many spiritual causes as arise within his diocese. The person thus deputed by the bishop has his authority from the law; and his jurisdiction is not, like that of a commissary, limited to a certain place and certain causes, but extends throughout the whole diocese, and to all ecclesiastical matters; not only for reformation of manners, in punishment of criminals, but in all causes concerning marriages, last wills, administrations, &c.—Burn.

The chancellor in cathedral churches, and anciently in some colleges, was a canon, who had the general care of the literature of the church. He was the secretary of the chapter, the librarian, the superintendent of schools connected with the church, sometimes of the greater schools in the diocese; sometimes, as in Paris, had an academical jurisdiction in the university of the place. He also had the supervision of readers in the choirs, the regulation of preachers in the cathedral, and in many places the more frequent delivery of sermons and of theological lectures than fell to the turn of the other canons. All these offices were not always combined; but one or more of them always belonged to the chancellor. Every cathedral of old foundation in England, and most in Ireland, had originally a chancellor. The title was not so common in France or Italy, where the above-named offices were frequently divided among canons with other official titles. The chancellor of the church (the above-named officer) is not to be confounded with the chancellor of the diocese.—Jebb.

CHANT. This word, derived from the Latin cantus, “a song,” applies, in its most extended sense, to the musical performance of all those parts of the liturgy which, by the rubric, are permitted to be sung. A distinction, however, is to be made between singing and chanting. Chanting does not apply to the performance of those metrical versions of the Psalms, the use of which in parish churches, though legitimate, as sanctioned by authority, is not contemplated by the rubric. Neither does it apply to those musical arrangements of the canticles, hymns, and of the Nicene Creed, used in collegiate churches, and technically called “services,” which though originally derived from chants, have long found a distinct feature in the choral service. The chant properly signifies that plain tune to which the prayers, the litany, the versicles, and responses, and the psalms, and (where services are not in use) the canticles, are set, in choirs and places where they sing. In the chant, when properly and fully performed, both the minister and the choir bear their respective parts. The minister recites the prayers, and all the parts of the service which he is enjoined to say alone, (except the lessons,) in one sustained note, occasionally varied at the close of a cadence: and the choir makes the responses in harmony, sometimes in unison. But in the psalms and canticles both the minister and choir join together in the chant, without distinction, each verse being sung in full harmony.

The chanting of the prayers has always been observed in our principal cathedrals; and till recent times, it was universal in all those places within the reformed Church of England where choral foundations existed; and therefore the disuse of this custom, in any such establishments, is a plain contradiction to the spirit of our liturgy. It is an usage so very ancient, that some learned men have derived it, with every appearance of probability, from the practice of the Jewish Church; whence we have unquestionably derived the chanting of the psalms. It has prevailed in every portion of the Church, eastern or western, reformed or unreformed, since a liturgy has been used. And traces of this custom are to be found in all places of the world.

Of the chants for the psalms, the most ancient which are used in our Church are derived from some coeval, in all likelihood, with Christianity itself. Of this, however, there is no proof: and it is a mere baseless conjecture to refer them, as some do, to the strains of the temple worship. According to present custom, the chant consists of two kinds, single and double. The single chant, which is the most ancient kind, is an air consisting of two parts; the first part terminating with the point or colon (:), which uniformly divides each verse of the psalms or canticles in the Prayer Book, the second part terminating with the verse itself. The double chant is an air consisting of four strains, and consequently extending to two verses. This kind of chant does not appear to be older than the time of Charles II.; and is peculiar to the Church of England.

In chanting, special heed should be taken to two things: first, to observe strictly the “pointing” of the psalms and hymns, “as they are to be sung or said in churches.” We have no more right to alter the rubric in this respect than in any other. Secondly, to chant reverentially, which implies distinctness of utterance, clearness of tone, and moderate slowness as to time. A rapid and confused mode of singing the awful hymns of the Church, is not only utterly destructive of musical effect, but, what is of much greater consequence, is hostile to the promotion of the honour of God, and of the edification of man.—Jebb.

Persons who have heard extempore praying from the mouths of illiterate characters, must have been struck by the rude modulated chant in which it is delivered. Objectors to the cathedral mode of service sometimes aver “intoning” to be unnatural. This is a misconception. “Intoning,” musical or unmusical, is the natural key in which vent is given to a large and important class of devotional feelings: cathedral intoning is this voice correctly timed and tuned to harmony. Non-intoning, on the other hand, or reading, is artificial. No one hears an uneducated person attempt to read in the same tone as he speaks. Reading is an artificial drill, the correction of natural, undisciplined locution.—Morgan.

CHANTER. (See Precentor.) In foreign churches it is synonymous with our lay clerks. The chanters in Dublin college are certain officers selected from the foundation students, whose duty is to officiate as chapel clerks. They are so called from formerly constituting the choir of the chapel.

CHANTRY. A chapel, or other separated place in a church, for the celebration of masses for the soul of some person departed this life. Their ordinary places are mentioned under the head Church. The chantry sometimes included the tomb of the person by whom it was founded, as in the splendid examples in Winchester cathedral. It was sometimes an entire aisle, as the golden choir at St. Mary’s, Stamford; and sometimes a separate chapel, as the Beauchamp chapel, St. Mary’s, Warwick, and Henry VII.’s chapel at Westminster.

In the reign of Henry VIII., when the belief of purgatory began to decline, it was thought an unnecessary thing to continue the pensions and endowments of chantry priests; therefore, in the 37 of Henry VIII. cap. 4, those chantries were given to the king, who had power at any time to issue commissions to seize their endowments, and take them into his possession: but this being in the last year of his reign, there were several of those endowments which were not seized by virtue of any such commissions; therefore, in the first year of Edward VI. cap. 14, those chantries which were in being five years before the session of that parliament, and not in the actual possession of Henry VIII., were adjudged to be, and were, vested in that king. Cranmer endeavoured to obtain that the disposal of the chantries, &c., should be deferred until the king should be of age—hoping that if they were saved from the hands of the laity until that time, Edward might be persuaded to apply the revenues to the relief of the poor parochial clergy; but the archbishop’s exertions were unsuccessful.

CHAPEL. In former times, when the kings of France were engaged in wars, they always carried St. Martin’s cope (cappa) into the field, which was kept as a precious relic, in a tent where mass was said, and thence the place was called capella, the chapel. The word was gradually applied to any consecrated place of prayer, not being the parish church.

With us in England there are several sorts of chapels:

1. Royal chapels. (See Chapel Royal.) 2. Domestic chapels, built by noblemen for private worship in their families. 3. College chapels, attached to the different colleges of the universities. 4. Chapels of ease, built for the ease of parishioners, who live at too great a distance from the parish church, by the clergy of which the services of the chapel are performed. 5. Parochial chapels, which differ from chapels of ease on account of their having a permanent minister, or incumbent, though they are in some degree dependent upon the mother church. A parochial chapelry, with all parochial rites independent of the mother church, as to sacraments, marriages, burials, repairs, &c., is called a reputed parish. 6. Free chapels; such as were founded by kings of England, and made exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. 7. Chapels which adjoin to any part of the church; such were formerly built by persons of consideration as burial-places. To which may be added chapels of corporation societies, and eleemosynary foundation; as the mayor’s chapel at Bristol, &c., the chapels of the inns of court, chapels of hospitals and almshouses.—Burn.

The word chapel in foreign countries frequently means the choir or chancel. This may possibly be the meaning intended in the rubric preceding Morning Prayer, directing the Morning and Evening Prayers to be used in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, or chancel. It may allude to the college chapels, or such collegiate chapels as St. George’s at Windsor, or to the usage of some cathedrals of having early morning prayer (as at Gloucester, &c.) in the Lady chapel, or late evening prayer (as at Durham) in the Galilee chapel. Henry VII.’s chapel at Westminster was, at least in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, used for this purpose.—Jebb.

CHAPEL ROYAL. The chapel royal is under the government of the dean of the chapel, and not within the jurisdiction of any bishop. But the archbishop is the first chaplain and parochus of the sovereign. The deanery was an office of ancient standing in the court, but discontinued in 1572, till King James’s accession, then it was revived in the person of Dr. Montague.—Heylin’s Life of Laud. Next to the dean is the subdean, who has the special care of the chapel service; a clerk of the court, with his deputies, a prelate or clergyman, whose office it is to attend the sovereign at Divine service, and to wait on her in her private oratory.—There are forty-eight chaplains in ordinary, who wait four in each month, and preach on Sundays and holidays; to read Divine service when required on week days, and to say grace in the absence of the clerk of the closet. The other officers are, a confessor of the household, now called chaplain of the household, who has the pastoral care of the royal household; ten priests in ordinary (whose duties are like those of chaplains, or vicars in cathedrals); sixteen gentlemen of the chapel, who with ten choristers now form the choir; and other officers. The officiating members of the chapel royal were formerly much more numerous than now; thus there were thirty-two gentlemen of the chapel in King Edward VI.’s reign, and twenty-three in King James I.’s. The priests in ordinary, properly speaking, form part of the choir. In strictness this establishment is ambulatory, and ought to accompany the sovereign, of which practice we have many proofs in ancient records.

The chapel royal in Dublin consists of a dean and twenty-four chaplains, (who preach in turn,) and a choir of laymen. Before the legal establishment of Presbyterianism in Scotland, the royal chapel of Holyrood had a full establishment of chaplains, &c., and the liturgy was then celebrated chorally, at least in the reign of King Charles I.

CHAPLAIN. A person authorized to officiate in the chapels of the queen, or in the private oratories of noblemen. The name is derived from capella; the priests who superintend the capella being called Capellani. According to a statute of Henry VIII., the persons vested with a power of retaining chaplains, together with the number each is allowed to qualify, are as follow: “an archbishop, eight; a duke or bishop, six; marquis or earl, five; viscount, four; baron, knight of the garter, or lord chancellor, three; a duchess, marchioness, countess, baroness, the treasurer or comptroller of the king’s household, clerk of the closet, the king’s secretary, dean of the chapel, almoner, and master of the rolls, each of them, two; chief justice of the King’s Bench, and warden of the Cinque Ports, each, one.” In England there are forty-eight chaplains to the queen, called chaplains in ordinary. Clergymen who officiate in the army and navy, in the gaols, public hospitals, and workhouses, are called chaplains. Chaplain is also a comprehensive name, applied, more rarely in England than abroad, to the members of cathedrals and collegiate churches and chapels, who are responsible for the daily service. In a few instances it is applied to the superior members. Thus at Lichfield, there were five capellani principales, major canons, whose office it was to serve at the great altar, rule the choir, &c., (Dugd. Mon. ed. 1830, vi. 1257,) and at Winchester college the ten fellows are called, in the original charter, “capellani perpetui;” in contradistinction to the capellani conductitii, or remotivi;—and the principal duty of these chaplain-fellows was to officiate in the chapel. But in general, a chaplain signified a minister of the Church of inferior rank, a substitute for and coadjutor of the canons in chanting, and in the performance of the Divine offices. (See Dictionnaire de droit canonique, par Durand de Maillane, Lyons, 1787.) They were so called from serving in the capella or choir, at the various offices, and in the various side chapels, in contradistinction to the capitular canons, whose peculiar privilege it was to serve at the great altar. Under the name of chaplain, were included minor canons, vicars choral, and similar officers, who had a variety of designations abroad, unknown to us, such as porticuristi, demi-canons, semi-prebends, &c., &c.

The name of chaplain, in its choral sense, is retained with us only at Christ Church Oxford, Manchester, and the colleges at the universities. At the latter, they are frequently styled in the old charters, capellani conductitii or remotivi; by which is to be understood, that they were originally, at least, intended to be mere stipendiaries, adjuncts to the foundation; as contrasted with those who have a permanent, corporate interest, or an endowment in fee; like the præbendati in the foreign cathedrals, or the incorporated vicars choral in our own cathedrals. (See College, Prebendary, and Vicars Choral.) The chaplains at Cambridge are commonly called conducti, though originally they were designated, as at Oxford, capellani conductitii; a designation which it were to be wished were changed for the more proper name of chaplain. Before the Reformation the capellani to be found in many of the old cathedrals, were exclusive of the vicars choral, and were chanting priests. These sometimes formed corporations or colleges. Abroad, the chaplains in many places discharged both the duties of chanting priests and vicars choral, or minor canons; each having his separate chapel for daily mass; but all being obliged to unite in discharging the Divine offices, at least at matins and vespers in the great choirs.—Jebb.

CHAPTER. (See Bible.) The word is derived from the Latin caput, head; and signifies one of the principal divisions of a book, and, in reference to the Bible, one of the larger sections into which its books are divided. This division, as well as that consisting of verses, was introduced to facilitate reference, and not to indicate any natural or accurate division of the subjects treated in the books. For its origin, see Bible.

CHAPTER. (See Dean and Chapter.) A chapter of a cathedral church consists of persons ecclesiastical, canons and prebendaries, whereof the dean is chief, all subordinate to the bishop, to whom they are as assistants in matters relating to the Church, for the better ordering and disposing the things thereof, and for confirmation of such leases of the temporalities and offices relating to the bishopric, as the bishop from time to time shall happen to make.—God. 58.

And they are termed by the canonists, capitulum, being a kind of head, instituted not only to assist the bishop in manner aforesaid, but also anciently to rule and govern the diocese in the time of vacation.—God. 56.

Of these chapters, some are ancient, some new: the new are those which are founded or translated by King Henry VIII. in the places of abbots and convents, or priors and convents, which were chapters whilst they stood, and these are new chapters to old bishoprics; or they are those which are annexed unto the new bishoprics founded by King Henry VIII., and are, therefore, new chapters to new bishoprics.—1 Inst. 95.

The chapter in the collegiate church is more properly called a college; as at Westminster and Windsor, where there is no episcopal see.—Wood, b. i. c. 3. But however this may originally have been, the rule has long been disregarded throughout Europe.

There may be a chapter without any dean; as the chapter of the collegiate church of Southwell: and grants by or to them are as effectual as other grants by dean and chapter.—Wats. c. 38.

In the cathedral churches of St. David’s and Llandaff there never hath been any dean, but the bishop in either is head of the chapter; and at the former the chantor, at the latter the archdeacon presides, in the absence of the bishop, or vacancy of the see.—Johns. 60. [St. David’s and Llandaff are now placed on the same footing with other cathedrals in this respect.]

One bishop may possibly have two chapters, and that by union or consolidation: and it seemeth that if a bishop hath two chapters, both must confirm his leases.—God. 58. In cathedrals of the old foundation chapters are of two kinds, the greater and the lesser. The greater chapter consists of all the major canons and prebendaries, whether residentiary or not; and their privileges are now considered to be limited to the election of a bishop, of proctors in convocation, and possibly a few other rare occasions; the lesser chapter consists of the dean and residentiaries, who have the management of the chapter property, and the ordinary government of the cathedral. This however has been the growth of later ages: as it is certain that all prebendal members had a voice in matters which concerned the interests of the cathedral church. In Ireland the distinction now mentioned is unknown, except at Kildare.

In the statutes of the old cathedrals, by chapter is also understood, a sort of court held by one or more of the canons, sometimes even by the non-capitular officers, for the administering the ordinary discipline of the church, fining absentees, &c.

The word chapter is occasionally applied abroad to boards of universities or other corporations.

The assemblies of the knights of the orders of chivalry, (as of the Garter, Bath, &c.,) are also called chapters.

CHAPTER HOUSE. The part of a cathedral in which the dean and chapter meet for business. Until the thirteenth century, the chapter house was always rectangular. Early in that century it became multagonal, generally supported by a central shaft, and so continued to the latest date at which any such building has been erected. The greatest cost was expended on the decoration of the chapter house, and there is little even in the choir of our cathedrals, of greater beauty than such chapter houses as Lincoln, Salisbury, Southwell, York, and Howden. That of old St. Paul’s in London, to judge by the plates in Dugdale’s History of St. Paul’s, must have been very beautiful. It stood in an unique position, in the centre of a cloister. For the plan of the chapter house, in the arrangement of the conventual buildings, see Monastery. Some have imagined that the idea of the circular or polygonal chapter houses was derived from the circular baptisteries abroad.

CHARGE. This is the address delivered by a bishop, or other prelate called ordinary, at a visitation of the clergy under his jurisdiction. A charge may be considered, in most instances, rather in the light of an admonitory exhortation, than of a judgment or sentence; although the ordinary has full power in the charge to issue authoritative commands, and to cause them to be obeyed, by means of the other legal forms, for the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction. It appears also that the clergy are legally bound by their oath of canonical obedience, and by their ordination vows, reverently to obey their ordinary. It is customary for archdeacons, and other ecclesiastics having peculiar jurisdiction, to deliver charges. Archdeacons have a charge of the parochial churches within the diocese to which they belong, and have power to hold visitations when the bishop is not there.—Burn. (See Visitation.)

CHARTREUX. (See Carthusians.)

CHASIBLE. (Chasuble, Casula.) The outermost dress formerly worn by the priest in the service of the altar, but not now used in the English Church, though prescribed under the title of Vestment, in the rubric of King Edward VI.’s First Book, to be worn by the priest or bishop when celebrating the communion, indifferently with the cope. In the time of the primitive Church, the Roman toga was becoming disused, and the pænula was taking its place. The pænula formed a perfect circle, with an aperture to admit the head in the centre, while it fell down so as completely to envelope the person of the wearer. A short pænula was more common, and a longer for the higher orders; it was this last which was used by the clergy in their services. The Romish Church has altered it much by cutting it away laterally, so as to expose the arms, and leave only a straight piece before and behind. The Greek Church retains it in its primitive shape, under the title of φαινόλιον, or φινώλιον: the old brasses in England also show the same form, some even since the Reformation. And many tombs of bishops in the 13th century, and later, show it in a graceful and flowing form.

CHERUB, or (the plural) CHERUBIM, a particular order of angels. When God drove Adam and Eve out of Paradise, “he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” (Gen. iii. 24.) When Moses was commanded by God to make the ark of the covenant with the propitiatory, or mercy-seat, he was (Exod. xxv. 19, 20) to make one cherub on the one end, and another cherub on the other end; the cherubims were to stretch forth their wings on high, and to cover the mercy-seat with them; and their faces were to look one to the other. Moses has left us in the dark as to the form of these cherubims. The Jews suppose them to have been in the shape of young naked men, covered for the sake of decency with some of their wings; and the generality of interpreters, both ancient and modern, suppose them to have had human shapes. But it is certain that the prophet Ezekiel (i. 10, and x. 14) represents them quite otherwise, and speaks of the face of a cherub as synonymous with that of an ox or calf; and in the Revelation (iv. 6) they are called ζῶα, beasts. Josephus (Antiq. lib. iii.) says that they were a kind of winged creatures, answering to the description of those which Moses saw about the throne of God, but the like to which no man had ever seen before. Grotius, Bochart, and other learned moderns, deriving the word from charab, which in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, signifies to plough, make no difficulty to suppose that the cherubim here spoken of resembled an ox, either in whole or in part. The learned Spencer supposes them to have had the face of a man, the wings of an eagle, the back and mane of a lion, and the feet of a calf. This he collects from the prophetical vision of Ezekiel (i.), in which the cherubims are said to have four forms, those of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. There is something in this mixed form, according to that author, which is very suitable to the regular character which God bore among the Jews, and the peculiar circumstances of the time. The Israelites were then in the wilderness, and encamped in four cohorts; and the Hebrews have a tradition, that the standard of the tribe of Judah and the associated tribes carried a lion, the tribe of Ephraim an ox, the tribe of Reuben a man, and the tribe of Dan an eagle. God therefore would sit upon cherubims bearing the forms of these animals, to signify that he was the Leader and King of the four cohorts of the Israelites. The same writer, in another place, makes the cherubims of the mercy-seat to be of Egyptian extraction; for Porphyry, speaking of the priests of Egypt, says, “Among these, one god is formed like a man as high as the neck, and they give him the face of some bird, or of a lion, or of some other animal; and again, another has the head of a man, and the other parts of other animals.” Add to this, that the Apis of the Egyptians was worshipped under the figure of an ox. Nor can any other reason, he thinks, be assigned why God should order the cherubims to be fashioned in the shape of different animals, particularly the ox, but that he did it out of indulgence to the Israelites, who, being accustomed to such kinds of representations, not only easily bore with them, but ardently desired them. The cherubims of the mercy-seat, Bochart supposes to have had a mystical and symbolical relation to God, the angels, the tabernacle, and the people. As to God, they represented his great power according to that of the Psalmist, (xcix. 1,) “The Lord reigneth, let the people tremble; he sitteth between the cherubims, let the earth be moved.” They represented likewise the nature and ministry of angels. By the lion’s form is signified their strength, generosity, and majesty; by that of the ox, their constancy and assiduity in executing the commands of God; by the human shape, their humanity and kindness; and by that of the eagle, their agility and speed. As to the tabernacle, the cherubims denoted that the holy place was the habitation of the King of heaven, whose immediate attendants the angels are supposed to be. Lastly, with respect to the people, the cherubims might teach them that God, who sat between them, was alone to be the object of their worship. Upon this subject see the curious and interesting, though somewhat painful dissertation of Mr. Parkhurst in his Hebrew and Greek Lexicons.

By many it has been considered that the four symbols, applied from very ancient times to the four evangelists, are derived from the cherubic figures. The cherubims are also described in Rev. iv. 7.

It is surely derogatory to right ideas of religion, to suppose that these mysterious symbols were derived from the images of heathen idolatry, in order to indulge the prejudices of the Israelites. This would be to encourage idolatry, against which the Divine vengeance was so markedly directed. It is much more consistent and probable to believe that the corresponding symbols of Egyptians and Assyrians (the latter so wonderfully illustrated by the late discoveries at Nineveh) were derived from patriarchal traditions; distortions of that pure worship of God which was derived to the whole world from Noah. This solution will account for many of those extraordinary resemblances between heathen and Jewish customs, which have been stumbling-blocks to neologists, especially in our day.

CHERUBICAL HYMN. A title sometimes given to the Tersanctus or Trisagion. (See Tersanctus.)

CHILIASTS, or MILLENARIANS. (See Millennium.) A school of Christians who believe that, after the general or last judgment, the saints shall live a thousand years upon earth, and enjoy all manner of innocent satisfaction. It is thought Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who lived in the second century, and was disciple to St. John the evangelist, or, as some others think, to John the Elder, was the first who maintained this opinion. The authority of this bishop, supported by some passages in the Revelation, brought a great many of the primitive fathers to embrace his persuasion, as Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian; and afterwards Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, living in the third century, was so far engaged in this belief, and maintained it with so much elocution, that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, thought himself obliged to write against him: upon which Coracion, one of the principal abettors of this doctrine, renounced it publicly, which practice was followed by the generality of the West. The Millenarians were in like manner condemned by Pope Damasus, in a synod held at Rome against the Apollinarians. Some of the modern Millenarians have refined the notion of Cerinthus, and made the satisfactions rational and angelical, untainted with anything of sensuality or Epicurism. As for the time of this thousand years, those that hold this opinion are not perfectly agreed. Mr. Mede makes it to commence and determine before the general conflagration; but Dr. Thomas Burnet supposes that this world will be first destroyed, and that a new paradisaical earth will be formed out of the ashes of the old one, where the saints will converse together for a thousand years, and then be translated to a higher station.

CHIMERE. The upper robe worn by a bishop, to which the lawn sleeves are generally attached. Before and after the Reformation, till Queen Elizabeth’s time, the bishops wore a scarlet chimere or garment over the rochet, as they still do when assembled in convocation; and when the sovereign attends parliament. But Bishop Hooper, having superstitiously scrupled at this as too light a robe for episcopal gravity, it was in her reign changed into a chimere of black satin.

The chimere seems to resemble the garment used by bishops during the middle ages, and called mantelletum; which was a sort of cope, with apertures for the arms to pass through.—See Du Cange’s Glossary. The name of chimere is probably derived from the Italian zimarra, which is described as “vesta talare de’ sacerdoti et de’ chierici.”—Palmer.

The scarlet chimere strongly resembles the scarlet habit worn in congregation, and at St. Mary’s, by doctors at Oxford. Some have supposed that our episcopal dress is in fact merely a doctorial habit. Perhaps, however, the origin of both the chimere, the Oxford habit, and the Cambridge doctorial cope, and the episcopal mantelletum, may all be derived from the dalmatic or tunicle, (see Dalmatic,) which was formerly a characteristic part of the dress of bishops and deacons; from which the chimere differs in being open in front. The sewing of the lawn sleeves (now of preposterous fulness) to the chimere, is a modern innovation. They ought properly to be fastened to the rochet.—Jebb.

CHOIR, or QUIRE. This word has two meanings. The first is identical with chancel, (see Chancel,) signifying the place which the ministers of Divine worship occupy, or ought to occupy. The word, according to Isidore, is derived from chorus circumstantium, because the clergy stood round the altar. Custom has usually restricted the name of chancel to parish churches, that of choir to cathedrals, and such churches or chapels as are collegiate. In the choirs of cathedrals, (see Cathedral,) which are very large, the congregation also assemble; but the clergy and other members of the foundation occupy the seats on each side, (which are called stalls,) according to the immemorial custom of all Christian countries.

The second, but more proper sense of the word, is, a body of men set apart for the performance of all the services of the Church, in the most solemn form. Properly speaking, the whole corporate body of a cathedral, including capitular and lay members, forms the choir; and in this extended sense ancient writers frequently used the word. Thus the “glorious company of the apostles” is called in Latin “apostolorum chorus.” The choir is used in some very ancient documents for the cathedral chapter. But, in its more restricted sense, we are to understand that body of men and boys who form a part of the foundation of these places, and whose special duty it is to perform the service to music. The choir properly consists of clergymen, both capitular (including the precentor) and non-capitular, laymen, and chorister boys; and should have at least six men and six boys at every week-day service, these being essential to the due performance of the chants, services, and anthems. Every choir is divided into two parts, stationed on each side of the chancel, in order to sing alternately the verses of the psalms and hymns, one side answering the other. The alternate chanting by one or a few voices and a chorus, in the psalms, now very general abroad, is a corruption, and inconsistent with the true idea of antiphonal singing. This alternate, or antiphonal, recitation is very ancient, as old as the time of Miriam, who thus alternated her song with the choir of Israel. (Exod. xv. 20.) And we know from Isaiah that the angels in heaven thus sing. (Isaiah vi. 3.) So that while we chant, we obey the practice of the Church in earth and heaven.

In the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI., the rubric, at the beginning of the morning prayer, ordered the priests, “being in the quire, to begin the Lord’s Prayer;” so that it was the custom of the minister to perform Divine service at the upper end of the chancel near the altar. Against this, Bucer, by the direction of Calvin, made a great outcry, pretending “it was an antichristian practice for the priest to say prayers only in the choir, a place peculiar to the clergy, and not in the body of the church among the people, who had as much right to Divine worship as the clergy.” This occasioned an alteration of the rubric, when the Common Prayer Book was revised in the fifth year of King Edward, and it was ordered, that prayers should be said in such part of the church “where the people might best hear.” However, at the accession of Queen Elizabeth to the throne, the ancient practice was restored, with a dispensing power left in the ordinary, of determining it otherwise if he saw just cause. Convenience at last prevailed, so that the prayers are very commonly read in the body of the church, and in those parish churches where the service is read in the chancel, the minister’s place is at the lower end of it.—Jebb.

CHOREPISCOPUS. (Country bishops, Χωρεπίσκοποι, Episcopi rurales, from χώρα or χωρίον country.)

Some considerable difference of opinion has existed relative to the true ministerial order of the chorepiscopi, some contending that they were mere presbyters, others that they were a mixed body of presbyters and bishops, and a third class that they were all invested with the authority of the episcopal office. That the latter opinion, however, is the correct one, is maintained by Bishop Barlow, Dr. Hammond, Beveridge, Cave, and other eminent divines of the English Church, together with Bingham, in his “Antiquities of the Christian Church.” Their origin seems to have arisen from a desire on the part of the city or diocesan bishops to supply the churches of the neighbouring country with more episcopal services than they could conveniently render. Some of the best qualified presbyters were therefore consecrated bishops, and thus empowered to act in the stead of the principal bishop, though in strict subordination to his authority. Hence, we find them ordaining presbyters and deacons under the licence of the city bishop; and confirmation was one of their ordinary duties. Letters dimissory were also given to the country clergy by the chorepiscopi, and they had the privilege of sitting and voting in synods and councils. The difference between the chorepiscopus and what was, at a later period, denominated a suffragan, is scarcely appreciable, both being under the jurisdiction of a superior, and limited to the exercise of their powers within certain boundaries, enjoying only a delegated power.

The chorepiscopi were at first confined to the Eastern Church. In the Western Church, and especially in France, they began to be known about the fifth century. They have never been numerous in Spain and Italy. In Germany they must have been frequent in the seventh and eighth centuries. In the East, the order was abolished by the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 361. But so little respect was entertained for this decree, that the order continued until the tenth century. They were first prohibited in the Western Church in the ninth century; but, according to some writers, they continued in France until the twelfth century, when the arrogance, insubordination, and injurious conduct of this class of ecclesiastics became a subject of general complaint in that country; and they are said to have existed in Ireland until the thirteenth century. The functions of the chorepiscopi are now in great part performed by archdeacons, rural deans, and vicars-general. (See Suffragans.)

CHOREUTÆ. A sect of heretics, who, among other errors, persisted in keeping the Sunday as a fast.

CHORISTER. A singer in a choir. It properly means a singing boy; and so it is used in all old documents and statistics.

CHRISM. (Χρίσμα, oil.) Oil consecrated in the Romish and Greek Churches by the bishop, and used in baptism, confirmation, orders, and extreme unction. This chrism is consecrated with great ceremony upon Holy Thursday. There are two sorts of it; the one is a composition of oil and balsam, made use of in baptism, confirmation, and orders; the other is only plain oil consecrated by the bishop, and used for catechumens and extreme unction. Chrism has been discontinued in the Church of England since the Reformation.

CHRISOME, in the office of baptism, was a white vesture, which in former times the priest used to put upon the child, saying, “Take this white vesture for a token of innocence.”

By a constitution of Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 736, the chrisomes, after having served the purposes of baptism, were to be made use of only for the making or mending of surplices, &c., or for the wrapping of chalices.

The first Common Prayer Book of King Edward orders that the woman shall offer the chrisome, when she comes to be churched; but, if the child happens to die before her churching, she was excused from offering it; and it was customary to use it as a shroud, and to wrap the child in it when it was buried. Hence, by an abuse of words, the term is now used not to denote children who die between the time of their baptism and the churching of the mother, but to denote children who die before they are baptized, and so are incapable of Christian burial.

CHRIST. From the Greek word (Χριστος) corresponding with the Hebrew word Messiah, and signifying the Anointed One. It is given pre-eminently to our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. As the holy unction was given to kings, priests, and prophets, by describing the promised Saviour of the world under the name of Christ, Anointed, or Messiah, it was sufficient evidence that the qualities of king, prophet, and high priest would eminently centre in him; and that he would exercise them not only over the Jews, but over all mankind, and particularly over those whom he should elect into his Church. Our blessed Saviour was not, indeed, anointed to these offices by oil; but he was anointed by the power and grace of the Holy Ghost, who visibly descended upon him at his baptism. Thus, (Acts x. 38,) “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.”—See Matt. iii. 16, 17. John iii. 34. (See Jesus and Messiah.)

CHRISTEN, To. To baptize; because, at baptism, the person receiving that sacrament is made, as the catechism teaches, a member of Christ.

CHRISTENDOM. All those regions in which the kingdom or Church of Christ is planted.

CHRISTIAN. The title given to those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus. It was at Antioch, where St. Paul and St. Barnabas jointly preached the Christian religion, that the disciples were first called Christians, (Acts xi. 26,) in the year of our Lord 43. They were generally called by one another brethren, faithful, saints, and believers. The name of Nazarenes was, by way of reproach, given them by the Jews. (Acts xxiv. 5.) Another name of reproach was that of Galilæans, which was the emperor Julian’s style whenever he spoke of the Christians. Epiphanius says, that they were called Jesseans, either from Jesse, the father of David, or, which is more probable, from the name of Jesus, whose disciples they were. The word is used but three times in Holy Scripture: Acts xi. 26; xxvi. 28; 1 St. Pet. iv. 16.

CHRISTIAN NAME. (See Name.) The name given to us when we are made Christians, i. e. at our baptism.

The Scripture history, both of the Old and New Testament, contains many instances of the names of persons being changed, or of their receiving an additional name, when they were admitted into covenant with God, or into a new relation with our blessed Lord; and it was at circumcision, which answered, in many respects, to baptism in the Christian Church, that the Jews gave a name to their children. This custom was adopted into the Christian Church, and we find very ancient instances of it recorded. For example, Thascius Cyprian, at his baptism, changed his first name to Cæcilius, out of respect for the presbyter who was his spiritual father. The custom is still retained, a name being given by the godfather and godmother of each child at baptism, by which name he is addressed by the minister when he receives that holy sacrament. (See Baptismal Service.)

Our Christian names serve to remind us of the duties and privileges on which we entered at baptism. Our surname is a memorial of original sin, or of the nature which we bring into the world.

CHRISTIANS OF ST. THOMAS. (See Thomas, St., Christians of.)

CHRISTMAS DAY. The 25th December; the day on which the universal Church celebrates the nativity or birthday of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The observance of this day in the Western Church is most ancient, although we may not give much belief to the statement of the forged decretal epistles, that Telesiphorus, who lived in the reign of Antoninus Pius, ordered Divine service to be celebrated, and an angelical hymn to be sung, the night before the nativity. While the persecution raged under Diocletian, who kept his court at Nicomedia, that tyrant, among other acts of cruelty, finding multitudes of Christians assembled together to celebrate the nativity of Christ, commanded the church doors to be shut, and fire put to the building, which soon reduced them and the place to ashes. In the East it was for some time confounded with the Epiphany; and St. Chrysostom mentions that it was only about his time that it became a distinct festival at Antioch.

The Athanasian Creed is ordered to be said or sung on this day. This is one of the days for which the Church of England appoints special psalms, and a special preface in the Communion Service; and if it fall on a Friday, that Friday is not to be a fast day.—Cave. Bingham.

It is one of the scarlet days at Oxford and Cambridge: and in cathedrals and choirs the responses and litany (if to be used) ought to be solemnly sung to the organ. In the First Book of King Edward, there were separate Collects, Epistles, and Gospels appointed for the first and second communion on this and on Easter day.

The chronological correctness of keeping the birthday of our Lord on the 25th of December, has been demonstrated in a most careful analysis, by the late lamented Dr. Jarvis, in his Chronological Introduction to the History of the Church.—Jebb.

CHRISTOLYTES. (Χριστολύται, separators of Christ.) A sect in the sixth century, which held, that when Christ descended into hell, he left his soul and body there, and only rose with his Divinity to heaven.

CHRISTOPHORI and THEOPHORI, (Χριστοφόροι και Θεοφόροι, Christ-bearers and God-bearers,) names given to Christians in the earliest times, on account of the communion between Christ, who is God, and the Church. Ignatius commences his Epistles thus, Ἰγνάτιος ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος: and it is related in the acts of his martyrdom, that hearing him called Theophorus, Trajan asked the meaning of the name; to which Ignatius replied, it meant one that carries Christ in his heart. “Dost thou then,” said Trajan, “carry him that was crucified in thy heart?” “Yes,” said the holy martyr, “for it is written, I will dwell in them, and walk in them.”

CHRONICLES. Two canonical books of the Old Testament. They contain the history of about 3500 years, from the creation until after the return of the Jews from Babylon. They are fuller and more comprehensive than the Books of Kings. The Greek interpreters hence call them Παραλειπομένα, supplements, additions. The Jews make but one book of the Chronicles, under the title Dibree hajamin, i. e. journal or annals. Ezra is generally supposed to be the author of these books. The Chronicles, or Paraleipomena, are an abridgment, in fact, of the whole Scripture history. St. Jerome so calls it, “Omnis traditio Scripturarum in hoc continetur.” The First Book contains a genealogical account of the descent of Israel from Adam, and of the reign of David. The Second Book contains the history of Judah to the very year of the Jews’ return from the Babylonish captivity—the decree of Cyrus granting them liberty being in the last chapter of this Second Book.

CHURCH. (See Catholic.) The word church is derived from the Greek κυριακὸς (belonging to the Lord)—the Teutonic nations having, at their first conversion, generally adopted the Greek ecclesiastical terms. The truth of this etymology is confirmed by the fact, that in the Sclavonic languages the names for the Church resemble the Teutonic, evidently because derived from a common Greek original. The Church, meaning by the word the Catholic or Universal Church, is that society which was instituted by our blessed Lord, and completed by his apostles, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to be the depository of Divine truth and the channel of Divine grace. Every society, or organized community, may be distinguished from a mere multitude or accidental concourse of people, by having a founder, a form of admission, a constant badge of membership, peculiar duties, peculiar privileges, and regularly appointed officers. Thus the Catholic Church has the Lord Christ for its founder; its prescribed form of admission is the holy sacrament of baptism; its constant badge of membership is the holy sacrament of the eucharist; its peculiar duties are repentance, faith, obedience; its peculiar privileges, union with God, through Christ its Head, and hereby forgiveness of sins, present grace, and future glory; its officers are bishops and priests, assisted by deacons, in regular succession from the apostles, the first constituted officers of this body corporate. It has the Bible for its code of laws, and tradition for precedents, to aid its officers in the interpretation of that code on disputed points. It is through the ordinances and sacraments of the Church, administered by its divinely appointed officers, that we are brought into union and communion with the invisible Saviour; it is through the visible body that we are to receive communications from the invisible Spirit; and, says the apostle, in the fourth chapter to the Ephesians, “There is,” not merely one Spirit, “there is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.” Again, (1 Cor. x. 17,) “We being many are one bread and one body.” And in the first chapter to the Colossians, the same apostle tells us that this body is the Church. And thus we must, if we are scriptural Christians, believe that there is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Of this one Church there are many branches existing in various parts of the world, (not to mention the great division of militant and triumphant,) just as there is one ocean, of which portions receive a particular designation from the shores which they lave. But of this one society there cannot be two branches in one and the same place opposed to each other, either in discipline or in doctrine. Although there be two opposing societies or more in one place, both or all claiming to be Christ’s Church in that place, yet we are quite sure that only one of them can be the real Church. So here, in this realm of England, speaking nationally, there is but one Church, over which the archbishops of Canterbury and York, with their suffragans, preside: and in each diocese there is only that one Church, over which the diocesan presides, a branch of the national Church, as the national is a branch of the universal Church: and again, in each parish there is but one Church, forming a branch of the diocesan Church, over which the parochial minister presides.

“Religion being, therefore, a matter partly of contemplation, partly of action, we must define the Church, which is a religious society, by such differences as do properly explain the essence of such things; that is to say, by the object or matter whereabout the contemplation and actions of the Church are properly conversant; for so all knowledge and all virtues are defined. Whereupon, because the only object which separateth ours from other religions is Jesus Christ, in whom none but the Church doth believe, and whom none but the Church doth worship, we find that accordingly the apostles do everywhere distinguish hereby the Church from infidels and from Jews, accounting them which call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to be his Church.”—Hooker’s Eccl. Pol. Hooker’s assertion as to the Church in this country must be so far modified, that now, by change of political circumstances, the Churches of England and Ireland are politically united, and form but one Church, over which two primates, that of Canterbury and Armagh, of co-ordinate jurisdiction, preside, with other archbishops and suffragans, &c.—Jebb.

CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA. It is not possible, in such a publication as this, to give an account of the various branches of the one Catholic Church, which are to be found in the various parts of the world; but it would be improper not to notice the Church in the United States of America, since it is indebted for its existence, under the blessing of the Great Head of the Church Universal, to the missionary labours of the Church of England; or rather we should say, of members of that Church acting under the sanction of their bishops, and formed into the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Before the American Revolution it can scarcely be said that the Church existed in our American colonies. There were congregations formed chiefly through the Society just mentioned, and the clergy who ministered in these congregations were under the superintendence of the bishop of London. We may say that the first step taken for the organization of the Church was after the termination of the revolutionary war, at a meeting of a few of the clergy of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, at New Brunswick, N. Y., in May, 1784. Though this meeting was called on other business, yet the project of a general union of the churches throughout the States became a topic of sufficient interest to lead to the calling of another meeting, to be held in October following, in the city of New York. At this latter meeting, “although the members composing it were not vested with powers adequate to the present exigencies of the Church, they happily, and with great unanimity, laid down a few general principles to be recommended in the respective States, as the ground on which a future ecclesiastical government should be established.” It was also recommended that the several States should send clerical and lay deputies to a future meeting in Philadelphia, on September the twenty-seventh, of the following year. In the interim, the churches of Connecticut, having made choice of the Rev. Dr. Seabury for a bishop, he had proceeded to England with a view to consecration. In this application he was not successful, the English bishops having scruples, partly of a political nature, and partly relative to the reception with which a bishop might meet, under the then imperfect organization of the Church in America. Resort was therefore had to the Church in Scotland, where Dr. Seabury received consecration in November, 1784.

According to appointment, the first general convention assembled in 1785, in Philadelphia, with delegates from seven of the thirteen States. At this convention measures were taken for a revisal of the Prayer Book, to adapt it to the political changes which had recently taken place; articles of union were adopted; an ecclesiastical constitution was framed; and the first steps taken for the obtaining of an episcopate direct from the Church of England.

In June, 1786, the convention again met in Philadelphia. A correspondence having meanwhile been carried on with the archbishops and bishops of the English Church, considerable dissatisfaction was expressed on their part relative to some changes in the liturgy, and to one point of importance in the constitution. The latter of these was satisfied by the proceeding of the then session, and the former were removed by reconsideration in a special convention summoned in October in the same year. It soon appearing that Dr. Provoost had been elected to the episcopate of New York, Dr. White to that of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Griffith for Virginia, testimonials in their favour were signed by the convention. The two former sailed for England in November, 1786, and were consecrated at Lambeth on the 4th of February in the following year, by the Most Reverend John Moore, archbishop of Canterbury. Before the end of the same month they sailed for New York, where they arrived on Easter Sunday, April 7th, 1787.

In July, 1789, the general convention again assembled. The episcopacy of Bishops White and Provoost was recognised; the resignation of Dr. Griffith, as bishop elect of Virginia, was received; and in this and an adjourned meeting of the body, in the same year, the constitution of 1786 was remodelled; union was happily effected with Bishop Seabury and the northern clergy; the revision of the Prayer Book was completed; and the Church already gave promise of great future prosperity. In September, 1790, Dr. Madison was consecrated bishop of Virginia at Lambeth in England, by the same archbishop, who, a few years before, had imparted the apostolic commission to Drs. White and Provoost. There being now three bishops of the English succession, besides one of the Scotch, everything requisite for the continuation and extension of the episcopacy was complete. Accordingly the line of American consecration opened in 1792, with that of Dr. Claggett, bishop elect of Maryland. In 1795 Dr. Smith was consecrated for South Carolina; in 1797 the Rev. Edward Bass, for Massachusetts, and in the same year Dr. Jarvis, for Connecticut, that diocese having become vacant by the death of Bishop Seabury. From that time the consecration of bishops has proceeded according to the wants of the Church, without impediment, to the present day. At the beginning of the present century the Church had become permanently settled in its organization, and its stability and peace were placed on a secure footing. In 1811 there were already eight bishops and about two hundred and thirty other clergymen distributed through thirteen States. A spirit of holy enterprise began to manifest itself in measures for the building up of the Church west of the Alleghany Mountains, and in other portions of the country, where heretofore it had maintained but a feeble existence. The ministry numbers in its ranks men of the first intellectual endowments, and of admirable self-devotion to the cause of the gospel. With a steady progress, unawed by the assaults of sectarianism and the reproaches of the fanatic, the Church gradually established itself in the affections of all who came with a spirit of candour to the examination of her claims. The blessing of her Great Head was apparent, not only in the peace which adorned her councils, but in the demands which were continually made for a wider extension of her influence. Hence the establishment of the General Theological Seminary by Bishop Hobart (1817–1821), and afterwards of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society (1835); both of which institutions were instrumental in providing heralds of the gospel for the distant places of the West. These were followed by the diocesan seminaries of Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky, and efforts for the founding of several in other dioceses. At the general convention of 1835, the whole Church assumed the position of one grand missionary organization, and has already her bands of missionaries labouring in the cause of the Church in the remotest districts of the country; and her banner has been lifted up in Africa, China, Greece, and other foreign parts. The year 1852 was distinguished by remarkable demonstrations of communion between the Churches of England and America. The American Church, in token of her connexion with the mother Church, and of gratitude for benefits received from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel while the American States were part of the British dominions, deputed Bishop M’Coskry, of Michigan, and Bishop De Lancey, of Western New York, to attend the third Jubilee of the Society. These bishops were received in England with cordial affection, and the bishop of Michigan preached the Jubilee Sermon at St. Paul’s cathedral. A few months later the English bishop Fulford, of Montreal, shared in consecrating Dr. Wainwright, who had been a member of the deputation to England, coadjutor bishop of Eastern New York. In 1853 Bishop Spenser, Archdeacon Sinclair, and the Rev. Ernest Hawkins, were deputed by the Society for Propagating the Gospel to return the visit of the American prelates, and were received with great cordiality by the general convention of the American Church. An attempt to excite a Romanizing spirit on the part of a few half-educated persons has signally failed, by the suppression, for want of support, of the Journal they established. With her 37 bishops, 2000 clergy, and more than 2,000,000 of lay members; with her numerous societies for the spread of the Bible and the Liturgy; and with her institutions of learning, and presses constantly pouring out the light of the truth, may we not predict, under the Divine protection, a day of coming prosperity, when Zion shall be a praise in all the earth; when her temples and her altars shall be seen on the far-off shores of the Pacific; when even “the wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them, and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose?”

For a more detailed history of the Church in America, the reader may consult Bishop White’s Memoirs of the Protestant and Episcopal Church in America; Caswall’s America and the American Church; the History of the Church in America in the Christian’s Miscellany: and the more recent History by Bishop Wilberforce, published in the Englishman’s Library.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND. (See Anglo-Catholic Church.) By the Church of England we mean that branch of the Catholic Church which is established under its canonical bishops in England. Properly speaking, at present it forms only a branch of the united Church of England and Ireland. When and by whom the Church was first introduced into Britain is not exactly ascertained, but it has been inferred from Eusebius that it was first established here by the apostles and their disciples; some have supposed, by St. Paul. According to Archbishop Usher, there was a school of learning to provide the British churches with proper teachers in the year 182. But when the Britons were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, who were heathens, the Church was persecuted, and the professors of Christianity were either driven to the mountains of Wales, or reduced to a state of slavery. The latter circumstances prepared the way for the conversion of the conquerors, who, seeing the pious and regular deportment of their slaves, soon learned to respect their religion. We may gather this fact from a letter written by Gregory, the bishop of Rome, in the sixth century, to two of the kings of France, in which he states that the English nation was desirous of becoming Christian; and in which he, at the same time, complains to those monarchs of the remissness of their clergy in not seeking the conversion of their neighbours. And hence it was that Gregory, with that piety and zeal for which he was pre-eminently distinguished, sent over Augustine, and about forty missionaries, to England, to labour in the good work. The success of these missionaries, the way having thus been paved before them, was most satisfactory. They converted Ethelbert, who was not only king of Kent, but Brætwalda, or chief of the Saxon monarchs. His example was soon followed by the kings of Essex and East Anglia, and gradually by the other sovereigns of England.

The successful Augustine then went over to Arles in France, where he was consecrated by the prelate of that see; and, returning, became the first archbishop of Canterbury, the patriarch and metropolitan of the Church of England. His see was immediately endowed with large revenues by King Ethelbert, who likewise established, at the instance of the archbishop, the dioceses of Rochester and London. Another portion of the Anglo-Saxons were converted by the Scottish bishops. And thus gradually the Anglo-Saxon kings created bishoprics equal in size to their kingdoms. And the example was followed by their nobles, who converted their estates into parishes, erecting fit places of worship, and endowing them with tithes.

It is a great mistake to suppose, as some do, that the old churches in England were built or endowed by laws of the state or acts of parliament. They were the fruit of the piety of individuals of all ranks, princes and nobles, and private citizens. This fact accounts for the unequal sizes of our dioceses and parishes: the dioceses were (though subsequently subdivided) of the same extent as the dominions of the respective kings; the parishes corresponded with the estate of the patrons of particular churches. Nor was the regard of those by whom the Church was established and endowed, confined to the spiritual edification of the poor; no, they knew that righteousness exalteth a nation, and estimating properly the advantages of infusing a Christian spirit into the legislature, they summoned the higher order of the clergy to take part in the national councils.

From those times to these, an uninterrupted series of valid ordinations has carried down the apostolical succession in our Church.

That in the Church of England purity of doctrine was not always retained may be readily admitted. In the dark ages, when all around was dark, the Church itself suffered from the universal gloom: this neither our love of truth, nor our wishes, will permit us to deny. About the seventh century the pope of Rome began to establish an interest in our Church. The interference of the prelate of that great see, before he laid claim to any dominion of right, was at first justifiable, and did not exceed just bounds, while it contributed much to the propagation of the gospel. That the bishop of Rome was justified as a Christian bishop, of high influence and position, in endeavouring to aid the cause of Christianity here in England, while England was a heathen nation, will not be disputed by those who recognise the same right in the archbishop of Canterbury with respect to foreign heathens. But, in after ages, what was at first a justifiable interference was so increased as to become an intolerable usurpation. This interference was an usurpation because it was expressly contrary to the decisions of a general council of the Church, and such as the Scripture condemns, in that the Scripture places all bishops on an equality; and so they ought to continue to be, except where, for the sake of order, they voluntarily consent to the appointment of a president or archbishop, who is nothing more than a primus inter pares, a first among equals. This usurpation for a time continued, and with it were introduced various corruptions, in doctrine as well as in discipline.

At length, in the reign of Henry VIII., the bishops and clergy accorded with the laity and government of England, and threw off the yoke of the usurping pope of Rome. They, at the same time, corrected and reformed all the errors of doctrine, and most of the errors of discipline, which had crept into our Church during the reign of intellectual darkness and papal domination. They condemned the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation, the worship of saints and images, communion in one kind, and the constrained celibacy of the clergy; having first ascertained that these and similar errors were obtruded into the Church in the middle ages. Thus restoring the Church to its ancient state of purity and perfection, they left it to us, their children, as we now find it. They did not attempt to make new, their object was to reform, the Church. They stripped their venerable mother of the meretricious gear in which superstition had arrayed her, and left her in that plain and decorous attire with which, in the simple dignity of a matron, she had been adorned by apostolic hands.

Thus, then, it seems that ours is the old Church of England, tracing its origin, not to Cranmer and Ridley, who only reformed it; but that it is the only Church of England, which traces its origin up through the apostles to our Saviour Himself. To adopt the words of a learned and pious writer: “The orthodox and undoubted bishops of Great Britain are the only persons who, in any manner, whether by ordination or possession, can prove their descent from the ancient saints and bishops of these isles. It is a positive fact that they, and they alone, can trace their ordinations from Peter and Paul, through Patrick, Augustine, Theodore, Colman, Columba, David, Cuthbert, Chad, Anselm, Osmund, and all the other worthies of our Church.” “It is true that there are some schismatical Romish bishops in these realms, but they are of a recent origin, and cannot show the prescription and possession that we can. Some of these teachers do not profess to be bishops of our churches, but are titular bishops of places we know not. Others usurp the titles of various churches in these islands, but are neither in possession themselves, nor can prove that their predecessors ever occupied them. The sect (the sect of English Papists or Roman Catholics) arose in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when certain persons, unhappily and blindly devoted to the see of Rome, refused to obey and communicate with their lawful pastors, who, in accordance with the laws of God and the canons, asserted the ancient independence of the British and Irish Church; and the Roman patriarch then ordained a few bishops to sees in Ireland, which were already occupied by legitimate pastors. In England this ministry is of later origin; for the first bishop of that communion was a titular bishop of Chalcedon in the seventeenth century.

The ecclesiastical state of England, as it stands at this day, is divided into two provinces or archbishoprics, of Canterbury and York, which are again subdivided into several dioceses. (See Archbishop.)

For the safeguard of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, many provisions are made both by the civil and canon law.

Whoever shall come to the possession of the crown of England shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established. (12 & 13 Will. III. c. 2, s. 3.)

By the 1 Will. III. c. 6, an oath shall be administered to every king or queen who shall succeed to the imperial crown of this realm, at their coronation; to be administered by one of the archbishops or bishops, to be thereunto appointed by such king or queen; that they will do the utmost in their power to maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel, and Protestant reformed religion established by law; and will preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them.

And by the 5 Anne, c. 5, the king, at his coronation, shall take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established. (s. 2.)

By Canon 3, whoever shall affirm that the Church of England, by law established, is not a true and apostolical Church, teaching and maintaining the doctrine of the apostles, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored but only by the archbishop, after his repentance and public revocation of this his wicked error.

And by Canon 7, whoever shall affirm that the government of the Church of England under Her Majesty, by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, and the rest that bear office in the same, is antichristian, or repugnant to the word of God, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and so continue until he repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.

And moreover, seditious words, in derogation of the established religion, are indictable, as tending to a breach of the peace.

CHURCH OF IRELAND. Of the first introduction of the Church into Ireland we have no authentic records; nor is it necessary to search for them, since, of the present Church, the founder, under God, was St. Patrick, in the fifth century. From him it is that the present clergy, the reformed clergy, and they only, have their succession, and through him from the apostles themselves. That, by a regular series of consecrations and ordinations, the succession from Patrick and Palladius, and the first Irish missionaries, was kept up until the reign of Queen Elizabeth, our opponents, the Irish Papists, will allow. The question, therefore, is whether that succession was at that time lost. The onus probandi rests with our opponents, and we defy them to prove that such was the case. It is a well-known fact, that of all the countries of Europe, there was not one in which the process of the Reformation was carried on so regularly, so canonically, so quietly, as it was in Ireland. Carte, the biographer of Ormond, having observed that the Popish schism did not commence in England until the twelfth year of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, but that for eleven years those who most favoured the pretensions of the pope conformed to the reformed Catholic Church of England, remarks, “The case was much the same in Ireland, where the bishops complied with the Reformation, and the Roman Catholics (meaning those who afterwards became Roman, instead of remaining reformed Catholics) resorted in general to the parish churches in which the English service was used, until the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign.” It is here stated that the bishops of the Church of Ireland, that is, as the Papists will admit, the then successors of St. Patrick and his suffragans, those who had a right to reform the Church of Ireland, consented to the Reformation; and that, until the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, (and she reigned above forty-four years,) there was no pretended Church, under the dominion of the pope, opposed to the true Catholic Church, as is unfortunately now the case. The existing clergy of the Church of Ireland, whether we regard their order or their mission, and consequently the Church itself, are the only legitimate successors of those by whom that Church was founded. That in the Church of Ireland, as well as in the Church of England, corruptions in doctrine as well as in practice prevailed before the Reformation, and that the pope of Rome gradually usurped over it an authority directly contrary to one of the canons of a general council of the Church Universal, (that of Ephesus,) we fully admit. But that usurpation was resisted and renounced, and those corruptions removed and provided against at the Reformation. After the English Reformation the Irish Church received the English liturgy, in conformity with the principle now professed by the English government, though not always consistently or fairly carried out, of promoting a close ecclesiastical unity between the two countries. Articles of Religion, of a Calvinistic tendency, were passed by the Irish convocation of 1615, but in 1635 the English Articles were received and approved by a canon of convocation, and have ever since been subscribed by Irish clergymen. In 1662 the revised Prayer Book of England was adopted by the Irish convocation. At the time of the union of the two kingdoms, the two Churches were united under the title of the United Church of England and Ireland. Doubts have been expressed as to what this union means. It does not mean union in doctrine. The Churches were in full communion in every respect before; and still are, except in a few particulars, merely circumstantial. It does not mean distinct synodical rights, for the two English provinces have their convocations distinct one from the other, and the decrees of the one do not, of necessity, bind the other. The union is national and political. When the two kingdoms became politically and legislatively one, the two Churches, in conformity with the ancient and avowed principles of English government, were declared to be identified. This identification was solemnly declared by the sovereign and parliament of both countries, as an indispensable and fundamental article of union, asserted by the spiritual lords of each; without the slightest reclamation on the part of the clergy or laity. Now this declaration of legislative union is in fact a solemn declaration on the part of the state of identification of interests. If each of the English provinces of the United Church claim synodical rights, a right of advising when the great interests of the Church are concerned, the claim of the Irish provinces of the same Church are equally strong, are strictly parallel. If the property and rights of the English clergy are to be protected, the Irish clergy have as strong a claim to protection. How far the avowed principle has been acted upon, it is not difficult to determine. The property of the Irish clergy has been dealt with upon principles altogether different from those which still protected the property of their English brethren. No provision whatever was made for perpetuating the Irish convocations, which are still in abeyance, even as to outward form, though formerly they had as defined a system as in England. (See Convocation.) In an age, when the multiplication of bishops has been urged, and generally admitted as necessary, the Church in Ireland has been disheartened by a retrograde movement. For, in opposition to the earnest reclamation of her clergy, ten of her bishops were, by a very tyrannical act of the state, suppressed; and two of her archiepiscopal sees (Cashel and Tuam) reduced to the rank of suffragans; and this to meet a mere fiscal exigency, to provide for the Church Rates; for which, be it observed, the clergy of Ireland, whose revenues have been in many other ways legislatively curtailed, are now taxed.

The words of the fifth article of the Union with Ireland are these: “That it be the fifth article of Union, that the Churches of England and Ireland, as now by law established, be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called, The United Church of England and Ireland; and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the said United Church shall be, and shall remain in full force for ever, as the same are now by law established for the Church of England; and that the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, as the established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union.”

The Church in Ireland had till lately four archbishops: 1. Armagh, with seven suffragans, viz. Meath, Down, ‡Dromore, Derry, Kilmore, ‡Raphoe, and ‡Clogher. 2. Dublin, with three suffragans, viz. ‡Kildare, ‡Ferns, and Ossory. 3. Cashel, with five suffragans, viz. Limerick, Cork, ‡Cloyne, Killaloe, and ‡Waterford. 4. Tuam, with three suffragans, viz. ‡Clonfert, ‡Elphin, and ‡Killala. [Those which are marked thus ‡ are now suppressed.] Formerly there had been 32 bishops in all; but the sees had become so impoverished that it became necessary from time to time to unite some of these to others, (but for reason and under sanction far different from those which influenced the late innovations,) so that in the 17th century they were much the same as stated above. The bishops of Meath and Kildare had precedence over the other bishops.—See Jebb’s Charge to the Clergy of Limerick.

CHURCH OF ROME. (See Pope, Popery, Council of Trent, Romanism.) The Church of Rome is properly that particular Church over which the bishop of Rome presides, as the Church of England is that Church over which the bishop of Canterbury presides. To enter into the history of that foreign Church, to describe its boundaries, to explain those peculiar doctrines, which are contrary to Catholic doctrines, but which are retained in it, to discuss its merits or its corruptions, would be beside the purpose of this Dictionary. But there are certain schismatical communities in these kingdoms which have set up an altar against our altar, and which are designated as the Church of Rome in England, and the Church of Rome in Ireland; and with the claims of these schismatical sects, in which the obnoxious doctrines of the Church of Rome, as asserted in the so-called general Council of Trent, are maintained, and in which the supremacy of the pope of Rome is acknowledged, we are nearly concerned. It will be proper, therefore, to give an account of the introduction of Romanism or Popery into this country and into Ireland, subsequently to the Reformation. From the preceding articles it will have been seen that the Churches of England and Ireland were canonically reformed. The old Catholic Church of England, in accordance with the law of God and the canons, asserted its ancient independence. That many members of the Church were in their hearts opposed to this great movement, is not only probable, but certain; yet they did not incur the sin of schism by establishing a sect in opposition to the Church of England, until the twelfth year of Elizabeth’s reign, when they were hurried into this sin by foreign emissaries from the pope of Rome, and certain sovereigns hostile to the queen. Mr. Butler, himself a Romanist, observes, that “Many of them conformed for a while, in hopes that the queen would relent, and things come round again.”—Memoirs, ii. p. 280. “He may be right,” says Dr. Phelan, “in complimenting their orthodoxy at the expense of their truth; yet it is a curious circumstance, that their hypocrisy, while it deceived a vigilant and justly suspicious Protestant government, should be disclosed by the tardy candour of their own historians.” The admission, however, is important; the admission of a Romanist that Romanism was for a season extinct, as a community, in these realms. The present Romish sect cannot, therefore, consistently claim to be what the clergy of the Church of England really and truly are, the representatives of the founders of the English Church. The Romish clergy in England, though they have orders, have no mission, on their own showing, and are consequently schismatics. The Romanists began to fall away from the Catholic Church of England, and to constitute themselves into a distinct community or sect, about the year 1570, that is, about forty years after the Church of England had suppressed the papal usurpation. This act was entirely voluntary on the part of the Romanists. They refused any longer to obey their bishops; and, departing from our communion, they established a rival worship, and set up altar against altar. This sect was at first governed by Jesuits and missionary priests, under the superintendence of Allen, a Roman cardinal, who lived in Flanders, and founded the colleges at Douay and Rheims. In 1598, Mr. George Blackwell was appointed archpriest of the English Romanists, (see Archpriest,) and this form of ecclesiastical government prevailed among them till 1623, when Dr. Bishop was ordained titular bishop of Chalcedon, and sent from Rome to govern the Romish sect in England. Dr. Smith, the next bishop of Chalcedon, was banished in 1628, and the Romanists were without bishops till the reign of James II.—Palmer, ii. 252. During the whole of the reign of James I., and part of the following reign, the Romish priesthood, both in England and in Ireland, were in the interest, and many of them in the pay, of the Spanish monarchy. The titulars of Dublin and Cashel are particularly mentioned as pensioners of Spain. The general memorial of the Romish hierarchy in Ireland, in 1617, was addressed to the Spanish court, and we are told by Berrington, himself a Romanist, that the English Jesuits, 300 in number, were all of the Spanish faction. In Ireland, as we have seen before, the bishops almost unanimously consented, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, to remove the usurped jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, and consequently there, as in England, for a great length of time there were scarcely any Popish bishops. But “Swarms of Jesuits,” says Carte, “and Romish priests, educated in the seminaries founded by King Philip II., in Spain and the Netherlands, and by the cardinal of Lorraine in Champagne, (where, pursuant to the vows of the founders, they sucked in, as well the principles of rebellion, as of what they call catholicity,) coming over to that kingdom, as full of secular as of religious views, they soon prevailed with an ignorant and credulous people to withdraw from the public service of the Church.” Macgauran, titular archbishop of Armagh, was sent over from Spain, and slain in an act of rebellion against his sovereign. In 1621 there were two Popish bishops in Ireland, and two others resided in Spain. These persons were ordained in foreign countries, and could not trace their ordinations to the ancient Irish Church. The audacity of the Romish hierarchy in Ireland has of late years been only equalled by their mendacity. But we know them who they are; the successors, not of St. Patrick, but of certain Spanish and Italian prelates, who, in the reign of James I., originated, contrary to the canons of the Church, the Romish sect—a sect it truly is in that country, since there can be but one Church, and that is the Catholic, in the same place, (see article on the Church,) and all that they can pretend to is, that without having any mission, being therefore in a state of schism, they hold peculiar doctrines and practices which the Church of Ireland may have practised and held for one, two, three, or at the very most four hundred out of the fourteen hundred years during which it has been established; while even as a counterpoise to this, we may place the three hundred years which have elapsed between the Reformation and the present time. Since the above article was written, the Romish sect has assumed a new character in England. The pope of Rome has added to his iniquities by sending here, in 1850, schismatical prelates, with a view of superseding the orthodox and catholic bishops of the English Church; an act which has increased the abhorrence of Popery in every true Englishman’s heart, and which should lead to greater union among all who repudiate idolatry, and love the Lord Jesus.

CHURCH IN SCOTLAND. The early history of the ancient Church of Scotland, like that of Ireland, is involved in much obscurity; nor is it necessary to investigate it, since, at the period of our Reformation, it was annihilated; it was entirely subverted; not a vestige of the ancient Christian Church of that kingdom remained. Meantime the Scottish nation was torn by the fiercest religious factions. The history of what occurred at the so-called Reformation of Scotland—the fierceness, the fury, the madness of the people, who murdered with Scripture on their lips—would make an infidel smile, and a pious Christian weep. It is probable that a sense of the danger to his throne may have led King James I. to his first measures, taken before his accession to the English crown, for the restoration of episcopacy in his own dominion. His first step was to obtain, in December, 1597, an act of the Scottish parliament, “that such pastors and ministers as the king should please to provide to the place, title, and dignity of a bishop, abbot, or other prelate, should have voice in parliament as freely as any ecclesiastical prelate had at any time by-past.” This act was followed by the appointment of certain ministers, with the temporal title of bishops, in the next year.—Abp. Spottiswood’s Hist. 449, 456. But the assembly of ministers at Montrose, in March, 1599, jealous of the king’s intention, passed a resolution of their own, “that they who had a voice in parliament should have no place in the general assembly, unless they were authorized by a commission from the presbyters.” The bishops, however, took their seats in parliament, and voted in the articles of union for the two kingdoms, A. D. 1601. At length, in A. D. 1610, the bishops were admitted as presidents or moderators in the diocesan assemblies; and, in 1612, “after fifty years of confusion, and a multiplicity of windings and turnings, either to improve or set aside the plan adopted in 1560,” (to use Bishop Skinner’s words,) “we see an episcopal Church once more settled in Scotland, and a regular apostolical succession of episcopacy introduced, upon the extinction of the old line which had long before failed, without any attempt, real or pretended, to keep it up.” For in this year the king caused three of them to be consecrated in London; “and that,” says Bishop Guthrie, “not without the consent and furtherance of many of the wisest amongst the ministry.” Now in common justice to Episcopalians it must be remembered, as Bishop Skinner observes, that the restoration of the primitive order was strictly legal. “A regular episcopacy by canonical consecration had been adopted by the general assemblies of the Church, and confirmed by unquestionable acts of parliament.” King Charles I. endeavoured to complete the good work which his father had begun, but, for the sins of the Scottish people, he was not permitted to succeed in his labour of love; nay, rather, the attempt to introduce the English Prayer Book so exasperated the Scots against him, that they finally proved their ignorance of Scripture, and their want of true Christian principles, by assenting to the parricide of their sovereign, when it was effected by their disciples in England. The general assembly of 1638 was held in opposition to the sovereign, and to the law; it declared all assemblies since 1605 void; proscribed the service book; and abjured Episcopacy, condemning it as antichristian, and the bishops were excommunicated and deposed. In 1613, the Scotch general assembly passed the Solemn League and Covenant, adopted by that assembly of divines at Westminster, who drew up the Confession, which afterwards was established by law as the Faith of the Kirk of Scotland. The Catholic Church, after the martyrdom of Charles, became extinct in Scotland; but it was once more restored at the restoration of his son. By the solemn act of parliament, Episcopacy was reestablished, and declared to be most agreeable to the word of God; and synods were constituted, very much upon the system of the English convocation. Four Scottish divines were again consecrated in London in 1661. These prelates took possession of the several sees to which they had been appointed, and the other ten sees were soon canonically filled by men duly invested with the episcopal character and function. So things remained until the Revolution of 1688. The bishops of Scotland, mindful of their oaths, refused to withdraw their allegiance from the king, and to give it to the Prince of Orange, who had been elected by a portion of the people to sovereignty, under the title of William III. The Prince of Orange offered to protect them, and to preserve the civil establishment of the Church, provided that they would come over to his interest, and support his pretensions to the throne. This they steadily refused to do; and consequently, by the prince and parliament, the bishops and the clergy were ordered either to conform to the new government, or to quit their livings. There were then fourteen bishops in Scotland, and nine hundred clergy of the other two orders. All the bishops, and by far the greater number of the other clergy, refused to take the oaths; and in the livings they were thus compelled to relinquish, Presbyterian ministers were in general placed. And thus the Presbyterian sect was established (so far as it can be established by the authority of man) instead of the Church in Scotland. It was stated that this was done, not because bishops were illegal and unscriptural, but because the establishment of the Church was contrary to the will of the people, who, as they had elected a king, ought, as it was supposed, to be indulged in the still greater privilege of selecting a religion. And yet it is said, in the Life of Bishop Sage, “it was certain, that not one of three parts of the common people were then for the presbytery, and not one in ten among the gentlemen and people of education.” The system of doctrine to which the established Kirk of Scotland subscribes is the Westminster Confession of Faith, and to the Kirk (for it was passed in 1643 by the general assembly of the Kirk) belongs the national and solemn League and Covenant, (a formulary more tremendous in its anathemas than any bull of Rome,) to “endeavour the extirpation of Popery and prelacy,” i. e. “Church government by archbishops, bishops, and all ecclesiastical officers dependent upon the hierarchy.” This League was approved by that very assembly at Westminster, whose Confession was now nationally adopted. And certainly, during their political ascendency, the members of that establishment have done their best to accomplish this, so far as Scotland is concerned, although, contrary to their principles, there are some among them who would make an exception in favour of England, if the Church of England would be base enough to forsake her sister Church in Scotland. That Church is now just in the position in which our Church would be, if it pleased parliament, in what is profanely called its omnipotence, to drive us from our sanctuaries, and to establish the Independents, or the Wesleyans, in our place.

The bishops of the Scottish Church, thus deprived of their property and their civil rights, did not attempt to keep up the same number of bishops as before the Revolution, nor did they continue the division of the country into the same dioceses, as there was no occasion for that accuracy, by reason of the diminution which their clergy and congregations had suffered, owing to the persecutions they had to endure. They have also dropped the designation of archbishops, now only making use of that of Primus, (a name formerly given to the presiding bishop,) who being elected by the other bishops, six in number, is invested thereby with the authority of calling and presiding in such meetings as may be necessary for regulating the affairs of the Church. The true Church of Scotland has thus continued to exist from the Revolution to the present time, notwithstanding those penal statutes, of the severity of which some opinion may be formed when it is stated, that the grandfather of the present venerable bishop of Aberdeen, although he had taken the oaths to the government, was committed to prison for six months; and why? for the heinous offence of celebrating Divine service according to the forms of the English Book of Common Prayer, in the presence of more than four persons! But in vain has the Scottish establishment thus persecuted the Scottish Church; as we have said, she still exists, perhaps, amidst the dissensions of the establishment, to be called back again to her own. The penal statutes were repealed in the year 1792. But even then the clergy of that Church were so far prohibited from officiating in the Church of England, that the clergyman, in whose church they should perform any ministerial act, was liable to the penalties of a premunire. Although a clergyman of any of the Greek churches, although even a clergyman of the Church of Rome, upon his renouncing those Romish peculiarities and errors, which are not held by our Scottish brethren, could serve at our altars, and preach from our pulpits, our brethren in Scotland and America were prevented from doing so. This disgrace however has now been removed by the piety of the late archbishop of Canterbury, who has obtained an act which restores to the Church one of her lost liberties. At the end of the last century, the Catholic Church in Scotland adopted those Thirty-nine Articles which were drawn up by the Church of England in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. They, for the most part, make use of our liturgy, though in some congregations the old Scotch liturgy is used, and it is expressly appointed that it shall always be used at the consecration of a bishop.

The Church of Scotland, before the political recognition of Presbyterianism, had fourteen bishops: viz. The archbishop of St. Andrew’s, primate of Scotland, with nine suffragans; viz. Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Moray, Dunkeld, Brechin, Caithness, Dunblane, Orkney, and Ross. The archbishop of Glasgow, with three suffragans; viz. Galloway, Argyle, and the Isles. The bishops of Edinburgh and Galloway had precedence over the others. All the bishops sat in the Scottish parliament, but they had no convocation, like those of the Church of England in ancient times, their synods being episcopal. After the Reformation, their assemblies were long of an anomalous kind, and bore witness to a continual struggle between the episcopal and presbyterian, or rather democratic, principle, which finally prevailed. In 1663, however, an act of parliament was passed regulating their national synod. (See Convocation.)

CHURCH, GALLICAN, or THE CHURCH OF FRANCE, although in communion with the see of Rome, maintained in many respects an independent position. (See Concordat and Pragmatic Sanction.) This term is very ancient, for we find it used in the Council of Paris, held in the year 362, and the Council of Illyria, in 367.

This Church all along preserved certain ancient rites, which she possessed time out of mind; neither were these privileges any grants of popes, but certain franchises and immunities, derived to her from her first original, and which she will take care never to relinquish. These liberties depended upon two maxims, which were always looked upon in France as indisputable. The first is, that the pope had no authority or right to command or order anything, either in general or particular, in which the temporalities or civil rights of the kingdom were concerned. The second was, that, notwithstanding the pope’s supremacy was owned in cases purely spiritual, yet, in France, his power was limited and regulated by the decrees and canons of ancient councils received in that realm. The liberties or privileges of the Gallican Church were founded upon these two maxims, and the most considerable of them are as follows:

I. The king of France has a right to convene synods, or provincial and national councils, in which, amongst other important matters relating to the preservation of the state, cases of ecclesiastical discipline are likewise debated.

II. The pope’s legates à latere, who are empowered to reform abuses, and to exercise the other parts of their legantine office, are never admitted into France unless at the desire, or with the consent, of the king: and whatever the legates do there, is with the approbation and allowance of the king.

III. The legate of Avignon cannot exercise his commission in any of the king’s dominions, till after he hath obtained his Majesty’s leave for that purpose.

IV. The prelates of the Gallican Church, being summoned by the pope, cannot depart the realm upon any pretence whatever, without the king’s permission.

V. The pope has no authority to levy any tax or imposition upon the temporalities of the ecclesiastical preferments, upon any pretence, either of loan, vacancy, annates, tithes, procurations, or otherwise, without the king’s order, and the consent of the clergy.

VI. The pope has no authority to depose the king, or grant away his dominions to any person whatever. His Holiness can neither excommunicate the king, nor absolve his subjects from their allegiance.

VII. The pope likewise has no authority to excommunicate the king’s officers for their executing and discharging their respective offices and functions.

VIII. The pope has no right to take cognizance, either by himself or his delegates, of any pre-eminencies or privileges belonging to the crown of France, the king being not obliged to argue his prerogatives in any court but his own.

IX. Counts palatine, made by the pope, are not acknowledged as such in France, nor allowed to make use of their privileges and powers, any more than those created by the emperor.

X. It is not lawful for the pope to grant licences to churchmen, the king’s subjects, or to any others holding benefices in the realm of France, to bequeath the titles and profits of their respective preferments, contrary to any branch of the king’s laws, or the customs of the realm, nor to hinder the relations of the beneficed clergy, or monks, to succeed to their estates, when they enter into religious orders, and are professed.

XI. The pope cannot grant to any person a dispensation to enjoy any estate or revenues, in France, without the king’s consent.

XII. The pope cannot grant a licence to ecclesiastics to alienate church lands, situate and lying in France, without the king’s consent, upon any pretence whatever.

XIII. The king may punish his ecclesiastical officers for misbehaviour in their respective charges, notwithstanding the privileges of their orders.

XIV. No person has any right to hold any benefice in France, unless he be either a native of the country, naturalized by the king, or has royal dispensation for that purpose.

XV. The pope is not superior to an œcumenical or general council.

XVI. The Gallican Church does not receive, without distinction, all the canons, and all the decretal epistles, but keeps principally to that ancient collection called Corpus Canonicum, the same which Pope Adrian sent to Charlemagne towards the end of the eighth century, and which, in the year 860, under the pontificate of Nicolas I., the French bishops declared to be the only canon law they were obliged to acknowledge, maintaining that in this body the liberties of the Gallican Church consisted.

XVII. The pope has no power, for any cause whatsoever, to dispense with the law of God, the law of nature, or the decrees of the ancient canons.

XVIII. The regulations of the apostolic chamber, or court, are not obligatory to the Gallican Church, unless confirmed by the king’s edicts.

XIX. If the primates or metropolitans appeal to the pope, his Holiness is obliged to try the cause, by commissioners or delegates, in the same diocese from which the appeal was made.

XX. When a Frenchman desires the pope to give him a benefice lying in France, his Holiness is obliged to order him an instrument, sealed under the faculty of his office; and, in case of refusal, it is lawful for the person pretending to the benefice to apply to the parliament of Paris, which court shall send instructions to the bishop of the diocese to give him institution, which institution shall be of the same validity as if he had received his title under the seals of the court of Rome.

XXI. No mandates from the pope, enjoining a bishop, or other collator, to present any person to a benefice upon a vacancy, are admitted in France.

XXII. It is only by sufferance that the pope has what they call a right of prevention, to collate to benefices which the ordinary has not disposed of.

XXIII. It is not lawful for the pope to exempt the ordinary of any monastery, or any other ecclesiastical corporation, from the jurisdiction of their respective diocesans, in order to make the person so exempted immediately dependent on the holy see.

These liberties were esteemed inviolable, and the French kings, at their coronation, solemnly swore to preserve and maintain them. The oath ran thus: “Promitto vobis et perdono quod unicuique de vobis et ecclesiis vobis commissis canonicum privilegium et debitam legem atque justitiam servabo.”

The bishoprics were entirely in the hands of the Crown. There were, in France, 18 archbishops, 112 bishops, 160,000 clergymen of various orders, and 3400 convents.

The archbishops were: 1. Rheims, (primate of France,) eight suffragans. 2. Lyons, (primate of Gaul,) five suffragans. 3. Rouen, (primate of Normandy,) six suffragans. 4. Paris, four suffragans. 5. Sens, three suffragans. 6. Tours, eleven suffragans. 7. Bordeaux, nine suffragans. 8. Bourges, five suffragans. 9. Toulouse, seven suffragans. 10. Narbonne, eleven suffragans. 11. Besançon, one suffragan. 12. Arles, four suffragans. 13. Auch, ten suffragans. 14. Aix, five suffragans. 15. Alby, five suffragans. 16. Embrun, six suffragans. 17. Vienne, four suffragans. 18. Cambray, two suffragans, with six other bishops under foreign archbishops. The archbishop of Cambray and his suffragans, and the archbishop of Besançon with his suffragan, and eight other bishops, were not considered properly to form part of the Gallican Church.

Such was the Church of France with the “Gallican Liberties,” previously to the great French Revolution of 1789–1793.

Jansenism (see Jansenists) became very prevalent in the Gallican Church before the Revolution; and the antipapal principle of Jansenism, combined with the revolutionary mania, developed in 1790 the civil constitution of the clergy in France, under which false appellation the constituent assembly affected extraordinary alterations in spiritual matters. M. Bouvier, the late bishop of Mans, remarks, that this constitution “abounded with many and most grievous faults.” “First,” he says, “the National Convention, by its own authority, without any recourse to the ecclesiastical power, changes or reforms all the old dioceses, erects new ones, diminishes some, increases others, &c.; (2.) forbids any Gallican church or citizen to acknowledge the authority of any foreign bishop, &c.; (3.) institutes a new mode of administering and ruling cathedral churches, even in spirituals; (4.) subverts the divine authority of bishops, restraining it within certain limits, and imposing on them a certain council, without whose judgment they could do nothing,” &c. The great body of the Gallican bishops naturally protested against this constitution, which suppressed 135 bishoprics, and erected 83 in their stead, under different titles. The Convention insisted that they should take the oath of adhesion to the civil constitution in eight days, on pain of being considered as having resigned; and, on the refusal of the great majority, the new bishops were elected in their place, and consecrated by Talleyrand, bishop of Autun, assisted by Gobel, bishop of Lydda, and Miroudet of Babylon.

M. Bouvier proves, from the principles of his Church, that this constitution was schismatical; that all the bishops, rectors, curates, confessors, instituted by virtue of it, were intruders, schismatics, and even involved in heresy; that the taking of the oath to observe it was a mortal sin, and that it would have been better to have died a hundred times than to have done so. Certainly, on all the principles of Romanists at least, the adherents of the civil constitution were in schism and heresy.

Nevertheless, these schismatics and heretics were afterwards introduced into the communion of the Roman Church itself, in which they propagated their notions. On the signature of the Concordat between Bonaparte and Pius VII. in 1801, for the erection of the new Gallican Church, the first consul made it a point, that twelve of these constitutional bishops should be appointed to sees under the new arrangements. He succeeded. “He caused to be named to sees twelve of those same constitutionals who had attached themselves with such obstinate perseverance, for ten years, to the propagation of schism in France.... One of the partisans of the new Concordat, who had been charged to receive the recantation of the constitutionals, certified that they had renounced their civil constitution of the clergy. Some of them vaunted, nevertheless, that they had not changed their principles; and one of them publicly declared that they had been offered an absolution of their censures, but that they had thrown it into the fire!” The government forbad the bishops to exact retractations from the constitutional priest, and commanded them to choose one of their vicars-general from among that party. They were protected and supported by the minister of police, and by Portalis, the minister of worship. In 1803, we hear of the “indiscreet and irregular conduct of some new bishops, taken from among the constitutionals, and who brought into their dioceses the same spirit which had hitherto directed them.” Afterwards it is said of some of them, that they “professed the most open resistance to the holy see, expelled the best men from their dioceses, and perpetuated the spirit of schism.” In 1804, Pius VII., being at Paris, procured their signature to a declaration approving generally of the judgments of the holy see on the ecclesiastical affairs of France; but this vague and general formulary, which Bouvier and other Romanists pretend to represent as a recantation, was not so understood by these bishops; and thus the Gallican Church continued, and probably still continues, to number schismatical bishops and priests in her communion. Such is the boasted and most inviolable unity of the Roman Church!

We are now to speak of the Concordat of 1801, between Bonaparte, first consul of the French republic, and Pope Pius VII. The first consul, designing to restore Christianity in France, engaged the pontiff to exact resignations from all the existing bishops of the French territory, both constitutional and royalist. The bishoprics of old France were 130 in number; those of the conquered districts (Savoy, Germany, &c.) were 24; making a total of 154. The constitutional bishops resigned their sees; those, also, who still remained in the conquered districts, resigned them to Pius VII. Eighty-one of the exiled royalist bishops of France were still alive; of these forty-five resigned, but thirty-six declined to do so. The pontiff derogated from the consent of these latter prelates, annihilated 159 bishoprics at a blow, created in their place 60 new ones, and arranged the mode of appointment and consecration of the new bishops and clergy, by his bull Ecclesia Christi and Qui Christi Domini. To this sweeping Concordat the French government took care to annex, by the authority of their “corps législatif,” certain “Organic Articles,” relating to the exercise of worship. According to a Romish historian, they “rendered the Church entirely dependent, and placed everything under the hand of government. The bishops, for example, were prohibited from conferring orders without its consent; the vicars-general of a bishop were to continue, even after his death, to govern the diocese, without regard to the rights of chapters; a multitude of things which ought to have been left to the decision of the ecclesiastical authority were minutely regulated,” &c. The intention was, “to place the priests, even in the exercise of their spiritual functions, in an entire dependence on the government agents!” The pope remonstrated against these articles—in vain: they continued, were adopted by the Bourbons, and, with some modifications, are in force to this day; and the government of the Gallican Church is vested more in the conseil d’ etat, than in the bishops. Bonaparte assumed the language of piety, while he proceeded to exercise the most absolute jurisdiction over the Church. “Henceforward nothing embarrasses him in the government of the Church; he decides everything as a master; he creates bishoprics, unites them, suppresses them.” He apparently found a very accommodating episcopacy. A royal commission, including two cardinals, five archbishops and bishops, and some other high ecclesiastics, in 1810 and 1811, justified many of the “Organic Articles” which the pope had objected to; acknowledged that a national council could order that bishops should be instituted by the metropolitan or senior bishop, instead of the pope, in case of urgent circumstances; and declared the papal bull of excommunication against those who had unjustly deprived the pope of his states, was null and void.

These proceedings were by no means pleasing to the exiled French bishops, who had not resigned their sees, and yet beheld them filled in their own lifetime by new prelates. They addressed repeated protests to the Roman pontiff in vain. His conduct in derogating from their consent, suppressing so many sees, and appointing new bishops, was certainly unprecedented. It was clearly contrary to all the canons of the Church universal, as every one admits. The adherents of the ancient bishops refused to communicate with those whom they regarded as intruders. They dwelt on the odious slavery under which they were placed by the “Organic Articles;” and the Abbés Blanchard and Gauchet, and others, wrote strongly against the Concordat, as null, illegal, and unjust; affirmed that the new bishops and their adherents were heretics and schismatics, and that Pius VII. was cut off from the Catholic Church. Hence a schism in the Roman churches, which continues to this day, between the adherents of the new Gallican bishops and the old. The latter are styled by their opponents, “La Petite Eglise.” The truly extraordinary origin of the present Gallican Church sufficiently accounts for the reported prevalence of ultramontane or high papal doctrines among them, contrary to the old Gallican doctrines, and notwithstanding the incessant efforts of Napoleon and the Bourbons to force on them the four articles of the Gallican clergy of 1682. They see, plainly enough, that their Church’s origin rests chiefly on the unlimited power of the pope.—Broughton. Palmer.

CHURCH, GREEK. The Oriental (sometimes called the Greek) Church, prevails more or less in Russia, Siberia, North America, Poland, European Turkey, Servia, Moldavia, Wallachia, Greece, the Archipelago, Crete, Cyprus, the Ionian Islands, Georgia, Circassia, Mingrelia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt. The vast and numerous Churches of the East, are all ruled by bishops and archbishops, of whom the chief are the four patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The Russian Church was subject to a fifth patriarch, from the latter part of the sixteenth century, [1588,] but since the reign of Peter the Great, the appointment to this high office has been suspended by the emperor, who deemed its power too great, and calculated to rival that of the throne itself. It was abolished in 1721. In its place Peter the Great instituted the “Holy Legislative Synod,” which is directed by the emperor.... Many of these Churches still subsist after an uninterrupted succession of eighteen hundred years: such as the Churches of Smyrna, Philadelphia, Corinth, Athens, Thessalonica, Crete, Cyprus. Many others, founded by the apostles, continued to subsist uninterruptedly, till the invasion of the Saracens in the seventh century, and revived again after their oppression had relaxed. Such are the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and others; from these apostolical Churches the whole Oriental Church derives its origin and succession; for wherever new Churches were founded, it was always by authority of the ancient societies previously existing. With these all the more recent Churches held close communion; and thus, by the consanguinity of faith and discipline and charity, were themselves apostolical. They were also apostolical in their ministry; for it is undeniable, that they can produce a regular uninterrupted series of bishops, and of valid ordinations in their churches, from the beginning. No one denies the validity of their ordination.—Palmer.

The descendants of the ancient Christians of the East, who still occupy the Oriental sees, are called the Greek Church. The Greek Church was not formerly so extensive as it has been since the emperors of the East thought proper to lessen or reduce the other patriarchates, in order to aggrandize that of Constantinople; a task which they accomplished with the greater ease, as they were much more powerful than the emperors of the West, and had little or no regard to the consent of the patriarchs, in order to create new bishoprics, or to confer new titles and privileges. Whereas, in the Western Church, the popes, by slow degrees, made themselves the sole arbiters in all ecclesiastical concerns; insomuch, that princes themselves at length became obliged to have recourse to them, and were subservient to their directions on every momentous occasion.

The Greek Churches, at present, deserve not even the name of the shadow of what they were in their former flourishing state, when they were so remarkably distinguished for the learned and worthy pastors who presided over them; but now nothing but wretchedness, ignorance, and poverty are visible amongst them. “I have seen churches,” says Ricaut, “which were more like caverns or sepulchres than places set apart for Divine worship; the tops thereof being almost level with the ground. They are erected after this humble manner for fear they should be suspected, if they raised them any considerable height, of an evil intention to rival the Turkish mosques.” It is, indeed, very surprising that, in the abject state to which the Greeks at present are reduced, the Christian religion should maintain the least footing amongst them. Their notions of Christianity are principally confined to the traditions of their forefathers and their own received customs; and, among other things, they are much addicted to external acts of piety and devotion, such as the observance of fasts, festivals, and penances: they revere and dread the censures of their clergy; and are bigoted slaves to their religious customs, many of which are absurd and ridiculous; and yet it must be acknowledged, that, although these errors reflect a considerable degree of scandal and reproach upon the holy religion they profess, they nevertheless prevent it from being entirely lost and abolished amongst them. A fire which lies for a time concealed under a heap of embers, may revive and burn again as bright as ever; and the same hope may be conceived of truth, when obscured by the dark clouds of ignorance and error.

Caucus, archbishop of Corfu, in his Dissertation on what he calls the erroneous doctrines of the modern Greeks, dedicated to Gregory XIII., has digested their tenets under the following heads:

I. They rebaptize all Romanists who are admitted into their communion.

II. They do not baptize their children till they are three, four, five, six, ten, and even sometimes eighteen years of age.

III. They exclude confirmation and extreme unction from the number of the sacraments.

IV. They deny there is any such place as purgatory, although they pray for the dead.

V. They deny the papal supremacy, and assert that the Church of Rome has abandoned the doctrines of her fathers.

VI. They deny, by consequence, that the Church of Rome is the true Catholic mother Church, and on Holy Thursday excommunicate the pope and all the Latin prelates, as heretics and schismatics, praying that all those who offer up unleavened bread in the celebration of the sacrament may be covered with confusion.

VII. They deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.

VIII. They refuse to receive the host consecrated by Romish priests with unleavened bread. They likewise wash the altars on which Romanists have celebrated mass, and will not suffer a Romish priest to officiate at their altars.

IX. They assert that the usual form of words, wherein the consecration, according to the Church of Rome, wholly consists, is not sufficient to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

X. They insist that the sacrament of the Lord’s supper ought to be administered in both kinds to infants, even before they are capable of distinguishing this spiritual food from any other, because it is a Divine institution. For which reason they give the eucharist to infants immediately after baptism, and look upon the Romanists as heretics for not observing the same custom.

XI. They hold that the laity are under an indispensable obligation, by the law of God, to receive the communion in both kinds, and look on the Romanists as heretics who maintain the contrary.

XII. They assert that no members of the Church, when they have attained to years of discretion, ought to be compelled to receive the communion every Easter, but should have free liberty to act according to the dictates of their own conscience.

XIII. They pay no religious homage, or veneration, to the holy sacrament of the eucharist, even at the celebration of their own priests; and use no lighted tapers when they administer it to the sick.

XIV. They are of opinion that such hosts as are consecrated on Holy Thursday are much more efficacious than those consecrated at other times.

XV. They maintain that matrimony is a union which may be dissolved. For which reason they charge the Church of Rome with being guilty of an error, in asserting that the bonds of marriage can never be broken, even in case of adultery, and that no person upon any provocation whatsoever can lawfully marry again.

XVI. They condemn all fourth marriages.

XVII. They refuse to celebrate the solemnities instituted by the Romish Church in honour of the Virgin Mary and the Saints. They reject likewise the religious use of graven images and statues, although they admit of pictures in their churches.

XVIII. They insist that the canon of the mass of the Roman Church ought to be abolished, as being full of errors.

XIX. They deny that usury is a mortal sin.

XX. They deny that the subdeaconry is at present a holy order.

XXI. Of all the general councils that have been held in the Catholic Church by the popes at different times, they pay no regard to any after the sixth, and reject not only the seventh, which was the second held at Nice, for the express purpose of condemning those who rejected the use of images in their Divine worship, but all those which have succeeded it, by which they refuse to submit to any of their institutions.

XXII. They deny auricular confession to be a Divine precept, and assert that it is only a positive injunction of the Church.

XXIII. They insist that the confession of the laity ought to be free and voluntary; for which reason they are not compelled to confess themselves annually, nor are they excommunicated for the neglect of it.

XXIV. They insist that in confession there is no Divine law which enjoins the acknowledgment of every individual sin, or a discovery of all the circumstances that attend it, which alter its nature and property.

XXV. They administer the communion to their laity both in sickness and in health, though they have never applied themselves to their confessors; the reason of which is, that they are persuaded all confessions should be free and voluntary, and that a lively faith is all the preparation that is requisite for the worthy receiving of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper.

XXVI. They look down with an eye of disdain on the Romanists for their observance of the vigils before the nativity of our blessed Saviour, and the festivals of the Virgin Mary and the apostles, as well as for their fasting in Ember-week. They even affect to eat meat more plentifully at those times than at any other, to testify their contempt of the Latin customs. They prohibit, likewise, all fasting on Saturdays, that preceding Easter only excepted.

XXVII. They condemn the Romanists as heretics, for eating such things as have been strangled, and such other meats as are prohibited in the Old Testament.

XXVIII. They deny that simple fornication is a mortal sin.

XXIX. They insist that it is lawful to deceive an enemy, and that it is no sin to injure and oppress him.

XXX. They are of opinion that, in order to be saved, there is no necessity to make restitution of such goods as have been stolen or fraudulently obtained.

XXXI. To conclude: they hold that such as have been admitted into holy orders may become laymen at pleasure. From whence it plainly appears that they do not allow the character of the priesthood to be indelible. To which it may be added, that they approve of the marriage of their priests, provided they enter into that state before their admission into holy orders, though they are never indulged in that respect after their ordination.

The patriarch of Constantinople assumes the honourable title of Universal or Œcumenical Patriarch. As he purchases his commission of the Grand Seignior, it may be easily supposed that he makes a tyrannical and simoniacal use of a privilege which he holds himself by simony. The patriarchs and bishops are always single men; but the priests (as observed before) are indulged in marriage before ordination; and this custom, which is generally practised all over the Levant, is very ancient. Should a priest happen to marry after ordination, he can officiate no longer as priest, which is conformable to the injunctions of the Council of Neocesarea. The marriage, however, is not looked upon as invalid; whereas, in the Romish Church, such marriages are pronounced void and of no effect, because the priesthood is looked upon as a lawful bar or impediment.—Broughton.

Their Pappas, or secular priests, not having any settled and competent livings, are obliged to subsist by simoniacal practices. “The clergy,” says Ricaut, “are almost compelled to sell those Divine mysteries which are intrusted to their care. No one, therefore, can procure absolution, be admitted to confession, have his children baptized, be married or divorced, or obtain an excommunication against his adversary, or the communion in time of sickness, without first paying down a valuable consideration. The priests too often make the best market they can, and fix a price on their spiritual commodities in proportion to the devotion or abilities of their respective customers.”

The national Church of the kingdom of Greece has lately been reconstructed similarly to that of Russia, by the establishment of a synod.—See King’s Rites of the Greek Church, and Cowel’s Account of the Greek Church, 1722.

CHURCH, ARCHITECTURE OF. There seems to be an absurdity in the modern practice of building churches for the ritual of the nineteenth century, on the model of churches designed for the ritual of the fourteenth century. And for a service such as ours, nothing more is required than a nave and a chancel; the only divisions which we find in the primitive Eastern churches. But as we have inherited churches which were erected during the middle ages, it is rather important that we should understand their designed arrangement. We find in such churches a nave (navis) with its aisles (alæ); a chancel; a tower, generally at the west end; and a porch, generally to the second bay of the south aisle. The uses of the nave and chancel are obvious; the aisles were added in almost all cases perhaps, prospectively at least in all, that they might serve for places for the erection of chantry altars, and for the same end served the transepts and chancel aisles, or side chapels, to the chancels, sometimes found even in small churches. To the chancel, generally at the north, a vestry was often attached; and this was sometimes enlarged into a habitation for the officiating priest, by the addition of an upper chamber, with fire-place and other conveniences. But the more frequent place for this domus inclusa was over the porch, when it is commonly called parvise; and sometimes the tower has evidently been made habitable, though, in this case, it may be rather suspected that means of defence have been contemplated. In the domus inclusa, in the vestry, and in the parvise, was often an altar, which not unfrequently remains. (See Altar.)

The chancel was separated from the nave by a screen, cancelli, from which the word chancel is derived, and over the screen a loft was extended, bearing the rood—a figure of our blessed Lord on the cross, and, on either side, figures of the Blessed Virgin and of St. John. But few rood lofts remain, but the screen is of frequent occurrence, especially in the northern and eastern counties. The loft was generally gained by a newel stair running up the angle between the chancel and the nave, but sometimes apparently by moveable steps. The side chapels were generally parted off from the adjoining parts of the church by screens, called parcloses. The chancel, if any conventual body was attached to the church, was furnished with stalls, which were set against the north and south walls, and returned against the rood screen, looking east. Connected with the altar, and sometimes, also, with some of the chantry altars, were sedilia, in the south wall of the chancel, varying in number from one to five, for the officiating clergy; and, eastward of these, the piscina; also an aumbrie, or locker, in the north chancel wall. The altar and these accessories were generally raised at least one step above the level of the rest of the chancel floor, and the chancel itself the like height from the nave. The font stood against the first pillar to the left hand, entering at the south porch; it was often raised on steps, and furnished with an elaborate cover. (See Baptistery.) The pulpit always stood in the nave, generally against a north pillar in cathedrals; but in other churches, generally against a south pillar, towards the east. The seats for the congregation were placed in a double series along the nave, with an alley between, and looking east. There are a few instances of seats with doors, but none of high pews till the time of the Puritans.

The doors to the church were almost always opposite to one another in the second bay of the aisles: besides these, there was often a west door, and this is generally supposed to denote some connexion with a monastic body, and was, perhaps, especially used on occasions of greater pomp, processions, and the like. What is usually called the priest’s door, at the south side of the chancel, opens always from within, and was, therefore, not (as is usually supposed) for the priest to enter by: in which case, moreover, it would rather have been to the north, where the glebe house usually stands. Was it for the exit of those who had assisted at mass? A little bell-cot is often seen over the nave and altar, or on some other part of the church, called the service-bell-cot; for the bell rung at certain solemn parts of the service of the mass; as at the words “Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Deus Sabaoth,” and at the elevation of the Host. If, as is supposed, those who were not in the church were accustomed to kneel at this time, there is an obvious reason for the external position of this bell.

CHURCHING OF WOMEN. The birth of man is so truly wonderful, that it seems to be designed as a standing demonstration of the omnipotence of God. And therefore that the frequency of it may not diminish our admiration, the Church orders a public and solemn acknowledgment to be made on every such occasion by the woman on whom the miracle is wrought; who still feels the bruise of our first parents’ fall, and labours under the curse which Eve then entailed upon her whole sex.

As to the original of this custom, it is not to be doubted but that, as many other Christian usages received their rise from other parts of the Jewish economy, so did this from the rite of purification, which is enjoined so particularly in the twelfth chapter of Leviticus. Not that we observe it by virtue of that precept, which we grant to have been ceremonial, and so not now of any force; but because we apprehend some moral duty to have been implied in it by way of analogy, which must be obligatory upon all, even when the ceremony is ceased. The uncleanness of the woman, the set number of days she is to abstain from the tabernacle, and the sacrifices she was to offer when she first came abroad, are rites wholly abolished, and what we no ways regard; but then the open and solemn acknowledgment of God’s goodness in delivering the mother, and increasing the number of mankind, is a duty that will oblige to the end of the world. And therefore, though the mother be now no longer obliged to offer the material sacrifices of the law, yet she is nevertheless bound to offer the evangelical sacrifice of praise. She is still publicly to acknowledge the blessing vouchsafed her, and to profess her sense of the fresh obligation it lays her under to obedience. Nor indeed may the Church be so reasonably supposed to have taken up this rite from the practice of the Jews, as she may be, that she began it in imitation of the Blessed Virgin, who, though she was rather sanctified than defiled by the birth of our Lord, and so had no need of purification from any uncleanness, whether legal or moral; yet wisely and humbly submitted to this rite, and offered her praise, together with her blessed Son, in the temple. And that from hence this usage was derived among Christians seems probable, not only from its being so universal and ancient, that the beginning of it can hardly anywhere be found; but also from the practice of the Eastern Church, where the mother still brings the child along with her, and presents it to God on her churching-day. The priest indeed is there said to “purify” them: and in our first Common Prayer, this office with us was entitled “the Order of the Purification of Women.” But that neither of these terms implied, that the woman had contracted any uncleanness in her state of child-bearing, may not only be inferred from the silence of the offices both in the Greek Church and ours, in relation to any uncleanness; but is also further evident from the ancient laws relating to this practice, which by no means ground it upon any impurity from which the woman stands in need to be purged. And therefore, when our own liturgy came to be reviewed, to prevent all misconstructions that might be put upon the word, the title was altered, and the office named, (as it is still in our present Common Prayer Book,) “The Thanksgiving of Women after Child-birth, commonly called, The Churching of Women.”—Dean Comber, Wheatly.

When Holy Scripture describes excessive sorrow in the most expressive manner, it likens it to that of a woman in travail. And if this sorrow be so excessive, how great must the joy be to be delivered from that sorrow! commensurate certainly, and of adequate proportion: and no less must be the debt of thankfulness to the benefactor, the donor of that recovery; whence a necessity of “thanksgiving of women after child-birth.” If it be asked, why the Church hath appointed a particular form for this deliverance, and not for deliverance from other cases of equal danger? the answer is, the Church did not so much take measure of the peril, as accommodate herself to that mark of separation which God himself hath put between this and other maladies. “To conceive and bring forth in sorrow” was signally inflicted upon Eve; and, in her, upon all mothers, as a penalty for her first disobedience (Gen. iii. 16); so that the sorrows of child-birth have, by God’s express determination, a more direct and peculiar reference to Eve’s disobedience than any other disease whatsoever; and, though all maladies are the product of the first sin, yet is the malediction specifically fixed and applied to this alone. Now, when that which was ordained primarily as a curse for the first sin, is converted to so great a blessing, God is certainly in that case more to be praised in a set and solemn office.—L’ Estrange.

In the Greek Church the time for performing this office is limited to be on the fortieth day; but, in the West, the time was never strictly determined. And so our present rubric does not pretend to limit the day when the woman shall be churched, but only supposes that she will come “at the usual time after her delivery.” The “usual time” is now about a month, for the woman’s weakness will seldom permit her coming sooner. And if she be not able to come so soon, she is allowed to stay a longer time, the Church not expecting her to return her thanks for a blessing before it is received.—Wheatly.

It is required, that whenever a woman is churched, she “shall come into the church.” And this is enjoined, first, for the honour of God, whose marvellous works in the formation of the child, and the preservation of the woman, ought publicly to be owned, that so others may learn to put their trust in him. Secondly, that the whole congregation may have a fit opportunity for praising God for the too much forgotten mercy of their birth. And, thirdly, that the woman may, in the proper place, own the mercy now vouchsafed her, of being restored to the happy privilege of worshipping God in the congregation of his saints.

How great, therefore, is the absurdity which some would introduce, of stifling their acknowledgments in private houses, and of giving thanks for their recovery and enlargement in no other place than that of their confinement and restraint; a practice which is inconsistent with the very name of this office, which is called “the churching of women,” and which consequently implies a ridiculous solecism, of being churched at home. Nor is it anything more consistent with the end and devotions prescribed by this office, than it is with the name of it. For with what decency or propriety can the woman pretend to “pay her vows in the presence of all God’s people, in the courts of the Lord’s house,” when she is only assuming state in a bedchamber or parlour, and perhaps only accompanied with her midwife or nurse? To give thanks, therefore, at home (for by no means call it “churching”) is not only an act of disobedience to the Church, but a high affront to Almighty God; whose mercy they scorn to acknowledge in a church, and think it honour enough done him, if he is summoned by his priest to wait on them at their house, and to take what thanks they will vouchsafe him there. But methinks a minister, who has any regard for his character, and considers the honour of the Lord he serves, should disdain such a servile compliance and submission, and abhor the betraying of his Master’s dignity. Here can be no pretence of danger in the case, should the woman prove obstinate, upon the priest’s refusal (which ministers are apt to urge for their excuse, when they are prevailed upon to give public baptism in private); nor is the decision of a council wanting to instruct him, (if he has any doubts upon account of the woman’s ill health,) that he is not to perform this office at home, though she be really so weak as not to be able to come to church.—Conc. 3, Mediol. cap. 5. For if she be not able to come to church, let her stay till she is; God does not require any thanks for a mercy, before he has vouchsafed it: but if she comes as soon as her strength permits, she discharges her obligations both to him and the Church.—Wheatly.

The rubric, at the end of the service, directs the woman that cometh to give her thanks, to offer the accustomed offerings. By “the accustomed offerings” is to be understood some offering to the minister who performs the office, not under the notion of a fee or reward, but of something set apart as a tribute or acknowledgment due to God, who is pleased to declare himself honoured or robbed according as such offerings are paid or withheld. We see under the law, that every woman, who came to be purified after child-bearing, was required to bring something that put her to an expense; even the poorest among them was not wholly excused, but obliged to do something, though it were but small. And though neither the kind nor the value of the expense be now prescribed, yet sure the expense itself should not covetously be saved: a woman that comes with any thankfulness or gratitude should scorn to offer what David disdained, namely, “of that which costs nothing.” And indeed with what sincerity or truth can she say, as she is directed to do in one of the Psalms, “I will pay my vows now in the presence of all his people,” if at the same time she designs no voluntary offering, which vows were always understood to imply?

But, besides the accustomed offering to the minister, the woman is to make a yet much better and greater offering, namely, an offering of herself, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice to God. For the rubric declares, that “if there be a communion, it is convenient that she receive the holy communion;” that being the most solemn way of praising God for him by whom she received both the present and all other God’s mercies towards her; and a means also to bind herself more strictly to spend those days in his service, which, by this late deliverance, he hath added to her life.—Wheatly.

In the Greek and Ethiopic Churches women upon these occasions always did receive the holy sacrament; and it seems in this very Church above a thousand years ago; and still we carry them up to the altar to remind them of their duty. And doubtless the omission of it occasions the too soon forgetting of this mercy, and the sudden falling off from piety, which we see in too many. Here they may praise God for our Lord Jesus Christ, and for this late temporal mercy also: here they may quicken their graces, seal their vows and promises of obedience, offer their charity, and begin that pious life to which they are so many ways obliged. To receive the sacrament, while the sense of God’s goodness and her own engagements is so fresh upon her, is the likeliest means to make her remember this blessing long, apply it right, and effectually to profit by it. Wherefore let it not be omitted on this occasion.—Dean Comber.

The woman is directed to kneel down in “some convenient place, as hath been accustomed.” No general rule is either prescribed or observed as to time or place, and therefore these are matters which fall within the office of the ordinary to determine. Many read the office just before the General Thanksgiving: others, though not so usually, at some part of the Communion Service; some at the altar, others at the desk: the woman in some churches occupies a seat specially set apart for this office; in others she kneels at the altar table, and there makes her offering. And in others a custom prevails (which does not seem worthy of imitation) of performing this service at some time distinct from the office of Common Prayer.

CHURCH RATE. (See Rate.)

CHURCHWARDENS. These are very ancient officers, and by the common law are a lay corporation, to take care of the goods of the church, and may sue and be sued as the representatives of the parish. Churches are to be repaired by the churchwardens, at the charge of all the inhabitants, or such as occupy houses or lands within the parish.

In the ancient episcopal synods, the bishops were wont to summon divers creditable persons out of every parish, to give information of, and to attest the disorders of clergy and people. They were called testes synodales; and were, in after times, a kind of empanelled jury, consisting of two, three, or more persons in every parish, who were, upon oath, to present all heretics and other irregular persons. And these, in process of time, became standing officers in several places, especially in great cities, and from hence were called synods-men, and by corruption sidesmen: they are also sometimes called questmen, from the nature of their office, in making inquiry concerning offences. And these sidesmen or questmen, by Canon 90, are to be chosen yearly in Easter week, by the minister and parishioners, (if they can agree,) otherwise to be appointed by the ordinary of the diocese. But for the most part this whole office is now devolved upon the churchwardens, together with that other office which their name more properly imports, of taking care of the church and the goods thereof, which has long been their function.

By Canon 118. The churchwardens and sidesmen shall be chosen the first week after Easter, or some week following, according to the direction of the ordinary.

And by Canon 89. All churchwardens or questmen in every parish shall be chosen by the joint consent of the minister and the parishioners, if it may be; but if they cannot agree upon such a choice, then the minister shall choose one, and the parishioners another; and without such a joint or several choice, none shall take upon them to be churchwardens. But if the parish is entitled by custom to choose both churchwardens, then the parson is restrained of his right under this canon. For further information on this subject the reader is referred to Dean Prideaux’s “Practical Guide to the Duties of Churchwardens in the execution of their Office,” a new edition of which has recently appeared, edited by C. G. Prideaux, barrister-at-law. (See Sidesmen and Visitation.)

CHURCHYARD. The ground adjoining to the church, in which the dead are buried. As to the original of burial-places, many writers have observed, that, at the first erection of churches, no part of the adjacent ground was allotted for the interment of the dead; but some place for this purpose was appointed at a further distance. This practice continued until the time of Gregory the Great, when the monks and priests procured leave, for their greater ease and profit, that a liberty of sepulture might be in churches or places adjoining to them. But, by the ninth canon, entitled De non sepeliendo in ecclesiis, this custom of sepulture in churches was restrained, and no such liberty allowed for the future, unless the person was a priest or some holy man, who, by the merits of his past life, might deserve such peculiar favour.

By Canon 85. The churchwardens or questmen shall take care that the churchyards be well and sufficiently repaired, fenced, and maintained with walls, rails, or pales, as have been in each place accustomed, at their charges unto whom by law the same appertains.

The churchyard is the freehold of the parson: but it is the common burial-place of the dead, and for that reason it is to be fenced at the charge of the parishioners, unless there is a custom to the contrary, or for a particular person to do it, in respect of his lands adjoining to the churchyard; and that must be tried at common law. But though the freehold is in the parson, he cannot cut down trees growing there, except for the necessary repairs of the chancel; because they are planted and grow there for the ornament and shelter of the church. (See Burial and Cemetery.)

CIBORIUM. A small temple or tabernacle placed upon the altar of Roman Catholic churches, and containing the consecrated wafer.

CIRCUMCELLIONS. A sect of the Donatist Christians in Africa, in the fourth century, being so called, because they rambled from one town to another, and pretended to public reformation and redressing of grievances; they manumitted slaves without their master’s leave, forgave debts which were none of their own, and committed a great many other insolencies: they were headed by Maxides and Faser. At the beginning of their disorders they marched only with staves, which they called the staves of Israel, in allusion to the custom of the Israelites eating the paschal lamb with staves in their hands, but afterwards they made use of all sorts of arms against the Catholics. Donatus called them the saints’ chiefs, and revenged himself by their means upon the Catholics. A mistaken zeal for martyrdom made these people destroy themselves; some of them threw themselves down precipices, others leaped into the fire, and some cut their own throats: so that their bishops, not being able to prevent such horrible and unnatural violences, were obliged to apply themselves to the magistracy to put an end to their phrensy.—August. Hæres, 69; Optatus, lib. iii.; Theod. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. c. 6.

CIRCUMCISION of JESUS CHRIST. This feast is celebrated by the Church, to commemorate the active obedience of our Lord in fulfilling all righteousness, which is one branch of the meritorious cause of our redemption; and by that means abrogating the severe injunctions of the Mosaical establishment, and putting us under the grace of the gospel. The institution of this feast is of very considerable antiquity. In the sixth century a special and appropriate service for it was in use. It sometimes took the name of the “Octave of Christmas,” or the eighth day from that festival, being observed on January 1st. (See Octave.) It is one of the scarlet days at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

CISTERCIANS. Towards the conclusion of the 11th century, Robert, abbot of Molême, in Burgundy, having employed, in vain, his most zealous efforts to revive the decaying piety and discipline of his convent, and to oblige his monks to observe more exactly the rule of St. Benedict, retired with about twenty monks to a place called Citeaux, in the diocese of Chalons. In this retreat Robert founded the famous order of the Cistercians, which made a most rapid and astonishing progress, spread through the greatest part of Europe in the following century, was enriched with the most liberal and splendid donations, acquired the form and privileges of a spiritual republic, and exercised a sort of dominion over all the monastic orders. The great and fundamental law of this new fraternity was the rule of St. Benedict, which was to be rigorously observed. (See Benedictines.) To this were added several other injunctions intended to maintain the authority of the rule. The first Cistercian monastery in England was that of Waverley, in Surrey, 1129. In the reign of Edward I. there were sixty-one Cistercian monasteries.—Monast. Angl.; Hist. des Ord. Relig. tom. v. c. 33.

CITATION. This is a precept under the seal of the ecclesiastical judge, commanding the person against whom the complaint is made to appear before him, on a certain day, and at a certain place therein mentioned, to answer the complaint in such a cause, &c.

CLAIRE, ST. A religious order of women in the Romish Church, the second that St. Francis instituted. This order was founded in 1213, and was confirmed by Innocent III., and after him by Honorius III., in 1223. It took its name from its first abbess and nun, Clara of Assisi, and was afterwards divided into Damianists and Urbanists; the first follow the ancient discipline in all its rigour, but the other the rule with Urban IV.’s allowance.—Hist. des Ord. Relig. t. vii. c. 25.

CLARENDON, CONSTITUTIONS OF. Certain constitutions made in the reign of Henry II., A. D. 1164, in a parliament or council held at Clarendon, a village three miles distant from Salisbury. These are as follows:—

I. When any difference relating to the right of patronage arises between the laity, or between the laity and clergy, the controversy is to be tried and ended in the king’s courts.

II. Those churches which are fees of the Crown cannot be granted away in perpetuity without the king’s consent.

III. When the clergy are charged with any misdemeanour, and summoned by the justiciary, they shall be obliged to make their appearance in his court, and plead to such parts of the indictments as shall be put to them. And likewise to answer such articles in the ecclesiastical court as they shall be prosecuted for by that jurisdiction; always provided that the king’s justiciary shall send an officer to inspect the proceedings of the court Christian. And in case any clerk is convicted or pleads guilty, he is to forfeit the privilege of his character, and be protected by the Church no longer.

IV. No archbishops, bishops, or parsons are allowed to depart the kingdom without a licence from the Crown; and, provided they have leave to travel, they shall give security not to act or solicit anything during their passage, stay, or return, to the prejudice of the king or kingdom.

V. When any of the laity are prosecuted in the ecclesiastical courts, the charge ought to be proved before the bishop by legal and reputable witnesses: and the course of the process is to be so managed, that the archdeacon may not lose any part of his right, or the profits accruing to his office: and if any offenders appear screened from prosecution upon the score either of favour or quality, the sheriff, at the bishop’s instance, shall order twelve sufficient men of the vicinage to make oath before the bishop, that they will discover the truth according to the best of their knowledge.

VI. Excommunicated persons shall not be obliged to make oath, or give security to continue upon the place where they live, but only to abide by the judgment of the Church, in order to their absolution.

VII. No person that holds in chief of the king, or any of his barons, shall be excommunicated, or any of their estates put under an interdict, before application made to the king, provided he is in the kingdom: and in case his Highness is out of England, then the justiciary must be acquainted with the dispute, in order to make satisfaction: and thus that which belongs to the cognizance of the king’s court must be tried there, and that which belongs to the courts Christian must be remitted to that jurisdiction.

VIII. In case of appeals in ecclesiastical causes, the first step is to be made from the archdeacon to the bishop, and from the bishop to the archbishop; and if the archbishop fails to do him justice, a further recourse may be had to the king; by whose order the controversy is to be finally decided in the archbishop’s court. Neither shall it be lawful for either of the parties to move for any further remedy without leave from the Crown.

IX. If a difference happen to arise between any clergyman and layman concerning any tenement; and that the clerk pretends it held by frank-almoine, and the layman pleads it a lay-fee, in this case the tenure shall be tried by the inquiry and verdict of twelve sufficient men of the neighbourhood, summoned according to the custom of the realm; and if the tenement, or thing in controversy, shall be found frank-almoine, the dispute concerning it shall be tried in the ecclesiastical court; but if it is brought in a lay-fee, the suit shall be followed in the king’s courts, unless both the plaintiff and defendant hold the tenement in question of the same bishop; in which case the cause shall be tried in the court of such bishop or baron, with this further proviso, that he who is seized of the thing in controversy shall not be disseized pending the suit, upon the score of the verdict above-mentioned.

X. He who holds of the king in any city, castle, or borough, or resides upon any of the demesne lands of the Crown, in case he is cited by the archdeacon or bishop to answer to any misbehaviour belonging to their cognizance; if he refuses to obey their summons, and stand to the sentence of the court, it shall be lawful for the ordinary to put him under an interdict, but not to excommunicate him till the king’s principal officer of the town shall be pre-acquainted with the case, in order to enjoin him to make satisfaction to the Church. And if such officer or magistrate shall fail in his duty, he shall be fined by the king’s judges. And then the bishop may exert his discipline on the refractory person as he thinks fit.

XI. All archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons, who hold of the king in chief, and the tenure of a barony, are, for that reason, obliged to appear before the king’s justices and ministers, to answer the duties of their tenure, and to observe all the usages and customs of the realm; and, like other barons, are bound to be present at trials in the king’s court, till sentence is to be pronounced for the losing of life or limbs.

XII. When any archbishopric, bishopric, abbey, or priory of royal foundation, becomes vacant, the king is to make seizure; from which time all the profits and issues are to be paid into the exchequer, as if they were the demesne lands of the Crown. And when it is determined the vacancy shall be filled up, the king is to summon the most considerable persons of the chapter to the court, and the election is to be made in the chapel royal, with the consent of our sovereign lord the king, and by the advice of such persons of the government as his Highness shall think fit to make use of. At which time the person elected, before his consecration, shall be obliged to do homage and fealty to the king, as his liege lord; which homage shall be performed in the usual form, with a clause for the saving the privilege of his order.

XIII. If any of the temporal barons, or great men, shall encroach upon the rights of property of any archbishop, bishop, or archdeacon, and refuse to make satisfaction for the wrong done by themselves or their tenants, the king shall do justice to the party aggrieved. And if any person shall disseise the king of any part of his lands, or trespass upon his prerogative, the archbishops, bishops, and archdeacons shall call him to an account, and oblige him to make the Crown restitution.

XIV. The goods and chattels of those who lie under forfeitures of felony or treason, are not to be detained in any church or churchyard, to secure them against seizure and justice; because such goods are the king’s property, whether they are lodged within the precincts of a church, or without it.

XV. All actions and pleas of debt, though never so solemn in the circumstances of the contract, shall be tried in the king’s court.

XVI. The sons of copyholders are not to be ordained without the consent of the lord of the manor where they were born.

CLERESTORY. That part of a church with aisles which rises on the nave arches over the aisle roofs. Constructively, the clerestory is often to be referred to the roof. The original roof of small, and sometimes even of large, churches usually covered nave and aisles at one span. When the original roof needed repair, the old timbers were made available by cutting off the ends which had suffered most. But this process rendered them unfit for a compass roof of high pitch. An addition, therefore, was made to the walls of the nave, by which the roof might rise as high as before in the centre, though of lower pitch.

CLERGY. (See Bishop, Presbyter, Priest, Deacon, Apostolical Succession, Orders.) The general name given to the body of ecclesiastics of the Christian Church, in contradistinction to the laity. It is derived from κλῆρος, a lot or portion.

The distinction of Christians into clergy and laity was derived from the Jewish Church, and adopted into the Christian by the apostles themselves. Wherever any number of converts was made, as soon as they were capable of being formed into a congregation or church, a bishop or presbyter, with a deacon, were ordained to minister to them, as Epiphanius relates from the ancient histories of the Church. The author of the Comment on St. Paul’s Epistles, under the name of St. Ambrose, says, indeed, that at first all Christ’s disciples were clergy, and had all a general commission to preach the gospel and baptize: but this was in order to convert the world, and before any multitude of people were gathered, or churches founded, wherein to make a distinction. But, as soon as the Church began to spread itself over the world, and sufficient numbers were converted to form themselves into a regular society, then rulers, and other ecclesiastical officers, were appointed among them, and a distinction made that each might not interfere with the other.

The clergy, originally, consisted only of bishops, priests, and deacons; but, in the third century, many inferior orders were appointed, as subservient to the office of deacon, such as subdeacons, acolyths, readers, &c.

There is another name for the clergy, very commonly to be met with in the ancient councils, which is that of canonici: a name derived from the Greek word κάνων, which signifies, among other things, the roll or catalogue of every church, in which the names of the ecclesiastics, belonging to each church, were written.

The privileges and immunities which the clergy of the primitive Christian Church enjoyed, deserve our notice. In the first place, whenever they travelled upon necessary occasions, they were to be entertained by their brethren of the clergy, in all places, out of the public revenues of the Church. When any bishop or presbyter came to a foreign Church, they were to be complimented with the honorary privilege of performing divine offices, and consecrating the eucharist in the church. If any controversies happened among the clergy, they freely consented to have them determined by their bishops and councils, without having recourse to the secular magistrate for justice. The great care the clergy had of the characters and reputations of those of their order appears from hence, that, in all accusations, especially against bishops, they required the testimony of two or three witnesses, according to the apostle’s rule; they likewise examined the character of the witnesses, before their testimony was admitted; nor would they suffer a heretic to give evidence against a clergyman. These instances relate to the respect which the clergy mutually paid to each other.

With regard to the respect paid to the clergy by the civil government, it consisted chiefly in exempting them from some kind of obligations, to which others were liable, and in granting them certain privileges and immunities which others did not enjoy. Thus, by a law of Justinian, no secular judge could compel a bishop to appear in a public court, to give his testimony, but was to send one of his officers to take it from his mouth in private; nor was a bishop obliged to give his testimony upon oath, but only upon his bare word. Presbyters, we find, were privileged from being questioned by torture, as other witnesses were. But a still more extensive privilege was, the exemption of the clergy from the ordinary cognizance of the secular courts in all causes purely ecclesiastical; such being reserved for the hearing of the bishops and councils, not only by the canons of the Church, but by the laws of the state also; as appears from several rescripts of the emperors Constantius, Valentinian, Gratian, Theodosius the Great, Arcadius and Honorius, Valentinian II., and Justinian.

Another privilege, which the clergy enjoyed by the favour of Christian princes, was, that, in certain cases, they were exempt from some of the taxes laid upon the rest of the Roman empire. In the first place, they were exempt from the census capitum, or personal tribute, but not from the census agrorum, or tribute arising from men’s lands and possessions. In the next place they were not obliged to pay the aurum tironicum, soldiers’ money, nor the equorum canonicorum adæratio, horse money; which were taxes laid on some provinces, for furnishing the emperor with new levies, and fresh horses, for the wars. A third tax from which the clergy was exempt was the χρυσάργυροι, the silver and gold tax, which was laid upon trade and commerce; and the fourth, the metatum, so called from the word metatores, which signifies the emperor’s forerunners or harbingers; being a duty incumbent on the subjects of the empire to give entertainment to the emperor’s court and retinue, when they travelled. The clergy were also exempt from contributing to the reparation of highways and bridges, and from the duties called angariæ and parangariæ, &c., by which the subjects were obliged to furnish horses and carriages for the conveying of corn for the use of the army.

Another sort of immunity which the clergy enjoyed, was their exemption from civil offices in the Roman empire. But this privilege was confined to such of the clergy as had no estates, but what belonged to the Church by the laws of Constantine. For the Christian princes always made a wide difference between the public patrimony of the Church, and the private estates of such of the clergy as had lands of a civil or secular tenure. For the one, the clergy were obliged to no duty or burden of civil offices; but for the other, they were, and could not be excused from them otherwise than by providing proper substitutes to officiate for them.

After this account of the privileges of the ancient Christian clergy, it may not be improper to take some notice of the principal laws made for the regulation of their lives and conversations.

And, first, we may observe what sort of crimes were thought worthy of degradation. It was not every slight failing or infirmity, for which a clergyman was degraded, but only crimes of a deeper dye, such as theft, murder, fraud, perjury, sacrilege, and adultery: to which may be added, drinking and gaming, those two great consumers of time, and enemies to all noble undertakings and generous services; as, also, the taking of money upon usury, which is condemned by many of the ancient canons as a species of covetousness and cruelty. And therefore, instead of lending upon usury, the clergy were obliged to be exemplary for the contrary virtues, hospitality and charity to the poor, frugality, and a contempt of the world. And, to guard against defamation and scandal, it was enacted by the canons of several councils, that no bishops, presbyters, or deacons should visit widows and virgins alone, but in the company and presence of some other of the clergy, or some grave Christians.

With regard to the laws, more particularly relating to the exercise of the duties and offices of their function, the clergy were, in the first place, obliged to lead studious lives. But it was not all sorts of studies that were equally recommended to them: the principal was the study of the Holy Scriptures, as being the fountains of that learning, which was most proper for their calling. Next to the Scriptures, they were to study the canons of the Church, and the best ecclesiastical authors. In after ages, in the time of Charles the Great, we find some laws obliging the clergy to read, together with the canons, Gregory’s book “De Cura Pastorali.” As to other books, they were more cautious and sparing in the study and use of them. Some canons forbad a bishop to read heathen authors; nor was he allowed to read heretical books, except when there was occasion to confute them, or to caution others against the poison of them. But the prohibition of heathen learning was to be understood with a little qualification. It was only forbidden so far as it tended to the neglect of Scripture and more useful studies. We pass over the obligations incumbent on them to attend the daily service of the Church, to be pious and devout in their public addresses to God, to be zealous in defending the truth, and maintaining the unity of the Church, &c.

By the ecclesiastical laws, no clergyman was allowed to relinquish or desert his station without just grounds and leave: yet, in some cases, resignation was allowed of,—such as old age, sickness, or other infirmity. No clergyman was to remove from one diocese to another, without the consent, and letters dimissory, of his own bishop. The laws were no less severe against all wandering clergymen, or such as, having deserted their own church, would fix in no other, but went roving from place to place: these some of the ancients called βακαντιβοι or Vacantivi. By the laws of the Church, the bishops were not to permit such to officiate in their dioceses, nor indeed so much as to communicate in their churches. Other laws there were, which obliged the clergy to residence, or a constant attendance upon their duty. The Council of Sardica has several canons relating to this matter. Others inhibited pluralities, or the officiating in two parochial churches. In pursuance of the same design, of keeping the clergy strict and constant to their duty, laws were also made to prohibit them following any secular employment, which might divert them too much from their proper business and calling. In some times and places, the laws of the Church were so strict about this matter, that they would not suffer a bishop, or presbyter, to be left trustee to any man’s will. By other laws they were prohibited from taking upon them the office of pleading at the bar in any civil contest.

Another sort of laws respected the outward behaviour of the clergy. Such were the laws against corresponding and conversing too freely with Jews, and Gentile philosophers; and the canons which restrained them from eating and drinking in a tavern, or being present at the public theatres. To this sort of laws we may reduce the ancient rules which concern the garb and habit of the clergy; which were to be such as might express the gravity of their minds, without any affectation, or superstitious singularity. As to the kind or fashion of their apparel, it does not appear, for several ages, that there was any other distinction observed therein between them and the laity, than the modesty and gravity of their garb, without being tied to any certain habit, or form of dress.

These were the principal laws and regulations by which the clergy of the primitive Christian Church were governed; and it is remarkable, that the apostate emperor Julian was so convinced of their excellency, that he had a design of reforming the heathen priesthood upon the model of the Christian clergy.

The clergy of the Church of Rome are distinguished into regular and secular. The regular clergy consist of those monks, or religious, who have taken upon them holy orders, and perform the offices of the priesthood in their respective monasteries. The secular clergy are those who are not of any religious order, and have the care and direction of parishes. The canons of such cathedrals as were not monastic foundations were so called; i.e. secular canons. In the Saxon times these might be married. The Protestant clergy are all seculars.

The Romish Church forbids the clergy of her communion to marry, and pretends that a vow of perpetual celibacy, or abstinence from conjugal society, was required of the clergy, as a condition of their ordination, even from the apostolical ages. But the contrary is evident from innumerable examples of bishops and presbyters, who lived, in those early ages, in a state of matrimony.—Bingham. (See Celibacy.)

CLERK. This word is in fact only an abbreviation of the word clericus, or clergyman. It is still used, in a few instances, to designate clergymen: as clerk of the king’s closet, clerks in orders in certain parish churches. In foreign churches, it is usually applied to the ministers in minor orders. But it is now used to designate certain laymen, who are appointed to conduct or lead the responses of the congregation, and otherwise to assist in the services of the church. In most cathedrals and collegiate churches, and in some colleges, there are several of these lay clerks (see Vicar Choral, Secondary, and Stipendiary); in parish churches, generally, there is but one, who is styled the parish clerk. These were, originally, real clerks, i. e. clergymen, generally in minor orders, who assisted the officiating priest. But the minor orders have long ceased to be conferred, except as symbolical steps towards the higher grades of the ministry; so that in countries of the Romish communion, as well as among ourselves, the office which used to be performed by one or more clergymen has devolved upon laymen. There can be little doubt that, in parishes where there are more than one clergyman resident, the duties of the parish clerk should be performed by them, especially in leading the responses, singing, giving notices, &c.; but long custom has so familiarized us to the services of a lay-clerk, that we permit him, as of right, to do even in the presence of the clergy what, strictly speaking, belongs to the clerical office. It is a great fault in a congregation when they permit the lay-clerk to do more than lead them in the responses or their singing. The eighteenth canon directs all persons, man, woman, and child, to say in their due places, audibly with the minister, the Confession, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Creed, and make such other answers to the public prayer as are appointed in the Book of Common Prayer; and the laity forfeit a high privilege when they leave their share of the service to the lay-clerk alone.

Clerks are mentioned in the Prayer Book in the Rubric before the second occurrence of the Lord’s Prayer, in Morning and Evening Prayer: “The minister, clerks, and people shall say the Lord’s Prayer with a loud voice:” in the Marriage Service, “The minister and clerks, going to the Lord’s table, shall say or sing this Psalm following:” in the Burial Service, “The priest and clerks meeting the corpse at the entrance of the churchyard, &c., shall say or sing:” and when they are come to the grave, “The priest shall say, or the priest and clerks shall sing:” and in the Commination Service, “The priest and clerks, kneeling, (in the place where they are accustomed to say the Litany,) shall say this Psalm, Miserere mei, Deus.” The clerk in the singular number is mentioned but once only, which is in the Marriage Service; where the man is directed to lay the ring on the book “with the accustomed duty to the priest and clerk.”—Jebb.

Canon 91. Parish clerks to be chosen by the minister.—No parish clerk upon any vacation shall be chosen, within the city of London, or elsewhere within the province of Canterbury, but by the parson or vicar: or, where there is no parson or vicar, by the minister of that place for the time being; which choice shall be signified by the said minister, vicar, or parson, to the parishioners the next Sunday following, in the time of Divine service. And the said clerk shall be of twenty years of age at the least, and known to the said parson, vicar, or minister, to be of honest conversation, and sufficient for his reading, writing, and also for his competent skill in singing, if it may be. And the said clerks so chosen shall have and receive their ancient wages without fraud or diminution, either at the hands of the churchwarden, at such times as hath been accustomed, or by their own collection, according to the most ancient custom of every parish.

Since the making of this canon, the right of putting in the parish clerk has often been contested between incumbents and parishioners, and prohibitions prayed, and always obtained, to the spiritual court, for maintaining the authority of the canon in favour of the incumbent, against the plea of custom in behalf of the parishioners.

All incumbents once had the right of nomination of the parish clerks, by the common law and custom of the realm.

Parish clerks, after having been duly chosen and appointed, are usually licensed by the ordinary. And when they are licensed, they are sworn to obey the minister.

By a recent regulation, (7 & 8 Vict. c. 59,) persons in holy orders may be appointed to the office of parish clerk, which is to be held under the same tenure as that of a stipendiary curacy. Lay-clerks may also be dismissed by the minister, without the intervention of a mandamus from the Queen’s Bench.

By 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 35, a parish clerk, for assisting at a marriage, without banns or licence, shall forfeit five pounds for every such offence.

CLINIC BAPTISM. Baptism on a sick bed (κλινη) was so called in the primitive Church. In the earlier ages of Christianity certain solemn days were set apart for the administration of holy baptism, and only on extraordinary occasions were converts baptized, except on one or other of those days; but if one already a candidate for baptism fell sick, and if his life was endangered, he was allowed to receive clinic baptism. There was, however, a kind of clinics to whom great suspicion attached; some persons who were converts to the doctrines of Christianity would not be baptized while in health and vigour, because of the greater holiness of life to which they would account themselves pledged, and because they thought that baptism administered on their death-bed would wash away the sins of their life. Such persons, though they recovered after their baptism, were held to be under several disabilities, and especially they were not admitted as candidates for holy orders.

CLOISTER. (See Monastery.) A covered walk, not unusually occupying the four sides of a quadrangle, which is almost an invariable appendage to a monastic or ancient collegiate residence. The most beautiful cloister remaining in England is at Gloucester cathedral. Several of the cathedrals which were not monastic have or had cloisters; as York, old St. Paul’s, Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lincoln, Salisbury, Wells; formerly St. Patrick’s in Dublin; and some colleges, as New College, Magdalen, and Corpus at Oxford; Winchester College. A cloister was projected for King’s College by the founder, but never executed. St. George’s Chapel at Windsor has also a cloister.

CLUNIAC MONKS. Religious of the order of Clugni. It is the first branch of the order of St. Benedict.

St. Bernon, abbot of Gigniac, of the family of the earls of Burgundy, was the founder of this order. In the year 910, he built a monastery for the reception of Benedictine monks, in the town of Clugni, situated in the Maconnois, a little province of France, on the river Saone. The noble abbey of Clugni was destroyed in 1789.

The monks of Clugni (or Cluni) were remarkable for their sanctity. They every day sang two solemn masses. They so strictly observed silence, that they would rather have died than break it before the hour of prime. When they were at work, they recited psalms. They fed eighteen poor persons every day, and were so profuse of their charity in Lent, that one year, at the beginning of Lent, they distributed salt meat, and other alms, among 7000 poor.

The preparation they used for making the bread which was to serve for the eucharist is worthy to be observed. They first chose the wheat grain by grain, and washed it very carefully. Then a servant carried it in a bag to the mill, and washed the grindstones, and covered them with curtains. The meal was afterwards washed in clean water, and baked in iron moulds.

The extraordinary discipline observed in the monasteries of Clugni soon spread its fame in all parts. France, Germany, England, Spain, and Italy, desired to have some of these religious, for whom they built new monasteries. They also passed into the East; and there was scarcely a place in Europe where the order was not known.

The principal monasteries in which the discipline and rules of Clugni were observed, were those of Tulles in the Limousin, Aurillac in Auvergne, Bourgdieu and Massa in Berri, St. Benet on the Loire in the Orleanois, St. Peter le Vif at Sens, St. Allire of Clermont, St. Julian of Tours, Sarlat in Perigord, and Roman-Mourier in the country of Vaux.

This order was divided into ten provinces, being those of Dauphiné, Auvergne, Poitiers, Saintonge, and Gascony, in France; Spain, Italy, Lombardy, Germany, and England.

At the general chapters, which were at first held yearly, and afterwards every three years, two visitors were chosen for every province, and two others for the monasteries of nuns of this order, fifteen definitors, three auditors of causes, and two auditors of excuses. There were formerly five principal priories, called the five first daughters of Clugni; but, since the dissolution of the monasteries in England, which involved that of St. Pancrace, at Lewes in Sussex, there remained but four principal priories, being those of La Charité sur Loire, St. Martin des Champs at Paris, Souvigni, and Souxillanges.

The Cluniac monks were first brought into England by William, earl of Warren, about the year of our Lord, 1077. These religious, though they lived under the rule of St. Benedict, and wore a black habit, yet, because their discipline and observances differed in many things from those of the Benedictines, therefore they were not called Benedictines, but monks of the order of Clugni. In the reign of Henry V., the Cluniac monasteries, by reason of the war between England and France, were cut off from the obedience of the abbot of Clugni, nor were they permitted to have any intercourse with the monasteries of their order out of England. The monasteries of Cluniac monks in England amounted in number to thirty-eight.—Broughton’s Bibliotheca Historico-Sacra.

COADJUTOR. In cases of any habitual distemper of the mind, whereby the incumbent is rendered incapable of the administration of his cure, such as frenzy, lunacy, and the like, the laws of the Church have provided coadjutors. Of these there are many instances in the ecclesiastical records, both before and since the Reformation; and we find them given generally to parochial ministers, (as most numerous,) but sometimes also to deans, archdeacons, prebendaries, and the like; and no doubt they may be given, in such circumstances, at the discretion of the ordinary, to any ecclesiastical person having ecclesiastical cure and revenue.

CŒNOBITES. Monks, who lived together in a fixed habitation, and formed one large community under a chief, whom they called father or abbot. The word is derived from κοινοβιον, vitæ communis societas. (See Monks.)

COLIDEI. (See Culdees.)

COLLATION. This is where a bishop gives a benefice, which either he had as patron, or which came to him by lapse.

This is also a term in use among ecclesiastical writers to denote the spare meal on days of abstinence, consisting of bread or other fruits, but without meat.

COLLECTS. These are certain brief and comprehensive prayers, which are found in all known liturgies and public devotional offices. Ritualists have thought that these prayers were so called, because they were used in the public congregation or collection of the people; or from the fact of many petitions being here collected together in a brief summary; or because they comprehend objects of prayer collected out of the Epistles and Gospels. But whatever may be the origin of the term, it is one of great antiquity. It is indeed difficult to trace the antiquity of repeating collects at the end of the service. It certainly, however, prevailed in our own Church, the Church of England, even during the period preceding the Norman Conquest. The very collects that we still use, formed part of the devotional offices of our Church long before the Reformation. They are generally directed to God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord; for so they usually conclude, though sometimes they are directed to Christ himself, who is God co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. They consist usually of two parts, an humble acknowledgment of the adorable perfection and goodness of God, and a petition for some benefits from him. Among the advantages resulting from the regulation of the Church in making use of these short collects are,—the relief they give to the worshipper; the variety they throw into the service; the fixing of attention by new impulses of thought; the solemnizing of the mind by frequent invocations of the hearer of prayer; the constant reference of all our hopes to the merits and mediation of Christ, in whose name every collect is offered; and, lastly, the inspiring feeling, that in them we are offering up our prayers in the same words which have been on the lips of the martyrs and saints of all ages.

The more usual name in the Latin Church was collectæ, collects, because the prayers of the bishop, which in any part of the service followed the joint prayers of the deacon and congregation, were both a recollection and recommendation of the prayers of the people. In this sense Cassian takes the phrase, colligere orationem, when speaking of the service in the Egyptian monasteries and Eastern churches, he says, “after the psalms they had private prayers, which they said partly standing and partly kneeling; which being ended, he that collected the prayer rose up, and then they all rose up together with him, none presuming to continue longer upon the ground, lest he should seem rather to pursue his own prayers than go along with him who collected the prayers, or closed up all with his concluding collect.” Where we may observe, that a collect is taken for the chief minister’s prayer at the close of some part of Divine service, collecting and concluding the people’s preceding devotions. Uranius, speaking of one John, bishop of Naples, who died in the celebration of Divine service, says, “he gave the signal to the people to pray, and then, having summed up their prayers in a collect, he yielded up the ghost.”—Bingham.

Walapidus Strabo, as quoted by Wheatly, says that they are so called because the priest collects the petitions of all in a compendious brevity. To which Dr. Bisse assents, and considers the word to mean the collecting into one prayer the petitions which were anciently divided between him and the people by versicles and responses. They are in fact used in contradistinction to the alternate versicles, and the larger and less compendious prayers.

Morinus, in his notes on Greek Ordination, remarks on the resemblance between the Greek word συναπτὴ, and the Latin collecta: but shows that the συναπτὴ, though meaning a connected prayer, has a very different use. The συναπτὴ was sometimes a sort of litany, sometimes a set of versicles resembling the “preces” of the Roman Church, or our versicles and responses after the Creed. The συναπτὴ μέγαλη, again, is like our Prayer for the Church Militant. The Greek εὐχὴ, said after the συναπτὴ, is more like our collect: but there is nothing exactly resembling it in the Greek formularies. Their prayers are generally much longer.

The collects are (for the most part) constructed upon one uniform rule, consisting of three parts. (1.) The commemoration of some special attribute of God. (2.) A prayer for the exercise of that attribute in some special blessing. (3.) A prayer for the beneficial and permanent consequences of that blessing. The punctuation of the Prayer Book most accurately brings out the meaning of the collects. The apodosis of the sentence is (for the most part) begun by a capital letter.

In many of the collects, God is desired to hear the petitions of the people, those that the people had then made before the collect. These come in at the end of other devotions, and were by some of old called missæ, that is to say, dismissions, the people being dismissed upon the pronouncing of them and the blessing; the collects themselves being by some of the ancients called blessings, and also sacramenta, either for that their chief use was at the communion, or because they were uttered per sacerdotum, by one consecrated to holy offices.—Sparrow.

Our Reformers observed, first, that some of those collects were corrupted by superstitious alterations and additions, made by some later hand. Secondly, that the modern Roman missals had left some of the primitive collects quite out, and put in their stead collects containing some of their false opinions, or relating to their innovations in practice. Where the mass had struck out an old, and put in a new, collect, agreeable to their new and false doctrines or practices, there the Reformers restored the old collect, being pure and orthodox. At the restoration of King Charles II., even those collects made or allowed at the Reformation were strictly reviewed, and what was deficient was supplied, and all that was but incongruously expressed was rectified; so that now they are complete and unexceptionable, and may be ranked into three several classes. First, the ancient primitive collects, containing nothing but true doctrine, void of all modern corruptions, and having a strain of the primitive devotion, being short, but regular, and very expressive; so that it is not possible to touch more sense in so few words: and these are those taken out of Pope Gregory’s Sacramentary, or out of those additions made to it by the abbot Grimoaldus. Many of these were retained in their native purity in the missals of York and Salisbury, and the breviaries; but were no more depreciated by standing there than a jewel by lying on a dunghill. The second order of collects are also ancient as to the main; but where there were any passages that had been corrupted, they were struck out, and the old form restored, or that passage rectified; and where there was any defect it was supplied. The third order are such as had been corrupted in the Roman missals and breviaries, and contained something of false doctrine, or at least of superstition, in them; and new collects were made, instead of these, at the Reformation, under King Edward VI.; and some few which were wanting were added, anno 1662.—Comber.

The objection, that our service is taken from the Popish, affects chiefly the collects. But those of ours which are the same with theirs, are mostly derived from prayer books brought over in the days of that pope by whose means our Saxon ancestors were converted to Christianity, above 1100 [now 1200] years ago; and they were old ones then, much older than the main errors of Popery.—Secker.

It appears that the service of the Church is far more ancient than the Roman missal, properly speaking. And whoever has attended to the superlative simplicity, fervour, and energy of the prayers, will have no hesitation in concluding, that they must, the collects particularly, have been composed in a time of true evangelical light and godliness.—Milner’s Church Hist.

It is the boast of the Church of England, and her praise, that her Common Prayer corresponds with the best and most ancient liturgies which were used in the Church in the most primitive and purest times.—Directions to Commissioners in 1661.

Here I entreat the people to remember that these collects, and the following prayers, are to be vocally pronounced by the minister only, though the people are obliged to join mentally therein. Wherefore let none of the congregation disturb the rest, especially those that are near them, by muttering over their prayers in an audible manner, contrary to the design and rule of the Church, which always tells the people when their voices are allowed to be heard, and consequently commands them at all other times to be silent, and to speak to God in a mental manner only.—Bennett.

COLLECTS FOR THE DAY. Our Church, endeavouring to preserve not only the spirit, but the very forms, as much as may be, and in a known tongue, of ancient primitive devotion, has retained the same collects.

For the object, they are directed to God, in the name of “Jesus Christ our Lord;” a few are directed to Christ; and in the Litany some supplications to the Holy Ghost, besides that precatory hymn of “Veni Creator,” in the book of Ordination. Some collects, especially for great festivals, conclude with this acknowledgment,—that Christ, with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, “liveth and reigneth, one God, world without end.” This seems to be done to testify what the Scripture warrants, that although, for more congruity, we in the general course of our prayers go to the Father by the Son, yet that we may also invocate both the Son and the Holy Ghost; and that while we call upon one, we equally worship and glorify all three together.

For their form and proportion, as they are not one long-continued prayer, but divers short ones, they have many advantages; the practice of the Jews of old, in whose prescribed devotions we find a certain number of several prayers or collects, to be said together; the example of our Lord in prescribing a short form; and the judgment and practice of the ancient Christians in their liturgies. St. Chrysostom, among others, commends highly, short and frequent prayers with little distances between. And they are most convenient for keeping away coldness, distraction, and illusions from our devotion; for what we said in praise of short ejaculations, is true also concerning collects; and that not only in respect of the minister, but the people also, whose minds and affections become hereby more erect, close, and earnest, by the oftener breathing out their hearty concurrence, and saying all of them “Amen” together, at the end of each collect. The matter of them is most excellent. It consists usually of two parts; an humble acknowledgment of the adorable perfection and goodness of God, and a congruous petition for some benefit from him. The first is seen not only in the collects for special festivals or benefits, but in those also that are more general; for even in such what find we in the beginning of them, but some or other of these and the like acknowledgments?—That God is almighty, everlasting, full of goodness and pity; the strength, refuge, and protector of all that trust in him; without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy. That there is no continuing in safety without him; that such is our weakness and frailty, that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves, to do any good, or to stand upright, and therefore cannot but fall. That we put no trust in anything that we do, but lean only upon the help of his heavenly grace. That he is the author and giver of all good things; from whom it comes that we have an hearty desire to pray, or do him any true or laudable service. That he is always more ready to hear than we to pray, and to give more than we desire or deserve; having prepared for them that love him such good things as pass man’s understanding.—Sparrow.

That most of our collects are very ancient, appears by their conformity to the Epistles and Gospels, which were selected by St. Hierom, and put into the lectionary ascribed to him. Many believed he first framed them for the use of the Roman Church, in the time of Pope Damasus, above 1300 [now nearly 1500] years ago. Certain it is that Gelasius, who was bishop of Rome above 1200 years since, [A. D. 492–6,] did range those collects, which were then used, into order, and composed some new ones; and that office of his was again corrected by Pope Gregory the Great, A. D. 600, whose Sacramentary contains most of those collects which we now use.—Comber.

One of the principal reasons why our public devotions are, and should be, divided into short collects, is this,—our blessed Saviour hath told us, that whatsoever we ask the Father in his name he will give it us. It cannot then but be necessary that the name of Christ be frequently inserted in our prayers, that so we may lift up our hearts unto him, and rest our faith upon him, for the obtaining those good things we pray for. And therefore, whatsoever we ask of God, we presently add, “through Jesus Christ our Lord.”—Wheatly.

The petitions are not in one long prayer, but several short ones; which method is certainly as lawful as the other, and, we think, more expedient. It reminds us oftener of the attributes of God and merits of Christ, which are the ground of our asking in faith; and, by the frequency of saying “Amen,” it stirs up our attention and warms our devotions, which are too apt to languish.—Secker.

We may refer to Shepherd on the Common Prayer for a classified arrangement of the collects; (1.) which were retained from ancient liturgies at the Reformation; (2.) which were altered by the Reformers and reviewers; and (3.) which were composed anew. Those composed anew in 1549 are the collects for the 1st and 2nd Sunday in Advent, Christmas, the Epiphany, Quinquagesima, Ash-Wednesday, 1st Sunday in Lent, 1st and 2nd Sundays after Easter; St. Thomas’s day, St. Matthias’s, St. Mark’s, St. Barnabas’s, St. John Baptist’s, St. Peter’s, St. James’s, St. Matthew’s, St. Luke’s, St. Simon and St. Jude’s; All-Saints’. In 1552, St. Andrew’s. In 1662, 3rd Sunday in Advent; 6th Sunday after Epiphany; Easter Even. The prayers denominated collects in our liturgy are those of the day, and the 2nd and 3rd at Morning and Evening Prayer respectively; the Prayer for all Conditions of Men, which is called also a collect; the prayer preceding the ten commandments, the prayer for the sovereign in the Communion Service, and the six occasional collects following it; the prayer following the Lord’s Prayer in the Confirmation Service; the prayer preceding the psalm in the Visitation of the Sick, that in the Communion of the Sick, and the prayer preceding the blessing in the Burial of the Dead; three in the Ordering of Priests and Deacons respectively, and one in the Consecration of Bishops.

COLLEGE. A community. Hence we speak of an episcopal college, or college of bishops. It was an old maxim of Roman law, that by fewer than three persons a college could not be formed. Hence, as a bishop is to be consecrated not by a single bishop, but by a synod or college, at least three are required to be present at each consecration. Every corporation, in the civil law, is called a college, and so it has been applied in England, in some rare instances, irrespective of social combinations: and abroad it was very extensively applied to incorporated boards. But in England it generally implies a society of persons, living in a common habitation, and bound together by statutes which have respect to their daily life. The minor corporations of the universities, and those of Eton and Winchester, are specially so termed: and residences for the members, a chapel, hall, and library, are considered as essential features of the college. As it is unquestionable that our academical colleges were all instituted for the promotion of godliness, as well as of human knowledge, that they were intended to be handmaids of the Church, as their highest function, besides nurseries of good learning, they deserve special notice in a Church Dictionary. All cathedral and collegiate churches are colleges; and the word in this sense comprehends all the members of each establishment, whether inferior or superior. The buildings of some of our cathedrals containing the residence of the members, are still often popularly called “the college.” The word is also applied to those inferior corporations attached to the cathedrals of old foundation. (See Minor Canons and Vicars Choral.)

The colleges of our universities are each independent societies, having their own statutes, and property as strictly their own as that of any lay proprietor. Still they are connected with a greater corporation, which is called the university. It has been commonly thought, that these relations between minor and major academical corporations is an anomaly peculiar to England. The fact is otherwise. The most ancient universities, as Paris, Bologna, and Salamanca, had each several colleges, which bore an analogous relation to the university. (See University.)

COLLEGIATE CHURCHES. Churches with a body of canons and prebendaries, &c., and inferior members, with corporate privileges. The services and forms in these churches are, or ought to be, like those in cathedral churches. The number of collegiate churches has been much diminished since the Reformation; those at present existing in England, are Westminster, Windsor, Southwell, Wolverhampton, Middleham, and Brecon; and in Ireland, the collegiate church of Galway.

COLLYRIDIANS. Certain heretics that worshipped the Virgin Mary as a goddess, and offered cake in sacrifice to her; they appeared in the fourth century, about the year 373. Their name is derived from κολλυρα, a little cake.

COMMANDRIES. New houses of the same kind among the Knights Hospitallers as the Preceptories among the Templars. (See Preceptories.)

COMMEMORATIONS. The recital of the names of famous martyrs and confessors, patriarchs, bishops, kings, great orthodox writers, munificent benefactors: which recitation was made at the altar out of diptychs or folded tables. There are Commemoration days at Oxford and Cambridge, on which the names of all the known benefactors to the universities are proclaimed, special psalms and lessons recited, and special collects and versicles. These have been coeval with the Reformation, and sanctioned by the highest authority. (See Diptychs.)

COMMENDAM. Commendam is a living commended by the Crown to the care of a clergyman until a proper pastor is provided for it. These commendams for some time have been seldom or never granted to any but bishops, who, when their bishoprics were of small value, were, by special dispensation, allowed to hold their previous benefices, which, on their promotion, had devolved into the patronage of the Crown.

COMMENDATORY LETTERS. (See Literæ formatæ.)

COMMENTARY. An exposition; a book of annotations on Holy Scripture.

In selecting a commentary much care is necessary, because a skilful commentator may wrest the Scriptures so as to make them support his private opinion. A Calvinist makes Scripture speak Calvinism, an Arminian makes it speak Arminianism. The question to be asked, therefore, is, According to what principle does the annotator profess to interpret Scripture? If he takes the Church for his guide; if he professes to interpret according to the doctrines of the Church, although he may err in a matter of detail, he cannot seriously mislead us. We may instance the third chapter of St. John’s Gospel. How very different will be the meaning of that chapter interpreted by a Calvinist, who denies the scriptural doctrine of baptismal regeneration, from the meaning which will be attached to it by one who holds the truth as it is taught in the Church, and who, with the Church of England, in the Office for the Baptism of Persons in Riper Years, applies what is said in that chapter to baptismal grace.

To give a complete list of commentaries is, in such a work as the present, impossible. The reader who would pursue the subject is referred to the authorities mentioned in the next article, Commentators. Some of the leading commentaries most used in the Church of England are here given.

Theophylact; the last edition of whose works is that published at Venice, 1754–1763, in four volumes, folio. In Theophylact we have the pith of St. Chrysostom, whose works also are useful, especially his Homilies on St. Matthew and on St. Paul’s Epistles. They have lately been translated.

“Critici Sacri, sive Annotata doctissimorum Virorum in Vetus ac Novum Testamentum; quibus accedunt Tractatus varii Theologico-Philologici,” 9 tomis in 12 voluminibus. Amsterdam, 1698, folio.

This is considered the best edition of this great work, which was first published in London, in 1660, in nine volumes, folio, under the direction of the celebrated Bishop Pearson and other learned divines. In 1701 there were published at Amsterdam, “Thesaurus Theologico-Philologicus,” in two volumes folio, and two additional volumes in 1732. These complete the work.

“Mathæi Poli Synopsis Criticorum aliorumque SS. Interpretum,” London, 1669–1674; five volumes, folio. This has been reprinted, the best edition being that of Utrecht, 1686. It is a valuable abridgment and consolidation of the “Critici Sacri.” It gives the conclusions, without the arguments, of that work.

Bishop Hall’s “Contemplations on the Old and New Testament,” of which valuable work there have been several reprints.

Patrick, Lowth, Whitby, and Arnold’s “Commentary on the Bible.” London, 1727–1760: seven volumes, folio. Reprinted in 4to, 1821; and lately in large 8vo. This is a standard work.

“An Exposition of the Old and New Testament,” by the Rev. Matthew Henry: folio, five volumes. There have been many reprints of this truly excellent commentary.

“A Commentary on the Books of the Old and New Testaments, in which are inserted the Notes and Collections of John Locke, Esq., Daniel Waterland, D. D., and the Earl of Clarendon and other learned persons, with Practical Improvements.” London, 1770: three volumes, folio. This was reprinted in six volumes, 4to, in 1801, by Dr. Coke, a Methodist, with some retrenchments and unimportant additions, and goes by the name of “Coke’s Commentary.” It is very useful for practical purposes.

“The Holy Bible, with Original Notes and Practical Observations,” by Thomas Scott, M. A., Rector of Aston Sandford: London. This has been often reprinted.

“The Holy Bible, with Notes,” by Thomas Wilson, D. D., Bishop of Sodor and Man: London, 1785: three volumes, 4to. Whatever comes from the pen of Bishop Wilson is valuable; but the notes are rather suggestive than illustrative.

“The Holy Bible, with Notes explanatory and practical;” taken principally from the most recent writers of the United Church of England and Ireland, prepared and arranged by Dr. D’Oyley and Bishop Mant. Oxford and London, 1817: three volumes, 4to, and since reprinted. This work, published under the sanction of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, is perhaps the most sound and useful that we possess.

It is impossible to enumerate the commentators on separate books of the Bible, but we may mention Dean Graves on the Pentateuch, Bishops Horne and Horsley on the Psalms, Bishop Lowth on Isaiah, Dr. Blayney on Jeremiah, Archbishop Newcome on Ezekiel, Mr. Wintle on Daniel, Bishop Horsley on Hosea, Dr. Blayney on Zechariah, Dr. Stock on Malachi, Dr. Pococke on Hosea, Joel, Micah, and Malachi; Archbishop Newcome on the Twelve Minor Prophets.

On the New Testament, we may refer to Hammond, Whitby, Burkitt, Doddridge, Bishop Pearce, Dr. Trapp, Bishop Porteus on St. Matthew, Biscoe on the Acts, Macknight, Bishop Fell, Bishop Davenant, Pyle on the Epistles, Archbishop Leighton on St. Peter, Mede, Daubeny, Lowman, Sir Isaac Newton, and Bishop Newton on the Apocalypse. We have omitted, in this list, contemporary writers, for obvious reasons, and we have referred to commentaries chiefly used by English churchmen; the more learned reader will, not without caution, have recourse to foreign critics also; of whom we may mention, as persons much consulted, Vitringa, Tittmann, Bengel, Olshausen, Tholuck, Wolfius, Raphelius, Calmet, and Hengstenberg. The “Catena Aurea” of Thomas Aquinas has lately been translated; but it is useful rather to the antiquarian and the scholar, than to those who wish to ascertain the exact meaning of Scripture; and in the quotations from the Fathers, Aquinas is not to be depended upon.

COMMENTATORS. “A complete history of commentators,” says Mr. Hartwell Horne, “would require a volume of no ordinary dimensions.” The reader who is desirous of prosecuting this subject, will find much interesting information relative to the early commentators in Rosenmüller’s “Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum in Ecclesiâ Christianâ, inde ab Apostolorum Ætate usque ad Origenem, 1795–1814.” This elaborate work treats exclusively of the early commentators. Father Simon’s “Histoire Critique de Vieux Testament,” 4to, 1680, and his “Histoire Critique des Principaux Commentateurs du Nouveau Testament,” 4to, Rotterdam, 1689, contain many valuable strictures on the expositors of the Old and New Testament up to his own time. In 1674 was published at Frankfort, in two volumes folio, Joh. Georg. Dorschei “Biblia Numerata, seu Index Specialis in Vetus Testamentum ad singula omnium Librorum Capita et Commenta.” It contains a list of commentators, 191 in number, who had illustrated every book, chapter, or verse of the Scriptures, with reference to the books, chapters, and pages of their several works. The merits and demerits of commentators are likewise discussed in Walchius’s “Bibliotheca Theologica Selecta;” in Ernesti’s “Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti;” in Morus’s “Acroases Academicæ.” Professor Keil, in his “Elementa Hermeneutices Novi Testamenti,” and Professor Beck, in “Monogrammata Hermeneutices, Librorum Novi Fœderis,” Seiler’s Biblical Hermeneutices, (translated from the German by Dr. Wright, 1835,)—respectively notice the principal expositors of the Scriptures.

COMMINATION, means a threat or denunciation of vengeance. There is an ancient office in the Church of England, entitled, “A Commination, or denouncing of God’s Anger and Judgment against Sinners, with certain Prayers, to be used on the first Day of Lent, and at other times, as the Ordinary shall appoint.” This office, says Mr. Palmer, is one of the last memorials we retain of that solemn penitence, which during the primitive ages occupied so conspicuous a place in the discipline of the Christian Church. In the earliest ages, those who were guilty of grievous sins were solemnly reduced to the order of penitents; they came fasting and clad in sackcloth and ashes on the occasion, and after the bishop had prayed over them, they were dismissed from the church. They then were admitted gradually to the classes of hearers, substrati, and consistentes, until at length, after long trial and exemplary conduct, they were again decreed worthy of communion. This penitential discipline at length, from various causes, became extinct, both in the Eastern and Western Churches: and, from the twelfth or thirteenth century, the solemn office of the first day of Lent was the only memorial of this ancient discipline in the West. The Church of England has long used this office nearly as we do at present, as we find almost exactly the same appointed in the MS. Sacramentary of Leofric, which was written for our Church about the ninth or tenth century; and year by year she directs her ministers to lament the defection of the godly discipline we have been describing.

The preface which the Church has prefixed to this office will supply the room of an introduction. It informs us that, “in the primitive Church, there was a godly discipline; that, at the beginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious crimes were put to open penance, and punishment in this world, that their souls might be saved in the day of the Lord; and that others, admonished by their example, might be the more afraid to offend.” The manner in which this discipline was inflicted, is thus recorded by Gratian: On the first day of Lent the penitents were to present themselves before the bishop, clothed with sackcloth, with naked feet, and eyes turned to the ground: and this was to be done in the presence of the principal clergy of the diocese, who were to judge of the sincerity of their repentance. These introduced them into the Church, where the bishop, all in tears, and the rest of the clergy, repeated the seven penitential psalms. Then, rising from prayers, they threw ashes upon them, and covered their heads with sackcloth; and then with mournful sighs declared to them, that as Adam was cast out of paradise, so they must be cast out of the Church. Then the bishop commanded the officers to turn them out of the church doors, and all the clergy followed after, repeating that curse upon Adam, “In the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread.” The like penance was inflicted upon them the next time the sacrament was administered, which was the Sunday following. And all this was done, to the end that the penitents, observing how great a disorder the Church was in by reason of their crimes, should not lightly esteem of penance.

Though this discipline was severe, yet the many good consequences of it showed it worthy the imitation of the Church in succeeding ages; so that it was anciently exercised in our own, as well as in foreign churches. But in latter ages, during the corruption of the Church of Rome, this godly discipline degenerated into a formal and customary confession upon Ash Wednesdays, used by all persons indifferently, whether penitents or not, from whom no other testimony of their repentance was required, than that they should submit to the empty ceremony of sprinkling ashes upon their heads. But this our wise reformers prudently laid aside as a mere shadow and show; and not without hearty grief and concern, that the long continuance of the abominable corruptions of the Romish Church, in their formal confessions and pretended absolutions, in their sale of indulgences, and their sordid commutations of penance for money, had let the people loose from those primitive bands of discipline, which tended really to their amendment, but to which, through the rigour and severity it enjoins, they found it impracticable to reduce them again. However, since they could not do what they desired, they desired to do as much as they could; and therefore, till the said discipline may be restored again, (which is rather to be wished than expected in these licentious times,) they have endeavoured to supply it as well as they were able, by appointing an office to be used at this season, called “A Commination, or denouncing of God’s Anger and Judgments against Sinners;” that so the people, being apprized of God’s wrath and indignation against their wickedness and sins, may not be encouraged, through the want of discipline in the Church, to follow and pursue them; but be moved, by the terror of the dreadful judgments of God, to supply that discipline to themselves, by severely judging and condemning themselves, and so to avoid being judged and condemned at the tribunal of God.

2. But, besides “the first day of Lent,” on which it is expressly enjoined, it is also supposed, in the title of it, to be used “at other times, as the ordinary shall direct.” This was occasioned by the observation of Bucer; for it was originally ordered upon Ash Wednesdays only, and therefore in the first Common Prayer Book, it had no other title, but “The First Day of Lent, commonly called Ash Wednesday.” But Bucer approving of the office, and not seeing reason why it should be confined to one day, and not used oftener, at least four times a year, the title of it was altered when it came to be reviewed; from which time it was called, “A Commination against Sinners, with certain Prayers to be used at divers times in the Year.” How often, or at what particular times, we do not find prescribed; except that Bishop Cosin informs us from the Visitation Articles of Archbishop Grindal for the province of Canterbury, in the year 1576, that it was appointed three times a year; namely, on one of the three Sundays next before Easter, on one of the two Sundays next before Pentecost, and on one of the two Sundays next before Christmas; that is, I suppose the office was appointed yearly to be used on these three days, as well as on Ash Wednesday. For that Ash Wednesday was then the solemn day of all, and on which this office was never to be omitted, may be gathered from the preface, which is drawn up for the peculiar use of that day. And accordingly we find, that, in the Scotch Common Prayer, a clause was added, that it was to be used “especially on the first day of Lent, commonly called Ash Wednesday.” However, in our own liturgy, the title stood as above, till the last review, when a clause was added for the sake of explaining the word commination; and the appointing of the times on which it should be used was left to the discretion of the bishop, or the ordinary. So that the whole title, as it stands now, runs thus: “A Commination, or denouncing of God’s Anger and Judgments against Sinners, with certain Prayers to be used on the first Day in Lent, and at other Times, as the Ordinary shall appoint.” The ordinaries, indeed, seldom or never make use of the power here given them, except that sometimes they appoint part of the office, namely, from the fifty-first Psalm to the end, to be used upon solemn days of fasting and humiliation. But as to the whole office, it is never used entirely but upon the day mentioned in the title of it, namely, “the first day of Lent.”—Wheatly.

The Commination properly means that part of the special service which precedes the Psalm; the rest coming under the title of “certain prayers;” and it would seem that the latter are alone to be used at other times that the ordinary shall appoint.—Jebb.

COMMISSARY, is a title of jurisdiction, appertaining to him that exercises ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in places so far distant from the chief city, that the chancellor cannot call the people to the bishop’s principal consistory court without great trouble to them.

Chancellors, or bishops’ lawyers, were first introduced into the Church by the 2nd canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and were men trained up in the civil and canon law, to direct bishops in matters of judgment relating to ecclesiastical affairs.

Whatever the extent of the chancellor’s authority as a judge may be, throughout the diocese, with relation to the bishop’s, it is quite clear that the commissary’s authority extends only to such particular causes, in such parts of the diocese, for which he holds the bishop’s commission to act.

In the Clementine constitutions this officer is termed officialis foraneus. By the 21st of Henry VIII. c. 13, he shall not be within the statute of non-residence; he may grant licences; he may excommunicate, and prove a last will and testament; but that shall be in the name of the ordinary; and a grant of such power does not hold good beyond the life of the ordinary, and does not bind his successor: where, by prescription or by composition, there are archdeacons, who have jurisdiction in their archdeaconries, as in most places they have, there the office of commissary is superfluous.—See Gibson’s Codex, vol. i. Introductory Discourse, p. 25.

COMMON PRAYER. (See Liturgy.) By Common Prayer we are to understand a form of prayer adapted and enjoined for common or universal use: in the vernacular language, such as may be understood of people, and in which they are required to join with one heart and voice. It is contrasted with those services which have either actually or virtually become exclusive, or confined to but a few: such as the forms of matins in the Roman breviary, which from its extreme length, and from the inconvenience of the hour when it is prescribed to be recited, are impracticable to the people, to all in fact but the inmates of monasteries or collegiate churches. Such, indeed, are all those services which are written in a language which is no longer vernacular.

Bishop Sparrow observes, that the Common Prayer contains in it many holy offices of the Church; as prayers, confessions of faith, holy hymns, divine lessons, priestly absolutions, and benedictions; all which are set and prescribed, not left to private men’s fancies to make or alter. So it was of old ordained. Conc. Carthag. can. 106, “It is ordained, that the prayers, prefaces, and impositions of hands, which are confirmed by the Synod, be observed and used by all men: these, and no other.” So is our 14th English Canon.... “And as these offices are set and prescribed, so are they moreover appointed to be one and the same throughout the whole national Church.”

By Canon 4. “Whosoever shall affirm that the form of God’s worship in the Church of England, established by law, and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, is a corrupt, superstitious, or unlawful worship of God, or containeth anything in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored but by the bishop of the place, or archbishop, after his repentance and public revocation of such his wicked errors.”

By Canon 38. “If any minister, after he has subscribed to the Book of Common Prayer, shall omit to use the form of prayer, or any of the orders or ceremonies prescribed in the Communion Book, let him be suspended; and if after a month he does not reform and submit himself, let him be excommunicated; and then, if he shall not submit himself within the space of another month, let him be deposed from the ministry.”

And by Canon 98. “After any judge ecclesiastical has pronounced judicially against contemners of ceremonies, for not observing the rites and orders of the Church of England, or for contempt of public prayer, no judge ad quem shall allow of his appeal, unless the party appellant do first personally promise and avow, that he will faithfully keep and observe all the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, as also the prescribed form of Common Prayer, and do likewise subscribe to the same.

COMMUNION. This is one of the names given to the sacrament of the eucharist, and was undoubtedly taken from St. Paul’s account of that sacrament, where he teaches, as the learned Dr. Waterland observes, that the effect of this service is the communion of the body and blood of Christ. (1 Cor. x. 16.) He does not, indeed, call the sacrament by that name, as others have done since. He was signifying what the thing is, or what it does, rather than how it was then called. (See Eucharist, Lord’s Supper, and Consecration of the Elements.)

The office for the Holy Communion is a distinct office, and there is no direction at what time of the day it shall be used, only custom, in accordance with the almost invariable usage of Christendom, has determined that it shall be used in the forenoon. The communion is appointed for every Sunday, only the Church has ordered that there shall be no communion except four (or three at least) communicate with the priest. The absence of the weekly eucharist therefore proves one of two things; either that the sin of the people is so great that even in large parishes three such persons ready to communicate are not to be found every Sunday, and so only part of the service can be used; or else if three communicants can be found, the sin of the clergy is great in not having weekly communion. “In cathedral and collegiate churches, where there are many priests and deacons, they shall all receive the communion with the priest every Sunday at the least.” We here subjoin the directions of the canons and rubric.

The rubric decrees, there shall none be admitted to the holy communion until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.

By the canons of Archbishop Peckham, 1279, it is ruled that none shall give the communion to the parishioner of another priest, without his manifest licence; which ordinance shall not extend to travellers, or to persons in danger, nor to cases of necessity.

And by Canon 28. “The churchwardens or questmen, and their assistants, shall mark, as well as the minister, whether any strangers come often and commonly from other parishes to their church, and show their minister of them, lest perhaps they be admitted to the Lord’s table amongst others; which they shall forbid, and remit such home to their own parish churches and ministers, there to receive the communion with the rest of their own neighbours.”

Rubric. “And if any be an open and notorious evil liver, or have done any wrong to his neighbours by word or deed, so that the congregation be thereby offended, the curate, having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him, that in anywise he presume not to come to the Lord’s table until he has openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life, that the congregation may thereby be satisfied, which before were offended; and that he has recompensed the parties to whom he has done wrong; or at least declare himself to be in full purpose so to do, as soon as he conveniently may.”

Rubric. “The same order shall the curate use with those between whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, not suffering them to be partakers of the Lord’s table until he know them to be reconciled. And if one of the parties so at variance be content to forgive, from the bottom of his heart, all that the other has trespassed against him, and to make amends for that he himself has offended, and the other party will not be persuaded to a godly unity, but remain still in his frowardness and malice, the minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the holy communion, and not him that is obstinate. Provided that every minister so repelling any, as is specified in this or the next preceding paragraph of this rubric, shall be obliged to give an account of the same to the ordinary, within fourteen days after at the farthest; and the ordinary shall proceed against the offending person according to the canon.”

By Canon 26. “No minister shall in anywise admit to the receiving of the holy communion any of his cure or flock, which be openly known to live in sin notorious without repentance; nor any who have maliciously and openly contended with their neighbours; nor any churchwardens or sidesmen who refuse or neglect to make presentment of offences according to their oaths.”

By Canon 27. “No minister, when he celebrateth the communion, shall wittingly administer the same to any but to such as kneel, under pain of suspension; nor, under the like pain, to any that refuse to be present at public prayers, according to the order of the Church of England; nor to any that are common and notorious depravers of the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and of the orders, rites, and ceremonies therein prescribed; or of anything that is contained in the book of ordering priests and bishops; or to any that have spoken against and depraved his Majesty’s sovereign authority in causes ecclesiastical; except every such person shall first acknowledge to the minister before the churchwardens his repentance for the same, and promise by word (if he cannot write) that he will do so no more; and except (if he can write) he shall first do the same under his handwriting, to be delivered to the minister, and by him sent to the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place. Provided that every minister so repelling any (as is specified either in this or the next preceding constitution) shall upon complaint, or being required by the ordinary, signify the cause thereof unto him, and therein obey his order and direction.”

By Canon 109. “If any offend their brethren, either by adultery, whoredom, incest, or drunkenness, or by swearing, ribaldry, usury, or any other uncleanness, or wickedness of life, such notorious offenders shall not be admitted to the holy communion till they be reformed.”

Canon 71. “No minister shall administer the holy communion in any private house, except it be in times of necessity, when any being either so impotent as he cannot go to the church, or very dangerously sick, are desirous to be partakers of this holy sacrament, upon pain of suspension for the first offence, and excommunication for the second. Provided that houses are here reputed for private houses, wherein are no chapels dedicated and allowed by the ecclesiastical laws of this realm. And provided also, under the pains before expressed, that no chaplains do administer the communion in any other places, but in the chapels of the said houses; and that also they do the same very seldom upon Sundays and holy-days; so that both the lords and masters of the said houses and their families shall at other times resort to their own parish churches, and there receive the holy communion at least once every year.”

Canon 22. “We do require every minister to give warning to his parishioners publicly in the church at morning prayer, the Sunday before every time of his administering that holy sacrament, for their better preparation of themselves; which said warning we enjoin the said parishioners to accept and obey, under the penalty and danger of the law.”

And by the rubric. “The minister shall always give warning for the celebration of the holy communion upon the Sunday or some holy-day immediately preceding.”

Rubric. “So many as intend to be partakers of the holy communion shall signify their names to the curate, at least some time the day before.”

Rubric. “There shall be no celebration of the Lord’s supper, except there be a convenient number to communicate with the priest, according to his discretion. And if there be not above twenty persons in the parish, of discretion to receive the communion, yet there shall be no communion, except four (or three at the least) communicate with the priest. And in cathedral and collegiate churches and colleges, where there are many priests and deacons, they shall all receive the communion with the priest every Sunday at the least, except they have reasonable cause to the contrary.” The rubric implies daily communion. “The Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, appointed for the Sunday, shall serve all the week after, when it is not in this book otherwise ordered.” In the First Book of King Edward, daily communion is expressly mentioned. “Upon Wednesdays and Fridays ... though there be none to communicate with the priest, yet these days, after the Litany ended, the priest shall ... say all things at the altar, appointed to be said at the celebration of the Lord’s supper, until after the offertory.” “In cathedral churches, or other places, where there is daily communion,” &c. From the Pietas Londinensis it appears that in some London churches at the beginning of the last century, the communion was celebrated daily in the octaves of the great festivals. And a remembrance of this daily communion was formerly kept up at Durham, where, in Bishop Cosin’s time, the ante-communion was daily performed, as it still is at St. Patrick’s, on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent.

Canon 82. “Whereas we have no doubt but that in all churches convenient and decent tables are provided and placed for the celebration of the holy communion, we appoint that the same tables shall from time to time be kept and repaired in sufficient and seemly manner, and covered in time of Divine service with a carpet of silk or other decent stuff, thought meet by the ordinary of the place, if any question be made of it, and with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration as becometh that table; and so stand, saving when the holy communion is to be administered, at which time the same shall be placed in so good sort within the church or chancel, as thereby the minister may be more conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministration, and the communicants also more conveniently and in more number may communicate with the said minister.”

By Canon 20. “The churchwardens, against the time of every communion, shall, at the charge of the parish, with the advice and direction of the minister, provide a sufficient quantity of fine white bread, and of good and wholesome wine, for the number of communicants that shall receive there; which wine shall be brought to the communion table in a clean and sweet standing pot or stoop of pewter, if not of purer metal.”

And by the rubric. “The bread and wine for the communion shall be provided by the curate and churchwardens at the charge of the parish. And to take away all occasion of dissension and superstition, which any person has or might have concerning the bread and wine, it shall suffice that the bread be such as is usual to be eaten, but the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten.”

In the rubric, in the communion service of the Second Edward VI., it was ordained, that, “whyles the clearkes do syng the offertory, so many as are disposed shall offer to the poore mennes boxe, every one accordinge to his habilitie and charitable mynde.”

And by the present rubric, “whilst the sentences of the offertory are in reading, the deacons, churchwardens, or other fit person appointed for that purpose, shall receive the alms for the poor, and other devotions of the people, in a decent basin, to be provided by the parish for that purpose, and reverently bring it to the priest, who shall humbly present and place it upon the holy table.” And “after the Divine service ended, the money given at the offertory shall be disposed of to such pious and charitable uses as the minister and churchwardens shall think fit; wherein if they disagree, it shall be disposed of as the ordinary shall appoint.”

Rubric. “Such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of England by the authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI.” And by the rubric of 2 Edward VI., which had this authority of parliament, it is ordained, that “upon the day, and at the time appointed for the ministration of the holy communion, the priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration; that is to say, a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope: and where there be many priests or deacons, then so many shall be ready to help the priest in the ministrations as shall be requisite, and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, albes with tunicles. And whensoever the bishop shall celebrate the holy communion in the church, or execute any other public ministration, he shall have upon him, besides his rochet, a surplice or albe, and a cope or vestment, and also his pastoral staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain.”

And by Canon 24. “In all cathedral churches, the holy communion shall be administered upon principal feast days, sometimes by the bishop, if he be present, and at sometimes by a canon or prebendary, the principal minister using a decent cope, and being assisted with the Gospeller and Epistler agreeably, according to the advertisements published anno 7 Eliz.”

Art. 28. “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.”

Art. 30. “The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both the parts of the Lord’s sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.”

And by the statute of the 1 Edward VI. c. 1. “Forasmuch as it is more agreeable to the first institution of the said sacrament, and more conformable to the common use and practice of the apostles and of the primitive Church, for above 500 years after Christ’s ascension, that the same should be administered under both the kinds, of bread and wine, than under the form of bread only; and also it is more agreeable to the first institution of Christ, and to the usage of the apostles and the primitive Church, that the people should receive the same with the priest, than that the priest should receive it alone; it is enacted that the said most blessed sacrament be commonly delivered and ministered unto the people, under both the kinds, that is to say, of bread and wine, except necessity otherwise require. And also that the priest which shall minister the same shall, at the least one day before, exhort all persons which shall be present likewise to resort and prepare themselves to receive the same. And when the day prefixed cometh, after godly exhortation by the minister made, (wherein shall be further expressed the benefit and comfort promised to them which worthily receive the holy sacrament, and danger and indignation of God threatened to them which shall presume to receive the same unworthily, to the end that every man may try and examine his own conscience before he shall receive the same,) the said minister shall not, without a lawful cause, deny the same to any person that will devoutly and humbly desire it; not condemning hereby the usage of any Church out of the king’s dominions.”

Rubric. “If any of the bread and wine remain unconsecrated, the curate shall have it to his own use; but if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the church, but the priest, and such other of the communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall immediately after the blessing reverently eat and drink the same.”

By a constitution of Archbishop Langton it is enjoined, that no sacrament of the Church shall be denied to any one, upon the account of any sum of money; but if anything hath been accustomed to be given by the pious devotion of the faithful, justice shall be done thereupon to the churches by the ordinary of the place afterwards.

And by the rubric. “Yearly at Easter, every parishioner shall reckon with the parson, vicar, or curate, or his or their deputy or deputies, and pay to them or him all ecclesiastical duties, accustomably due, then and at that time to be paid.”

By the ancient canon law, every layman (not prohibited by crimes of a heinous nature) was required to communicate at least thrice in the year, namely, at Easter, Whitsuntide, and Christmas; and the Council of Agdæ, A. D. 500, enacted that the secular clergy not communicating at those times were not to be reckoned amongst the Catholics. The fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215, reduced the necessary number of times to one, and the Council of Trent has sanctioned this as the rule for the Romish Church. Our reformers laudably reverted to the earlier order, directing by the rubric in the Book of Common Prayer, that “every parishioner shall communicate at least three times in one year, of which Easter to be one.”

And by Canon 21. “In every parish church and chapel where sacraments are to be administered, the holy communion shall be administered by the parson, vicar, or minister, so often, and at such times, as every parishioner may communicate at the least three times in the year, whereof the feast of Easter to be one; according as they are appointed by the Book of Common Prayer. And the churchwardens or questmen, and their assistants, shall mark, (as well as the minister,) whether all and every of the parishioners comes so often every year to the holy communion as the laws and constitutions do require.” Canon 28. “And shall yearly, within forty days after Easter, exhibit to the bishop or his chancellor, the names and surnames of all the parishioners, as well men as women, which being of the age of sixteen years received not the communion at Easter before.”

By Canon 24. “All deans, wardens, masters, or heads of cathedral and collegiate churches, prebendaries, canons, vicars, petty canons, singing men, and all others of the foundation, shall receive the communion four times yearly at the least.” And by Canon 23. “In all colleges and halls, within both the universities, the masters and fellows, such especially as have any pupils, shall be careful that all their said pupils, and the rest that remain among them, do diligently frequent public service and sermons, and receive the holy communion, which we ordain to be administered in all such colleges and halls the first and second Sunday of every month; requiring all the said masters, fellows, and scholars, and all the rest of the students, officers, and all other the servants there, so to be ordered, that every one of them shall communicate four times in the year at the least, kneeling reverently and decently upon their knees, according to the order of the communion book prescribed in that behalf.”

By the 1 Edward VI. c. 1. “Whosoever shall deprave, despise, or contemn the most blessed sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, commonly called the sacrament of the altar, and in Scripture, the supper and table of the Lord, the communion and partaking of the body and blood of Christ, in contempt thereof, by any contemptuous words or by any words of depraving, despising, or reviling; or whosoever shall advisedly in any other wise contemn, despise, or revile the said most blessed sacrament, contrary to the effects and declaration above-said, shall suffer imprisonment of his body, and make fine and ransom at the king’s will.”

Rubric. “Upon the Sundays, and other holy-days, (if there be no communion,) shall be said all that is appointed at the communion, until the end of the general prayer for the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here in earth, together with one or more of the collects last before rehearsed, concluding with the blessing.”

Since the death of Christ hath reconciled God to mankind, and his intercession alone obtains all good things for us, we are enjoined to make all our prayers in his name; and, as a more powerful way of interceding, to commemorate his passion by celebrating the holy eucharist, which in the purest ages was always joined to their public and common prayers. (Acts ii. 42.) And as evidence that our Church wishes it were so still, she appoints a great part of this office to be used on all Sundays and holy-days, and orders the priest to say it at the altar, the place where all the prayers of the Church of old were wont to be made, because there was the proper place to commemorate Jesus our only Mediator, by whom all our prayers become accepted. And hence the ancients call this office “the service of the altar,” which in the time of celebration was then also, as our rubric now enjoins, covered with a fair linen cloth. As for the primitive and original form of administration, since Christ did not institute any one method, it was various in divers churches, only all agreed in using the Lord’s Prayer, and reciting the words of institution, which therefore some think was all the apostles used; but their successors in several churches added several devout forms thereunto, which being joined to the original order used by the founder of each church, was for greater honour called by the name of that first author; and hence we have now the liturgy used at Jerusalem, called “The Liturgy of St. James;” that of Alexandria, called “The Liturgy of St. Mark;” that of Rome, called “The Liturgy of St. Clement;” with others of lesser value: which, by the fancy of adding to them in every age, have contracted many superstitions of later times, and yet do still contain many genuine and substantial pieces of true primitive devotion, easily distinguished from the modern and corrupt additions. But since none of these apostolical liturgies were believed of Divine institution, St. Basil and St. Chrysostom made new forms for their own churches, now generally used in the East; and St. Ambrose and St. Gregory the Great composed sacramentaries for their several churches; and the Christians in Spain had a peculiar order for this office, called the Mazarabic form; the Gallican Church had another distinct from all these; so had the Irish Church, and St. Gregory was so far from imposing the Roman missal on this Church of England, that he advises Augustine the monk to review all liturgies, and take out of them what was best, and so to compose a form for this nation. And when the Roman missal (afterward imposed here) was shamefully corrupted, our judicious reformers made use of this ancient and just liberty; and, comparing all liturgies, they have out of them all extracted what is most pure and primitive, and so composed this admirable office, which, as Bishop Jewel affirms, “comes as nigh as can be to the apostolic and ancient Catholic Church,” and indeed is the most exact now extant in the Christian world, the explaining whereof will effectually serve to assist the communicant in order to a worthy preparation before the receiving, devout affections in receiving, and the confirming of his holy purposes afterwards: for it doth instruct us in all that is necessary to be known and to be done in this sacred and sublime duty, and is contrived in this curious method. (See Liturgy.)

The whole communion office consists of four parts. First, a more general preparation to the communion, and as either common to the whole congregation in the exercise of, 1. Repentance, by the Lord’s Prayer, the collect for Purity, and the ten commandments. 2. Holy desires, by the collects for the King and the Day. 3. Of obedience, by the hearing of the Epistle and Gospel. 4. Of faith, by repeating the Creed. 5. Of charity, by the Offertory and the prayer for the holy Catholic Church: or else this general preparation is proper to those who ought to communicate, namely, the warning before the communion, and the exhortation to it. Secondly, there is the more immediate preparation, contained in, 1. The proper instructions, in the exhortation at the communion, and the immediate invitation. 2. The form of acknowledging our offences, in the confession. 3. The means of insuring our pardon, by the absolution, and the sentences. 4. The exciting our love and gratitude, in the preface, and the hymn called Trisagium. Thirdly, there is the celebration of the mystery, consisting of, 1. The communicant’s humble approach, in the address. 2. The minister’s blessing the elements, in the prayer of consecration. 3. His distributing them according to the form of administration. Lastly, there is the post-communion, containing, 1. Prayers and vows, in the Lord’s Prayer, the first and second prayers after the Communion. 2. Praises and thanksgiving, in the Gloria in excelsis. 3. The dismission by the final blessing.—Dean Comber.

This service is called “The Communion Service” in the liturgy; and well it were that the piety of the people were such as to make it always a communion. The Church, as appears by her pathetical exhortation before the communion, and the rubric after it, labours to bring men oftener to communicate than she usually obtains. Private and solitary communions, of the priest alone, she allows not; and therefore, when others cannot be had, she appoints only so much of the service as relates not of necessity to a present communion, and that to be said at the holy table: and upon good reason; the Church thereby keeping, as it were, her ground, visibly minding us of what she desires and labours towards, our more frequent access to that holy table: and in the mean while, that part of the service, which she uses, may perhaps more fitly be called “the second service” than “the communion.” And so it is often called, though not in the rubric of the liturgy, yet in divers fast-books, and the like, set out by authority. If any should think, that it cannot properly be called the second service, because the morning service and Litany go before it, which indeed are two distinct services,—whereby this should seem to be the third, rather than the second service,—it is answered, that sometimes the communion service is used upon such days as the Litany is not; and then it may, without question, be called the second service. Nay, even then, when the Litany and all is used, the communion service may be very fitly called the second service; for though, in strictness of speech, the Litany is a service distinct, yet in our usual acceptation of the word service,—namely, for a complete service with all the several parts of it, psalms, readings, creeds, thanksgivings, and prayers,—so the Litany is not a service, nor so esteemed, but called “the Litany,” or supplications; and looked upon sometimes, when other offices follow, as a kind of preparative, though a distinct form, to them, as to the Communion, Commination, &c. And therefore it was a custom in some churches, that a bell was tolled while the Litany was saying, to give notice to the people that the communion service was now coming on.—Bp. Sparrow.

Of the many compellations given to this sacrament in former ages, our Church has very wisely thought fit to retain these two (namely, the exhortation before and the rubric after the communion service) in her public service, as those which are most ancient and scriptural. As for the name of “the Lord’s supper,” which name the Papists cannot endure to have this sacrament called by, because it destroys their notion of a sacrifice, and their use of private mass, we find this given to it, as its proper name in the apostles’ time, by St. Paul himself, “when ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.” (1 Cor. xi. 20.) And this name is frequently given to it by ancient writers. So for “the communion;” this is plainly another scriptural name of the same holy sacrament. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” (1 Cor. x. 16.) Which name is given to it, partly, because by this we testify our communion with Christ our Head; partly, because it unites us together with all our fellow-Christians; partly, because all good Christians have a right to partake of it; hence, with St. Chrysostom and St. Basil, “to communicate” is the common word to express the participation of this sacrament.—Dr. Nicholls.

The reason why it is enjoined that notice shall be given to the minister when we intend to communicate is, that the minister of the parish may have time to inform himself of the parties who design to receive: so that, if there be any among them who are not duly qualified, he may persuade them to abstain for some time; or, in case of their refusal, repel them. Now, in several cases, persons may be unqualified to partake of this sacrament, either by the prescript of God’s word, or by the canons of the Church.

1. A want or a contempt of the rite of confirmation unqualifies persons to receive; for the rubric of the Common Prayer, which is confirmed by the Act of Uniformity, says, “No one shall be admitted to the holy communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.” This is agreeable to the provisions of the ancient Church; and the only reasonable impediment to confirmation is the want of a bishop near the place.

2. Persons excommunicate, or who are doing penance by church censure for any notorious fault, are unqualified to receive; for such persons are shut out from the communion, and therefore called excommunicate.

3. Persons under phrensy are unqualified to partake of the holy communion. And all persons, under the foregoing want of qualification, may lawfully be refused admission to the communion by the minister; for the ecclesiastical law imposes great penalties upon the minister, who shall give them the communion in such cases.

4. A person may be unqualified by notorious wickedness, or flagitiousness of life. But of this more in the next note.—Dr. Nicholls.

In the primitive times, when discipline was strictly maintained, all such persons, as soon as known, were put under censure; but if, before censure, they offered themselves at the communion, they were repelled. And indeed such severe discipline might not be amiss, whilst it was grounded only upon piety and zeal for God’s honour, as it was in those devout times. But, afterwards, some persons being debarred from the communion out of private pique and resentment, an imperial injunction prohibited all, both bishops and presbyters, from shutting out any one from the communion, before just cause be shown that the holy canons do give them power so to do. And the canon law did not allow a discretionary power to the priest to thrust away every ill person from the sacrament: “a vicious person, offering himself to receive the communion, is not to be expelled, but is to be carried privately aside, and to be exhorted not to receive the communion.” Indeed the later canonists did interpret this only of occult crimes, and such as were not generally known; allowing only persons “notoriously guilty” to be expelled; and of this opinion were the compilers of our rubrics in Edward the Sixth’s time, as appears from their wording this rubric, “If any be an open and notorious evil liver,” &c. But, however, they limited this discretionary power of the minister, obliging him, even in “notorious” crimes, to “admonish” such persons first to abstain, and only upon obstinacy to repel. But, nevertheless, this formerly gave occasion to several exceptions and disputes; and therefore, in the last revision of the Common Prayer, repulsion was not left to the absolute power of the minister, but he was obliged to give notice thereof to the diocesan, and to take his advice therein. And still it remains so uncertain, what is “notoriety,” both in presumption, law, and fact, that a minister is not out of danger of transgressing his rule, if, before judicial conviction of a crime, he goes further than admonishing any person to abstain.—Dr. Nicholls. Our law in England will not suffer the minister to judge any man as a notorious offender, but him who is convicted by some legal sentence.—Bp. Andrewes.

Notoriety in fact is one thing, and notoriety in presumption is another. And in either case it should be a notoriety in law too, to indemnify the minister for proceeding upon the rubric, or to render him safe, in point of law, for repelling any person from the communion.

Upon the whole of the matter, however, though this rubric may “require some explanation,” as Bishop Cosin remarks, “for the avoiding of disputes and doubts between the communicants and curates;” yet, if it be taken in all its parts, namely, that no person, however “notoriously wicked,” shall be withheld from the communion, till he be admonished to withdraw himself; and that when he is repelled upon his obstinacy, it is only till such time as the advice of the ordinary can be had therein, to whom the curate is obliged to give early notice of such his act; it seems in this view the best, and I think the only ecclesiastical, rule we have to go by in such case; nor doth it appear liable to exceptions, unless it be in that particular, of how far we are safe in acting according to it.

But, as this is properly a point of law, it is not so fit for me to undertake any determination of it; it must be left to the gentlemen of that profession. Only thus much I would put in, that, if a clergyman’s conduct in this matter shall appear to be upright, dispassionate, and disinterested, (and I wish it may never appear otherwise,) so as to gain the approbation of reasonable and indifferent persons,—which I think it would gain in all notorious and flagrant cases, which are those mentioned in the rubric,—it is to be hoped and presumed, that the interpreters of the law would, in their turn too, show him all the favour and regard they could.—Archdeacon Sharp.

COMMUNION OF THE SICK. In this office we have an example of the benevolent care exhibited by the Church towards her suffering members. As all mortal men be subject to many sudden perils, diseases, and sicknesses, and ever uncertain what time they shall depart out of this life, the Church has not only provided for their baptism, and for the visitations of the pastor, but has authorized and directed the administration to them of “the most comfortable sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.”

Although the Church maintains that the eucharist, as a general rule, is to be publicly administered in the consecrated house of God, and has signified her disapproval of solitary communion in all cases; yet, when by sickness her members are incapable of presenting themselves at the altar, there is a wise and tender relaxation of her usages, corresponding with the peculiar necessity of the case. This too “is exactly conformable to the most early practice of the primitive Church; for there is nothing more frequently mentioned by the ancient writers, than the care of the Church to distribute the eucharist to all dying persons that were capable of receiving it.”

“There are many instances,” says Palmer, “in antiquity, of the celebration of the eucharist in private for the sick. Thus Paulinus, bishop of Nola, caused the eucharist to be celebrated in his own chamber, not many hours before his death. Gregory Nazianzen informs us, that his father communicated in his own chamber, and that his sister had an altar at home; and Ambrose is said to have administered the sacrament in a private house at Rome. The Church is therefore justified in directing the eucharist to be consecrated in private houses, for the benefit of the sick; and she has taken care, in the rubric immediately preceding the office, that the sacrament shall be decorously and reverently administered.”

In the distribution of the elements, the rubric orders that the sick person shall receive last. This is done, “because those who communicate with him, through fear of some contagion, or the noisomeness of his disease, may be afraid to drink out of the same cup after him.”

By a constitution of Archbishop Peckham, the sacrament of the eucharist shall be carried with due reverence to the sick, the priest having on at least a surplice or stole, with a light carried before him in a lantern, with a bell, that the people may be excited to due reverence; who by the minister’s direction shall be taught to prostrate themselves, or at least to make humble adoration, wheresoever the King of Glory shall happen to be carried under the cover of bread.

But by the rubric of the 2 Edward VI. it was ordered, that there shall be no elevation of the host, or showing the sacrament to the people.

By the present rubric, before the office for the Communion of the Sick, it is ordered as follows: “Forasmuch as all mortal men be subject to many sudden perils, diseases, and sicknesses, and ever uncertain what time they shall depart out of this life; therefore, to the intent they may be always in a readiness to die whensoever it shall please Almighty God to call them, curates shall diligently from time to time (but especially in the time of pestilence or other infectious sickness) exhort their parishioners to the often receiving of the holy communion of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, when it shall be publicly administered in the church; that, so doing, they may, in case of sudden visitation, have the less cause to be disquieted for lack of the same. But if the sick person be not able to come to the church, and yet is desirous to receive the communion in his house, then he must give timely notice to the curate, signifying also how many there are to communicate with him, (which shall be three, or two at the least,) and having a convenient place in the sick man’s house, with all things necessary so prepared, that the curate may reverently minister, he shall there celebrate the holy communion.

“But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the curate, or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, the curate shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed his blood for his redemption; earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore; he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul’s health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth.

“In the time of plague, sweat, or other such like contagious times of sickness or diseases, when none of the parish can be gotten to communicate with the sick in their houses, for fear of infection, upon special request of the deceased, the minister may only communicate with him.”

It has been the constant usage of the Church, in all probability derived from the apostolical times, for persons dangerously sick to receive the holy sacrament of the Lord’s supper for their spiritual comfort and assistance. Hence this private communion obtained the name of viaticum among the Latins, and a correspondent name among the Greeks; that is, provision, as it were, laid in to sustain them in their journey to the other world. Our Church follows this example of the primitive ages. And rather than the sick man should want so necessary a comfort, we are allowed to dispense it in a private house, and to a small company, which in other cases we avoid. Indeed there are divers weighty reasons why the dying Christian should receive this sacrament, and why ministers should persuade them to it, and labour to fit them for the worthy receiving of it. For, 1. This is the highest mystery of religion, and fittest for those who are by sickness put into a heavenly frame and are nearest to perfection. 2. This is God’s seal of remission to all that receive it with penitence and faith. 3. This arms them against the fear of death, by setting Jesus before them, who died for them, and hath pulled out the sting of death. 4. This assures them of their resurrection, by keeping them members of Christ’s body. (John vi. 54.) 5. It declares they die in the peace and communion of the true Church, out of which there is no salvation. And if the sick man have done all the duties in the foregoing office, he is prepared to die, and therefore fit for this communion; and if he do receive it with devotion, the comfortable assurances of God’s love which he gets here will never leave him till he see God face to face. We shall only add, that, lest the fears of the Divine displeasure which sick men are very apt to entertain, should trouble their minds, and hinder their joy and comfort in this holy ordinance, the Church hath chosen a peculiar Epistle and Gospel on purpose to comfort them and deliver them from these fears, and also made a proper collect to beg patience for them under this their affliction. All which are so plain they need no explication, but only require the sick man’s devout attention, and then it is hoped they will not fail of their desired effect.—Dr. Nicholls. Dean Comber.

COMMUNION OF SAINTS. (See Saints.) This is an article of the Creed in which we profess to believe, as a necessary and infallible truth, that such persons as are truly sanctified in the Church of Christ, while they live among the crooked generations of men, and struggle with the miseries of this world, have fellowship with God the Father, (1 John i. 3; 2 Peter i. 4,) with God the Son, (1 John i. 3; 2 John 9; John xvii. 20, 21, 23,) with God the Holy Ghost, (Phil. ii. 1; 2 Cor. xiii. 14,) as dwelling with them, and taking up THEIR habitations in them; that they partake of the care and kindness of the blessed angels, who take delight in the ministration for their benefit, being “ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14; Luke xv. 10; Matt, xviii. 10); that besides the external fellowship which they have in the word and sacraments, with all the members of the Church, they have an intimate union and conjunction with all the saints on earth, as the living members of Christ. (1 John i. 7; Col. ii. 19.) Nor is this union separated by the death of any; but as Christ, in whom they live, is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, so have they fellowship with all the saints, who, from the death of Abel, have departed in the true faith and fear of God, and now enjoy the presence of the Father, and follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. (Heb. xii. 22, 23.) “Indeed,” says Bishop Pearson, from whom this article is taken, “the communion of saints in the Church of Christ with those who are departed is demonstrated by their communion with the saints alive. For if I have communion with a saint of God as such, while he liveth here, I must still have communion with him when he is departed hence; because the foundation of that communion cannot be removed by death. The mystical union between Christ and his Church, the spiritual conjunction of the members with the head, is the true foundation of that communion which one member hath with another, all the members living and increasing by the same influence which they receive from him. But death, which is nothing else but the separation of the soul from the body, maketh no separation in the mystical union, no breach of the spiritual conjunction; and, consequently, there must continue the same communion, because there remaineth the same foundation. Indeed the saint before his death had some communion with the hypocrite, as hearing the word, professing the faith, receiving the sacraments together; which being in things only external, as they were common to them both, and all such external actions ceasing in the person dead, the hypocrite remaining loseth all communion with the saint departing, and the saints surviving cease to have farther fellowship with the hypocrite dying. But seeing that the true and unfeigned holiness of man, wrought by the powerful influence of the Spirit of God, not only remaineth, but also is improved after death; seeing that the correspondence of the internal holiness was the true communion with other persons during life, they cannot be said to be divided by death, which hath no power over that sanctity by which they were first conjoined. But although this communion of the saints in paradise and on earth, upon the mystical union of Christ their head, be fundamental and internal, yet what acts or external operations it produces is not so certain. That we communicate with them in hope of that happiness which they actually enjoy is evident; that we have the Spirit of God given us as an earnest, and so a part of their felicity, is certain. But what they do in heaven in relation to us on earth particularly considered, or what we ought to perform in reference to them in heaven, besides a reverential respect and study of imitation, is not revealed unto us in the Scriptures, nor can be concluded by necessary deduction from any principles of Christianity. They who first found this part of the article in the creed, and delivered their exposition to us, have made no greater enlargement of this communion, as to the saints of heaven, than the society of hope, esteem, and imitation on our side, of desires and supplications on their side; and what is now taught by the Church of Rome is as an unwarrantable, so a novitious, interpretation.”

COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. The principal advocates of Popery at the beginning of the Reformation were not willing to own, that the universal practice of the primitive Church was against the modern sacrilege of denying the cup to the people; and, therefore, though they confessed there were some instances in antiquity, of communion under both kinds, yet they maintained the custom was not universal. So Eckius and Harding, and many others. But they who have since considered the practice of the ancient Church more narrowly, are ashamed of this pretence, and freely confess, that for twelve centuries there is no instance of the people’s being obliged to communicate only in one kind, in the public administration of the sacrament; but in private they think some few instances may be given. This is Cardinal Bona’s distinction. “It is very certain,” says he, “that anciently all in general, both clergy and laity, men and women, received the holy mysteries in both kinds, when they were present at the solemn celebration of them, and they both offered and were partakers. But out of the time of sacrifice, and act of the Church, it was customary always and in all places to communicate only in one kind. In the first part of the assertion all agree, as well Catholics as sectaries; nor can any one deny it, that has the least knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs. For the faithful always and in all places, from the very first foundation of the Church to the twelfth century, were used to communicate under the species of bread and wine; and in the beginning of that age the use of the cup began by little and little to be laid aside, whilst many bishops interdicted the people the use of the cup, for fear of irreverence and effusion.” (Book ii. c. 18, n. 1.) And what they did first for their own Churches, was afterward confirmed by a canonical sanction of the Council of Constance [A. D. 1414].... At this day the Greeks, and Maronites, and Abyssins, and all the Orientals, never communicate but in both kinds, as Bona himself confesses (Book ii. c. 18, n. 2).—Bingham. The following is the decree of the popish Council of Constance [A. D. 1418] on this subject.

“Whereas, in some parts of the world, certain persons rashly presume to assert, that the Christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under both kinds of bread and wine; and do everywhere communicate the laity, not only in the bread, but also in the wine; and pertinaciously assert also, that they ought to communicate after supper, or else not fasting, doing this contrary to the laudable custom of the Church, which is agreeable to reason, which they damnably endeavour to reprobate as sacrilegious, this present holy general Council of Constance, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, earnestly desiring to protect the safety of the faithful against this error, after much and mature deliberation had of many who are learned both in Divine and human law, declares, decrees, and determines, that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after supper, and administered it to his disciples under both kinds of bread and wine, yet, notwithstanding this, the laudable authority of the sacred canons, and the approved custom of the Church has observed, that this sacrament ought not to be performed after supper, nor be received by the faithful unless fasting, except in the case of sickness, or any other necessity, either duly conceded or admitted by the Church; and, in like manner, that although in the primitive Church this sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds, yet for the avoiding any dangers and scandals, the custom has reasonably been introduced, that it be received by the officiating persons under both kinds, but by the laity only under the kind of bread; since it is to be believed most firmly, and in nowise to be doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ is truly contained as well under the species of bread as under that of wine.”

On which we may fairly remark, “full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” For Christ, when he celebrated the Eucharist, gave the cup to all who were present; and when he appointed his apostles his ministers to celebrate it, he bade them do the same, “Do this in remembrance of me.” But ye say, whosoever shall dare to do as Christ has bidden him, shall be effectually punished. Can human impiety exceed this?—Perceval.

COMMUNION TABLE. A name for the altar in the Christian Church. It is both altar and table. An altar with respect to the oblation; a table with respect to the feast. (See Altar.)

COMMUTATION OF PENANCE. Penance is an ecclesiastical punishment, used in the discipline of the Church, which affects the body of the penitent; by which he is obliged to give public satisfaction to the Church for the scandal he has occasioned by his evil example. Commutation of Penance is the permission granted by the ecclesiastical judge to pay a certain sum of money for pious uses, in lieu of public penance. (See Penitents.)

COMPETENTES. An order of catechumens in the primitive Church, being the immediate candidates for baptism.

COMPLINE, or COMPLETORIUM, was, before the Reformation, the last service of the day. This hour of prayer was first appointed by the celebrated abbot Benedict, in the sixth century.

The Church of England, at the revision of our offices in the reign of Edward the Sixth, only prescribed public worship in the morning and the evening; and in making this regulation she was perfectly justified: for though it is the duty of Christians to pray continually, yet the precise times and seasons of prayer, termed canonical hours, do not rest on any Divine command; nor have they ever been pronounced binding on all Churches by any general council: neither has there been any uniformity in the practice of the Christian Church in this respect. Besides this, the Churches of the Alexandrian patriarchate, which were founded by the holy evangelist Mark, only appointed two public assemblies in the day; and no more were customary, even in the monasteries of Egypt, the rest of the day being left for private and voluntary prayer and meditation. Thus also the Church of England left her clergy and people to follow in private the injunction of the apostle, to “pray without ceasing;” for, as John Cassian observes, a voluntary gift of praise and prayer is even more acceptable to God than those duties which are compelled by the canons; and, certainly, the Church of England did not intend that her children should offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only in the morning and evening when she appointed those seasons for public worship. Indeed, we find that a book of private devotion, containing offices for several hours of prayer, and entitled the “Horarium,” was published by royal authority, A. D. 1560, from which Dr. Cosin, bishop of Durham, chiefly derived his “Collection of Private Devotion,” &c. The office of Evensay, or Evening Prayer, is a judicious abridgment of the office of Evensay and Compline, as formerly used by the English Church.—Palmer.

CONCEPTION (IMMACULATE) OF THE HOLY VIRGIN. The immaculate conception is a festival of the Roman Church, observed on December 8, in honour of the alleged conception of the Virgin Mary without sin. The doctrine itself was invented about the middle of the twelfth century. The devotion offered to the Blessed Virgin having grown to an extravagant height, it was asserted by some obscure theologians, not only that she was sanctified from her birth, but also that she was conceived without sin. The opinion was at first generally condemned, and it would have had its place among other forgotten heresies, if Duns Scotus, the great opponent of the Dominicans, had not undertaken its defence.

The testimony of Scripture to the universal corruption of human nature is as plain as possible, and no trace of any exception is to be found. The witness of the primitive Church is equally clear, and not a single writer, for more than a thousand years, can be cited as having given the least countenance to the modern view.

But although the Roman Church has afforded the highest sanction and encouragement to a doctrine which is condemned alike by Scripture and the Fathers, the inconsistencies and contradictions of its authorized teaching on the subject are endless. The Council of Basle, for instance, in its thirty-sixth session, declared the belief in the immaculate conception to be conformable to the Catholic faith; but on the other side it is urged, that the council was in schism when it passed the decree, on account of the deposition which it had pronounced against Eugenius. The Council of Trent, in its decree on the subject of original sin, expressly stated that it had no intention of including the Blessed Virgin in the terms which it employed; but in conclusion it only enjoined the observance of the decree of Sixtus IV., which left the question open. The parties of Dominicans and Franciscans were so equally balanced that the Council did not venture to pronounce in favour of the one at the expense of the other. Their disputes were only kept from proceeding to extremity by the intervention of the legate. Pius V. in the same way, forbade the censure of those who denied, as well as of those who affirmed, the doctrine. Gregory XV. prohibited the imputation of original sin to the Blessed Virgin, even in private disputations; but he made an exception in favour of the Dominicans, that is to say, while giving his highest sanction to the dogma, he granted an immunity to those who had from the first resisted it. Alexander VII. decreed that the immaculate conception is a pious doctrine and worthy of honour, but he forbade the censure of those who should reject it. The university of Paris, at one period, compelled all candidates for the highest degree in theology to bind themselves to defend it; while at the same time the chief authority in the Church permitted its denial. Austria received from Benedict XIII. the grant of an office for the immaculate conception, but the phrase itself is carefully excluded from the prayers. The evidence, such as it is, on both sides is equally conflicting. The Franciscans, for instance, produced a revelation of St. Bridget in favour of the doctrine, while the Dominicans appealed to a similar revelation made to St. Catherine of Sienna, in which the contrary is affirmed. A question was raised in consequence, whether one of the so called saints is not to be believed rather than the other, though both have their place as objects of worship in the Roman calendar.

To sober-minded Christians it seems as idle a question as ever occupied the time, or roused the bad passions, of theological disputants, since, according to Thomas Aquinas and others, it regards only an inconceivably minute instant of time; yet it sufficed at one period to throw the whole kingdom of Spain into confusion, and it has furnished for centuries the watchword of parties in the Roman Church, who have maintained the fiercest opposition to each other; and the controversy is still undecided. Although it is said that the doctrine is full of blessing, that the whole of Christendom is devoutly waiting for its authoritative declaration, and that this would be the great glory and joy of an age which is to witness the restoration of catholicity, the See of Rome is restrained by great and insurmountable difficulties. If the immaculate conception were decreed to be a necessary article of faith, no one could deny that an addition had been made to the ancient creeds, and in a case to which even the loose principle of development could hardly be made applicable: while at the same time there would be an implied condemnation not only of the primitive fathers, but of the greatest theologians whom the Church of Rome has ever produced.

CONCEPTION OF OUR LADY. A religious order in the Romish Church, founded by Beatrix de Sylva, sister of James, first count of Portolegro, in the kingdom of Portugal. This lady, being carried to the court of Castile by Elizabeth, daughter of Edward, king of Portugal, whom the king of Castile had married, and the king falling in love with her on account of her beauty, the jealous queen locked her up in a chamber, where she left her without meat or drink for three days. In this condition she implored the assistance of the Virgin Mary, who, according to the legendary statement, appeared to her and comforted her, promising her a speedy release, which soon happened. But Beatrix, fearing the further resentment of the queen, privately withdrew from court, and fled to Toledo; where arriving, she retired to a monastery of Dominican nuns, in which she continued forty years in the practice of all sorts of austerities. Here she again imagined, or pretended, that the Virgin Mary reappeared to her, and inspired her with the desire of founding an order in honour of her own immaculate conception. To this end she obtained of the queen a grant of the palace of Galliana, where was a chapel dedicated to the honour of St. Faith. Beatrix, accompanied by twelve young maids of the Dominican monastery, took possession of it in the year 1484. These religious were habited in a white gown and scapulary, and a blue mantle, and wore on their scapulary the image of the Blessed Virgin. Pope Innocent VIII. confirmed the order in 1489, and granted them permission to follow the rule of the Cistercians. The pious foundress died in the year 1490, at sixty-six years of age.

After the death of Beatrix, Cardinal Ximenes put the nuns of the Conception under the direction of the Franciscans, as being the most zealous defenders of the immaculate conception; at the same time, he gave them the rule of St. Clara to follow. The second convent of the order was founded in the year 1507, at Torrigo, in the diocese of Toledo, which produced seven others, the first of which was at Madrid. This order passed into Italy, and got footing in Rome and Milan. In the reign of Louis XIV., king of France, the Clarisses of the suburb of St. Germain, at Paris, embraced the order of the Conception. These religious, besides the grand office of the Franciscans, recite on Sundays and holy-days a lesser office, called the office of the Conception of the Holy Virgin.—Broughton.

CONCEPTION, MIRACULOUS. The production of the human nature of the Son of God out of the ordinary course of generation, by the power of the Holy Ghost. (Matt. i. 18, 25.)

It were not difficult to show that the miraculous conception, once admitted, naturally brings after it the great doctrines of the incarnation and the atonement. The miraculous conception of our Lord evidently implies some higher purpose of his coming than the mere business of a teacher. The business of a teacher might have been performed by a mere man, enlightened by the prophetic spirit. For whatever instruction men have the capacity to receive, a man might have been made the instrument to convey. Had teaching, therefore, been the sole purpose of our Saviour’s coming, a mere man might have done the whole business, and the supernatural conception had been an unnecessary miracle. He, therefore, who came in this miraculous way, came upon some higher business, to which a mere man was unequal. He came to be made a sin-offering for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.—Bp. Horsley.

CONCLAVE. The place where the cardinals meet for the choosing of a new pope: the assembly itself is also called by this name, and it depends upon the members themselves to choose the place, although for some time the Vatican has been constantly used. Here they erect, in a large apartment, as many cells of deal wood as there are cardinals, with lodges and places for the conclavists, who shut themselves in to wait and serve the cardinals. These little chambers have their numbers, and are drawn by lot, so that it often happens that cardinals of different factions lodge near one another. These are made up during the nine days’ ceremony for the pope’s funeral; during which time anybody may go in and see the cells, which are hung on the outside with green serge or camlet, only those that belong to the favourites of the deceased, or are such as had been promoted by him, are covered with deep violet-coloured cloth, and over each are the arms of the cardinal who lives in it. Between the cells and the windows of the palace there is a long gallery for the convenience of the conclave, and it is from this that the cells receive their light. The day after the pope’s burial, that is, the tenth after his decease, the cardinals, having heard mass, invoke the Holy Ghost (as they term it) and go in procession two by two into the conclave, where they all meet in the chapel every morning and evening for a scrutiny, which is done by writing their suffrages in little billets, and putting them into a chalice that stands upon the altar: when all are put in, two cardinals are chosen by the rest to read those openly who are named, and to keep an account of the number of each, and this is done till two-thirds join for the same person; but a pope is seldom chosen after this manner. When it appears that after the scrutiny they do not agree, they come to what they call an accez or access, that is, a trial whether he who has most voices in the scrutiny could reach to two-thirds; but it is observable that they cannot give their suffrages in the accez to those whom they have appeared for in the scrutiny. If this does not succeed, they have recourse to the way of inspiration, (as they term it,) which is an open declaration, or rather combination of many cardinals to cry together such a cardinal is pope. For example, Altieri Papa is begun by one or two chiefs of a party, when they find suffrages enough to assure them that this method will not fail, and then the rest of the cardinals are forced to join, that they may not incur the pope’s displeasure, who would be chosen in spite of them. The scrutiny is managed in the following manner: each cardinal prepares his billet, wherein he writes his own name and that of the person for whom he votes, and another word of device; the cardinal’s name is written under the fold of the paper, and sealed with a seal for that purpose. The name of the chosen is written by the conclavist under another fold without the seal, and the word by which the cardinal knows that it is his name which is read, is written on the outside, as Deo volente, or the like; the fold which covers the cardinal’s name is never opened until the pope be chosen, who, to know those who voted for him, unfolds all. The motto serves in the accez, that it may appear that each cardinal has given another besides that in the scrutiny, seeing two billets with different persons under the same name; and at the end of the scrutiny and accez, if the suffrage be not sufficient to complete the election, they burn all the billetings that the electors’ names may be kept secret. Each cardinal during the conclave is allowed but two servants, or three at most, and this only to princes, or for some particular privilege. Several seek for this employment because the new-elected pope gives each conclavist three or four hundred livres, and they have the pleasure of seeing all that passes: yet the place is troublesome enough, because they must take in their meat and drink from a certain place common to all that live in the same part, must wait at table, and be as strictly confined as their masters.—Augusti.

CONCORDANCE, a dictionary or index to the Bible, wherein all the leading words are ranged alphabetically, and the books, chapters, and verses wherein they occur, referred to, to assist in finding out passages, and comparing the several significations of the same word. The earliest attempt at a Concordance is the collection of parallel passages in the margin of the 5th volume of the Complatensian Polyglot. The first English Polyglot was published by John Merbeck, or Marbeck, a celebrated English musician, in 1550.

Of English Concordances, Cruden’s is well known and valued by every biblical student.

Crutwell’s “Concordance of Parallels” is useful, but the number of parallel passages referred to, and sometimes the slightness of their connexion, renders the work less useful on ordinary occasions than the marginal references in our Bibles.

Gastrell’s “Christian Institutes,” Locke and Dodd’s “Common-place Book of Scripture,” Strutt’s work with the same title, and Matthew Talbot’s “Analysis of the Holy Bible,” all assume the character of a concordance. The best Hebrew concordance is Calasios. For the Septuagint, Trommius, for the Greek Testament, Schmidt, (a very beautiful 12mo edition of which was edited by Mr. Greenfield in 1830,) and for the Vulgate, Cardinal Hugo’s Concordance may be consulted.

CONCORDAT. An instrument executed in 1801, between Bonaparte and Pope Pius VII., to which the present Gallican Church owes its origin, in a much stronger sense than any in which the Romanist can refer the origin of the Church of England to the Reformation. For an account of this concordat the reader is referred to the article on the Church of France. (See Church.)

CONCORDAT. There is also a much earlier agreement between the crown of France and the pope, generally known by the same name, viz. the agreement of Francis I. with Pope Leo X. in 1516, to abolish the Pragmatic Sanction; and here we must observe, that Clothaire II. issued an edict in 615, approved by all the bishops of his kingdom, assembled at the fifth Council of Paris, by which he ordered that no bishop, though chosen by the clergy and people, should be consecrated if the king did not approve of him: and he that should be nominated by the king should be accepted, if the metropolitan found no just cause to reject him. Now King Charles VII., in the Council of Bourges, in 1439, established the Pragmatic Sanction, whereby part of the clergy, without consulting with the people or the archbishops, or other bishops of provinces, chose their bishops, leaving the king the privilege of consenting to and confirming the election if he liked it. This the court of Rome resented; the court first desired, and afterwards in the Lateran Council cited, this king and the clergy of France to appear and give their reasons, why they did not abolish that ordinance; whereupon King Francis I. made this agreement, called a Concordat, with Pope Leo X., whereby the king had the power to nominate such as he thought fit for bishops, &c.; and the pope, if he found no fault, either in respect of the capacity or life of the person in nomination, was to issue the papal bull for the consecration. The parliament, clergy, and the university of Paris were much against registering this agreement; and, though they consented to it at last, yet they solemnly protested, that they did it only in obedience to the king’s repeated commands. This concordat differed from that of Clothaire, that the pope, by this, had no power to examine the ability of the person elected; so that, in his time, they consecrated their bishops, without troubling themselves to send to Rome for bulls. (See Pragmatic Sanction.)

CONCORDAT, GERMANIC, or the Concordat of Germany. A treaty relating to ecclesiastical affairs, made in 1488, between Pope Nicholas V. and the emperor Frederick III., confirmed by Clement VIII. and Gregory XIII. It comprehended four parts; in the first of which the pope reserved to himself the conferring of all vacant benefices at Rome, and 100 days’ journey from it, of whatever degree, either secular or regular, which before went by election, without exception of cardinals or other officers of the holy see. The second concerns the elections that are to be confirmed by the pope, as metropolises, cathedrals, and monasteries, depending immediately on the pope, and having the privilege of canonical election. The third concerns livings that are successively given by the popes and their proper patrons; that the pope has the privilege to confer both secular and regular livings, for the months of January, March, May, July, September, November; and the bishop or archbishop within the district of their dioceses during the other months. The fourth and last part speaks of the annates or first-fruits, after the death or removal of the incumbent.

CONDIGNITY and CONGRUITY. Terms used by the schoolmen to express their peculiar opinions relative to human merit and deserving. The Scotists maintain that it is possible for man in his natural state so to live as to deserve the grace of God, by which he may be enabled to obtain salvation; this natural fitness (congruitas) for grace, being such as to oblige the Deity to grant it. Such is the merit of congruity. The Thomists, on the other hand, contend that man, by the Divine assistance, is capable of so living as to merit eternal life, to be worthy (condignus) of it in the sight of God. In this hypothesis, the question of previous preparation for the grace which enables him to be worthy, is not introduced. This is the merit of condignity.

Article XIII. “Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”

CONDUCT. A name given to chaplains of colleges in the university of Cambridge and at Eton; meaning a “Capellanus conductitius.” (See Chaplain.)

CONFALON, or GONFALON, Society of the. So called from the Gonfalon, or banner, bearing the figure of the Virgin Mary, which was their ensign.—Raynaldus. A confraternity of seculars in the Church of Rome, called penitents, established first of all by some Roman citizens in 1267: and confirmed by Pope Gregory XIII. in 1576. Henry III. began one at Paris in 1583, and himself assisted in the habit of a penitent, at a procession wherein the cardinal of Guise carried the cross, and his brother the duke of Mayenne was master of the ceremonies.

CONFESSION. (See Auricular Confession.) The verbal acknowledgment of sin. The following are the rules laid down by the Church of England on this subject. The Warning for the Celebration of the Holy Communion: “Because it is requisite that no man should come to the holy communion but with a full faith in God’s mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore, if there be any of you who by this means cannot quiet his conscience therein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God’s word, and open his grief, that by the ministration of God’s holy word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.” Rubric, in the Office for the Visitation of the Sick: “Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession, the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort.” By the 113th canon, empowering ministers to prevent offences at the court of visitation, it is provided that “if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him, he shall not in anywise be bound by this constitution, but is strictly charged and admonished that he do not at any time reveal and make known to any person whatsoever, any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy, (except they be such crimes as, by the laws of this realm, his own life may be called in question for concealing the same,) under pain of irregularity.”

In the primitive Church, no other confession of sins was required in order to receive baptism than the general renunciation of the devil and all his works.

Nor did the Church lay any obligation on the consciences of men, to make either public or private confession of their sins to any but God, in order to qualify them for the communion. The confessions of the primitive Christians were all voluntary, and not imposed upon them by any laws of the Church. Notwithstanding which it must be owned, that private confession, though not absolutely required, yet was allowed and encouraged by the ancients, in some cases, and upon special occasions. For, first, they advised men, in case of lesser sins, to make confession mutually to each other, that they might have each other’s prayers and assistance, according to the advice of St. James, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray for one another, that ye may be healed.” Which, though it be produced by the Romanists in favour of auricular confession to a priest, yet the ancients understood it only as a direction to Christians to confess mutually to each other. 2. In case of injuries done to any private person, it was expected that the offender should make a private confession of his fault to the person injured. 3. When men were under any perplexities of mind, or troubles of conscience, this was another case in which they were directed to have recourse to some pastor, and to take his counsel and advice. 4. Origen gives another reason for confessing private sins to the priest, which is, that he was the fittest judge when it was proper to do public penance for private offences. (See Penitentiary.)—Bingham, b. xv. ch. 8, § 6.

The Romish Church not only requires confession as a duty, but has advanced it to the dignity of a sacrament; and this greatly adds to the power of the clergy of that Church over the laity. “Confession submits a fearful penitent, whose conscience is oppressed with scruples, loaded with remorse, and weakened by the remembrance of its sins, to the absolute will of a cunning priest, who beholds sceptres at his feet, humbles crowns, and makes those tremble who strike terror into whole nations.” Confession, in the Church of Rome, must be made in the day-time, and, if possible, when there are people in the church. As soon as the penitent comes up to the confessional, or the seat of the priest who confesses, he makes the sign of the cross, and asks the confessor’s blessing. Then the penitent kneels, with his hands clasped and uplifted. The confessional is open before, and has two lattice windows in it, one on each side. The confessor sits with his cap on his head, and his ear stooped towards the penitent, in which posture he receives his confession in a whisper; whence it is called auricular confession. This ended, the priest uncovers himself, and stretching out his right hand towards the penitent, pronounces the absolution. (See Penance.)—Casal de Veter. Christ. Ritib. Alet’s Ritual.

That confession is a custom observed in the Greek Church is past all dispute. Ricaut calls this practice “One of the fundamental pillars of the Eastern Churches; the axis upon which their whole ecclesiastical polity turns, and that without which the clergy would no longer have any authority or influence over the consciences of the people, and would very seldom be able to reprove them in a country where they could fly to the arms of infidels for shelter and protection against the censures and reprehensions of their own pastors.” There are four stated times in the year for confession. The penitent withdraws with the priest to some remote corner of the church, where he sits down, with his head uncovered, and the confessor assures him, the angel of the Lord is there present to take his confession, exhorting him at the same time to conceal none of his sins. After confession, the penitent receives absolution, and gives the priest a small gratuity of money for his trouble. If we may credit a judicious and learned traveller, the practice of confession is enormously abused by the Greeks. If a penitent acknowledges he has robbed another, the priest asks him whether the person injured be a native of his own country, or a Frank: if the penitent answers, the latter, “Then there is no harm done,” says the priest, “provided we share the booty between us.” These are natural consequences of the ignorance and poverty of the Greeks in general.—Tournefort’s Voyages.

“It standeth with us in the Church of England,” saith Hooker, “as touching public confession, thus: First, seeing day by day we in our Church begin our public prayers to Almighty God with public acknowledgment of our sins, in which confession every man, prostrate before his glorious majesty, crieth against himself, and the minister with one sentence pronounceth universally all clear whose acknowledgment hath proceeded from a true penitent mind, what reason is there every man should not, under the general terms of confession, represent to himself his own particulars whatsoever, and adjoining thereto that affection which a contrite spirit worketh, embrace to as full effect the words of Divine grace, as if the same were severally and particularly uttered, with addition of prayers, imposition of hands, and all ceremonies and solemnities, that might be used for the strengthening of men’s affiance in God’s peculiar mercy towards them? The difference of general and particular forms in confession, is not so material that any man’s safety or ghostly good should depend upon it.” “As for private confession,” says Bishop Jewel, “abuses and errors set apart, we condemn it not, but leave it at liberty.”—Broughton. Bingham.

All that can plainly be deduced from the scriptural doctrine concerning confession is this, that, in common or ordinary sins, we are to acknowledge them before Almighty God, either particularly in our private, or generally in our public devotion; but as for some sins of a more extraordinary kind, the heinousness whereof ordinary Christians may not be sufficiently apprized of, or which may be attended with such nice circumstances as perplex their consciences, here resort is proper to be made to the ministers of the Church, who, as physicians of the soul, are best able to advise the fittest remedies upon such uncommon emergencies. Matters of this kind stood within these limits for a considerable time after the first propagating of the gospel; but, during the piety of very early times, another sort of confession came in use, for it having been the practice for excommunicates, before their reception into the Church, to make a solemn confession of their faults before the whole congregation, some persons who had fallen into a great sin, though they had never been censured for it, thought it a part of their duty to take upon themselves a public shame for it, by discovering it to the whole congregation they were members of, and to desire their prayers to God for their pardon. Some difficulties and inconvenience arising from this practice, about the year 360, the office of a public penitentiary in the Greek Church began, who was to be a presbyter of good conversation, prudent, and one who could keep a secret; to whom those who were lapsed into any greater sin might confess it; and he, according to his discretion, was to enjoin a penance for it. But still there was no command for all people to confess their sins to this presbyter. In the Latin Church, the practice of public confession to the whole congregation continued 100 years longer, viz. till the time of Pope Leo, which was about the year 450, who, by an injunction of his, did abrogate it; and, after some time, the Greek Church began to grow weary of this private confession to a penitentiary, and so laid it aside. But whilst private confession to ministers was practised, in some of the earlier ages of the Church, recourse was had to them only as spiritual physicians and counsellors, as appears by many passages of antiquity. In the Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215, every person, of each sex, was obliged once in a year to confess to the minister of his parish, the sins which he had been guilty of. Auricular confession to the priest being thus established, some of the school divines of the Romish Church carried it to further lengths, making it to be an article of faith; to be received by the priest, not ministerially, but judicially and authoritatively; that every single sin must be discovered to them, with all its aggravating circumstances, &c. All which horrible tyranny over men’s consciences, and diving into the secrets of families and governments, was confirmed by the Council of Trent. The excellent compilers of our liturgy, willing to settle this upon the ancient bottom, ordered only a general confession of sins to be pronounced by all persons indifferently, not requiring any particular confessions to be made, thereby coming much nearer to the apostolical practice than the Roman liturgy can pretend to, in all which service there is no confession which the people share in; for their “Confiteor tibi, Domine,” &c. in the mass, relates to the priest, and the “Confiteor Deo omnipotenti,” “Beatæ Mariæ,” &c. in the breviary, is the confession only of the clergy.—Nicholls.

Forms of confession are generally to be met with in the liturgies of antiquity, but a form superior, or equal, to our own is nowhere to be found. Our confession, like the prayer which Jesus taught us, though concise, is comprehensive and full. It is conceived in general terms, yet at the same time it is so particular, that it includes every kind of sin. Where the minister is not too precipitate, when he allows the congregation time to repeat it, with such deliberation, that their hearts may go along with their words, each individual may, and ought, under the general form, to make a particular mental confession of his own personal sins, known only to God and his own conscience.—Shepherd.

At the time of the review of the liturgy, A. D. 1661, it was objected by the Presbyterian clergy against this Confession, that there was no preparatory prayer for God’s assistance and acceptance; and that it was defective in not clearly expressing “original sin,” nor enumerating actual sins with their aggravations. To which it was answered by the Episcopalian commissioners, that the preparatory sentences, and the preceding exhortation, amply supplied this; and that the form being so general is rather a perfection than a defect, as in such case all may join, since in many things we offend all. And as to the notice of original sin, they conceived that to be sufficiently acknowledged in the sentence, (with others, as the “devices and desires of our own hearts,” &c.,) “and there is no health in us.” With respect to the general terms used throughout the Common Prayer Book, dissenters have complained of such expressions as, “that we may do God’s will”—“that we may be kept from all evil,” &c.; to which the Episcopalians properly remark, “these are almost the very terms in the Lord’s Prayer; so that they must reform that, before they can pretend to amend our liturgy in these petitions.”

The reader may judge how far the objections are worthy of notice, by the form composed by Calvin himself, and used by the French reformed Churches, which is as follows:—“O Lord God, eternal and almighty Father, we acknowledge and confess before thy sacred Majesty, that we are miserable sinners, conceived and born in sin and iniquity; prone to evil, and indisposed to every good work; and that being vicious, we make no end of transgressing thy holy commandments. Hereby we call destruction upon ourselves from thy just judgment. But yet, O Lord, we are heartily sorry for having offended thee, and we condemn ourselves and sins by true repentance, desiring thy grace may relieve our misery. Therefore, O God, merciful Father, vouchsafe us thy mercy, in the name of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Blot out our sins, and purge away all our filth, and daily increase in us the gifts of thy Holy Spirit. That we, acknowledging our iniquity from the bottom of our hearts, may more and more displease ourselves, and be excited to true repentance; which, mortifying us and all our sins, may produce in us the fruits of righteousness and innocence, acceptable unto thee through the same Jesus Christ our Lord.” It appears, indeed, that our Confession was in great measure suggested by this form, or rather by the translation of it made by Valerandus Pollanus, for the reformed congregation of Strasburg.—See Laurence’s Bampton Lectures.

There is hardly anything in public worship which requires more caution and prudence in the ordering of it, than that confession of sin which is to be made by the whole congregation; it may be too loose and general on the one side, or it may be too particular and distinct on the other. There may be this inconvenience in a confession very short and general, that takes in all, that it does not so well serve to excite or to express that due sense of sin, nor to exercise that humility and self-abasement, wherewith we should always confess our sins to God. On the other hand, the inconvenience of a very particular and distinct confession of sins will be this, that some sins, with their aggravations, may be confessed in the name of the whole congregation, of which it is by no means to be supposed that all are guilty; and then they, who through the grace of God have been kept from them, cannot in good earnest make such confession.—Clagett’s Answer to Dissenters.

The General Confession with the Absolution, was first inserted in the Morning and Evening Prayer, by the Second Book of King Edward VI.

A Confession was formerly recited in the office for the first hour of the morning, according to the rites of the English Churches. It occurred in the course of prayers which came at the end of the service: and had this arrangement been regarded by the reformers, the Confession and Absolution would now be placed immediately before the collect for the day. There were, however, good reasons for placing the Confession at the beginning of the office. Christian humility would naturally induce us to approach the infinitely holy God with a confession of our sinfulness and unworthiness; and this position of the Confession is justified by the practice of the Eastern Church in the time of Basil, who observes that the people all confessed their sins with great contrition, at the beginning of the nocturnal service, and before the psalmody and lessons commenced.—Palmer.

Even in the most penitential parts of our service, even in the midst of accommodation to the wants of persons entering on a course of amendment, there is a prospect opened, of mature, established, and victorious Christianity.... Our “Almighty and most merciful Father” is entreated not only to remit the punishment, but to abolish the power of sin. And the absolution and remission of our sins itself, is made to consist, not merely in the reversal of a sentence, and removal of a curse, but in the influence of the Holy Spirit, consequent on true repentance, and productive, not of mere temporary and outward amendment, but of that inward abiding “purity and holiness, for the rest of our life,” which, “at the last,” will bring us to “God’s eternal joy.”—Bishop Jebb.

CONFESSIONS OF FAITH. The systems of theology drawn up by foreign reformers were frequently called Confessions of Faith. The following are the Confessions of the different Churches.

1. That of the Greek Church, entitled “The Confessions of the True and Genuine Faith,” which was presented to Mohammed II., in 1453, but which gave place to the “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Greek Church,” composed by Mogila, metropolitan of Kiev, in Russia, and approved in 1643, with great solemnity, by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. It contains the standard of the principles of the Russian Greek Church.—See Mr. Palmer’s (of Magd. Coll. Oxf.) Collection of Russian Symbolical Books; and Mr. Neale’s Hist. of the Greek Church.

2. The Church of Rome, though she has always received the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, had no fixed public and authoritative symbol till the Council of Trent. A summary of the doctrines contained in the canons of that council is given in the creed published by Pius IV., (1564,) in the form of a bull. It is introduced by the Nicene Creed, to which it adds twelve articles, comprising those doctrines which the Church of Rome finally adopted after her controversies with the Reformers. (See Creed of Pope Pius IV.)

3. The Lutherans call their standard books of faith and discipline, “Libri Symbolici Ecclesiæ Evangelicæ.” They contain the three creeds above mentioned, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology for that Confession by Melancthon, the Articles of Smalcald, drawn up by Luther; the Catechisms of Luther; and, in many churches, the Form of Concord, or Book of Torgau. The best edition is that by Tittmann, Leipsic, 1817. The Saxon, (composed by Melancthon,) Wurtemberg, Suabian, Pomeranian, Mansfeldtian, and Copenhagen Confessions agree in general with the symbolical books of the Lutherans, but are of authority only in the countries from which they are respectively called.

4. The Confessions of the Calvinistic Churches are numerous. The following are the principal:—(1.) The Helvetic Confessions are three—that of Basle, 1530; the Summary and Confession of the Helvetic Churches, 1536; and the “Expositio Simplex,” &c., 1566, ascribed to Bullinger. (2.) The Tetrapolitan Confession, 1531,—which derives its name from the four cities of Strasburg, Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau, by the deputies of which it was signed,—is attributed to Bucer. (3.) The Palatine or Heidelberg Confession, framed by order of the Elector Palatine John Casimir, 1575. (4.) The Confession of the Gallic Churches, accepted at the first synod of the reformed, held at Paris, 1559. (5.) The Confession of the Reformed Churches in Belgium, drawn up in 1559, and approved in 1561. (6.) The Confession of Faith of the Kirk of Scotland, which was that composed by the assembly at Westminster, was received as the standard of the Scotch national faith, in 1690.—See the following article. See also Harmony of Confessions, or the Faith of Christian and Reformed Churches, 1643; and Sylloge Confessionum, sub tempus Reformandæ Ecclesiæ, Oxon. 1804.

CONFESSION OF FAITH, WESTMINSTER. The Confession of Faith which was drawn up by the Puritans in England, and which is adopted by the Scottish establishment. The ordinance under which the assembly which drew up this Confession sat at Westminster commences thus:

An Ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, for the calling of an Assembly of learned and godly Divines, and others, to be consulted with by the Parliament, for the settling of the government and liturgy of the Church of England; and for vindicating and clearing of the doctrine of the said Church from false aspersions and interpretations. June 12, 1643.

Whereas, amongst the infinite blessings of Almighty God upon this nation, none is nor can be more dear unto us than the purity of our religion; and for that, as yet, many things remain in the liturgy, discipline, and government of the Church, which do necessarily require a further and more perfect reformation than as yet hath been attained; and whereas it hath been declared and resolved by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, that the present Church-government by archbishops, their chancellors, commissars, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical officers depending upon the hierarchy, is evil, and justly offensive and burdensome to the kingdom, a great impediment to reformation and growth of religion, and very prejudicial to the state and government of this kingdom; and therefore they are resolved that the same shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be settled in the Church as may be most agreeable to God’s holy word, and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and other Reformed Churches abroad; and, for the better effecting hereof, and for the vindicating and clearing of the doctrine of the Church of England from all false calumnies and aspersions, it is thought fit and necessary to call an Assembly of learned, godly, and judicious Divines, who, together with some members of both the Houses of Parliament, are to consult and advise of such matters and things, touching the premises, as shall be proposed unto them by both or either of the Houses of Parliament, and to give their advice and counsel therein to both or either of the said Houses, when, and as often as, they shall be thereunto required.

The Confession consists of thirty-three chapters, of which the following are the heads:—

CHAP.

I. Of the Holy Scripture.

II. Of God, and of the Holy Trinity.

III. Of God’s Eternal Decree.

IV. Of Creation.

V. Of Providence.

VI. Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof.

VII. Of God’s Covenant with Man.

VIII. Of Christ the Mediator.

IX. Of Free Will.

X. Of Effectual Calling.

XI. Of Justification.

XII. Of Adoption.

XIII. Of Sanctification.

XIV. Of Saving Faith.

XV. Of Repentance unto Life.

XVI. Of Good Works.

XVII. Of the Perseverance of the Saints.

XVIII. Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation.

XIX. Of the Law of God.

XX. Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience.

XXI. Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath-day.

XXII. Of lawful Oaths and Vows.

XXIII. Of the Civil Magistrate.

XXIV. Of Marriage and Divorce.

XXV. Of the Church.

XXVI. Of Communion of Saints.

XXVII. Of the Sacraments.

XXVIII. Of Baptism.

XXIX. Of the Lord’s Supper.

XXX. Of Church Censures.

XXXI. Of Synods and Councils.

XXXII. Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead.

XXXIII. Of the last Judgment.

The Westminster Confession of Faith was approved by the general assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, on the 27th of August, 1647, Sess. 23, and was ratified by Act of the Scottish Parliament, 7th February, 1649.—See next article.

CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THE KIRK OF SCOTLAND, or THE NATIONAL COVENANT.

Subscribed at first by the King’s Majesty, and his Household, in the Year 1580; thereafter by persons of all ranks in the year 1581, by ordinance of the Lords of secret council, and acts of the General Assembly; subscribed again by all sorts of persons in the year 1590, by a new ordinance of council, at the desire of the General Assembly: with a general bond for the maintaining of the true Christian religion, and the King’s person; and, together with a resolution and promise, for the causes after expressed, to maintain the true religion, and the King’s Majesty, according to the foresaid Confession and acts of Parliament, subscribed by Barons, Nobles, Gentlemen, Burgesses, Ministers, and Commons, in the year 1638: approven by the General Assembly 1638 and 1639; and subscribed again by persons of all ranks and qualities in the year 1639, by an ordinance of council, upon the supplication of the General Assembly, and act of the General Assembly, ratified by an act of Parliament 1640; and subscribed by King Charles II. at Spey, June 23, 1650, and Scoon, January 1, 1651.

We all and every one of us under-written, protest, That, after long and due examination of our own conscience in matters of true and false religion, we are now throughly resolved in the truth by the word and Spirit of God: and therefore we believe with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly affirm, before God and the whole world, that this only is the true Christian faith and religion, pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is, by the mercy of God, revealed to the world by the preaching of the blessed evangel; and is received, believed, and defended by many and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the kirk of Scotland, the King’s Majesty, and three estates of this realm, as God’s eternal truth, and only ground of our salvation; as more particularly is expressed in the Confession of our Faith, established and publickly confirmed by sundry acts of Parliaments, and now of a long time hath been openly professed by the King’s Majesty, and whole body of this realm both in burgh and land. To the which Confession and Form of Religion we willingly agree in our conscience in all points, as unto God’s undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon his written word. And therefore we abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine; but chiefly all kind of Papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now damned and confuted by the word of God and Kirk of Scotland. But, in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine against the sufficiency of the written word, the perfection of the law, the office of Christ, and his blessed evangel; his corrupted doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God’s law, our justification by faith only, our imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law; the nature, number, and use of the holy sacraments; his five bustard sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments without the word of God; his cruel judgment against infants departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation, or real presence of Christ’s body in the elements, and receiving of the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage forbidden in the word, his cruelty against the innocent divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his profane sacrifice for sins of the dead and the quick; his canonization of men; calling upon angels or saints departed, worshipping of imagery, relicks, and crosses; dedicating of kirks, altars, days; vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers for the dead; praying or speaking in a strange language, with his processions, and blasphemous litany, and multitude of advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his general and doubtsome faith; his satisfactions of men for their sins; his justification by works, opus operatum, works of supererogation, merits, pardons, peregrinations, and stations; his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits, crossing, sayning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God’s good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined therewith; his worldly monarchy, and wicked hierarchy; his three solemn vows, with all his shavellings of sundry sorts; his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the subscribers or approvers of that cruel and bloody band, conjured against the kirk of God. And finally, we detest all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions brought in the kirk, without or against the word of God, and doctrine of this true reformed kirk; to the which we join ourselves willingly, in doctrine, faith, religion, discipline, and use of the holy sacraments, as lively members of the same in Christ our Head: promising and swearing, by the great name of the Lord our God, that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this kirk,[3] and shall defend the same, according to our vocation and power, all the days of our lives; under the pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul in the day of God’s fearful judgment.

And seeing that many are stirred up by Satan, and that Roman Antichrist, to promise, swear, subscribe, and for a time use the holy sacraments in the kirk deceitfully, against their own conscience; minding hereby, first, under the external cloak of religion, to corrupt and subvert secretly God’s true religion within the kirk; and afterward, when time may serve, to become open enemies and persecutors of the same, under vain hope of the pope’s dispensation, devised against the word of God, to his greater confusion, and their double condemnation in the day of the Lord Jesus: we therefore, willing to take away all suspicion of hypocrisy, and of such double dealing with God, and his kirk, protest, and call the Searcher of all hearts for witness, that our minds and hearts do fully agree with this our Confession, promise, oath, and subscription: so that we are not moved with any worldly respect, but are persuaded only in our conscience, through the knowledge and love of God’s true religion imprinted in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we shall answer to him in the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed.

And because we perceive, that the quietness and stability of our religion and kirk doth depend upon the safety and good behaviour of the King’s Majesty, as upon a comfortable instrument of God’s mercy granted to this country, for the maintaining of his kirk, and ministration of justice amongst us; we protest and promise with our hearts, under the same oath, hand-writ, and pains, that we shall defend his person and authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ, his evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within this realm or without, as we desire our God to be a strong and merciful defender to us in the day of our death, and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; to whom, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory eternally. Amen.

Likeas many Acts of Parliament, not only in general do abrogate, annul, and rescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions, canons civil or municipal, with all other ordinances, and practique penalties whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true religion, and professors thereof; or of the true kirk, discipline, jurisdiction, and freedom thereof; or in favours of idolatry and superstition, or of the Papistical kirk: as Act 3, Act 31, Parl. 1, Act 23, Parl. 11, Act 114, Parl. 12, of King James VI. That Papistry and superstition may be utterly suppressed, according to the intention of the Acts of Parliament, repeated in the fifth Act, Parl. 20, King James VI. And to that end they ordain all Papists and priests to be punished with manifold civil and ecclesiastical pains, as adversaries to God’s true religion, preached, and by law established, within this realm, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI.; as common enemies to all Christian government, Act 18, Parl. 16, King James VI.; as rebellers and gainstanders of our Sovereign Lord’s authority, Act 47, Parl. 3, King James VI.; and as idolaters, Act 104, Parl. 7, King James VI. But also in particular, by and attour the Confession of Faith, do abolish and condemn the Pope’s authority and jurisdiction out of this land, and ordains the maintainers thereof to be punished, Act 2, Parl. 1, Act 51, Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 114, Parl. 12, King James VI., do condemn the Pope’s erroneous doctrine, or any other erroneous doctrine repugnant to any of the articles of the true and Christian religion, publicly preached and by law established in this realm; and ordains the spreaders and makers of books, or libels, or letters or writs of that nature, to be punished, Act 46, Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do condemn all baptism conform to the Pope’s kirk, and the idolatry of the mass; and ordains all sayers, wilful hearers, and concealers of the mass, the maintainers and resetters of the priests, Jesuits, trafficking Papists, to be punished without any exception or restriction, Act 5, Parl. 1, Act 120, Parl. 12, Act 164, Parl. 13, Act 193, Parl. 14, Act 1, Parl. 19, Act 5, Parl. 20, King James VI., do condemn all erroneous books and writs containing erroneous doctrine against the religion presently professed, or containing superstitious rites and ceremonies Papistical, whereby the people are greatly abused, and ordains the home-bringers of them to be punished, Act 25, Parl. 11, King James VI., do condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going to crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such other superstitious and Papistical rites, to the dishonour of God, contempt of true religion, and fostering of great error among the people; and ordains the users of them to be punished for the second fault as idolaters, Act 104, Parl. 7, King James VI.

Likeas many Acts of Parliament are conceived for maintenance of God’s true and Christian religion, and the purity thereof, in doctrine and sacraments of the true church of God, the liberty and freedom thereof, in her national, synodal assemblies, presbyteries, sessions, policy, discipline, and jurisdiction thereof; as that purity of religion, and liberty of the church was used, professed, exercised, preached, and confessed, according to the reformation of religion in this realm. As for instance, the 99th Act, Parl. 7, Act 25, Parl. 11, Act 114, Parl. 12, Act 160, Parl. 13, of King James VI., ratified by the 4th Act of King Charles. So that the 6th Act, Parl. 1, and 68th Act, Parl. 6, of King James VI., in the year of God 1579, declare the ministers of the blessed evangel, whom God of his mercy had raised up, or hereafter should raise, agreeing with them that then lived, in doctrine and administration of the sacraments; and the people that professed Christ, as he was then offered in the evangel, and doth communicate with the holy sacraments (as in the reformed kirks of this realm they were presently administrate) according to the Confession of Faith, to be the true and holy kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm. And decerns and declares all and sundry, who either gainsay the word of the evangel received and approved as the heads of the Confession of Faith, professed in Parliament in the year of God 1560, specified also in the first Parliament of King James VI., and ratified in this present Parliament, more particularly do express; or that refuse the administration of the holy sacraments, as they were then ministrated; to be no members of the said kirk within this realm, and true religion presently professed, so long as they keep themselves so divided from the society of Christ’s body. And the subsequent Act 69, Parl. 6, of King James VI. declares, that there is no other face of kirk, nor other face of religion, than was presently at that time, by the favour of God, established within this realm: “Which therefore is ever styled God’s true religion, Christ’s true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect religion;” which, by manifold Acts of Parliament, all within this realm are bound to profess, to subscribe the articles thereof, the Confession of Faith, to recant all doctrine and errors repugnant to any of the said articles, Act 4 and 9, Parl. 1, Acts 45, 46, 47, Parl. 3, Act 71, Parl. 6, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, Act 123, Parl. 12, Act 194 and 197, Parl. 14, of King James VI. And all magistrates, sheriffs, &c. on the one part, are ordained to search, apprehend, and punish all contraveners: For instance, Act 5, Parl. 1, Act 104, Parl. 7, Act 25, Parl. 11, King James VI.; and that, notwithstanding of the King’s Majesty’s licences on the contrary, which are discharged, and declared to be of no force, in so far as they tend in anywise to the prejudice and hinder of the execution of the Acts of Parliament against Papists and adversaries of true religion, Act 106, Parl. 7, King James VI. On the other part, in the 47th Act, Parl. 3, King James VI. it is declared and ordained. Seeing the cause of God’s true religion and his Highness’s authority are so joined, as the hurt of the one is common to both; that none shall be reputed as loyal and faithful subjects to our sovereign Lord, or his authority, but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders of the same, who shall not give their confession, and make their profession of the said true religion: and that they who, after defection, shall give the confession of their faith of new, they shall promise to continue therein in time coming, to maintain our sovereign Lord’s authority, and at the uttermost of their power to fortify, assist, and maintain the true preachers and professors of Christ’s religion, against whatsoever enemies and gainstanders of the same; and, namely, against all such, of whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they be of, that have joined or bound themselves, or have assisted, or assist, to set forward and execute the cruel decrees of the Council of Trent, contrary to the true preachers and professors of the word of God; which is repeated, word by word, in the articles of pacification at Perth, the 23rd of February, 1572, approved by Parliament the last of April, 1573, ratified in Parliament 1587, and related Act 123, Parl. 12, of King James VI.; with this addition, “That they are bound to resist all treasonable uproars and hostilities raised against the true religion, the King’s Majesty, and the true professors.”

Likeas, all lieges are bound to maintain the King’s Majesty’s royal person and authority, the authority of Parliaments, without the which neither any laws or lawful judicatories can be established, Acts 130 and 131, Parl. 8, King James VI., and the subjects’ liberties, who ought only to live and be governed by the King’s laws, the common laws of this realm allenarly, Act 48, Parl. 3, King James I., Act 79, Parl. 6, King James IV.; repeated in the Act 131, Parl. 8, King James VI.; which if they be innovated and prejudged, “the commission anent the union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England, which is the sole act of the 17th Parl. of King James VI., declares,” such confusion would ensue as this realm could be no more a free monarchy: because, by the fundamental laws, ancient privileges, offices, and liberties of this kingdom, not only the princely authority of his Majesty’s royal descent hath been these many ages maintained, but also the people’s security of their lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties, and dignities preserved. And, therefore, for the preservation of the said true religion, laws, and liberties of this kingdom, it is statute by the 8th Act, Parl. 1, repeated in the 99th Act, Parl. 7, ratified in the 23rd Act, Parl. 11, and 114th Act, Parl. 12, of King James VI., and 4th Act, Parl. 1, of King Charles I., “That all Kings and Princes at their coronation, and reception of their princely authority, shall make their faithful promise by their solemn oath, in the presence of the eternal God, that, enduring the whole time of their lives, they shall serve the same eternal God, to the uttermost of their power, according as he hath required in his most holy word, contained in the Old and New Testament; and according to the same word, shall maintain the true religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching of his holy word, the due and right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached within this realm, (according to the Confession of Faith immediately preceding,) and shall abolish and gainstand all false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the people committed to their charge, according to the will and command of God revealed in his foresaid word, and according to the laudable laws and constitutions received in this realm, nowise repugnant to the said will of the eternal God; and shall procure, to the uttermost of their power, to the kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to root out of their empire all heretics and enemies to the true worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true kirk of God of the foresaid crimes.” Which was also observed by his Majesty, at his coronation in Edinburgh, 1633, as may be seen in the order of the coronation.

In obedience to the commandment of God, conform to the practice of the godly in former times, and according to the laudable example of our worthy and religious progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us, which was warranted also by act of council, commanding a general band to be made and subscribed by his Majesty’s subjects of all ranks; for two causes: one was, For defending the true religion, as it was then reformed, and is expressed in the Confession of Faith above written, and a former large Confession established by sundry acts of lawful General Assemblies and of Parliaments, unto which it hath relation, set down in public Catechisms; and which hath been for many years, with a blessing from Heaven, preached and professed in this kirk and kingdom, as God’s undoubted truth, grounded only upon his written word. The other cause was, For maintaining the King’s Majesty, his person and estate; the true worship of God and the King’s authority being so straitly joined, as that they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand and fall together. And finally, being convinced in our minds, and confessing with our mouths, that the present and succeeding generations in this land are bound to keep the foresaid national oath and subscription inviolable.

We Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses, Ministers, and Commons undersubscribing, considering divers times before, and especially at this time, the danger of the true reformed religion, of the King’s honour, and of the public peace of the kingdom, by the manifold innovations and evils, generally contained, and particularly mentioned in our late supplications, complaints, and protestations; do hereby profess, and before God, his angels, and the world, solemnly declare, That with our whole heart we agree, and resolve all the days of our life constantly to adhere unto and to defend the foresaid true religion, and (forbearing the practice of all innovations already introduced in the matters of the worship of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the public government of the kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen, till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in parliament) to labour, by all means lawful, to recover the purity and liberty of the Gospel, as it was established and professed before the foresaid novations. And because, after due examination, we plainly perceive, and undoubtedly believe, that the innovations and evils contained in our supplications, complaints, and protestations, have no warrant of the word of God, are contrary to the articles of the foresaid Confession, to the intention and meaning of the blessed reformers of religion in this land, to the above-written Acts of Parliament; and do sensibly tend to the re-establishing of the Popish religion and tyranny, and to the subversion and ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties, laws, and estates; we also declare, That the foresaid Confessions are to be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the foresaid novations and evils, no less than if every one of them had been expressed in the foresaid Confessions; and that we are obliged to detest and abhor them, amongst other particular heads of Papistry abjured therein. And therefore, from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to God, to our King and country, without any worldly respect or inducement, so far as human infirmity will suffer, wishing a further measure of the grace of God for this effect; we promise and swear, by the great name of the Lord our God, to continue in the profession and obedience of the foresaid religion; and that we shall defend the same, and resist all these contrary errors and corruptions, according to our vocation, and to the uttermost of that power that God hath put in our hands, all the days of our life.

And in like manner, with the same heart, we declare before God and men, That we have no intention nor desire to attempt anything that may turn to the dishonour of God, or to the diminution of the King’s greatness and authority; but, on the contrary, we promise and swear, That we shall, to the uttermost of our power, with our means and lives, stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign the King’s Majesty, his person and authority, in the defence and preservation of the foresaid true religion, liberties, and laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual defence and assistance every one of us of another, in the same cause of maintaining the true religion, and his Majesty’s authority, with our best counsel, our bodies, means, and whole power, against all sorts of persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever shall be done to the least of us for that cause, shall be taken as done to us all in general, and to every one of us in particular. And that we shall neither directly nor indirectly suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn, by whatsoever suggestion, combination, allurement, or terror, from this blessed and loyal conjunction; nor shall cast in any let or impediment that may stay or hinder any such resolution as by common consent shall be found to conduce for so good ends; but, on the contrary, shall by all lawful means labour to further and promote the same: and if any such dangerous and divisive motion be made to us by word or writ, we, and every one of us, shall either suppress it, or, if need be, shall incontinent make the same known, that it may be timeously obviated. Neither do we fear the foul aspersions of rebellion, combination, or what else our adversaries, from their craft and malice, would put upon us; seeing what we do is so well warranted, and ariseth from an unfeigned desire to maintain the true worship of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the kingdom, for the common happiness of ourselves and our posterity.

And because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our proceedings, except with our profession and subscription we join such a life and conversation as beseemeth Christians who have renewed their covenant with God; we therefore faithfully promise for ourselves, our followers, and all others under us, both in public, and in our particular families, and personal carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds of Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all godliness, soberness, and righteousness, and of every duty we owe to God and man.

And, that this our union and conjunction may be observed without violation, we call the living God, the searcher of our hearts, to witness, who knoweth this to be our sincere desire and unfeigned resolution, as we shall answer to Jesus Christ in the great day, and under the pain of God’s everlasting wrath, and of infamy and loss of all honour and respect in this world: most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by his Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with a happy success; that religion and righteousness may flourish in the land, to the glory of God, the honour of our King, and peace and comfort of us all. In witness whereof, we have subscribed with our hands all the premises.

The article of this covenant, which was at the first subscription referred to the determination of the General Assembly, being now determined; and thereby the five articles of Perth, the government of the kirk by bishops, and the civil places and power of kirkmen, upon the reasons and grounds contained in the Acts of the General Assembly, declared to be unlawful within this kirk, we subscribe according to the determination aforesaid.

This, together with the Solemn League and Covenant, (which see,) is bound up with and added to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and published by authority of the Scottish Establishment. But an eminent member of that establishment officiating at present as a dissenting minister in London, asserts that no licentiate or minister of the Scottish Establishment has signed or been asked to sign this, or the Solemn League and Covenant, for the last 150 years. This does not, however, exonerate the religious community which still publishes these documents authoritatively from the charge of intolerance; and all classes of Episcopalians, including of course the Church of England, are involved in these fearful anathemas.

CONFESSION OF AUGSBOURG, or AUGUSTAN CONFESSION. A confession of faith, drawn up by Melancthon, and presented by him and Luther to the emperor Charles V. at Augsbourg, in the year 1530. It was divided into two parts, and was designed to support all the points of the Lutheran reformation, and to show the heterodoxy of the Church of Rome.—Maimbourg, Hist. du Lutheranisme.

The first part contained twenty-one articles. The first acknowledged and agreed to all the decisions of the first four general councils, concerning the Trinity. The second admitted of original sin, but defined it differently from the Church of Rome, making it to consist only in concupiscence. The third contained the substance of the Apostles’ Creed. The fourth maintained, against the Pelagians, that a man cannot be justified by the mere strength and capacity of nature; and, against the Roman Catholics, that justification is the effect of faith, exclusive of good works. The fifth agreed with the Church of Rome, that the word of God, and the sacraments, are the means of conveying the Holy Spirit, but differed from that communion, by asserting that this Divine operation is never present without faith. The sixth affirmed, that our faith ought to produce good works, purely in obedience to God, and not in order to our own justification. The seventh made the true Church to consist of none but the righteous. The eighth acknowledged the validity of the sacraments, though administered by hypocrites or wicked persons. The ninth asserted, against the Anabaptists, the necessity of infant baptism. The tenth acknowledged the presence of the body and blood of Christ under the consecrated elements; adding, that this mysterious presence in the holy sacrament continued with the elements only during the time of receiving, and that the eucharist ought to be given in both kinds. The eleventh granted the necessity of absolution to penitents, but denied their being obliged to make a particular confession of their sins. The twelfth condemned the Anabaptists, who affirm, that whoever is once justified cannot fall from grace; as also the Novatians, who refused absolution to sins committed after baptism; asserting withal, against the Church of Rome, that a repenting sinner is not made capable of forgiveness by any acts of penance whatever. The thirteenth required actual faith from those who participate of the sacraments. The fourteenth forbad those, who were not lawfully called, to teach in the Church, or administer the sacraments. The fifteenth appointed the observation of the festivals, and prescribed the ceremonies of the Church. The sixteenth acknowledged the obligation of civil laws. The seventeenth acknowledged the resurrection, heaven, and hell, and condemned the two following errors of the Anabaptists and Fifth-monarchy men; viz. That the punishment of the devils and the damned will have an end, and that the saints will reign with Christ a thousand years upon earth. The eighteenth declared, that our wills are not sufficiently free, in actions relating to the promoting of our salvation. The nineteenth maintained, that, notwithstanding God created man, and still continues to preserve him, God neither is, nor can be, the author of sin. The twentieth affirmed, that good works are not altogether unprofitable: and the twenty-first forbad the invocation of saints.

The second part of the Augustan Confession is altogether in opposition to the Church of Rome, referring to the seven principal abuses, on which the Lutherans found the necessity of separating from the communion of that Church. The first head enjoined communion in both kinds, and forbad the procession of the holy sacrament. The second condemned the celibacy of priests. By the third, private masses were abolished, and some part at least of the congregation were obliged to communicate with the priest. The fourth declared against the necessity of making a particular confession of sins to the priest. The fifth rejected tradition. The sixth disallowed of monastic vows: and the seventh asserted, that the power of the Church consisted only in preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments.

This confession of faith was signed by the Elector of Saxony, and his eldest son, by the Marquis of Brandenbourg, by the Landgrave of Hesse, the Prince of Hainault, and the republics of Nuremberg and Rutlingua. It was argued before the emperor Charles V., but rejected; the Roman Catholics having a majority of votes in the council. This was followed by a conference between seven deputies of each party; in which, Luther being absent, Melancthon, by his mollifying explanations, brought both sides to an agreement in relation to fifteen of the first twenty-one articles. But the conference broke up without adjusting all the differences between them.

CONFESSIONAL. (See Confession and Auricular Confession.) An enclosed seat or recess in Roman churches where penitents make confession to the priests.

CONFESSOR. A name given to those who confessed the doctrine of Christ before heathen or persecuting judges; or to those who firmly endured punishment for defending the faith: if they died under their torments they were called martyrs. Our Lord says that he will confess before his heavenly Father them that shall confess him before men. (Matt. x. 32.) The Church of England can bless God for having honoured her with many confessors, especially during the persecution which was, under the usurpation of Oliver Cromwell, raised against her by Presbyterians, Independents, and Infidels. In the time of Queen Mary, also, there were confessors, as well as martyrs.

CONFESSOR, in the Romish Church, is a priest who receives confession. (See Auricular Confession.)

CONFIRMATION. This is a Latin word which signifies strengthening. It is used to express the rite in which the indwelling grace of the Holy Ghost is sought for those who have been made children of God in baptism; to which sacrament it is, strictly speaking, a supplemental rite. This ordinance is called confirmation, because they who duly receive it are confirmed or strengthened for the fulfilment of their Christian duties by the grace therein bestowed upon them. The words which accompany confirmation in the Eastern Churches are, “The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost:” and the effect of it is well expressed in that ancient prayer which, from the earliest times, has been used in all the Western Churches: “Almighty and everlasting God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants, by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins,—pour into them thy sevenfold Spirit, the Holy Comforter from heaven;” or, “Strengthen them, we beseech thee, with the Holy Ghost, the Comforter.” In the Greek and African Churches confirmation is administered with chrism, an unguent consecrated by a bishop; in the Latin Churches with the same, at a bishop’s hands; in the English Churches, by laying on of the bishop’s hands, the only rite mentioned in connexion with it in the Scriptures: “Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” (Acts viii. 17.)

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, confirmation (there spoken of under the term “laying on of hands”) is ranked among the chief fundamentals of Christian doctrine, (Heb. vi. 2,) and must therefore be of perpetual obligation. In the first ages of the Church, confirmation appears to have been administered in all cases as soon after baptism as possible, as it continues to be in the Greek and African Churches. But in the Western Churches, for the last three or four hundred years, the bishops have interposed a delay of seven years after infant baptism: which delay in the English Churches has latterly been extended to fifteen or sixteen years—the determination of the age being left to the bishop. At the last revision of our Prayer Book, in 1661, confirmation was made an occasion of requiring from those who have been baptized in infancy, a renewal, in their own persons, of the engagements of the baptismal covenant. The dispositions of mind required of those who would benefit by confirmation are the same which are necessary to fit men for receiving grace in the sacraments; namely, repentance and faith: without which, where persons are capable of them, neither this nor any of the means of grace can benefit those to whom they are administered.

No persons are admissible to the holy communion unless they have been confirmed, or are ready and desirous to be confirmed.—Rubric.

When children are well instructed in the vow made for them at baptism, by the Church Catechism, it is then required they should take it upon themselves, and be confirmed by the bishop: which holy rite of confirmation, though it were not instituted by Christ, and so be not properly a sacrament, yet the apostles did lay their hands on such as had been before baptized by an inferior minister. (Acts viii. 14–17; and xix. 6.) This custom the primitive Church imitated in the bishops laying on their hands with holy prayers, upon persons that had been baptized; which was believed to convey the Holy Spirit to them for enabling them to keep their vow. And this holy rite is still retained in the Eastern and Western Churches, and in all Protestant Churches where they have bishops. And we have an excellent office for it, containing, first, the preparation for it by a serious admonition to all that come to it, a solemn engagement from the parties to keep their vow, with some acts of praise and prayer suited to the occasion. Secondly, the rite itself consists of the ceremony, which is the laying on of the bishop’s hands, and his benediction. Thirdly, the office is concluded with prayers; general, as the Lord’s Prayer; and peculiar to the occasion, as the two collects; and with a final blessing.

The person who doth confirm is a bishop, to which order the ancient Church did always reserve the dispensing of this rite, because the apostles only did this (Acts viii. 14); and therefore the bishops are highly obliged to take care that all in their dioceses, who need and desire it, may not want the opportunity of coming to it. The persons who are to be confirmed are all that have been baptized, from the time they come to years of discretion, or however to be able to understand the nature of their baptismal vow, which they are here to take upon themselves; and since we baptize infants, it is more necessary to bring them to confirmation; and their godfathers can no way better acquit themselves of the charge they have undertaken, than by taking care, as the Church in this exhortation requires, that they may learn their catechism, and understand their vow; and here solemnly, before God and many witnesses, renew it in their own name. For, secondly, the bishop doth particularly inquire, if they do here in God’s presence, and before all the congregation, renew that solemn vow in their own names made at their baptism; and if they do engage to perform and do what was promised for them by their sureties: to which they must every one answer, with great reverence and serious consideration, that “they do.” Thirdly, the bishop and the priests that are present begin their devotions, encouraging the parties who have promised this, by minding them that they shall have “help” from him that made heaven and earth, (Psal. cxxiv. 7,) and praising God for bringing these persons into so blessed a condition. (Psal. cxiii. 2.) Finally, desiring him to hear the prayers now to be made for them. Fourthly, there is a larger form of prayer made by the bishop, wherein he first acknowledges God’s mercy in granting them regeneration and pardon of their sins in their baptism; and now that they are to exercise that warfare they then engaged themselves to, he prays for a larger supply of God’s holy Spirit with its sevenfold gifts (Isa. xi. 2); so that they may be made so wise as to understand their duty, and so strong as to perform it, desiring they may by his ministry have these gifts conveyed to them now, and, by their diligent improving of them, keep them for ever.

Being thus prepared, the rite itself is now to be administered by the ancient ceremony of laying the bishop’s hand on the head of each person, used by the apostles as the means of conveying the Holy Spirit (Acts viii. 17); whence the whole office is called laying on of hands (Heb. vi. 2); (yet the Papists omit this apostolical ceremony, and use the anointing with chrism, which came later into the Church). The bishop also gives a solemn blessing to every one, desiring God to defend that person with his heavenly grace, from forsaking his faith, or breaking God’s commandments; that is, to take him for his own, and seal him with his Spirit, so that he may ever after look on him as one of his own children, and praying that he may daily increase in grace and grow wiser and better, until he be fit for that heavenly kingdom which God hath promised to him in baptism; and this prayer thus offered up by a holy man, and one of the chief officers of Christ’s Church, shall be effectual to the obtaining of the Spirit for all that have duly prepared themselves, and do sincerely make and renew this vow. And now the bishop concludes the office, first with the usual form, desiring God may be with them, to assist them in these prayers, as they also desire he may be with his spirit who is to offer them; calling also upon God, as the common Father of all that are confirmed, and so in covenant with him: to which is joined the proper collect, beginning with a preface, which confesseth, that this good desire and resolution of these persons to keep their vow came from God, and by him they must have grace acceptably to perform it. And then here are petitions for them, first, that as the bishop’s hand was over them, so the good hand of his providence signified thereby may be ever over them to preserve them: secondly, that the Holy Spirit, now imparted to them by this holy rite, may be ever with them, the blessed effect of which is here declared to be, that this will make them understand God’s word, and enable them to obey it, so that at the end of their lives they may be certainly saved through Jesus Christ; to whom, with the whole Trinity, for these means of salvation, we offer up our praises and acknowledgments: and to this is added a devout collect out of the Communion Service, that God, who hath sealed these his vowed servants with his Spirit, will direct, sanctify, and govern their souls and bodies in the ways of his laws, so that they may ever be holy, safe, and happy. Finally, the office is concluded with the bishop’s blessing, who now in the name of God wishes the blessing of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost may be now bestowed on you, and remain upon you for ever. Thus our Church appoints this necessary and pious office shall be done; and the due administration thereof would highly conduce to make the benefits of baptism more visible, to increase knowledge and piety in the younger sort, and to secure them from being seduced by Papists or sectaries; it would make the Church to flourish and be at unity, and convey mighty blessings to all that reverently and devoutly receive it: wherefore, as the bishops are ready to do their part, let all that want it be willing and very desirous to come, and let parents and masters, and especially godfathers and godmothers, encourage them to come to it, and labour to fit them for it, that it may be done to God’s glory and their comfort.—Dean Comber.

CONFIRMATION OF A BISHOP. To understand what is meant by the confirmation of a bishop, it may be proper to state the process adopted in England before a presbyter can be consecrated to the episcopal office, the king having issued his congé d’ élire to the dean and chapter, and nominating, in his “letters missive,” the person whom he thinks fit to be chosen. The dean and chapter are obliged, within twenty days next after the receipt of this licence, to make the election, which being accepted by the party elected, is certified both to the sovereign and to the archbishop of the province. If the dean and chapter fail to certify the election within twenty days after the delivery of the “letters missive,” they incur the penalty of præmunire; and if they refuse to elect, the king may nominate by letters patent. The election being certified, the king grants his royal assent under the great seal, directed to the archbishop, commanding him to confirm and consecrate the bishop thus elected; and the archbishop subscribes it “fiat confirmatio,” and grants a commission to his vicar-general for that purpose. The vicar-general issues a citation to summon opposers, which is affixed on the door of Bow Church, and three proclamations are made thereof; this being certified to the vicar-general, at the time and place appointed, the proctor for the dean and chapter exhibit the royal assent, and the archbishop’s commission directed to the vicar-general. After this, a long and formal process is gone through, and after six proclamations for opposers, if none appear, they are pronounced contumacious. It is then decreed to proceed to sentence. The bishop elect takes the oaths of office, the sentence is subscribed by the vicar-general, and the election is ratified and decreed to be good. (See Bishops, Election of.)

Not only bishops, but deans of many cathedrals, were confirmed by their diocesans; as at St. Paul’s in London, and St. Patrick’s in Dublin. See Oughton Ordo Judicium de ecclesici Cathedr. cxxvii., and Mason’s Hibernia, p. 219.

CONFORMITY, DECLARATION OF. A declaration is required of all persons who are to be licensed or instituted to an ecclesiastical charge in the Church of England, in the following words:—“I, A. B., do declare that I will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law established.” This declaration is to be made and subscribed before the bishop or his commissary, and the making and subscription thereof is to be testified under the episcopal seal of the bishop, and under the hand of the bishop or his commissary. (See also Reading in.)

CONGÉ D’ ÉLIRE. This is a French term, and signifies leave to choose: and is the king’s writ or licence to the dean and chapter of the diocese to choose a bishop, in the time of vacancy of the see. Prior to the reign of Henry I., the kings of England used to invest bishops with the ring and staff, in virtue of their donative right. Henry I. so far ceded this right as to give a congé d’ élire to deans and chapters for the election of bishops. Henry VIII. added “letters missive,” nominating the person whom he required them to elect, under pain of præmunire; and Edward VI. (1 Edw. VI. c. 1, 2) abolished elections by writ of congé d’ élire, as being “indeed no elections,” and “seeming also derogatory and prejudicial to the king’s prerogative royal, to whom only appertaineth the collation and gift of all archbishoprics, and bishoprics, and suffragan bishops, within his Highness’s said realm.” The statute goes on to enact, “That no election of any archbishop or bishop shall be made by the dean and chapter;” but that the king by his “letters patent, at all times when the archbishopric or bishopric be void, shall confer the same to any person whom the king shall think meet.” This statute was repealed by Queen Mary, and never afterwards revived. The law now rests upon the 25 Henry VIII. c. 20, which statute was revived by Queen Elizabeth.—Burn. (See Jurisdiction.) But in Ireland, the act of 2 Eliz. c. 4, established the same manner of appointment by the sovereign, without election, as the English act of Edward, and so it has continued to this day.

CONGREGATION. In its largest sense, this word includes the whole body of Christian people, considered as assembled, not locally, but in some act of fellowship, as when it is said, “Let the congregation of saints praise Him:” but the word is more commonly used for the worshippers, being members of the true Church assembled in a particular place; a sense in which the word is plainly used in the prayer for the Church militant, where an especial distinction is made between all God’s people, or the congregation of the saints, and the particular congregation present when the prayer is used: “To all Thy people give Thy heavenly grace, and especially to this congregation here present.” The word congregation follows therefore the use of the word Church; we use “The Church” for the whole body of Christ’s people, and “a Church,” or “this Church,” for a particular portion of them. And as a Church is the immediate bond of union to each individual with the Church, so is a congregation the immediate company with which the individual joins, and the immediate sign of his adherence to the congregation of saints. Thus, in the Order of Confirmation, the preface declares that before the Church children should ratify their baptismal vow, and they are consequently asked by the bishop whether they do this “in the presence of God and of this congregation.” Congregation and Church are considered by our translators convertible terms: e.g. Psal. xxii. 22, “In the midst of the congregation” is rendered in Heb. ii. 12, “In the midst of the Church.”

CONGREGATION IN THE PAPAL COURT, means a committee of cardinals met for the despatch of some particular business, and each congregation is denominated from the peculiar business it has to despatch.

I. The Pope’s Congregation, instituted by Sixtus V.—They are to prepare the most difficult beneficiary matters, which are afterwards to be debated in the consistory, in the presence of the pope. This congregation is composed of several cardinals, whose number is not fixed. The cardinal-deacon, or, in his absence, some other cardinal chosen by the pope pro tempore, presides in this assembly. The affairs treated in it are, the erecting of new sees and cathedral churches; re-unions, suppressions, and resignations of bishoprics, coadjutorships, alienations of church revenues; and, lastly, the taxes and annates of all the benefices to which the pope collates.

II. The Congregation of the Holy Office, or Inquisition. This congregation was instituted by Pope Paul III., at the desire of Cardinal Caraffa, who, being afterwards raised to the pontificate under the name of Paul IV., enlarged the privileges thereof, to which Sixtus V. added statutes, by which means this tribunal became so powerful and formidable, that the Italians at that time used to say, “Il sommo pontifice Sisto non la perdonarebb’ a Christo,” i. e. “Pope Sixtus would not pardon Christ himself.”

This congregation generally consists of twelve cardinals, and sometimes many more, as also of a considerable number of prelates and divines of different orders, both secular and regular, who are called Consulters and Qualificators of the Holy Office. This congregation takes cognizance of heresies, and all novel opinions; as also of apostasy, magic, witchcraft, the abuse of the sacraments, and the spreading of pernicious books. For this purpose, an assembly is held every Wednesday at the general of the Jacobins, and every Thursday before the pope, who is president thereof.

The palace of the Holy Office serves likewise by way of prison for such as are accused or suspected of the above-mentioned crimes; who, in case they are found guilty, are delivered over to the secular arm. But at present they seldom go further than punishing them with perpetual imprisonment. Nor is this tribunal as rigorous and severe as in Spain, Portugal, and other countries where the Inquisition is established. (See Inquisition.)

III. The Congregation de Propagandâ Fide.—It was instituted by Gregory XV., and consists of eighteen cardinals, one of the secretaries of state, an apostolical prothonotary, a referendary, an assistant or lateral judge, and a secretary of the Holy Office. All these prelates and officers meet in the pope’s presence, as often as occasion requires, in order to examine whatever may be of advantage to religion, and to consult about missions, &c.

IV. The Congregation for explaining the Council of Trent.—At the breaking up of that council, Pius IV. deputed certain cardinals who had assisted in it, to put an end to all doubts which might arise concerning its decrees. Sixtus V. fixed this congregation, and empowered it to interpret all points both of discipline and faith. This congregation meets once a week at the palace of the senior cardinal, the whole assembly being composed of persons of that dignity. The president is chosen out of the body by the pope, and is paid twelve hundred crowns of gold yearly out of the apostolic chamber. The other cardinals have no salaries, but think it the highest honour to assist in explaining the most important matters relating to religion.

V. The Congregation of the Index.—The fathers of the so-called Council of Trent, considering the great number of pernicious and heretical books published since the invention of printing, deputed certain cardinals, and other divines, to examine into such books. These deputies drew up a list of them, divided into several classes; and the council gave orders for correcting, in a second impression, whatever these examiners had altered or expunged. Pope Pius V. confirmed the establishment of this congregation, and empowered it to examine all books written since the Council of Trent, and all such as shall be published hereafter. This congregation is composed of several cardinals, and a secretary of the order of St. Dominic; but it seldom assembles, except on affairs of the highest importance. (See Indexes.)

VI. The Congregation of Immunities, established by Pope Urban VIII., in order to obviate the difficulties and disputes which arose in the judgments of such suits as were carried on against churchmen for various matters, whether civil or criminal. This congregation is composed of several cardinals, nominated by his Holiness, and takes cognizance of all ecclesiastical immunities and exemptions. It is held in the palace of the senior cardinal every Tuesday.

VII. The Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.—Pope Sixtus V., in the beginning of his pontificate, united two congregations, under the name above-mentioned. It is composed of a certain number of cardinals at his Holiness’s pleasure, and of a prelate, who is the secretary thereof, and has six writers under him. This congregation has power to regulate all such disputes as arise between bishops and the monastic orders, and assembles every Friday for that purpose.

VIII. The Congregation for the Examination of Bishops, instituted by Gregory XIV., to examine into the qualifications of all such churchmen as are nominated to bishoprics. It is composed of eight cardinals, six prelates, ten divines of different orders, both secular and regular, some of whom must be doctors of the canon law. These examiners are chosen by the pope, and assemble in his palace every Tuesday and Friday, when any affair is to be examined. All the Italian bishops are obliged to submit to this examination before they are consecrated; and for this purpose they present themselves upon their knees before his Holiness, who is seated in an easy chair, whilst the examiners, standing on each hand of him, interrogate them on such heads of divinity and the canon law as they think proper. Such as are raised to the cardinalate, before they are made bishops, are dispensed from this examination; as are all cardinal-nephews.

IX. The Congregation of the Morals of Bishops, instituted by Pope Innocent XI., to inquire into the morals of churchmen recommended to ecclesiastical dignities. It is composed of three cardinals, two bishops, four prelates, and a secretary, who is the pope’s auditor. It is held alternately in the palaces of the three cardinals, where they examine very strictly the certificates of the life and manners of the candidates. However, those who have led irregular lives, find several ways of eluding the examination of this tribunal.

X. The Congregation for the Residence of Bishops.—It has the power of enjoining, or dispensing with, the residence of the Italian bishops, and obliging all abbots to reside in their several communities. It consists of three cardinals, three prelates, and a secretary. But, having very little business, they assemble but seldom, and that only at the request of such bishops or abbots as desire to be absent from their churches, for reasons specified in their petitions.

XI. The Congregation for such Monasteries as are to be suppressed.—This congregation was instituted by Pope Innocent X., to inquire into the state of the Italian monasteries, and to suppress those whose temporalities were so far diminished, that the remainder was not sufficient for the maintenance of six religious. It is composed of eight cardinals and a certain number of monks, deputed by the provincials of orders to take care of their interests. This assembly regulates the pretensions of founders and benefactors, and their heirs, and disposes of the remains of the temporalities of abandoned and ruined houses: it likewise examines the petitions of such communities, or cities, as desire to rebuild, and found anew, any monastery, for which it despatches the proper instruments.

XII. The Congregation of the Apostolical Visitation.—It is composed of a certain number of cardinals and prelates, whose business it is to visit, in the name of the pope, as archbishop of Rome, the six bishoprics, suffragans to the metropolis of Rome.

XIII. The Congregation of Relics.—It is composed of six cardinals and four prelates and their business is to superintend the relics of ancient martyrs, that are said to be frequently found in catacombs and other subterraneous places in Rome, and to distinguish their bones, shrines, and tombs, from those of the heathens, who were buried undistinguished in those subterraneous caverns. After the congregation has pronounced sentence on the validity of any relics, they are consigned to the vicar and the pope’s sacristan, who distribute them to such as desire them.

XIV. The Congregation of Indulgences.—This congregation, the number of whose cardinals and prelates is not fixed, assembles in the palace of the senior cardinal, to examine into the causes and motives of those who sue for indulgences. The registrar of this congregation sends the minutes and conclusions of petitions to the secretary of the briefs, who despatches them under the fisherman’s seal.

XV. The Congregation of Rites.—Pope Sixtus V. founded this congregation to regulate the ceremonies and rites of the new offices of saints, which are added to the Romish calendar, when any person is canonized. It has authority to explain the rubrics of the mass-book and breviary, when any difficulties are started in relation thereto; and its power extends to pronounce sentence, from which there is no appeal, on all disputes relating to the precedency of churches. It is composed of eight cardinals and a secretary, who assemble once a month in the palace of the senior cardinal.

XVI. The Congregation for the Building of Churches.—Pope Clement VIII. founded this congregation, to superintend the building of St. Peter’s church, adjoining to the Vatican, and it is employed, to this day, in repairing and beautifying it. It consists of eight cardinals and four prelates, who assemble at the palace of the senior cardinal on the Monday or Saturday nearest to the beginning and middle of each month. This congregation has the peculiar privilege of altering the last wills and testaments of those who bequeath sums to be employed in pious uses, and to apply the money towards supporting the fabric of St. Peter’s.—Broughton.

CONGREGATION is also applied in England to one of the assemblies of the university of Oxford, consisting of Regents, who transact the ordinary business of the university.

CONGREGATIONALISTS are nearly the same as Independents. (See Independents.) The chief point of difference is that the Congregationalists hold the principle of a communion of Churches.

CONGRUITY. (See Condignity.)

CONSANGUINITY. Alliance by blood, as affinity is alliance by marriage.

Certain degrees of consanguinity are among the impediments to marriage, both by the law of nature and by the revealed word of God. These degrees, as well as those of affinity, are defined by the Church, and are expressed in a table drawn up by Archbishop Parker, in 1563, and set forth by authority. This table is as follows:

A Table of Kindred and Affinity, wherein whosoever are related are forbidden in Scripture and our laws to marry together.

A man may not marry his

1 GRANDMOTHER,
2 Grandfather’s Wife,
3 Wife’s Grandmother.

4 Father’s Sister,
5 Mother’s Sister,
6 Father’s Brother’s Wife.

7 Mother’s Brother’s Wife,
8 Wife’s Father’s Sister,
9 Wife’s Mother’s Sister.

10 Mother,
11 Step-Mother,
12 Wife’s Mother.

13 Daughter,
14 Wife’s Daughter,
15 Son’s Wife.

16 Sister,
17 Wife’s Sister,
18 Brother’s Wife.

19 Son’s Daughter,
20 Daughter’s Daughter,
21 Son’s Son’s Wife.

22 Daughter’s Son’s Wife,
23 Wife’s Son’s Daughter,
24 Wife’s Daughter’s Daughter.

25 Brother’s Daughter,
26 Sister’s Daughter,
27 Brother’s Son’s Wife.

28 Sister’s Son’s Wife,
29 Wife’s Brother’s Daughter,
30 Wife’s Sister’s Daughter.

A woman may not marry with her

1 GRANDFATHER,
2 Grandmother’s Husband,
3 Husband’s Grandfather.

4 Father’s Brother,
5 Mother’s Brother,
6 Father’s Sister’s Husband.

7 Mother’s sister’s Husband,
8 Husband’s Father’s Brother,
9 Husband’s Mother’s Brother.

10 Father,
11 Step-Father,
12 Husband’s Father.

13 Son,
14 Husband’s Son,
15 Daughter’s Husband.

16 Brother,
17 Husband’s Brother,
18 Sister’s Husband.

19 Son’s Son,
20 Daughter’s Son,
21 Son’s Daughter’s Husband.

22 Daughter’s Daughter’s Husband,
23 Husband’s Son’s Son,
24 Husband’s Daughter’s Son.

25 Brother’s Son,
26 Sister’s Son,
27 Brother’s Daughter’s Husband.

28 Sister’s Daughter’s Husband,
29 Husband’s Brother’s Son,
30 Husband’s Sister’s Son.

CONSECRATION. The solemn act of dedicating anything or person to a Divine service and use.

CONSECRATION OF A BISHOP. By this we mean the separating of a person for the holy office of a bishop, by imposition of hands and prayer. According to a canon of the first Nicene Council, there must be four, or at least three, bishops present at the consecration of a bishop. The form used in the Church of England may be found in the Book of Common Prayer. And it is stated in the preface thereto, that “no one shall be accounted or taken to be a bishop, or suffered to execute the same function, unless he be called, tried, and admitted thereunto according to that form, or hath had formerly episcopal consecration.” The concluding portion of this sentence recognises the validity of consecrations given in foreign churches by any other form adopted by those Churches. Thus a French, or an Italian, or a Greek bishop, conforming to the rules of the Church of England, requires no fresh consecration, but is at liberty to officiate among us.

By the eighth canon, “Whoever shall affirm or teach, that the form and manner of making and consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons, containeth anything in it that is repugnant to the word of God; or that they who are made bishops, priests, or deacons in that form are not lawfully made, nor ought to be accounted, either by themselves or others, to be truly either bishops, priests, or deacons, until they have some other calling to those Divine offices; let him be excommunicated ipso facto, not to be restored until he repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”

And by the thirty-sixth of the Thirty-nine Articles, “the book of consecration of archbishops and bishops, and ordering of priests and deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward VI., and confirmed at the same time by authority of parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such consecrating and ordering; neither hath it anything that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.” And by the Act of Uniformity in the 13th and 14th Charles II., all subscriptions to be made unto the Thirty-nine Articles shall be construed to extend (touching the said thirty-sixth article) to the book containing the form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of bishops, priests, and deacons, in this said act mentioned, as the same did heretofore extend unto the book set forth in the time of King Edward VI. (13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4, s. 30, 31.)

Here we may allude to the Nag’s Head story, one of the most flimsy, as well as wicked, inventions of the Romanists, to invalidate the orders of the Church of England. It refers to the consecration of Archbishop Parker, on which depends the validity of orders in the English Church: for if Archbishop Parker’s consecration was not good, all those who were consecrated by him were not bishops, because he could not confer that character upon others which he had not himself.

The Papists assert that his consecration was irregular, both as to the place where it was performed, which they say was at the Nag’s Head Tavern, Cheapside, and as to the manner of doing it, which they say was by one of the bishops then present, who laid the Bible on Dr. Parker’s head, and then pronounced the words, “Take thou authority,” &c. It is further objected, that three of the four bishops then present were only bishops elect, and had no sees; and that the other was a suffragan.

The story, which has long since been abundantly refuted, and which is now given up by the best authorities among the Romanists, was as follows: The queen issued forth her warrant, directed to the bishop of Llandaff; to Dr. Scory, elect of Hereford; Dr. Barlow, elect of Chichester; Dr. Coverdale, elect of Exeter; and Dr. Hodgkins, suffragan of Bedford. All these persons met at the Nag’s Head Tavern, where it had been usual for the dean of the Arches and the civilians to refresh themselves, after any confirmation of a bishop; and there one Neale, who was Bonner’s chaplain, peeped through a hole in the door, and saw all the other bishops very importunate with Llandaff, who had been dissuaded by Bonner to assist in this consecration, which he obstinately refusing, Dr. Scory bid the rest kneel, and he laid the Bible on each of their shoulders or heads and pronounced these words, “Take thou authority,” &c., and so they stood up all bishops. This story was certainly invented after the queen’s reign; for if it had been true, it is so remarkable, that some of the writers of that time would undoubtedly have taken notice of it. But Bishop Burnet has discovered the falsity of it, from an original manuscript of the consecration of this very archbishop, which was done in the chapel at Lambeth, on Sunday, the 17th of December, in the first year of the queen’s reign, where Dr. Parker came a little after five in the morning in a scarlet gown and hood, attended by the said four bishops, and lighted by four torches; and there, after prayers, Dr. Scory preached; and then the other bishops presented the archbishop to him, and the mandate for his consecration being read by a doctor of the civil law, and he having taken the oaths of supremacy, and some prayers being said, according to the form of consecration then lately published, all the four bishops laid their hands on the archbishop’s head, and said, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” &c. And this was done in the presence of several other clergy. See Archbishop Bramhall’s “Consecration and Succession of Protestant Bishops Justified,” with the additions in vol. iii. of his works, Oxford, 1844.

CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES. The law recognises no place as a church until it has been consecrated by the bishop.

In the Church of England the bishop is left to his own discretion as to the form he will use in the consecration of a church; but in the 21 Henry VIII. c. 13, which limits the number of chaplains that each person may have, one reason assigned why a bishop may retain six chaplains is because he must occupy that number in the consecration of churches.

The custom of solemnly setting apart, from ordinary and secular use, whatever is appropriated to the service of Almighty God, has the highest possible sanction; for many are the instances of it recorded in the Holy Scriptures. True it is that there is no record of any such ceremonial having been used among Christians in reference to churches, before the fourth century, though some ritualists are of opinion that a form of dedication was common much earlier. No sooner, however, was the sword of persecution sheathed, and God permitted his Church to serve him in all godly quietness, than such solemnities became general. Then, as Eusebius tells us, “there was an incessant joy, and there sprung up for all a certain celestial gladness, seeing every place, which but a short time before had been desolated by the impieties of the tyrants, reviving again, and recovering from a long and deadly distemper; temples again rising from the soil to a lofty height, and receiving a splendour far exceeding those which had been formerly destroyed.” And again: “after this the sight was afforded us, so eagerly desired and prayed for by all,—the festivals of dedications, and consecrations of the newly-erected houses of prayer throughout the cities. After this, the convention of bishops, the concourse of foreigners from abroad, the benevolence of people to people, the unity of the members of Christ concurring in one harmonious body. Then was it according to the prophetic declaration, mystically indicating what would take place, ‘bone was brought to bone, and joint to joint,’ and whatsoever other matters the Divine word faithfully intimated before. There was, also, one energy of the Divine Spirit pervading all the members, and one soul among all, one and the same ardour of faith, one song of praise to the Deity; yea now, indeed, complete and perfect solemnities of the prelates and heads of the Church, sacred performances of sacred rites, and solemn rituals of the Church. Here you might hear the singing of psalms; there, the performance of divine and sacred mysteries. The mystic symbols of our Saviour’s passion were celebrated; and, at the same time, each sex of every age, male and female, with the power of the mind, and with a mind and whole heart rejoicing in prayer and thanksgiving, gave glory to God, the author of all good. Every one of the prelates present also delivered panegyrical discourses, desirous of adding lustre to the assembly, according to the ability of each.” One such discourse, pronounced by Eusebius himself, still remains.

In his Life of Constantine, Eusebius gives an instance of the ceremonial thus described in the consecration, amid a full synod of bishops of the church of Jerusalem, which Constantine had built over our Saviour’s sepulchre, A. D. 335. Socrates records a similar consecration of the famous church of Antioch, called Dominicum Aureum, which was begun by Constantine and finished by Constantius, A. D. 341. Testimony to the prevalency of this custom is also borne by St. Athanasius, who defends himself in his apology to Constantius, (c. 14–18,) when charged with having used a building for public worship, before it was dedicated by the emperor, and consecrated by himself, on the ground of necessity; for since during Lent the congregations in the ordinary churches had been so crowded as to prove injurious to the persons present, and anticipating still more crowded assemblies at Easter, he thought himself justified, under such circumstances, to use an edifice which was unconsecrated. St. Gregory Nazianzen likewise speaks of this ceremonial as an ancient custom παλαιὸς νόμος.

Such then were the offices connected with the consecration of churches in primitive times. Bishops, from distant provinces, with a vast concourse of clergy and laity, were present; an appropriate sermon or sermons were preached; the holy eucharist was always administered; in the course of which prayers suitable to the occasion were offered. Of these prayers one is still preserved in the writings of St. Ambrose.

On this model it was that the consecration services of the Church Catholic were formed, each church, at first, varying in non-essentials, as circumstances may have required.

In the English Church, various records of very early date exist relating to the consecration of churches. Geoffrey of Monmouth, who professes to follow Gildas, says that in the time of King Lucius (A. D. 162) pagan temples were consecrated in Britain to the honour of the true God. And we find from Bede, that the passage just quoted from Eusebius was applicable to our own island. It is known that Bertha, wife of Ethelbert, king of Kent, repaired or rebuilt a church, first built by the Romans, and had it dedicated to the honour of St. Martin of Tours, an eminent saint among the Christians of her native country. This was the church granted by Ethelbert to Augustine, on his landing in the isle of Thanet, A. D. 596. Some time after his arrival, Gregory the Great sent Augustine particular instructions about the dedication of the temples of the Anglo-Saxons; and when the bishop had his episcopal see assigned him in the royal city, he recovered therein a church, which he was informed had been built by the ancient Roman Christians, and consecrated it in the name of our holy Saviour, God and Lord, Jesus Christ. From the same historian we learn, that Laurentius, Augustine’s successor in the primacy, consecrated a church to St. Peter and St. Paul, afterwards called St. Augustine’s, in honour of Augustine, who had commenced building it. Mellitus, who succeeded Laurentius, consecrated the church of the Holy Mother of God, built by King Eadbald, A. D. 622. There is a detailed account of the consecration of the church of Ripon, by Wilfrid, archbishop of York, A. D. 665, given in the Life of that prelate, written by Eddius and Fridegode. Numerous subsequent canons are found, bearing on the same subject. For instance, one of Archbishop Ecgbriht’s “Excerptions,” A. D. 740, relates to the consecration of churches. In Archbishop Wilfrid’s canons, A. D. 816, it is ordered:

“When a church is built, let it be consecrated by the bishop of its own diocese, according to the ministerial book.”

Again, in the canons of Archbishop Corboyl, A. D. 1126, in the canons at Westminster, A. D. 1138, and in Archbishop Richard’s canons, A. D. 1175, similar injunctions are given.

From the constitutions of Otho, A. D. 1237, it would appear—so unfounded is the boast of the Romanists, that the time when Popery was dominant in England was a period of reverence and devotion never since known to her Church—that this solemnity was then much neglected. This is evident from the first of these canons, which, after observing that the dedication of royal temples is known to have taken its beginning from the Old Testament, and was observed by the holy fathers in the New Testament, under which it ought to be done with the greater care and dignity, &c., goes on to enact,

“That because we have ourselves seen, and heard by many, that so wholesome a mystery is despised, at least neglected, by some, (for we have found many churches, and some cathedrals, not consecrated with holy oil though built of old,) we, therefore, being desirous to obviate so great a neglect, do ordain and give in charge, that all cathedrals, conventual and parochial churches, which are ready built, and their walls perfected, be consecrated by the diocesan bishops, to whom they belong, or others authorized by them, within two years: and let it so be done in a like time in all churches hereafter to be built; and lest so wholesome a statute grow into contempt, if such like places be not dedicated within two years from the time of their being finished, we decree them to remain interdicted from the solemnization of masses until they be consecrated, unless they be excused for some reasonable cause.”

In the constitutions of Othobon, A. D. 1268, there is a similar canon.

From these canons it is plain, that the office of consecration had contracted many of those Romish superstitions which were retained until the Reformation. Not that our reformers, when reforming the other services of the Church, extended their labours to that of consecration. Indeed, as that was a period, to use the words of Bishop Short, when more churches were destroyed than built, there was no immediate use for the service in question. This task was reserved for Bishop Andrews, whose service was compiled, as were all the offices of the English Church, from the formularies in use before the Reformation.

Unanswerable as was Hooker’s defence of the consecration of churches, it was insufficient to protect Laud from the clamour of his implacable enemies, when he consecrated St. Catherine Cree church, as bishop of London, in 1630. And in the well-known London petition, presented to the Long Parliament, by the notorious Alderman Pennington, about ten years later, the consecration of churches was not forgotten to be included “among the manifold evils, pressures, and grievances, caused, practised, and occasioned by the prelates and their dependants.”

At the Restoration the custom revived, and the subject was again discussed; but as there was no authorized office, (Laud, having been prevented from drawing up a form, as he intended, in the convocation of 1640,) the preparation of one was committed to Bishop Cosin in the convocation of 1661. When prepared it was presented to the house, and referred to a committee of four bishops for revision, but nothing seems ultimately to have been done about it. Since that period each bishop has adopted any form he thought best, though perhaps the form of consecrating churches, chapels, and churchyards, or places of burial, which was sent down by the bishops to the lower houses of convocation, (1712,) and altered by a committee of the whole house, is the one, not that it is enjoined by any competent authority, now most generally used.—Teale.

Different rites were prepared by Barlow, bishop of Lincoln, Patrick, bishop of Ely, and King, bishop of London.—Palmer; Supplement. (See Harrington, on the Consecration of Churches.)

CONSECRATION OF THE ELEMENTS. The following is the rubric with reference to the consecration of the elements in the Lord’s supper: “When the priest, standing before the table, hath so ordered the bread and wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread before the people, and take the cup into his hands, he shall say the prayer of consecration.” If it be asked, whether the priest is to say this prayer standing before the table, or at the north end of it, I answer, at the north end of it; for, according to the rules of grammar, the participle “standing” must refer to the verb “ordered,” and not to the verb “say.” So that, whilst the priest is “ordering the bread and wine,” he is to stand before the table; but when he says the prayer, he is to stand so as “that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread before the people,” which must be on the north side. For if he stood “before” the table, his body would hinder the people from seeing; so that he must not stand there, and consequently he must stand on the north side; there being, in our present rubric, no other place mentioned for performing any part of this office. In the Romish Church indeed they always stand “before” the altar during the time of consecration, in order to prevent the people from being eye-witnesses of their operation in working their pretended miracle; and in the Greek Church they shut the chancel door, or at least draw a veil or curtain before it, I suppose, upon the same account. But our Church, that pretends no such miracle, enjoins, we see, the direct contrary to this, by ordering the priest so “to order the bread and wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread and take the cup into his hands before the people.” And with this view it is probable the Scotch liturgy ordered, that, “during the time of consecration, the presbyter should stand at such a part of the holy table, where he may with the more ease and decency use both his hands.”—Wheatly.

The consecration of the elements being always esteemed an act of authority, and standing being therefore a more proper posture, as well as a more commodious one, for this purpose, the priest is here directed to stand.—Collis.

We do not eat our common food without first praying for a blessing on it; which pious custom is so universal, that it is certainly a piece of natural religion; how much more then are we obliged, before we eat and drink this bread and wine, which Christ designed to set forth the mystery of his death, to consecrate it and set it apart by a solemn prayer; especially since Christ himself in the institution of this sacred ordinance, while he was teaching his apostles how to celebrate it, did use a form of blessing over it (Matt. xxvi. 26); which St. Paul calls “giving thanks.” (1 Cor. xi. 24.) Wherefore all churches in the world, from the apostles’ days, have used such a form, the ancient and essential part of which is the words of our Saviour’s institution; for, since he makes this sacramental charge, it hath been thought fit by all churches to keep his own words, which being pronounced by a lawful priest, do properly make the consecration; wherefore our Church has cut off all the later superstitious additions, by which the Roman Church hath corrupted this form, and given us a prayer of consecration, consisting only of the words of our Saviour’s institution, and a proper prayer to introduce it. The first part is a prayer directed to “Almighty God our heavenly Father,” commemorating his mercy in giving his Son to die for us, and the all-sufficient merit of his death, together with his command for our remembering it in this sacrament; and on these grounds desiring that, since we obey him in thus celebrating it, we may therein receive Christ’s body and blood. The second part is the repetition of the words and actions of our Lord at the institution, concerning both the time and the manner of its institution.—Dean Comber.

If it be here demanded, to what words the consecration of the elements ought to be ascribed, I answer, to the prayer of the faithful offered by the priest, and to the words of institution repeated by him. This was the sense of the ancient Church of Christ, which used them both in their eucharistical offices; and never held, that the elements were changed from their common to a more sublime use and efficacy by the bare repeating of the words, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” as the Papists absurdly hold. To bring about this change must be the work of the Holy Ghost; and thereupon it is requisite, that we should pray to God, to endue the elements with this life-giving virtue. Now the words of institution can by no means be called a prayer: they were addressed by our Saviour to his disciples, and not to God: to them he said, “Take and eat.” When we use them, they are historical, recounting what our Lord said and did, when he ordained this sacrament. And though when he said, “This is my body, this is my blood,” these words effectually made them so, showing that it was his will and pleasure that they should be taken as his sacramental body and blood; though the virtue of those words, once spoken by Christ, doth still operate towards making the bread and wine his body and blood; yet, as now used and spoken by the priest, they do not contain in them any such power, unless they be joined with prayer to God.

Our Lord himself did, besides pronouncing them, give thanks and bless the elements. Thus our Church uses prayer, as well as the words of institution; and doth not attribute the consecration to the one without the other. “If the consecrated bread or wine be all spent, before all have communicated, the priest,” it is true, is ordered by the rubric to “consecrate more,” by repeating only the words of institution. But the virtue of the prayer, which the Church hath last made, is to be understood as concurring therewith; and this is only a particular application to these particular elements. Hence comes the propriety of saying “Amen” at the end of those words; which would not be so properly added, unless it referred back to the preceding petitions. And that this is the sense of the Church of England is further plain, in that she in her rubric calls this “the prayer of consecration,” in which the words of institution are contained; and it is addressed to Almighty God, &c., whereas the words of Christ were not supplicatory to God, but declaratory to his disciples.

After the same manner, in the “Office of Public Baptism,” in imitation of the custom of the ancient Christians, who dedicated the baptismal water to the holy and spiritual use for which it was designed, our Church not only repeats the words of institution of that other sacrament, but likewise adds a solemn prayer, that God would “sanctify the water to the mystical washing away of sin.” And, as in that sacrament she joins the prayer of the faithful to the words of Christ, so in the sacrament of the altar she thinks them both necessary to complete the consecration.—Archdeacon Yardley.

A prayer of consecration, or setting apart the bread and wine to the sacred purpose in which they are about to be employed, hath been used for that end at least 1600 years. And the mention which ours makes of the institution of the Lord’s supper, from the words, “who in the same night that he was betrayed,” to the conclusion, is in every old liturgy in the world. The Romanists have put into their prayer of consecration names of saints, and commemorations of the dead which we have thrown out. And indeed we have left nothing that so much as needs explaining, unless it may be useful to observe, that our Saviour’s “one oblation of himself” is opposed to the various kinds of oblations under the law; and, “once offered,” to the continual repetition of them: though probably a further view was to intimate, that he is not, as the Papists pretend, really sacrificed anew in this holy ordinance.—Abp. Secker.

The death of Christ, if we regard the persons for whom it was undergone, is a “sacrifice;” if we regard him who offered it, it is a free “oblation;” if we consider him to whom it was offered, it is a “satisfaction;” and, in every one of these respects, it is “full, perfect, and sufficient:” or, particularly, it is a “full satisfaction,” a “perfect oblation,” and a “sufficient sacrifice;” not, like the legal offerings, for the sins of one kind, or the offences of one nation or of one person, but for the sins of all the world. Let none therefore mistake, or imagine we are about to sacrifice Christ again, as the Roman Church falsely teacheth; for that is not only needless and impossible, but a plain contradiction to St. Paul, who affirms, that Jesus was offered only “once” (Heb. ix. 26; x. 10, 12); and by that “one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (ver. 14); so that there needs “no more offering for sin” (ver. 18).—Dean Comber.

From these passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews it is plain, to use Bishop Overall’s words, that “Christ can be no more offered, as the doctors and priests of the Roman party fancy it to be, and vainly think that, every time they say mass, they offer up and sacrifice Christ anew, as properly and truly as he offered up himself in his sacrifice upon the cross. And this is one of the points of doctrine, and the chief one, whereof the Popish mass consisteth; abrogated and reformed here by the Church of England, according to the express word of God.”

CONSERVATORIES. Public schools of music in Italy, so called because they are intended to preserve the purity of the science and practice of music. The Conservatorios are pious foundations, kept up at the expense of rich citizens, in which orphans, foundlings, and the children of poor parents are boarded, lodged, and taught gratuitously. There are separate foundations for pupils of each sex. These institutions, which ought to provide the churches of Italy with well-instructed choristers, and to limit their attention to this object, do in fact supply the theatre, as well as the Church, with the most admired performers. See Dr. Burney’s Present State of Music in France and Italy, for an account of these conservatorios.

CONSISTENTES. (English, Co-standers.) The last order of penitents in the primitive Church, so called from their having the liberty, after other penitents, energumens, and catechumens were dismissed, to stand with the faithful at the altar, and join in the common prayers, and see the oblation offered; but yet they might neither make their own oblations, nor partake of the eucharist with them.—Bingham.

CONSISTORY. A word used to denote the Court Christian, or Spiritual Court. Every bishop has his consistory court held before his chancellor or commissary, in his cathedral church, or other convenient place of his diocese, for ecclesiastical causes. In the Church of England, before the Norman Conquest, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not separated from the civil; for the earl and bishop sat in one court, that is, in the ancient county court.

CONSTANCE, COUNCIL OF. This council assembled in 1414, by the combined authority of the emperor and the pope. It was attended by thirty cardinals, three patriarchs, twenty archbishops, one hundred and fifty bishops, besides an immense number of the inferior clergy. It included sovereign princes, electors of Germany, as well as representatives from every country in communion with Rome. Its objects were, to put an end to the schism, to reform the Church, and to put down the so-called heresy of Bohemia.

During a period of nearly forty years rival popes had claimed the see of Rome; and the whole of Christendom had been scandalized by their intrigues, their falsehoods, and their mutual anathemas. Each side had the support of universities and of learned divines. Each pleaded a Divine revelation, which was said to have been communicated on behalf of the one to St. Bridget, and of the other to St. Catherine of Sienna.

The council not only removed the two popes whose title had been previously disallowed, but also deposed the third, who had been legitimately appointed, and had forfeited his right by many and great crimes. The wickedness of John XXIII. seems to have been almost without parallel. Some charges against him were indeed suppressed, because it was thought that the papacy itself would be endangered by their publication; but enough was proved on unquestionable testimony to insure unanimous consent to his deposition.

In the mean while the necessity of reformation was urged on all sides. In the council itself, cardinals and bishops, as well as other divines, declaimed against the ignorance and vicious lives of the clergy, which bore testimony to the ill effects resulting from the lengthened schism; while the German people presented a memorial demanding reformation of the evils by which they affirmed the Church to be overrun, and that it should take place of all other business. A vehement contest on this subject ensued between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities, somewhat similar to that which afterwards occurred at Trent; but in the end the urgent duty was postponed until the election of the pope had taken place, and then it was successfully evaded.

John Huss, who was a learned and eloquent man, of blameless life, and of great influence, arrived at Constance soon after the meeting of the council. He had embraced the opinions of Wickliff, and had been especially earnest in denouncing the avarice and immoralities of the priests, as well as the frauds practised upon the people by pretended miracles. He was accused and thrown into prison. The emperor at first expressed great indignation at his arrest, but having been influenced by members of the council, he not only withdrew his protection, but deputed the elector palatine, as vicar of the empire, to place him in the hands of the secular magistrate. The pleas on which this breach of faith have been defended by Roman writers are inconsistent and self-contradictory. Some endeavour to maintain that Huss did not possess the safe-conduct until after his arrest; some, that he broke the conditions on which it was granted; and some, that no engagement of the emperor could limit the authority of the council. All impartial judges have long been agreed in condemning the act as a deep and indelible disgrace to the Roman Church. The letters of the martyr himself, as well as the language of his defence, describe in touching and Christianly terms, the harshness and injustice with which he was treated. Having resisted all efforts to procure his recantation, whether by threats or persuasion, he was condemned, and met his death with wonderful calmness and heroism, on the 7th July, 1415. The immediate effect of his condemnation, and that of Jerome of Prague, which speedily followed, was to kindle the flames of civil war in Bohemia, during which the names of Wickliff and Huss formed the watchword on the one side, and that of the pope on the other. It is said that the descendant of Sigismund, in the fourth generation, believed himself to be suffering under the wrath of God on account of his ancestor’s sin.

In the fourth and fifth sessions, the absolute superiority of a general council over the pope was expressed in the form of an exact decree. It was declared that the council holds its authority directly from Christ; and that all persons, including those of papal dignity, are amenable to its jurisdiction, and are liable to punishment for disobedience. No language could be more precise than that which was employed. The same doctrine had been previously asserted in the Council of Pisa; and was afterwards confirmed in the Council of Basle. It was the judgment of the constitutional party which had gradually become strong in the Roman Church; and it was now embodied in the solemn act by which three popes were set aside, and Martin V. substituted in their place; in the validity of whose appointment the papal succession is inseparably bound up. The decision of the council was gravely and deliberately adopted; and it had the fullest support of the learned divines who were present, such as Cardinal P. d’ Ailli, who had been chancellor of the university of Paris, and his still more illustrious pupil and successor John Gerson, who, beyond all other theologians, influenced and represented the mind of that age. It has always furnished an insurmountable difficulty to controversialists of the ultramontane school. They cannot reject its authority without giving up the legitimacy of every pope since Martin V.; while, on the other hand, it is plainly at variance with the decrees of the Council of Florence.

The decrees of their fourth and fifth sessions have been strenuously maintained by the Gallican Church, especially by Bossuet, and the very learned men who shared his opinions in the seventeenth century; as well as by the universities of Paris, Louvain, and Cologne.

Materials for the history of the Council of Constance are provided abundantly by the invaluable collection of documents made by H. Von der Hardt.

CONSUBSTANTIAL. Co-essential; of the same substance with another. Thus we say of our blessed Lord, that he is consubstantial with the Father, being “of one substance with the Father.” The term (ὁμοούσιος) was first adopted by the fathers in the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, to express more precisely the orthodox doctrine, and to serve as a precaution against the subtleties of the Arians, who admitted every thing except the consubstantiality, using a word similar in sound, but very different in meaning, ὁμοιούσιος. This word is still the distinguishing criterion between the catholic or orthodox Christian and the Arian heretic.

CONSUBSTANTIATION. The Romish divines fell into the error of endeavouring to explain the manner in which our blessed Lord is present in the eucharist. (See Transubstantiation.) Luther and his followers, while opposing the Romanists, fell into a similar error, only insisting on a different manner of explaining the inexplicable mystery. Luther and his followers maintained, that, after the consecration of the elements, the body and blood of our Saviour are substantially present together with the bread and wine. This doctrine is called consubstantiation. They believe that the real body and blood of our Lord are united in a mysterious manner, through the consecration, with the bread and wine, and are received with and under them in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper.

CONTRITION. (See Attrition.) Romanists define contrition to be a sorrow for sin, with a sincere resolution of reforming. The word is derived from the Latin conterere, to break or bruise. The Psalmist says, “A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” (Psalm li. 17.)—Conc. Trident. § 14, c. 4.

CONVENT. A religious house; a monastery; more usually used to signify a nunnery. For its architectural arrangements, see Monastery.

CONVENTICLE. A diminutive of convent, denoting properly a cabal, or secret assembly of a part of the monks of a convent, to make a party in the election of an abbot. It is now the legal term to denote any place of worship used by those who depart from the Church of England.

By the 73rd canon it is thus ordained: “Forasmuch as all conventicles and secret meetings of priests and ministers have ever been justly accounted very hateful to the state of the Church wherein they live, we do ordain that no priests or ministers of the Word of God, nor any other persons, shall meet together in any private house, or elsewhere, to consult upon any matter or course to be taken by them, or upon their motion or direction by any other, which may any way tend to the impeaching or depraving of the doctrine of the Church of England, or the Book of Common Prayer, or any part of the government or discipline now established in the Church of England, under pain of excommunication ipso facto.”

CONVERSION. A change of heart and life from sin to holiness. This change, when it takes place in a heathen or an infidel, comprises a reception and confession of the truths of Christianity: when it takes place in a person already baptized and a Christian in profession, it implies a saving and influential impression on his heart, of those truths which are already received by the mind and acknowledged with the lips. To the heathen and infidel conversion is absolutely and always necessary to salvation. The baptized Christian may by God’s grace so continue in that state of salvation in which he was placed in baptism, (see Church Catechism,) that conversion, in this sense, is not necessary to him: still even he, day by day, will fall into sins of infirmity, and he will need renewal or renovation: and all these—the daily renewal of the pious Christian, the conversion of the nominal Christian, and the conversion of the infidel or heathen—are the work of the Holy Spirit of God on the hearts of men.

Some persons have confused conversion with regeneration, and have taught that all men—the baptized, and therefore in fact regenerate—must be regenerated afterwards, or they cannot be saved. Now this is in many ways false; for regeneration, which the Lord Jesus Christ himself has connected with holy baptism, cannot be repeated: moreover, not all men (though indeed most men do) fall into such sin after baptism, that conversion, or, as they term it, regeneration, is necessary to their salvation; and if a regeneration were necessary to them, it could only be obtained through a repetition of baptism, which were an act of sacrilege. Those who speak of this supposed regeneration, uncharitably represent the orthodox as denying the necessity both of regeneration and of conversion; because they themselves call these by wrong names, and the orthodox only proclaim their necessity in their true sense.

They who object to the expression Baptismal Regeneration, by regeneration mean, for the most part, the first influx of irresistible and indefectible grace; grace that cannot be repelled by its subject, and which must issue in his final salvation. Now, of such grace our Church knows nothing, and of course, therefore, means not by regeneration at baptism the first influx of such grace. That the sins, original and actual, of the faithful recipient of baptism, are washed away, she doth indeed believe; and also that grace is given to him by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit; yet so that the conscience thus cleansed may be again defiled, and that the baptized person may, and often does, by his own fault, fall again into sin, in which if he die he shall without doubt perish everlastingly; his condemnation not being avoided, but rather increased, by his baptismal privilege. So that, in fact, we say not that any one is regenerated at baptism, according to the meaning of these words in the lips of our opponents. And if they will not admit that baptism is the Divinely appointed medium of regeneration in our sense of that term, what grace can they imagine so trifling as to comport with their views of that sacrament, and at the same time so lofty and essential, as to be contemplated by Christ in the solemn institution of a sacrament; and in his declarations concerning the efficacy and necessity of that sacrament; and by the apostles, and the whole Church, in their sense of the same matter, and their consequent practice? What approaches most nearly to that grace of their own imagining, which they call regeneration, is the repentance not to be repented of, and followed by fruits of righteousness to the glory of God’s grace, and to the salvation of the Christian, which we call conversion or renewal, and attribute to the same Spirit from whom we receive our new life at baptism; and which we hold to be as necessary to the salvation of one who has fallen from his baptismal purity, (and who has not so fallen?) as we hold baptismal regeneration to be, and as they hold their supposed regeneration. Except in words, then, we and our opponents are more nearly agreed than is at first sight apparent; and if the choice of terms be the chief point at issue, we have this to say for the expressions which we use, that they are consentient, and even identical, with those which are used in the Scriptures; and that they are the same which the whole Church employed, until the days of certain founders of sects, called after their own names at the continental Reformation; so that they rest on the highest possible grounds of Scripture and authority.—Poole. (See Regeneration.)

CONVOCATION (see Synod.) is an assembly of the bishops and other clergy of each of the provinces of the Church of England to consult on matters ecclesiastical. As much is in these days said of convocation, and as many seem to think that a convocation must be holden to settle the disputes now unhappily prevailing among the clergy, it may be interesting if we extend this article, that we may supply our readers with a history of convocations. It will be abridged from the account given by Dr. Burn.

That the bishop of every diocese in England, as in all other Christian countries, had power to convene the clergy of his diocese, and, in a common synod or council, with them to transact such affairs as specially related to the order and government of the churches under his jurisdiction, is not to be questioned. These assemblies of the clergy were as old almost as the first settlement of Christianity amongst us, and, amidst all other revolutions, continued to be held till the time of King Henry VIII.

What the bishop of every diocese did within his own district, the archbishop of each province, after the kingdom was divided into provinces, did within his proper province. They called together first the bishops, afterwards the other prelates, of their provinces; and by degrees added to these such of their inferior clergy as they thought needful. In these two assemblies of the clergy (the diocesan synods and provincial councils) only the spiritual affairs of the Church were wont for a long time to be transacted: so that, in this respect, there was no difference between the bishops and clergy of our own and of other Christian churches. Our metropolitans and their suffragans acted by the same rules here as they did in all other countries. They held these assemblies by the same power, convened the same persons, and did the same things in them. When the papal authority had prevailed here, as in most other kingdoms and countries in Europe, by the leave of our kings, and at the command of the legates sent from Rome, another and yet larger sort of councils was introduced amongst us, of the bishops and prelates of the whole realm. These were properly national Church councils, and were wont to be held for some special designs, which either the pope, the king, or both, had to promote by them.

But besides these synods common to us with all other Christian Churches, and which were in their nature and end, as well as constitution, properly and purely ecclesiastical, two other assemblies there were of the clergy of this realm, peculiar to our own state and country; in which the clergy were convened, not for the spiritual affairs of the Church, but for the good and benefit of the realm, and to act as members of the one as well as of the other. Now the occasion of these was this: when the faith of Christ was thoroughly planted here, and the piety of our ancestors had liberally endowed the bishops and clergy of the Church with temporal lands and possessions, not only the opinion which the political government had of their prudence and piety prompted it to take the most eminent of them into the public councils, but the interest which they had by that means in the state made it expedient so to do, and to commit the direction and management of offices and affairs to them. Hence our bishops first, and then some of our other prelates, (as abbots and priors,) were very early brought into the great councils of the realm, or parliament, and there consulted and acted together with the laity. And in process of time, our princes began to have a further occasion for them. For being increased both in number and in wealth, not only our kings, but the people began to think it reasonable, that the clergy should bear a part in the public burdens, as well as enjoy their share of the public treasure. Hence our Saxon ancestors, under whom the Church was the most free, yet subjected the lands of the clergy to the threefold necessity of castles, bridges, and expeditions. And the granting of aids in these cases brought on assemblies of the clergy, which were afterwards distinguished by the name of convocations.

In the Saxon times, the lords spiritual (as well as the other clergy) held by frankalmoigne, but yet made great part (as was said) of the grand council of the nation; being the most learned persons that, in those times of ignorance, met to make laws and regulations. But William the Conqueror turned the frankalmoigne tenures of the bishops and some of the great abbots into baronies; and from thenceforwards they were obliged to send persons to the wars, or were assessed to the escuage, (which was a fine or payment in money instead thereof,) and were obliged to attend in parliament. But the body of the clergy had no baronies, and holding by frankalmoigne, were in a great measure exempt from the charges which were assessed upon the laity, and were therefore by some other way to be brought under the same obligation. In order hereunto several measures were taken, till at last they settled into that method which finally obtained, and set aside the necessity of any other way. First, the pope laid a tax upon the Church for the use of the king; and both their powers uniting, the clergy were forced to submit to it. Next, the bishops were prevailed with, upon some extraordinary occasions, to oblige their clergy to grant a subsidy to the king, in the way of a benevolence; and for this, letters of security were granted back by the king to them, to insure them that what they had done should not be drawn into example or consequence. And these concessions were sometimes made by the bishops in the name of their clergy; but the common way was, that every bishop held a meeting of the clergy of his diocese. Then they agreed what they would do; and empowered first the bishops, afterwards their archdeacons, and finally proctors of their own, chosen for that end, to make the concession for them.

Thus stood this matter till the time of Edward the First, who, not willing to continue at such a precarious rate with his clergy, took another method; and, after several other experiments, fixed at last upon an establishment, which has, to a certain extent, continued ever since, viz. that the earls and barons should be called to parliament as formerly, and embodied in one house; and that the tenants in burgage should also send their representatives; and that the tenants by knight’s service, and other soccage tenants in the counties, should send their representatives; and these were embodied in the other house. He designed to have the clergy as a third estate; and as the bishops were to sit per baroniam in the temporal parliament, so they were to sit with the inferior clergy in convocation. And the project and design of the king was, that, as the two temporal estates charged the temporalities, and made laws to bind all temporal things within this realm; so this other body should have given taxes to charge the spiritual possessions, and have made canons to the ecclesiastical body: to this end was the præmunientes clause (so called from the first word thereof) in the summons to the archbishops and bishops, by which he required them to summon such of their inferior clergy to come with them to parliament, as he then specified and thought sufficient to act for the whole body of the clergy. This altered the convocation of the Church of England from the foreign synods; for these were totally composed of the bishops, who were pastors of the Church; and therefore the bishops only were collected to compose such foreign synods, to declare what was the doctrine, or should be the discipline, of the Church.

Edward I. projected making the clergy a third estate, dependent on himself; and, therefore, not only called the bishops, whom as barons he had a right to summon, but the rest of the clergy, that he might have their consent to the taxes and assessments made on that body. But the clergy, foreseeing they were likely to be taxed, alleged that they could not meet under a temporal authority, to make any laws or canons to govern the Church. And this dispute was maintained by the archbishops and bishops, who were very loath the clergy should be taxed, or that they should have any interest in making ecclesiastical canons, which formerly were made by the sole authority of the bishops; for even if those canons had been made at Rome, yet, if they were not made in a general council, they did not think them binding here, unless they were received by some provincial constitution of the bishops. The whole body of the Church being thus dissatisfied, the archbishops and bishops threatened to excommunicate the king: but he and the temporal estate took it so ill that the clergy would not bear any part of the public charge, that they were beforehand with them, and the clergy were all outlawed, and their possessions seised into the king’s hands. This so humbled the clergy that they at last consented to meet. And to take away all pretence, there was a summons, besides the præmunientes clause, to the archbishop, that he should summon the bishops, deans, archdeacons, colleges, and whole clergy of his province. From hence, therefore, the bishops, deans, archdeacons, colleges, and clergy, met by virtue of the archbishop’s summons; to which, being an ecclesiastical authority, they could not object. And so the bishops and clergy came to convocation by virtue of the archbishop’s summons; they esteeming it to be in his power, whether he would obey the king’s writ or not: but when he had issued his summons, they could not pretend it was not their duty to come. But the præmunientes writ was not disused; because it directed the manner in which the clergy were to attend, to wit, the deans and archdeacons in person, the chapter by one, and the clergy by two proctors. So that the clergy were doubly summoned; first, by the bishop, to attend the parliament; and, secondly, by the archbishop, to appear in convocation. And that the archbishop might not appear to summon them solely in pursuance of the king’s writ, he for the most part varied in his summons from the king’s writ, both as to the time and place of their meeting. And lest it might be thought still (of which they were very jealous) that their power was derived from temporal authority, they sometimes met on the archbishop’s summons without the king’s writ; and in such convocation the king demanded supplies, and by such request owned the episcopal authority of convening. So that the king’s writ was reckoned by the clergy no more than one motive for their convening. From henceforward, instead of making one state of the kingdom, as the king designed, the clergy composed two ecclesiastical synods, i. e. of Canterbury and York, under the summons of each of the archbishops; and being forced into those two synods before mentioned, they sat and made canons, by which each respective province was bound, and gave aids and taxes to the king. But the archbishop of Canterbury’s clergy, and that of York, assembled each in their own province; and the king gratified the archbishops, by suffering this new body of convocation to be formed in the nature of a parliament. The archbishop sat as king; his suffragans sat in the upper house as his peers; the deans, archdeacons, and the proctor for the chapter represented the burghers; and the two proctors for the clergy, the knights of the shire. And so this body, instead of being one of the estates as the king designed, became an ecclesiastical parliament, to make laws, and to tax the possessions of the Church.

But although they thus sat as a parliament, and made laws for the Church, yet they did not make a part of the parliament properly so called. Sometimes indeed the lords, and sometimes the commons, were wont to send to the convocation for some of their body to give them advice in spiritual matters: but still this was only by way of advice; for the parliament have always insisted that their laws, by their own natural force, bind the clergy; as the laws of all Christian princes did in the first ages of the Church. And even the convocation tax always passed both houses of parliament, since it could not bind as a law till it had the consent of the legislature.

Thus the case stood when the act of submission (25 Henry VIII. c. 19) was made; by which it is enacted as followeth:—“Whereas the king’s humble and obedient subjects, the clergy of this realm of England, have not only acknowledged, according to the truth, that the convocation of the same clergy is, always hath been, and ought to be assembled only by the king’s writ; but also submitting themselves to the king’s Majesty have promised, in verbo sacerdotii, that they will never from henceforth presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure, enact, promulge, or execute any new canons, constitutions, ordinances, provincial or other, or by whatsoever name they shall be called, in the convocation, unless the king’s most royal assent and licence may to them be had, to make, promulge, and execute the same, and that his Majesty do give his most royal assent and authority in that behalf: it is therefore enacted, according to the said submission, that they, nor any of them, shall presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure any constitutions or ordinances provincial, by whatsoever name or names they may be called, in their convocations in time coming (which shall always be assembled by authority of the king’s writ); unless the same clergy may have the king’s most royal assent and licence to make, promulge, and execute such canons, constitutions, and ordinances, provincial or synodal; upon pain of every one of the said clergy doing contrary to this act, and being thereof convict, to suffer imprisonment, and make fine at the king’s will.”

It was resolved upon this statute, by the two chief justices and divers other justices, at a committee before the lords in parliament, in the eighth year of James I., 1. That a convocation cannot assemble at their convocation without the assent of the king. 2. That after their assembly they cannot confer, to constitute any canons, without licence of the king. 3. When they upon conference conclude any canons, yet they cannot execute any of their canons without the royal assent. 4. That they cannot execute any after the royal assent, but with these four limitations: (1.) that they be not against the prerogative of the king; nor (2.) against the common law; nor (3.) against the statute law; nor (4.) against any custom of the realm.

The clergy having continued to tax themselves in convocation as aforesaid, these assemblies were regularly kept up till the act of the 13 Charles II. c. 4, was passed, when the clergy gave their last subsidy: it being then judged more advantageous to continue the taxing them by way of landtax and poll-tax, as it had been in the time of the Long Parliament during the civil wars.

And in the year 1664, by a private agreement between Archbishop Sheldon and the Lord Chancellor Clarendon, and other the king’s ministers, it was concluded that the clergy should silently waive the privilege of taxing their own body, and permit themselves to be included in the money bills prepared by the commons. And this hath made convocations unnecessary to the Crown, and inconsiderable in themselves.

And since that time the clergy have been allowed to vote in choosing knights of the shire, as other freeholders, which in former times they did not.

And from that time the convocation has never passed any synodical act; and from thenceforth, until the year 1700, for the most part they were only called, and very rarely did so much as meet together in a full body, and with the usual solemnity. It is true that, during the remainder of King Charles the Second’s reign, when the office of prolocutor was void by death or promotion, so many of the lower house came together as were thought sufficient to choose a new one; and those members that were about the town commonly met, during parliament, once a week, had prayers read, and were formally continued till the parliament was dissolved, and the convocation together with it. And in King James the Second’s time, the writs issued out of course, but the members did not meet. In the year 1689, after the accession of William and Mary to the throne, a convocation was not only called, but began to sit in due form; but their resolutions came to nothing. And from thence till the year 1700 they were only called, but did not meet; but in that year, and ever since, at the meeting of the parliament, the convocation of the clergy has likewise been solemnly opened, and the lower clergy have been permitted to form themselves into a house, and to choose their prolocutor; nor have they been finally dismissed as soon as that solemnity was over, but they continued from time to time till the parliament hath broke up, or been dissolved. And now it seems to be agreed that they are of right to be assembled concurrently with parliaments, and may act and proceed as provincial councils, when her Majesty in her royal wisdom shall judge it expedient.

In Ireland, the convocations of the four provinces assembled all together in Dublin; and were formed exactly upon the model of those of England; consisting of the upper house, consisting of the bishops; and of the lower, consisting of deans, archdeacons, proctors of the chapters, and proctors of the clergy of each diocese.—See Wilkins’s Concilia, iv. 496, and for the rules and privileges of the convocation, iv. 632.

Mr. Stephens, in his Introduction to the Irish Common Prayer Book, (xxxvii. &c.,) remarks that, “In 1615, a convocation of the Irish clergy, formed after the model of the English convocation, assembled in Dublin. This seems to have been the first convocation ever held in Ireland. The clergy do not appear to have granted any subsidies, or ever to have claimed the right of taxing themselves.... In the reign of Henry VIII. there does not seem to be any reference of ecclesiastical matters to the convocation, nor any claim of exemption on the part of the clergy.” [He then quotes the preamble of 28 Henry VIII. c. 12.] “In the second year of Elizabeth a parliament was assembled, and no mention is made of a convocation, though acts with respect to the Church were passed. And in the third year of Elizabeth there was not any parliament, yet she signifies her pleasure to Lord Sussex, the lord lieutenant, for a general meeting of the clergy, and the establishment of the Protestant religion. This of course was an order to summon not a convocation, but the ancient synod of the clergy, which had the power of settling all matters concerning religion.... In Ireland the provincial synod had not been suspended, and by their consent given at three different times in the reign of Edward, ... the clergy revived the use of the English liturgy, and expressed their conformity to the doctrine of the English Church.” There is, indeed, a passage in the Manuscript Collections of Dudley Loftus, which has been adduced as proof of a convocation having been held in 1560: “This year was held a convocation of bishops at the queen’s command, for establishing the Protestant religion.” But he must have used the word convocation merely “to express a meeting of the bishops, and would have adopted a very different phraseology to describe the meeting of the convocation.” See also Ebrington’s Life of Ussher, 38–40. As before observed, (see Church of Ireland,) no provision whatever has been made since the Irish Union, for the assembling even formally of the convocation of the Irish province of the Church. Still it appears (vide 11 Parl. Reg. 164 and 274) that it was by no means intended that the Irish provinces should be deprived of their convocations. It was proposed on the 20th April, 1800, that the archbishops, bishops, and clergy of Ireland, should be summoned to sit in the convocation of the United Church. Mr. Pitt expressly said, in proposing the amendment to this resolution, “that the prosperity of the Church of Ireland never could be permanent, unless it be a part of the Union to have, as a guard, power to the United Parliament to make some provision in this respect;” i.e. convocation. “And afterwards,” he said, “it was judged better to omit the insertion of any provisional article respecting the convocation, till the Union actually took place.” This pledge has never been redeemed.—See an article on the United Church and its Synods, in the Law Review for Feb. 1851.

In Scotland, by an act of parliament, 1663, an order was made for regulating the meetings of the national synod, or, as it is called in England, the convocation of the Church of Scotland; and an act was passed, That this synod shall consist of the two archbishops and their suffragans, all the deans and archdeacons, the fixed moderators, along with one minister of every presbytery, and one commissioner from each of the four universities: That the synod, then constituted, is to meet at such places and times as his Majesty by proclamation shall appoint, and is to debate, treat, consider, consult, conclude, and determine upon such pious matters, causes, and things, concerning the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Church, as his Majesty shall, from time to time, under his loyal hand, deliver, or cause to be delivered, to the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, president of the said national assembly, to be by him offered to their consideration: That unless his Majesty or his commissioner be present, no national assembly can be held: And that no act, canon, order, or ordinance, shall be owned as an act of the national synod of the Church of Scotland, but such as shall have been considered, consulted, and agreed upon by the president and major part of the number above specified.—Skinner’s Eccles. Hist. of Scotland.

COPE. (Cappa, called also pallium, or pluviale.) A kind of cloak worn during Divine service by the clergy. It reaches from the neck nearly to the feet, and is open in front, except at the top, where it is united by a band or clasp. It is in use in the Western Church only; and is probably only a modification of the vestment, or chasuble. The latter, in the Roman Church, is used by the officiating priest at mass only; the other, by all orders of the clergy in procession, &c., on solemn occasions. The rubrics of King Edward VI., still legally in force, prescribe a cope or vestment for the priest administering the holy communion, and for the bishops, when executing any public ministration in the church; for which a vestment may be substituted either by priest or bishop. By the 24th canon the cope only is prescribed to the priest administering the communion, and that only in cathedral churches. But the rubric being subsequently enacted, which refers to the regulation of Edward VI.’s First Prayer Book, the latter is more strictly to be considered as the law of the Church. It was used in several churches and college chapels in the 17th century, (see Jebb’s Church Service, p. 217,) and was in use at Durham cathedral and Westminster till the middle of the last century. De Foe, in his anonymous Tour through England, 1762, says that “the old vestments, which the clergy before the Reformation wore, are still used on Sundays and holidays, by the residents.” And Dr. Collis, in his Rubric of the Church of England examined, 1737, says that “no copes are worn at present in any cathedral or collegiate church in the ministration of the holy communion, except in the churches of Westminster and Durham.” The cope has always been worn by officiating bishops, and by the dean and prebendaries of Westminster at coronations, and occasionally at state funerals.

COPIATÆ. The office of the Copiatæ, (κοπιάω, to travail,) who are called in Latin Fossarii, was to superintend funerals, and to see that all persons had a decent burial. They performed their office gratuitously towards the poor.—Cave.

COPTS. The Monophysite, or Jacobite, Christians of Egypt, who have been for eleven centuries in possession of the patriarchal chair of Alexandria, and the dominant sect among the Christians of that region, are called Copts. They were placed in possession of the Egyptian churches on the irruption of the Saracens in the seventh century. Their numbers are now perhaps about 100,000. They have three liturgies, one ascribed to St. Basil, which they use on fast days; that of St. Cyril, which they use in Lent; and that of St. Gregory, which they use on festivals. Their service is very much crowded with ceremonies. The Coptic tongue, in which their worship is conducted, is to them a dead language, and not even understood by many of their priests. Their habits of life are ascetic, and they have many monasteries. They have a patriarch, who resides at Cairo, but takes his title from Alexandria.

CORBEL. A bracket. A projection supporting a weight; and so corbel-table, a table or horizontal projection supported by corbels. Corbel-tables are almost confined to the Norman, Transition, and Early English periods. Corbels in other places are of course continued; they are often of extreme beauty.

CORDELIERS. (Monks of the Order of St. Francis.) They wear coarse grey cloth with a little cowl, and a rope girdle with three knots; from this girdle they are called Cordeliers. They are the same with the Minorites; but had the name of Cordeliers given them upon this occasion, they having repulsed the infidels in a war which St. Louis made against them, the king asked their name, and was answered, they were des Gens des Cordelies—people with cords about them. (See Franciscans.)

CORONATION. The solemn religious rite by which a sovereign prince is consecrated to his high office, in which also the queen consort in Christian countries is usually associated with her husband, not for office’ sake, but honoris gratia.

By ancient custom the coronation of the sovereign of England belongs to the archbishop of Canterbury, and that of the queen consort to the archbishop of York. The place is Westminster Abbey. The kings of Scotland were crowned at Scone.

According to Mr. Palmer, (Supplement,) the coronation of sovereigns may be traced to A. D. 457, when Leo was crowned emperor by Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople. Pepin was the first French monarch who was crowned. The first coronation in England was that of Egferth king of Mercia; and we have still the forms used in the time of the Heptarchy, from which our coronation service (slightly modified from time to time) is substantially derived.—See Dr. Silver’s Coronation Service, or Consecration of the Anglo-Saxon Kings.

It is a form of immemorial prescription, substantially the same as that used at the inauguration of our Christian monarchs in Saxon times, and sanctioned by the solemn approval of all the estates of the realm, the nobility, the clergy, and the people, assembled at its celebration. The prayers are framed in the best spirit of antiquity, with the rhythm so characteristic of primitive forms, and with an elevation and majesty of sentiment unsurpassed in any part of our liturgy. The service is, however, peculiarly valuable, as recording certain high religious and political principles, which of course must be considered as receiving the full sanction of the Church and nation. Thus, there is an acknowledgment of the sovereignty of Christ over the whole world, and the derivation of all kingly power from Him. “When you see this orb set under the cross, remember that the whole world is subject to the power and empire of Christ our Redeemer. For He is the Prince of the kings of the earth, King of kings, and Lord of lords; so that no man can reign happily, who derives not his authority from Him, and directs not all his actions according to His laws.” It is declared that Christian sovereigns, like the Jewish kings of old, are consecrated to the fulness of their office by the religious rite of unction, and that their function is not merely secular. “Bless and sanctify thy chosen servant Victoria, who by our office and ministry is now to be anointed with this oil, and consecrated Queen of this realm.” There is a strict recognition of the prerogative of the clergy, empowered as the ministers of Christ, to assert the dominion of our Lord, who exalts her to her holy dignity: “Stand firm and hold fast from henceforth the seat and the state of royal and imperial dignity, which is this day delivered to you in the name and by the authority of Almighty God, and by the hands of us the bishops and servants of God, though unworthy: and as you see us to approach nearer to God’s altar, so vouchsafe the more graciously to continue to us your royal favour and protection. And the Lord God Almighty, whose ministers we are, and the stewards of his mysteries, establish you therein in righteousness, that it may stand fast for evermore.”—Palmer.

CORNET. A species of horn or trumpet formerly much used in the Church service; in the king’s chapel especially. Dr. Rimbault, in his Notes on Roger North’s Memoirs of Music, states, that in the Statutes of Canterbury cathedral, provision is made for players on sackbuts and cornets, on high festivals. After the Restoration, as appears from North’s Life of Guildford, the cornet was used at Durham and York cathedrals; and Matthew Lock says, that for about a year after the opening of the Royal Chapel, the cornet was used to supply the want of treble voices.

Evelyn, in his Memoirs, (21 Dec. 1663,) complains of violins being substituted in the Royal Chapel, “instead of the ancient, grave, and solemn wind-music, accompanying the organ:” and that “we no more heard the cornet, which gave life to the organ, that instrument quite left off, in which the English were so skilful.”—Jebb.

CORPORAL. This is the name given to the linen cloth which is spread over the body, (corpus,) or consecrated bread, after the communion. It was of common use in the Church in the fifth century, as is evident from the testimony of Isidore of Pelusium, who observes that the design of using it was to represent the body of our Saviour being wrapped in fine linen by Joseph of Arimathea.

The direction concerning this “fair linen cloth” in our Order of the Holy Communion is as follows: “When all have communicated, the minister shall return to the Lord’s table, and reverently place upon it what remaineth of the consecrated elements, covering the same with a fair linen cloth.” Our reformers may have been influenced in their retention of this decent ceremony after consecration, as a protest against the elevation of the host, and “gazing” at the sacrament.

CORPUS CHRISTI, FEAST OF. A Roman festival, instituted by Pope Urban IV., A. D. 1264, and observed on the Thursday of the week after Pentecost. The institution was the natural result of the acceptance of the doctrine of transubstantiation. Hildebert of Tours was the first who made use of the high-sounding term transubstantiatio. Most of the earlier scholastics, and the disciples of Lanfranc in particular, had, however, previously defended both the doctrine of the change of the bread into the body of Christ, and that of the accidentia sine subjecto; but it was not made an article of faith till the time of Innocent III. By the institution of the Corpus Christ day, by Urban, this doctrine was expressed in a liturgical form, and its popularity was secured. The festival was established in honour of the consecrated host, and with a view to its adoration. Its origin is connected with some of those “lying wonders,” in which we read one of the marks of the scriptural condemnation of the Church of Rome. The Romish legend states that, in 1230, Juliana, a nun of Liege, while looking at the full moon, saw a gap in its orb; and, by a peculiar revelation from heaven, learned that the moon represented the Christian Church, and the gap the want of a certain festival—that of the adoration of the body of Christ in the consecrated host—which she was to begin to celebrate, and announce to the world. In 1264, while a priest at Bolsena, who did not believe in the change of the bread into the body of Christ, was going through the ceremony of benediction, drops of blood fell on his surplice, and when he endeavoured to conceal them in the folds of his garment, formed bloody images of the host. The bloody surplice is still shown as a relic at Civita Vecchia. It was in this year that Pope Urban published his bull, and it is with such authority that the Church of Rome is contented!

CORSNED. (See Ordeal.)

COUNCILS. (See Synod.) General or œcumenical councils, or synods, are assemblies of bishops from all parts of the Church, to determine some weighty controversies of faith or discipline. Of such councils the Catholic or Universal Church has never received or approved more than six, although the Romish Church acknowledges several others. This is one of the many instances in which the Romish Church is at variance with the Catholic Church. The first Catholic Council is that of Nice, which was convened by the emperor Constantine, A. D. 325, to terminate the controversy raised by Arius, presbyter of Alexandria, who denied the Divinity of the Son of God, maintaining that he was a creature brought forth from nothing, and susceptible of vice and virtue. The council condemned his doctrine as heretical, and declared the faith of the Church in that celebrated creed called the Nicene Creed, which is repeated by us in the Communion Service, and which has, ever since its promulgation, been received and venerated by the Universal Church, and even by many sects and heretics. This council also made several regulations in matters of discipline. The second general council was that of Constantinople, assembled by the emperor Theodosius the Elder, in 381, to appease the troubles of the East. The heresy of Macedonius, who blasphemously taught that the Holy Ghost was a creature, was herein anathematized, and the Nicene Creed was brought into its present form by the addition of some passages concerning the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation, and of the real Divinity of the Holy Ghost. The third general council was assembled at Ephesus, A. D. 431, by the emperor Theodosius the Younger, to determine the controversy raised by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who declaimed against the title of Theotokos, (Mother of God,) which the Church had long applied to the mother of him who was both God and man; and taught that the Son of man and God the Word were different persons, connected only by a moral or apparent union, contrary to the Scripture, which declared that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” and that God purchased the Church “with his own blood.” (Acts xx. 28.) By this council the Nestorian heretics were condemned. The fourth general council was assembled by the emperor Marcian, in 451, at Chalcedon. This council published a confession, or definition of faith, in which the doctrine and creed of the three preceding Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, were confirmed, and the orthodox doctrine of the existence of two perfect and distinct natures, the Divine and human, in the unity of the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, was clearly defined. Eutyches, and Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria, who maintained that there was only one nature in our Lord Jesus Christ, after the incarnation or union of the Divinity and humanity, were condemned as heretics by this council. The fifth general council, commonly called the Second Council of Constantinople, was convened by the emperor Justinian, in 553; but it is only to be viewed as a supplement to the third general council, being engaged like it in condemning the Nestorian heresy. The sixth council, called the Third Council of Constantinople, was assembled in 680, by the emperor Constantine Pogonatus. It stands in the same relation to the fourth council that the fifth does to the third. “These are the only councils,” says Mr. Palmer, “which the Universal Church has ever received and approved as general.” The doctrine of these general councils, having been approved and acted on by the whole body of the Catholic Church, and thus ratified by an universal consent, which has continued ever since, is irrefragably true, unalterable, and irreformable; nor could any Church forsake or change the doctrine without ceasing to be Christian.

In the act of the first of Elizabeth ... the commissioners, in their judgment of heresies, were enjoined to adhere, in the first place, to the authority of the canonical Scriptures; secondly, to the decisions of the first four general councils; and thirdly, to the decision of any other general council, founded on the express and plain words of Holy Scripture. In this act, one particular deserves, and demands, very special attention; namely, the unqualified deference paid to the first four general councils. The latest of these councils sat and deliberated in the year 451. A point of time, therefore, is fixed, previously to which the Church of England unreservedly recognises the guidance of the Catholic Church, in the interpretation of Christian verities.—Bishop Jebb, Appendix to Practical Sermons.

Provincial councils consist of the metropolitan and the bishops subject to him. Diocesan councils are assemblies of the bishop and his presbyters to enforce canons made by general or provincial councils, and to consult and agree upon rules of discipline for themselves. (For an account of the Romish councils, see Lateran. For the authority of councils in the Church of England, see Heresy.)

COUNSEL. Besides the common signification of the word, it is frequently used in Scripture to signify the designs or purposes of God, or the orders of his providence. (Acts iv. 28, and Psalm lxxiii. 24.) It also signifies his will concerning the way of salvation. (Luke vii. 30; Acts xx. 27.)

This word is also used by the doctors of the Romish Church, to denote those precepts which they hold to be binding upon the faithful, in virtue of an implied direction or recommendation of our Lord and his apostles. Thus the celibacy of the clergy is numbered by them among “evangelical counsels,” which, receiving the acceptance of the Church, they hold, heretically, to be equally binding with the commands of canonical Scripture.

COURT CHRISTIAN. The ecclesiastical courts are so designated. In the Church of England there are six spiritual courts.

1. The Archdeacon’s Court, which is the lowest, and is held in such places where the archdeacon, either by prescription or composition, has jurisdiction in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes within his archdeaconry. The judge of this court is called the official of the archdeaconry.

2. The Consistory Courts of the archbishops and bishops of every diocese, held in their cathedral churches, for trial of all ecclesiastical causes within the diocese. The bishop’s chancellor or commissary is the judge.

3. The Prerogative Court, held at Doctors’ Commons, in London, in which all testaments and last wills are proved, and administrations upon the estates of intestates granted, where the party dies beyond seas or within his province, leaving bona notabilia.

4. The Arches Court, (so called because anciently held in the arched church of St. Mary, in Cheapside, London,) is that which has jurisdiction upon appeal in all ecclesiastical causes, except what belong to the Prerogative Court. The judge is the official principal of the archbishop.

5. The Court of Peculiars, of the archbishop of Canterbury, subservient to, and in connexion with, that of the Arches.

6. The Court of Delegates, so called because the judges are delegated and sit in virtue of the king’s commission, under the great seal, pro hac vice, upon appeals to the king on ecclesiastical matters. The powers of this court are now in England transferred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It remains in Ireland. (See Delegates, and Appeal.)

COVENANT. A mutual agreement between two or more parties. (Gen. xxi. 32.) In the Hebrew the word signifies, 1. A disposition, dispensation, institution, or appointment of God to man. (Hebrews ix. 16, 17, 20.) 2. The religious dispensation or institution which God appointed to Abraham and the patriarchs. (Acts iii. 25; Luke i. 72; Acts vii. 8.) 3. The dispensation from Sinai. (Heb. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 24.) 4. The dispensation of faith and free justification, of which Christ is the Mediator, (Heb. vii. 22–viii. 6,) and which is called new in respect of the old or Sinai covenant, (2 Cor. iii. 6; Heb. viii. 8, 13; ix. 15,) and whence the New Covenant or Testament became the title of the books in which this new dispensation is contained. Into this covenant we are admitted by union with Christ; and into union with Christ all infants, and such adults as are properly qualified by faith and repentance, may be admitted in holy baptism. (Gal. iii. 27.) 5. The old dispensation is used for the books of Moses containing that dispensation by St. Paul. (2 Cor. iii. 14.)

We renew our baptismal covenant in our confirmation, and in each faithful participation of the eucharist.

COVENANT OF REDEMPTION. This is said to be the mutual stipulation between the everlasting Father and the co-eternal Son, relating to the salvation of our fallen race, previously to any act upon the part of Christ under the character of Mediator. That there was such a covenant, either tacit or express, we may assuredly conclude, from the importance of the work undertaken by God the Son, and the awful sacrifice made for its accomplishment. All the prophecies which relate to what was to be done by the Messiah on the one hand, and the benefits and rewards which were to be conferred upon him and his people on the other, may properly be considered as intimations of such a covenant. (1 Pet. i. 11. Compare John xvii. 1–5, 14; vi. 37; Tit. i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 9; Rev. xiii. 8; Ps. lxxxix. 19.)

By this covenant, the everlasting Son, who, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is without beginning, God of God, Light of light, very God of very God, undertook to become incarnate, to dwell a certain time upon earth, subject to the law of human nature; directing his whole conduct while he should continue here, in such a manner as most effectually to promote the honour of his Father and the salvation of his people; that at length he would voluntarily deliver himself to sufferings and death, and remain for a time in the grave; thereby, in human nature, offering a satisfaction to the law of perfect obedience to the will of the Creator, which human nature had violated, and removing the obstacle to the operation of Divine mercy, which Divine justice interposed; also, that, after his resurrection and ascension into heaven, he would employ his renewed life as the God-Man, and his extensive authority in the mediatorial kingdom, to the same great purposes which engaged him to become incarnate. (Ps. xl. 6–9; Heb. x. 5–10; Isa. lxi. 1–3; Luke iv. 18; Isa. i. 5, 6.) God the Father, on the other hand, stipulated to produce a human body for his co-eternal Son, in the womb of the Virgin; that he would strengthen his human nature by the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, for the extraordinary work before him; that he would raise him from the dead, and elevate his human nature to the right hand of power; and that he would accept the atonement when offered. It is added, that God the Holy Ghost stipulated to regenerate, renew, and sanctify those of mankind, whom God the Father gave to his Son. (Besides the texts given above, see Isa. vii. 14; xi. 2, &c.; lii. 13–15; liii. 10–12; lv. 4, 5; xlix. 1–12, compared with Luke ii. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 2; Rev. vii. 16, 17; Ps. ii. 7–9; Luke xxii. 29; John v. 22–29; Heb. xii. 2.)

COVENANT, in ecclesiastical history, denotes a contract or convention agreed to by the Scots in 1638, for maintaining the Presbyterian religion free from innovation. In 1581, the general assembly of Scotland drew up a confession of faith, or national covenant, condemning the episcopal government of the Christian Church, under the name of hierarchy. It was signed by James VI., who was compelled to enjoin it upon all his subjects. It was again subscribed in 1590 and 1596; and, in 1638, it was taken with an oath on the part of the subscribers, to maintain religion in the state it was in in 1580. The oath annexed to the confession of faith received the name of Covenant, and those who subscribed it were called Covenanters. (See Confession of Faith, Westminster.)

CREDENCE, or CREDENTIAL. A table or shelf near the altar, on which the bread and wine to be used in the eucharist are placed, previously to consecration, called in the Greek Church τράπεζα προθεσέος, mensa propositionis. The table of Prothesis in the Greek Church is placed in a side vestry; and here many prefatory prayers and ceremonies are performed, before the priest goes into the chancel. The word credence appears to be derived from the Italian “credenzare,” to taste meats and drink before they were offered to be enjoyed by another; an ancient court practice, which was performed by the cup-bearers and carvers, who for this reason were also called in German credenzer. Hence also the credenz-teller—credence-plate, on which cup-bearers credenced the wine; and, in general, a plate on which a person offers anything to another: credenztisch, credence-table, a sideboard, an artificial cupboard with a table for the purpose of arranging in order and keeping the drinking apparatus therein. (See Adelung’s German Dictionary, word “Credenzen.”) This table or shelf is used for the more convenient observance of the rubric following the Offertory sentences, in which it is directed: “And when there is a communion, the priest shall THEN place upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient.” Where the staff of the clergy is large, the rubric can be conveniently observed without this aid. Archbishop Laud, (Troubles and Tryal, ch. 33,) in his chapel at Lambeth, had a credential, (or side-table,) from which the elements were fetched, and set reverently upon the communion table. He defends this, by saying that both Bishop Andrewes and some other bishops used it so all their time, and no exception taken. From the plan of the chapel of Bishop Andrewes, in Archbishop Laud’s possession, and adduced as evidence against him by Prynne, it appears that the credential was placed on the south side of the communion table, the vessels for the communion being placed upon it. There are many credences in various churches; among others, in the collegiate and in St. John’s churches, Manchester, and in the parish church at Ludlow, where they have been in use from time immemorial.—Jebb.

CREED. (See Apostles’ Creed, Athanasian Creed, Nicene Creed.) By the word creed (from credo, I believe) is meant the substance of the Christian’s faith. There are three creeds recognised by the Catholic Church,—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. The Latin name for creed is symbolum, which signifies a watchword, or signal in war. Ludolph of Saxony, in his Life of Christ, describes the creeds of the Catholic Church thus: “There are three symbols, (watchwords or tokens, such as are used among soldiers of a garrison, to recognise their comrades, and to detect insidious intruders,)—the first of the Apostles, the second of the Nicene Council, the third of St. Athanasius; the first for instruction in the faith, the second for the explanation of the faith, the third for defence of the faith.” Three in name, but one in fact, and which, except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

The cause of a gradual adoption of a series of creeds is simply this: the truth being but one and unvarying, the plain assertion of it is, in the first instance, all that is necessary, all that can be done for it: and this was done by the Apostles’ Creed. Error, on the other hand, is multiform; and consequently, as error upon error continued to rise, correctives unthought of before were to be found to meet the exigency: hence the Nicene Creed. Again, subsequent to that, new errors were broached, the old were revived, clever evasions of the terms of the existing creeds were invented, the vehemence of opponents was increased; but all desiring still, with all their mischievous errors, to be within the pale of the Church, it became still more imperatively necessary to fence in the Church from such dangers; and the creed called that of St. Athanasius, was compiled from the logical forms of expression which prevail in his writings, and those of similar champions of the catholic faith, and was very soon adopted by the Church as an additional bulwark to preserve that faith in its original integrity and purity. Luther calls this creed, “the bulwark of the Apostles’ Creed.”

It is a mistake to imagine that creeds were, at first, intended to teach, in full and explicit terms, all that should be necessary to be believed by Christians. They were designed rather for hints and minutes of the main credenda, to be recited by catechumens before baptism; and they were purposely contrived short, that they might be the more easily retained in memory, and take up the less time in reciting. Creeds, very probably, at first, were so far from being paraphrases or explications of the form of baptism, (or of Scripture texts,) that they went no farther, or very little farther, than the form itself, and wanted as much explaining and paraphrasing, in order to be rightly and distinctly understood, as any other words or forms could do. Hence it was that the catechumens were to be instructed in the creed, previously to baptism, for many days together. As heresies gave occasion, new articles were inserted; not that they were originally of greater importance than any other articles omitted, but the opposition made to some doctrines rendered it the more necessary to insist upon an explicit belief and profession of them.—Waterland’s Sermons on the Divinity of Christ.

As the apostles had foretold, “false teachers” crept into the Church, and “privily brought in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them,” even “the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. ii. 1, and Jude 4.) As these spread their poison, it became necessary to provide an antidote; for which purpose it was wisely ordered, that creeds, or summaries of the Christian faith, should be drawn up, and published for general use.—Waldo.

As to the primitive Churches, their constant way was to enlarge their creeds in proportion to the growth of heresies, that so every corruption arising to the faith of Christ might have an immediate remedy. The design was to keep up, as strictly as possible, the whole fabric of the Christian faith as it stands in Scripture; and if any part came to be attacked, they were then to bend all their cares to succour and relieve that part, in order still to secure the whole. The sum of Christian practice is contained in two brief rules,—to love God, and to love one’s neighbour. But mistakes and perverse sentiments may arise; to correct and remove which it may be necessary to enlarge the rule of practice, and to branch it out into many other particulars.—Waterland on the Athanasian Creed.

If our creeds be found fault with for not being expressed in scriptural terms only, let them bear the blame who, by an artful misapplication of Scripture terms at first, made it necessary for the guardians of the faith to express the Scripture doctrine in other terms, more explicit, and not so liable to be perverted and abused.—Wheatly on the Creeds.

We must ever lament that the misapplied curiosity of men should have made it at all necessary to enlarge upon mysterious doctrines. It might have been fortunate for the peace and tranquillity of the Christian Church, if the Apostles’ Creed had been sufficient. But since men will be “wise above what is written,” some remedy must be found out, which may either satisfy or restrain their curiosity. And whoever peruses the several parts of the Athanasian Creed will find, that, so far from creating minute inquiries concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, it is more especially calculated to discountenance and prevent them. Sublime truths require modesty and caution in our expressions; and whatever checks presumption, prepares the mind for the reception of sound and useful doctrine. The abuse of Scriptural language first occasioned a deviation from it in creeds, and common candour will compel all parties to acknowledge the difficulty of finding proper words to express so much as it was intended for us to know, and no more.—Croft’s Bamp. Lectures.

CREED OF POPE PIUS IV. A succinct and explicit summary of the doctrine contained in the canons of the Council of Trent, is expressed in the creed which was published by Pius IV. in 1564, in the form of a bull, and which usually bears his name. It is received throughout the whole Roman Catholic Church; every person who is admitted into the Roman Catholic Church publicly reads and professes his assent to it. It is by these additional articles to the Nicene Creed, that the Romish Church cuts itself off from the Church Catholic, and becomes heretical.

The tenor of it is as follows: “I, N., believe and profess, with a firm faith, all and every one of the things which are contained in the Symbol of Faith, which is used in the holy Roman Church, viz.

“I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, Light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there will be no end; and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who, together with the Father and the Son, is adored and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins, and I expect the resurrection of the body, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

“I most firmly admit and embrace apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other constitutions and observances of the same Church.

“I also admit the sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the holy mother Church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

“I profess also, that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and for the salvation of mankind, though all are not necessary for every one; viz. baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony, and that they confer grace; and of these, baptism, confirmation, and order cannot be reiterated without sacrilege.

“I also receive and admit the ceremonies of the Catholic Church, received and approved in the solemn administration of all the above-said sacraments.

“I receive and embrace all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent, concerning original sin and justification.

“I profess likewise, that in the mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.

“I confess also, that, under either kind alone, whole and entire, Christ and a true sacrament is received.

“I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.

“Likewise that the saints reigning together with Christ, are to be honoured and invocated, that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated.

“I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, and of the Mother of God ever virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be had and retained; and that due honour and veneration are to be given to them.

“I also affirm, that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church; and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.

“I acknowledge the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all Churches; and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman bishop, the successor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ.

“I also profess and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent; and likewise I also condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever condemned and anathematized by the Church.

“This true catholic faith, out of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, I, N., promise, vow, and swear most constantly to hold and profess the same, whole and entire, with God’s assistance, to the end of my life. Amen.”

CRESSELLE. An instrument of wood, made use of in the Romish Church during Passion week, instead of bells, to give notice of Divine service. This is done in imitation of the primitive Christians, who, they suppose, made use of such an instrument, before the invention of bells, to call their brethren secretly to prayers. There are mysteries in the Cresselle. It represents Christ praying on the cross, and calling nations to his preaching; as also his humility, &c.—Jebb.

CREST. (In ecclesiastical architecture.) An ornamental finish at the top of a screen, or other subordinate feature.

CROSIER. A crosier is the pastoral staff of an archbishop, and is to be distinguished from the pastoral staff of a bishop; the latter terminating in an ornamented crook, while the crosier always terminates in a cross. At the end of the Common Prayer Book established in the second year of Edward VI., which is referred to as still obligatory, so far as the ornaments of the church and of the ministers thereof are concerned, in the rubric immediately before the Morning Prayer it is ordered,—“Whensoever the bishop shall celebrate the holy communion, or execute any other public office, he shall have upon him, besides his rochet, an alb, and cope or vestment, and also his pastoral staff in his hand, or else borne by his chaplain.”

CROSS. The cross was the instrument of death to our most blessed Lord and Saviour, and it has been considered in all ages by the Church as the most appropriate emblem, or symbol, of the Christian religion. The sign of the cross was made in the primitive Church in some part of almost every Christian office. The Church of England, in the constitutions of 1603, has a long canon (the 30th) on this subject, wherein it is said: “The Holy Ghost, by the mouths of the apostles, did honour the name of the cross, being hateful among the Jews, so far that, under it, he comprehended not only Christ crucified, but the force, effects, and merits of his death and passion, with all the comforts, fruits, and promises which we receive or expect thereby. Secondly, the honour and dignity of the name of the cross begat a reverent estimation even in the apostles’ times, for aught that is known to the contrary, of the sign of the cross, which the Christians shortly after used in all their actions; thereby making an outward show and profession, even to the astonishment of the Jews, that they were not ashamed to acknowledge him for their Lord and Saviour, who died for them upon the cross. And this sign they not only used themselves, with a kind of glory, when they met with any Jews, but signed therewith their children, when they were christened, to dedicate them by that badge to his service, whose benefits bestowed upon them in baptism, the name of the cross did represent. And this use of the sign of the cross was held in the primitive Church, as well by the Greeks as by the Latins, with one consent, and great applause. At which time, if any had opposed themselves against it, they would certainly have been censured as enemies of the name of the cross, and consequently of Christ’s merits, the sign whereof they could no better endure. This continual and general use of the sign of the cross, is evident by many testimonies of the ancient Fathers. Thirdly, it must be confessed that, in process of time, the sign of the cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome, especially after that corruption of Popery had once possessed it. But the abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful use of it. Nay, so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, in all things that they held and practised, that, as Bishop Jewel’s “Apology of the Church of England” confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men; and only departed from them in those particular points wherein they were fallen, both from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the apostolical Churches which were their first founders. In which respect, amongst some other very ancient ceremonies, the sign of the cross in baptism hath been retained in this Church, both by the judgment and practice of those reverend fathers and grave divines in the days of King Edward VI., of whom some constantly suffered for the profession of the truth; and others, being exiled in the time of Queen Mary, did, after their return, in the beginning of the reign of our late dread sovereign, continually defend and use the same.”

The sign of the cross is appointed to be used at baptism. After the priest hath baptized the child, he receives it into the congregation, by this solemnity declaring that he is by baptism made a member of the Church. (1 Cor. xii. 13.) “We are all baptized into one body.” And when he thus receives it, he signs it with the sign of the cross, as of old it was wont, according to St. Augustine; and on the forehead, the seat of blushing and shame, that he may not hereafter blush and be ashamed of the disgraced cross of Christ, as St. Cyprian saith. By this badge is the child dedicated to his service, whose benefits, bestowed upon him in baptism, the name of the cross in Holy Scripture does represent. Whosoever desires to be fully satisfied concerning the use of the cross in baptism, let him read the thirtieth canon of our Church, in the year 1603.—Bp. Sparrow.

The Church, studious to retain this ancient and universal ceremony of the purest primitive times, was also careful to decline all fear of superstitious intendment; as if she thought the sacrament imperfect without it. Therefore, whereas the primitive mode made it to usher in baptism, our Church inverted the order, and made it come after, and so to follow it, as she expressly first declareth, “the child to be received into the congregation of Christ’s flock, as a perfect member thereof, and not by any power ascribed to the sign of the cross.” (Canon 30.) And further to assure all distrustful minds, that she maketh it not of the substance of the sacrament, she hath totally omitted it in the office of private baptism.—L’ Estrange.

The child, being now baptized, is become a member of the Christian Church, into which the minister (as a steward of God’s family) doth solemnly receive it; and, for the clearer manifestation that it now belongs to Christ, solemnly signs it in the forehead with the sign of the “cross.” For the better understanding of which primitive ceremony, we may observe, that it was an ancient rite for masters and generals to mark the foreheads or hands of their servants and soldiers with their names or marks, that it might be known to whom they did belong; and to this custom the angel in the Revelation is thought to allude: “Hurt not the earth, &c., till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads” (Rev. vii. 3): thus again the retinue of the Lamb are said to “have his Father’s name written in their foreheads” (chap. xiv. 1). And thus, lastly, in the same chapter, as Christ’s flock carried his mark on their foreheads, so did his great adversary the beast sign his servants there also: “If any man shall receive the mark of the beast in his forehead, or in his hand,” &c. (ver. 9). Now that the Christian Church might hold some analogy with those sacred applications, she conceived it a most significant ceremony in baptism, (which is our first admission into the Christian profession,) that all her children should be signed with the cross on their foreheads, signifying thereby their consignment up to Christ; whence it is often called by the ancient Fathers, the “Lord’s signet” and “Christ’s seal.”—Wheatly.

The true sense and intention of the Church of England in appointing this sign appears from Dr. Burgess’s sense of the matter, which was accepted by King James the First, and affirmed by the archbishop of Canterbury [Bancroft] to be the sense of the Church. His words are these which follow:—“I know it is not made any part of the sacrament of baptism, which is acknowledged by the canon to be complete without it, and not perfected or bettered by it.

“I understand it not as any sacramental, or operative, or efficacious sign bringing any virtue to baptism, or the baptized.

“Where the book says, ‘and do sign him with the sign of the cross in token,’ &c., I understand the book not to mean, that the sign of the cross has any virtue in it to effect or further this duty; but only to intimate and express by that ceremony, by which the ancients did avow their profession of Christ crucified, what the congregation hopeth and expecteth hereafter from the infant; namely, that he shall not be ashamed to profess the faith of Christ crucified, into which he was even now baptized.

“And therefore also when the 30th canon saith, that the infant is ‘by that sign dedicated unto the service of Christ,’ I understand that dedication to import, not a real consecration of the child, which was done in baptism itself; but only a ceremonial declaration of that dedication, like as the priest is said to make clean the leper, whose being clean he only declared.”

The Church’s use of the sign of the cross and her expressions concerning it, are fairly capable of this construction; and so authentic a declaration is sufficient to satisfy any sober inquirer, that this sense not only may be, but ought to be, received.—Dr. Bennet.

The heathens were wont to deride the Christians, and to speak disdainfully of them, as worshippers of a malefactor crucified. To encounter which reproach, and to show that they “gloried in the cross of Christ,” (Gal. vi. 14,) taking it to be an honour, not an ignominy; they assumed this ceremony of signing themselves with the cross, both in baptism, and at several other times. And this sign being significant of a duty to be elicited by future practice, good reason had our Church to continue it.—L’ Estrange.

It is, in brief, a mark, by which we, as the primitive Christians did, declare our religion, and no more than that, wherewith we conclude all our prayers and thanksgivings, when we say through Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.—Clutterbuck.

Upon the whole, the ceremony is exceeding proper, and very innocent; used by most Christians; approved by all the ancients, and by some of the most eminent reformed divines expressly; and condemned by no Church: so that, if this ceremony be rejected by any, they ought to consider that the fault is in themselves, not in the thing, at which offence is taken, but none justly given, if the Church be but rightly understood.—Dean Comber.

CRUCIFIX. A cross upon which a sculptured or carved image of the body of our Lord is fastened. It is much used by the Romanists and the Lutheran Protestants, to excite in their minds a strong idea of our Saviour’s passion. It has never been used in the Church of England since the Reformation, on the ground of its having been abused to superstition and idolatry.

CRUSADE. A name given to the Christian expeditions against the infidels, for the recovery of the Holy Land out of their hands, because they who engaged themselves in the undertaking wore a cross on their clothes, and had one in their standards. There were eight crusades. The first, in 1096, at the solicitation of the Greek emperor and patriarch of Jerusalem. Peter the Hermit, who was the preacher of this crusade, was made general of a great army, a thing that did not very well agree with his profession, being a priest; and all the princes,—Hugo the Great, count of Vermandois, brother to Philip I. king of France; Robert, duke of Normandy; Robert, count of Flanders; Raymond, count of Toulouse and St. Giles; Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lorraine, with his brothers, Baldwin and Eustace; Stephen, count of Chartres and Blois; Hugo, count of St. Paul, with a great number of other lords, took different ways to meet at Constantinople. The first who marched his troops was the famous Godfrey de Bouillon, who had a greater share than any of the rest in this undertaking, though not the command of the whole army. He commenced his march Aug. 15, 1096, with 10,000 horse and 70,000 foot; and before the other princes were come to Constantinople, passing the Hellespont, besieged Nice, which, notwithstanding the double-dealing of the Greek emperor Alexis, after six weeks’ siege, was surrendered to him; after which he victoriously entered Syria and took Antioch. Jerusalem was taken in 1099, and Godfrey of Bouillon chosen king; a little after which the Christians gained the famous battle of Ascalon against the sultan of Egypt; which victory put an end to the first crusade; for the princes and lords, with those who followed them, believing they had fully accomplished the vow they had made, took their leave of Godfrey, and returned to their respective countries.

The second crusade was in 1144, and this was headed by the emperor Conrad III. and Louis VII. of France: the emperor’s army was either destroyed by the enemy, or perished through the treachery of the Greek emperor and his brother-in-law; and the second army, through the unfaithfulness and treachery of the Christians of Syria, was forced to quit the siege of Damascus.

The third crusade was in 1188, after the taking of Jerusalem by Saladin, sultan of Egypt. The most distinguished persons engaged in this expedition were the emperor Frederick Barbarossa; Frederick, duke of Swabia, his second son; Leopold, duke of Austria; Berthold, duke of Moravia; Herman, marquis of Baden; the counts of Nassau, Thuringen, Meissen, and Holland, and above sixty more of the chief princes of the empire, with divers bishops. Barbarossa, in spite of the emperor of Constantinople, having got into Asia Minor, defeated the sultan at Iconium, but, drawing near to Syria, sickened and died in 1190: however his son Frederick led the army to Antioch, and joined with Guy, king of Jerusalem, in the siege of Ptolemais, but, failing of success, he died soon after, which proved the ruin of his army. Nevertheless, Richard, king of England, and Philip Augustus, king of France, arriving some months after in the Holy Land, with a great force, compelled Ptolemais to surrender, July 12, 1191. After which, Philip returned home in discontent, while the brave King Richard concluded a peace with Saladin, upon these conditions,—that all the coast from Joppa to Tyre should be left to the Christians, and that Saladin should have all the rest of Palestine, except Ascalon, which was to belong to the party who, at the end of the truce, obtained possession of it; and that, during the truce, which was to last three years, three months, three weeks, and three days, it should be lawful for the Christians to go to Jerusalem in small companies, to pay their devotions there.

The fourth was undertaken in 1195, by the emperor Henry VI., after Saladin’s death: his army started for the Holy Land three several ways, and, he himself at length arriving at Ptolemais, the Christians gained several battles against the infidels, and took many towns; but the death of the emperor compelled them to quit the Holy Land, and return into Germany.

The fifth crusade was published by the artifice of Pope Innocent III. in 1198. Most of the adventurers in this expedition employed themselves in taking Zara for the Venetians, and afterwards in making war against the Greek emperor; and those who proceeded to Palestine suffered a defeat in 1204.

The sixth crusade began in 1228, in which the Christians took the town of Damietta, but were forced to surrender it again. The emperor Frederick, in 1229, went to the Holy Land, and next year made a peace with the sultan for ten years, upon these conditions—that the sultan should deliver to the Christians the towns of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Tyre, and Sidon, but the temple of Jerusalem should be left to the Saracens, to perform the free exercise of their law; after which the emperor returned home. About 1240, Richard, earl of Cornwall, and brother to Henry III., king of England, arrived in Palestine, but, finding all efforts useless, while the Templars and Hospitallers continued their disputes and private animosities, he, with the advice of the duke of Burgundy, the great master of the Hospitallers, and chief persons of the crusade, accepted the advantageous conditions the sultan offered, whereby the Christians were to enjoy some lands in Palestine, then in the soldan’s possession. In 1244, the Corasmins, the descendants of the ancient Parthians, fell upon the Christians in Palestine, and almost extirpated them.

The seventh crusade was led by St. Louis, king of France, who appeared before Damietta, after the feast of Whitsuntide, in 1249. He took it, but after some battles his army was at last defeated, and himself taken prisoner; after which a truce was concluded for ten years, and the Christians were to keep what they were in possession of, except Damietta, which was to be delivered to the sultan for the king’s ransom, with a great sum of money; this done, the king sailed for Syria, and having put Acre and other sea-ports in a good condition, returned home in 1254.

The same prince put himself at the head of the eighth crusade in 1270, and laying siege to Tunis without success, died there: but his son, Philip the Bold, and Charles, king of Sicily, afterwards brought the king of Tunis to agree to a truce for ten years, upon condition that he should set all the slaves of his kingdom at liberty; that he should give the Dominican and Franciscan friars leave to preach the gospel in his territories, and build monasteries, and baptize all those that should desire it, besides a sum of money to be paid Charles yearly. About this time, Prince Edward of England arrived at Ptolemais with a small force of 300 men. He hindered Benzdoctar from laying siege to Ptolemais, but was obliged soon after to quit the Holy Land on account of his father’s death, and his consequent succession to the crown of England. In 1291 the town of Ptolemais, or Acre, was taken, and the Christians were driven out of Syria. Since which time there has been no crusade, though the popes have more than once attempted to stir up Christians to the undertaking.

CRYPT. The subterranean vault under any portion of a church. The original use of the crypt seems to have been to increase the number of places for altars; they were also sometimes used as places of burial, not as being set apart for that purpose, but that persons would desire to be buried before this or that altar, or in some particular place in the crypt, as they chose any part of the church for the same purpose.

The crypt is generally found under the east end of the church, and it is often the oldest part of it, and, as such, full of interest to the student of ecclesiastical architecture and antiquities. It often contains evidence of the form and extent of the church in its original condition, which would elsewhere be sought in vain. The most remarkable crypts in England are those of Canterbury, Gloucester, and Rochester. At Wrexham and Ripon portions of the Saxon remains are retained in the crypt, and at York the size and form of the Norman choir is displayed in the older portion of the crypt.

CULDEES. [Kelidei, or Colidei.] The name Culdee is derived from the Gaelic Gille De, (or Irish Ceile De,) which signifies God’s servant. There is an evident affinity between this and the cultores Dei of the Latin: and the same affinity has been remarked between many of the Latin and Gallic words. There seems every reason for believing that the name of Culdees was bestowed on the indigenous clergy of the country from the time it was Christianized.—Lyon’s Hist. of St. Andrews.

As to the Culdees, it is very certain that there was a sort of monks, and of secular priests also, who went under that appellation, not only among the Scots, but among the Britons and Irish, and even also among the northern English, who were first converted by the Scots, particularly in the cathedral of York.—Goodall, Preliminary Dissert. prefixed to Bp. Russell’s edition of Keith’s Scottish Bishops.

The Culdees were, as far as antiquarians can discover, the first order of monks that settled in the British Isles; and wherever the Celtic language was used, whether in Scotland, Ireland, or Wales, the name of Culdee was given to every one, who, relinquishing the temporal pursuits of life, joined an association of a religious character, for the purpose of fasting, meditation, and prayer.—Bishop Russell’s Supplement to the above Dissertation.

The name was not exclusively applied to the followers of St. Columba at Iona, but establishments of the Culdees were founded by Columba, a native of Ireland, in 563, and for a long period remained independent of the see of Rome, and free from the corruptions of that Church. The abbot of Iona was their head; not that he assumed episcopal authority (for the superiority of bishops, quoad spiritualia, was acknowledged even by Columba himself, who refused to consecrate the eucharist, as we are told by Adamnan in his Life of that abbot, in the presence of a bishop); but because he exercised full authority over his monks quoad civilia.—See Lyon’s Hist. of St. Andrews.

The Colidei, or Culdees in general, (as appears from the old authorities, and from Ware,) were in fact the ancient collegiate clergy of Ireland and Scotland; including those who led a monastic life, that is, under vows of celibacy; yet including communities of cathedral canons, who were frequently married, though living together near their cathedral, with an abbot or prior at their head. In Scotland the Culdees constituted the chapter of several cathedrals, and elected the bishop, as Mr. Goodall shows from charters and documents still extant. At St. Andrew’s they were the sole chapter and electors of the bishop till 1140, when canons regular were introduced, who shared the privileges of the Culdees till 1273. Great jealousy subsisted between these ancient communities, and the interior secular canons and monks; who in the course of time expelled or superseded the Culdees. There was no difference of doctrine however between them; for the Culdees, though originally independent of Rome, adopted Roman systems, like the other clergy. The causes of dispute were those differences in discipline, and those jealousies which have ever prevailed among rival communities. The Culdees had in many instances a kind of hereditary succession to their benefices.

Ware (Antiq. of Ireland, chap. xxxvi. sect. 4, ed. Harris) states, that there were some secular priests, called Colidei, who served in the cathedral church of Armagh, and their president was called Prior of the College of the Colidei; and was in the nature of a chanter to that church: elected by Colidei, and confirmed by the archbishop. (Harris adds, that it was a body corporate, and had considerable estates, till these fell to the Crown on the abdication of the community after the Reformation.) Ware gives other instances in Ireland. The ministers of York cathedral were called Colidei in the time of Athelstan.

In a fine MS. Antiphonary anciently belonging to Armagh cathedral, and now in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, there are several entries of the obits of the Colidei of Armagh.

Some derive the name from Cylle, which signifies in Gaelic a cell, and tee, or dee, a house. But the derivation given above seems the most consistent with history and tradition.

CUP. (See Communion in one Kind.) The sacred vessel in which the consecrated wine in the Lord’s supper is conveyed to the communicant, distinguished from the flagon, in which the wine is brought to the altar, and in which, if more than the cup will conveniently hold is required, it is consecrated. The rubric directs that it shall be delivered to each communicant.

Rubric. “When the priest, standing before the table, hath so ordered the bread and wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread before the people, and take the cup into his hands, he shall say the prayer of consecration, as followeth.” And in the prayer of consecration, “Here he is to take the cup into his hand,” and, “Here to lay his hand upon every vessel (be it chalice or flagon) in which there is any wine to be consecrated.”

“The minister that delivereth the cup to any shall say, The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,” &c.

Article 30. “The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both the parts of the Lord’s sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.”

This article is directed against the Romish custom of denying the cup to the laity, concerning which it may be enough to say, that it is clearly and confessedly contrary to the custom of the Church; that for twelve centuries there was no instance to be adduced of any receiving in one kind at the public celebration of the eucharist; and that it was even accounted sacrilege to deprive any of either part of our blessed Lord’s ordinance.—See Bingham, xv. 5, and xvi. 6–27.

It appears from the unanimous testimony of the Fathers, and from all the ancient rituals and liturgies, that the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was, in the early ages of the Church, administered in both kinds, as well to the laity as to the clergy. The practice of denying the cup to the laity arose out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The belief that the sacramental bread and wine were actually converted into the body and blood of Christ, naturally produced, in a weak and superstitious age, an anxious fear lest any part of them should be lost or wasted. To prevent anything of this kind in the bread, small wafers were used, which were put at once into the mouths of the communicants by the officiating ministers; but no expedient could be devised to guard against the occasional spilling of the wine in administering it to large congregations. The bread was sopped in the wine, and the wine was conveyed by tubes into the mouth, but all in vain; accidents still happened, and therefore it was determined that the priests should entirely withhold the cup from the laity. It is to be supposed that a change of this sort, in so important an ordinance as that of the Lord’s supper, could not be effected at once. The first attempt seems to have been made in the twelfth century; it was gradually submitted to, and was at last established by the authority of the Council of Constance, in the year 1414; but in their decree they acknowledged that “Christ did institute this sacrament of both kinds, and that the faithful in the primitive Church did receive both kinds; yet a practice being reasonably introduced to avoid some dangers and scandals, they appoint the custom to continue of consecrating in both kinds, and of giving to the laity only in one kind,” thus presuming to depart from the positive commands of our Lord respecting the manner of administering the sign of the covenant between himself and mankind. From that time it has been the invariable practice of the Church of Rome to confine the cup to the priests. And it was again admitted at the Council of Trent, that the Lord’s supper was formerly administered in both kinds to all communicants, but it was openly contended that the Church had power to make the alteration, and that they had done it for weighty and just causes. These causes are not stated in the canon of the council. The reformed churches, even the Lutheran, which maintains the doctrine of consubstantiation, restored the cup to the laity. In a convocation held in the first year of Edward the Sixth’s reign, it was unanimously voted that the sacrament of the Lord’s supper should be received in both kinds by the laity as well as the clergy; and therefore it is remarkable that there was nothing on this subject in the articles of 1552: both this and the preceding article [the 29th] were added in 1562.—Bp. Tomline.

Wherever the institution of the Lord’s supper is mentioned, there is not the least hint that the clergy are to receive it in one manner, and the laity in another. And if one part of this sacrament be more necessary than the other, it seems to be the cup; since it represents the blood of Christ, to which remission of sins and our redemption are more often ascribed in Scripture than to his body. It is trifling in the Romanists to say that the blood is with the body: since in the eucharist we commemorate, not the life of our Lord, but his death, in which the blood was separated from his body; (see 1 Cor. xi. 26; Luke xxii. 19, 20;) and to represent his blood, thus separated from his body, the cup was consecrated apart by him. Christ himself also seems to have guarded designedly against this piece of sacrilege of denying the cup to the laity, by commanding that “all” should drink of the cup. (Matt. xxvi. 27.) And in Mark xiv. 23, it is said, that “all drank of it;” which is nowhere expressly said of eating the bread. See also 1 Cor. xi. 26–28, in all which verses the Corinthians in general are expressly required to “drink of that cup.”—Archdeacon Welchman. Veneer.

There is not any one of all the controversies that we have with the Church of Rome, in which the decision seems more easy and shorter than this. And, as there is not any one in which she has acted more visibly contrary to the gospel than in this, so there is not any one that has raised higher prejudices against her, that has made more forsake her, and has possessed mankind more against her, than this. This has cost her dearer than any other.—Bp. Burnet.

For the material of the cup, see Chalice.

CURATE. The person who has the cure of souls in a parish. In this sense the word is used in the Prayer Book, “all bishops and curates,” as the word is still employed in France, Spain, &c.

The word is, in common parlance, used to denote the minister, whether presbyter or deacon, who is employed under the spiritual rector or vicar, as assistant to him in the same church, or else in a chapel of ease within the same parish, belonging to the mother church. Where there is in a parish neither spiritual rector nor vicar, but a clerk employed to officiate there by the impropriator, this is called a perpetual curacy, and the priest thus employed the perpetual curate. The impropriator, by the terms of his sacrilegious gift, is bound to “maintain” the priest: how far this is complied with by those lay impropriators who allow the same stipend now that was given 200 or 300 years ago, we need not wait to inquire. The appointment of a curate to officiate under an incumbent, in his own church, must be by such incumbent’s nomination of him to the bishop. To every one of these several kinds of curates, the ordinary’s licence is necessary before he shall be admitted to officiate.

For by Canon 41, “No curate or minister shall be permitted to serve in any place without examination and admission of the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place having episcopal jurisdiction, under his hand and seal, having respect to the greatness of the cure, and meetness of the party.”

And by the same canon, “If the curates remove from one diocese to another, they shall not be by any means admitted to serve without testimony in writing of the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place having episcopal jurisdiction, from whence they came, of their honesty, ability, and conformity to the ecclesiastical laws of the Church of England.”

By Canon 36, “No person shall be suffered to preach, to catechize, or to be a lecturer, in any parish church, chapel, or other place, except he be licensed either by the archbishop or by the bishop of the diocese, and except he shall first subscribe to the three articles specified in the said canon, concerning the king’s supremacy, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-nine Articles of religion.”

And by Canon 37, “None who hath been licensed to preach, read, lecture, or catechize, and shall afterwards come to reside in another diocese, shall be permitted there to preach, read, lecture, catechize, or administer the sacraments, or to execute any other ecclesiastical function, by what authority soever he be thereunto admitted, unless he first consent and subscribe to the three articles before mentioned, in the presence of the bishop of the diocese wherein he is to preach, read, lecture, catechize, or administer the sacraments as aforesaid.”

He must also, within two months, or at the time when he reads the morning and evening prayers as aforesaid, (on the like pain of deprivation ipso facto,) read and assent to the Thirty-nine Articles, if it be a place with cure. (13 Eliz. c. 12. 23 Geo. II. c. 28.)

A curate not licensed may be removed at pleasure; but, if licensed, he can be removed only by the consent of the bishop, or where the rector or vicar does the duty himself.

By the 76th section of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, it is enacted as follows: “And be it enacted, that in every case where a curate is appointed to serve in any benefice upon which the incumbent either does not reside, or has not satisfied the bishop of his full purpose to reside during four months of the year, such curate shall be required by the bishop to reside within the parish or place in which such benefice is situate, or if no convenient residence can be procured within such parish or place, then within three statute miles of the church or chapel of the benefice in which he shall be licensed to serve, except in cases of necessity, to be approved of by the bishop, and specified in the licence, and such place of residence shall also be specified in the licence.”

By the 81st section of the same act it is enacted as follows: “And be it enacted, that every bishop to whom any application shall be made for any licence for a curate to serve for any person not duly residing upon his benefice, shall, before he shall grant such licence, require a statement of all the particulars by this act required to be stated by any person applying for a licence for non-residence; and in every case in which application shall be made to any bishop for a licence for any stipendiary curate to serve in any benefice, whether the incumbent be resident or non-resident, such bishop shall also require a declaration in writing, to be made and subscribed by the incumbent and the curate, to the purport and effect that the one bonâ fide intends to pay, and the other bonâ fide intends to receive, the whole actual stipend mentioned in such statement, without any abatement in respect of rent or consideration for the use of the glebe house, and without any other deduction or reservation whatever.”

By the 83rd section of the same act it is enacted as follows: “And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for the bishop of the diocese, and he is hereby required, subject to the several provisions and restrictions in this act contained, to appoint to every curate of a non-resident incumbent such stipend as is specified in this act; and every licence to be granted to a stipendiary curate, whether the incumbent of the benefice be resident or non-resident thereon, shall specify the amount of the stipend to be paid to the curate; and in case any difference shall arise between the incumbent of any benefice and his curate touching such stipend, or the payment thereof, or of the arrears thereof, the bishop, on complaint to him made, may and shall summarily hear and determine the same, without appeal; and in case of wilful neglect or refusal to pay such stipend, or the arrears thereof, he is hereby empowered to enforce payment of such stipend, or the arrears thereof, by monition, and by sequestration of the profits of such benefice.”

The following papers are to be sent to the bishop by a curate applying to be licensed:—

1. A nomination by the incumbent.

The following form of nomination is intended to serve where the incumbent is non-resident.

“To the Right Reverend —— Lord Bishop of ——.

“I, G. H. of ——, in the county of ——, and your lordship’s diocese of ——, do hereby nominate E. F., bachelor of arts, (or other degree,) to perform the office of a curate in my church of —— aforesaid; and do promise to allow him the yearly stipend of ——, to be paid by equal quarterly payments, [as to amount of stipend, see 1 & 2 Vic. c. 106, and the latter part of this article,] with the surplice fees, amounting to —— pounds per annum, (if they are intended to be allowed,) and the use of the glebe house, garden, and offices which he is to occupy (if that be the fact; if not, state the reason, and name where and at what distance from the church the curate purposes to reside): and I do hereby state to your lordship, that the said E. F. does not serve any other parish, as incumbent or curate; and that he has not any cathedral preferment or benefice, and does not officiate in any other church or chapel (if however, the curate does serve another church as incumbent, or as curate, or has any cathedral preferment, or a benefice, or officiates in any other church or chapel, the same respectively must be correctly and particularly stated): that the net annual value of my said benefice, estimated according to the act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, ss. 8 & 10, is ——, and the population thereof, according to the latest returns of population made under the authority of parliament is ——; that there is only one church belonging to my said benefice (if there be another church or chapel, state the fact); and that I was admitted to the said benefice on the —— day of ——, 18—.

“Witness my hand this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ——

[Signature and address of] G. H.”

Declaration to be written at the foot of the Nomination.

“We the before-named G. H. and E. F. do declare to the said Lord Bishop of ——, as follows: namely, I the said G. H. do declare, that I bonâ fide intend to pay, and I the said E. F. do declare that I bonâ fide intend to receive, the whole actual stipend mentioned in the foregoing nomination and statement, without any abatement in respect of rent, or consideration for the use of the glebe house, garden, and offices, thereby agreed to be assigned, and without any other deduction or reservation whatsoever.

Witness our hands this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.

[Signatures of] G. H. and E. F.”

The following form of nomination is proposed where the incumbent is resident.

The same form as the preceding, so far as “quarterly payments;” then proceed as follows: “And I do hereby state to your lordship, that the said E. F. intends to reside in the said parish, in a house (describe its situation so as clearly to identify it) distant from my church —— mile (if E. F. does not intend to reside in the parish, then state at what place he intends to reside, and its distance from the said church); and that the said E. F. does not serve any other parish as incumbent or curate; and that he has not any cathedral preferment or benefice, and does not officiate in any other church or chapel (if, however, the curate does serve another parish, as incumbent or as curate, or has any cathedral preferment or a benefice, or officiates in any other church or chapel, the same respectively must be correctly and particularly stated).

Witness my hand this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ——.

[Signature and address of] G. H.”

Declaration to be written at the foot of the Nomination.

The declaration to be signed by the incumbent and curate is to be in the same form as that given above, so far as the word “statement;” after which, proceed as follows: “Without any deduction or reservation whatsoever.

Witness our hands this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.

[Signatures of] G. H. and E. F.”

2. Letters of orders, deacon and priest.

3. Letters testimonial to be signed by three beneficed clergymen, in the following form:

“To the Rt. Rev. ——, Lord Bishop of ——.

“We, whose names are here under written, testify and make known that A. B., clerk, bachelor of arts, (or other degree,) of —— college, in the university of ——, nominated to serve the cure of ——, in the county of ——, hath been personally known to us for the space of[A] three years last past; that we have had opportunities of observing his conduct; that during the whole of that time we verily believe that he lived piously, soberly, and honestly, nor have we at any time heard anything to the contrary thereof; nor hath he at any time, as far as we know or believe, held, written, or taught anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the United Church of England and Ireland; and, moreover, we believe him in our consciences to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy to be licensed to the said curacy.

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ——.

[4]C. D. rector of ——.

E. F. vicar of ——.

G. H. rector of ——.”

To be countersigned, if all or either of the subscribers to the testimonial are not beneficed in the diocese of the bishop to whom it is addressed, by the bishop of the diocese wherein their benefices are respectively situate.

On receipt of these papers, the bishop, if he be satisfied with them, will either appoint the clergyman nominated to attend him, to be licensed, or issue a commission to some neighbouring incumbent.

Before the licence is granted, the curate is to subscribe the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the three articles in the 36th canon; to declare his conformity to the liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland, and to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and of canonical obedience:—

“I, E. F., do swear that I will pay true and canonical obedience to the Lord Bishop of —— in all things lawful and honest. So help me God.”

The licence will be sent by the bishop to the registry-office, and from thence it will be forwarded to the churchwardens.

Within three months after he is licensed, the curate is to read in the church the declaration appointed by the Act of Uniformity, and also the certificate of his having subscribed it before the bishop.

By the 106th section of the Residence Act, (1 & 2 Vict. c. 106,) it is enacted that no spiritual person shall serve more than two benefices in one day, unless in case of unforeseen and pressing emergency, in which case he shall forthwith report the circumstance to the bishop.

The directions as to notices to be given for the curate to give up the cure, are contained in the 95th section of the said act, and for his quitting the house of residence in the 96th section; and as to notice of the curate’s intention to relinquish the cure, in the 97th section; and power is given to the bishop, by the 98th section, to revoke any licence to a curate, (after having given him sufficient opportunity to show reason to the contrary,) subject to an appeal to the archbishop of the province within one month after service of revocation.

(1.) Form of notice by a new incumbent to a curate to quit curacy, or to give up possession of house of residence.

“I, A. B., clerk, having been duly admitted to the rectory of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, do hereby, in pursuance of the power and authority for this purpose vested in me by virtue of the act of parliament passed in the first and second years of her present Majesty’s reign, intituled ‘An Act to abridge the holding of benefices in plurality, and to make better provision for the residence of the clergy,’ give notice to and require you, C. D., clerk, to quit and give up the curacy of —— aforesaid [the following to be added where applicable, and to deliver up possession of the rectory house of —— aforesaid, and the offices, stables, gardens, and appurtenances thereto belonging, and (if any) such part of the glebe land as has been assigned to you] at the expiration of six weeks from the giving of this notice to you.

Witness my hand this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.”

(2.) Form of notice by an incumbent, with consent of the bishop, to a curate to quit curacy, or to give up house of residence.

“I, A. B., clerk, rector of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, in pursuance of the power and authority for this purpose vested in me by virtue of the act of parliament passed in the first and second years of her present Majesty’s reign, intituled ‘An Act to abridge the holding of benefices in plurality, and to make better provision for the residence of the clergy,’ do hereby, with the permission of the Right Reverend —— Lord Bishop of the diocese of —— aforesaid, signified by writing under his lordship’s hand, give notice to, and require you, C. D., clerk, my licensed curate of —— aforesaid, to quit and give up the said curacy of —— [the following to be added where applicable, and the rectory house of —— aforesaid, and the offices, stables, gardens, and appurtenances thereto belonging, and (if any) such part of the glebe land as has been assigned to you] at the expiration of six calendar months from the giving of this notice to you.[5]

Witness my hand this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.”

Form of bishop’s permission to an incumbent to give his curate notice to quit curacy, or give up possession of house of residence.

(Applicable to notice No. 2. only.)

“I, ——, Lord Bishop of ——, do hereby, on the application of A. B., clerk, rector of ——, in the county of ——, and my diocese of ——, signify my permission for him to require and direct C. D., clerk, his licensed curate at —— aforesaid, to quit and give up the said curacy [the following to be added where applicable, and to deliver up possession of the rectory house of —— aforesaid, and the offices, outhouses, gardens, and appurtenances thereto belonging, and (if any) such part of the glebe land as has been assigned to the said C. D., as such curate] upon six calendar months’ notice thereof being given to such curate.

Given under my hand this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.”

Note.—The notice No. 1. applies only to an incumbent newly admitted to a benefice, and must be given within six months after such admission.

The notice No. 2. applies to every other case of an incumbent requiring his curate to quit the curacy. The consent of the bishop is required only in the latter case.

The 112th section of the act referred to in the notices contains directions as to the mode in which the notice is to be served; and it directs that “it shall be served personally upon the spiritual person therein named, or to whom it shall be directed, by showing the original to him and leaving with him a true copy thereof, or, in case such spiritual person cannot be found, by leaving a true copy thereof at his usual or last known place of residence, and by affixing another copy thereof upon the church door of the parish in which such place of residence shall be situate.” The notice must, immediately after the service thereof, be returned into the Consistorial Court, (or the Court of Peculiars, in the case of an archbishop’s or bishop’s peculiar; see sect. 108,) and be there filed, together with an affidavit of the time and manner in which the same shall have been served.

The stipends to be paid to curates by non-resident incumbents must be in strict conformity with the directions of the act of parliament 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106. Clergymen who were incumbents of benefices before July 20th, 1813, cannot be compelled (see sect. 84) to pay more than £75 per annum as a stipend to the curates of such benefices, but the bishop may add to that sum £15 in lieu of a house.

Non-resident incumbents admitted to benefices after the above date, are to allow stipends according to the following scale, prescribed by the 85th section:

The lowest stipend is | £ 80
If the population amount to 300, the stipend is to be | 100
If the population amount to 500, the stipend is to be | 120
If the population amount to 750, the stipend is to be | 135
If the population amount to 1000, the stipend is to be | 150

or the whole value of the benefice, if it does not exceed these sums respectively. Where the net yearly income of a benefice exceeds £400, the bishop may (by sect. 86) assign a stipend of £100, notwithstanding the population may not amount to 300; and if with that income the population amounts to 500, he may add any sum not exceeding £50 to any of the stipends payable by the last-mentioned incumbent, where the curate resides within the benefice, and serves no other cure. Where the population exceeds 2000, the bishop may require the incumbent to nominate two curates, with stipends not exceeding together the highest rate of stipend allowed to one curate.

Incumbents who have become incapable of performing their duties from age, sickness, or other unavoidable cause, (and to whom, from these or from any other special and peculiar circumstances, great hardship would arise if they were required to pay the full stipend,) may (by sect. 87) be relieved by the bishop, with the consent of the archbishop of the province.

The bishop may (by sect. 89) direct that the stipend to a curate licensed to serve two parishes or places shall be less for each by a sum not exceeding £30 per annum than the full stipend.

All agreements for payment of a less stipend than that assigned by the licence are (by sect. 90) declared to be void; and if less be paid, the remainder may be afterwards recovered by the curate or his representatives. When a stipend, equal to the whole value of a benefice, is assigned to the curate, he is (by sect. 91) to be liable to all charges and outgoings legally affecting the benefice; and (by sect. 94) when such a stipend as last mentioned is assigned, and the curate is directed to reside in the glebe house, he is to be liable to the taxes, parochial rates, and assessments of the glebe house and premises; but in every other case in which the curate shall so reside by such direction, the bishop may, if he shall think fit, order that the incumbent shall pay the curate all or any part of such sums as he may have been required to pay, and shall have paid, within one year, ending at Michaelmas day next preceding the date of such order for any such taxes, parochial rates, or assessments, as should become due at any time after the passing of the act.

For other particulars as to curates’ stipends and allowances, &c., see the act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, from sect. 75 to 102, both inclusive.

CURE. The spiritual charge of a parish, or, in a larger sense, the parish itself. When Christianity was first planted in this nation, the bishops were constantly resident at their cathedrals, and had several clergymen attending them at that place, whom they sent to preach and convert the people, where there was the greatest probability of success; and the persons thus sent either returned or continued in those places, as occasion required, having no fixed cures or titles to particular places; for being all entered in the bishop’s registry, (as the usual course then was,) they could not be discharged without his consent. Afterwards, when Christianity prevailed, and many churches were built, the cure of souls was limited both as to places and persons. The places are those which we now call parishes, the extent whereof is certainly known, and the boundaries are now fixed by long usage and custom. The parsons are the ministers, who, by presentation, institution, and induction, are entitled to the tithes and other ecclesiastical profits arising within that parish, and have the cure of souls of those who live and reside there: and this the canonists call a cure In foro interiori tantum; and they distinguish it from a cure of souls, In foro exteriori, such as archdeacons have, to suspend, excommunicate, and absolve, and which is Sine pastorali cura: and from another cure, which they say is In utroque simul, that is, both In exteriori et interiori foro: and such the bishop has, who has a superintendent care over the whole diocese, intermixed with jurisdiction.

CUSPS. (In church architecture.) The projecting points from the foliation of arches or tracery. Cusping first appeared in the Geometric period, and was continued so long as Gothic architecture was employed. Besides the more obvious differences arising from the number of cusps, which, however, it is needless to particularize, there is one very great peculiarity of the earlier cusping which ought to be clearly understood. Let the tracery bar consist of three planes, a the wall, b the chamfer, and c soffit plane (the latter of course not being visible in the two larger diagrams, which, being elevations, show no line at right angles to the wall). In the more common cusping, the cusp is formed by carrying out the whole of the soffit and part of the chamfer plane, and leaving an unpierced hollow, or eye, in the tracery bar, as at A A, fig. I; A A in the section answering to A A in the elevation, and E E to E E. In the Earlier or Geometrical cusping, the tracery bar is completed all round, and the cusp carries with it no part either of the soffit or of the chamfer, but is let into the soffit, always in appearance, sometimes in fact, as a separate piece of stone, as at B D, fig. II. Here, too, the cusp leaves a free space between itself and the tracery bar, as at B B B in elevation, and section II. D D D, representing the place of departure of the cusp from the tracery bar. This is generally called soffit cusping, from its springing exclusively from the soffit plane.

DAILY PRAYERS. “All priests and deacons are to say daily the morning and evening prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by sickness or some other urgent cause. And the curate that ministereth in every parish church or chapel, being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say the same in the parish church or chapel where he ministereth, and shall cause a bell to be tolled thereunto a convenient time before he begin, that the people may come to hear God’s word, and pray with him.”—Preface to the Book of Common Prayer. As this is not only a direction of the Church, but also part of an act of parliament, any parishioners desirous of attending daily prayers might compel the clergyman to officiate, by bringing an action against him, as well as by complaining to the bishop. For this, of course, there can seldom be any necessity, as most of the clergy would be too happy to officiate, if they could secure the attendance of two or three of their parishioners. By the general practice of the clergy it seems to be decided, that they are to say the morning and evening prayer in private, if they cannot obtain a congregation; though, even under those circumstances, the letter of the rubric seems to direct them to say the offices at church, if possible. It is a cheering sign of the times, that the number of instances in which the daily prayers are duly said in church is rapidly on the increase.

DALMATIC, was formerly the characteristic dress of the deacon in the administration of the holy eucharist. It was also worn by the bishop at stated times; and in the Latin Church still forms part of the episcopal dress, under the chasuble. It is a robe reaching below the knees, and open at each side for a distance varying at different periods. It is not marked at the back with a cross like the chasuble, but in the Latin Church with two narrow stripes, the remains of the angusti clavi worn on the old Roman dress. In the Greek Church it is called colobion, is covered with a multitude of small crosses, and has no sleeves. The dalmatic is seen on the effigies of bishops on monuments, and in some old brasses, over the alb and the stole, the fringed extremities of which reach just below it. It has received its name from being the regal vest of Dalmatia. It is the same as the tunicle, which is directed to be worn according to the rubrics of King Edward VI.’s First Prayer Book, by the priests and deacons who may assist the priest at the holy communion. Like all the other ecclesiastical vestures, it was curtailed by the corrupt practice of later ages in the West, so as not to reach further than the knees.—Jebb.

DAMNATORY CLAUSES. (See Athanasian Creed.)

DANIEL (THE BOOK OF). A canonical book of the Old Testament. Daniel descended from the royal house of the kings of Judah, and was contemporary with Ezekiel. (An. 606, before Christ.) He was of the children of the captivity, being carried to Babylon when he was about eighteen years of age. His name is not prefixed to his book; yet the many passages in which he speaks in the first person, are a sufficient proof that he was the author of it. The style of Daniel is not so lofty and figurative as that of the other prophets: it is clear and concise, and his narrations and descriptions simple and natural; in short, he writes more like an historian than a prophet.

He was a very extraordinary person, and was favoured of God, and honoured of men, beyond any that had lived in his time. His prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah, and the other great events of after-times, are so clear and explicit, that Porphyry objected to them, that they must have been written after the facts were done.—Prideaux, Connect. P. I. b. iii. Ann. 534. Hieron. in Proœm. ad Com. in Dan.

The Jews do not reckon Daniel among the prophets; and the reason they assign is, because he rather lived the life of a courtier, in the palace of the king of Babylon, than that of a prophet. They add, that, though he had Divine revelations given to him, yet it was not in the prophetic way, but by dreams and visions of the night, which they look upon as the most imperfect way of revelation, and below the prophetic. But Josephus, one of the ancientest writers of that nation, reckons him among the greatest of the prophets, and says further of him, that he conversed familiarly with God, and not only foretold future events, as other prophets did, but determined likewise the time when they should come to pass. But our Saviour, by acknowledging Daniel as a prophet, puts his prophetic character out of all dispute.—Maimonid, in More Nevochim, p. 2, ch. 45. Huet. Demonstr. Evangel. Prop. 4, ch. 14. Joseph. Antiq. lib. x. ch. 12. Matt. xxiv. 15.

Part of the book of Daniel was originally written in the Chaldee language; that is, from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh chapter; and the reason was, because, in that part, he treats of the Chaldean or Babylonish affairs. All the rest of the book is in Hebrew.—Hieron. in Præf. ad Dan. The Greek translation, used by the Greek Churches throughout the East, was that of Theodotion. In the Vulgar Latin Bible, there is added, in the third chapter, after the twenty-fourth verse, the Song of the Three Children, and, at the end of the book, the History of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon: the former is made the thirteenth, and the latter the fourteenth chapter of the book, in that edition. But these additions were never received into the canon by the Jews; neither are they extant in the Hebrew or the Chaldee language, nor is there any proof that they ever were so.

The first six chapters of the book of Daniel are a history of the kings of Babylon, and what befell the captive Jews under their government. In the last six, he is altogether prophetical, foretelling, not only what should happen to his own Church and nation, but events in which foreign princes and kingdoms were concerned; particularly the rise and downfal of the four secular monarchies of the world, and the establishment of the fifth, or spiritual kingdom of the Messiah.

It is believed that Daniel died in Chaldea, and that he did not take advantage of the permission granted by Cyrus to the Jews of returning to their own country. St. Epiphanius says he died at Babylon, and herein he is followed by the generality of historians.

“Amongst the old prophets,” says the great Sir Isaac Newton, “Daniel is most distinct in order of time, and easiest to be understood; and therefore, in those things which relate to the last times, he must be made the key to the rest. His prophecies are all of them related to one another, as if they were but several parts of one general prophecy. The first is the easiest to be understood, and every following prophecy adds something new to the former.”—Observations on Daniel, pp. 15, 24.

DATARY. An officer in the pope’s court. He is always a prelate, and sometimes a cardinal, deputed by his Holiness to receive such petitions as are presented to him, touching the provision of benefices. By his post, the datary is empowered to grant, without acquainting the pope therewith, all benefices that do not produce upwards of twenty-four ducats annually; but for such as amount to more, he is obliged to get the provisions signed by the pope, who admits him to audience every day. If there be several candidates for the same benefice, he has the liberty of bestowing it on which of them he thinks proper, provided he has the requisite qualifications. The datary has a yearly salary of two thousand crowns, exclusive of the perquisites, which he receives from those who apply to him for any benefice. This office has a substitute, named the sub-datary, who is likewise a prelate, and has a yearly pension of a thousand crowns: but he is not allowed to confer any benefice, without acquainting the datary therewith. When a person has obtained the pope’s consent for a benefice, the datary subscribes his petition with an annuit sanctissimus, i. e. the most holy father consents to it. The pope’s consent is subscribed in these words, Fiat ut petitur, i. e. Be it according to the petition. After the petition has passed the proper offices, and is registered, it is carried to the datary, who dates it, and writes these words—Datum Romæ apud, &c.: Given at Rome in the pontifical palace, &c. Afterwards the pope’s bull, granting the benefice, is despatched by the datary, and passes through the hands of more than a thousand persons, belonging to fifteen different offices, who have all their stated fees. The reader may from hence judge how expensive it is to procure the pope’s bull for a benefice, and what large sums go into the office of the datary, especially when the provisions, issued from thence, are for bishoprics, and other rich benefices.—Broughton.

DEACON. (See Bishop, Presbyter, Priest, Orders, Clergy.) The name Διάκονοι, which is the original word for deacons, is sometimes used in the New Testament for any one that ministers in the service of God: in which large sense we sometimes find bishops and presbyters styled deacons, not only in the New Testament, but in ecclesiastical writers also. But here we take it for the name of the third order of the clergy in the Church. Deacons are styled by Ignatius, “ministers of the mysteries of Christ,” adding that they are “not ministers of meats and drinks, but of the Church of God.” In another place he speaks of them as “ministers of Jesus Christ,” and gives them a sort of presidency over the people, together with the bishops and presbyters. Cyprian speaks of them in the same style, calling them “ministers of episcopacy and the Church,” and referring their origin to the Acts of the Apostles; and he asserts that they were called ad altaris ministerium, to the ministry and service of the altar. Optatus had such an opinion of them as to reckon their office a lower degree of the priesthood. At the same time it is to be observed, that in this he was singular. By those who regarded them as a sacred order, they were generally distinguished from priests by the name of ministers and Levites. The ordination of a deacon differed in the primitive Church from that of a presbyter, both in the form and manner of it, and also in the gifts and powers that were conferred by the ordinance. In the ordination of a presbyter, the presbyters who were present were required to join in imposition of hands with the bishop. But the ordination of a deacon might be performed by the bishop alone, because, as the [fourth] Council of Carthage words it, he was ordained not to the priesthood, but to the inferior services of the Church: “quia non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur.” It belonged to the deacons to take care of the holy table and all the ornaments and utensils appertaining thereto; to receive the oblations of the people, and present them to the priest; in some churches, to read the Gospel both in the communion service and before it also; to minister the consecrated bread and wine to the people in the eucharist; in some churches, to baptize; to act as directors to the people in public worship, for which purpose they were wont to use certain known forms of words, to give notice when each part of the service began, and to excite people to join attentively therein; to preach, with the bishop’s licence; in extreme cases to reconcile the excommunicated to the Church; to attend upon the bishop, and sometimes to represent him in general councils. Deacons seem also to have discharged most of the offices which now devolve upon churchwardens.—Bingham.

The Church of England enjoins that “none shall be admitted a deacon except he be twenty-three years of age, unless he have a faculty;” and she describes the duties of a deacon in her office as follows: “It appertaineth to the office of a deacon, in the church where he shall be appointed to serve, to assist the priest in Divine service, and specially when he ministereth the holy communion, and to help him in the distribution thereof, and to read Holy Scripture and homilies in the church; and to instruct the youth in the catechism; in the absence of the priest to baptize infants, and to preach, if he be admitted thereto by the bishop. And, furthermore, it is his office, where provision is so made, to search for the sick, poor, and impotent people of the parish, to intimate their estates, names, and places where they dwell, unto the curate, that by his exhortation they may be relieved with the alms of the parishioners, or others.”

In the rubric after the sentences of the Offertory, it is ordered, that “while these sentences are in reading, the deacons, churchwardens, or other fit persons appointed for that purpose, shall receive the alms for the poor,” &c.

The deacon cannot pronounce the absolution, or minister at the holy communion, except as an assistant. And if the rubrics be strictly construed according to the letter, neither can he read the versicles before the Psalms, or after the Lord’s Prayer, (at its second occurrence,) nor the latter part of the Litany, beginning at the Lord’s Prayer; nor any part of the Communion Service, except the Gospel, (not according to the rubric, however, but in virtue of the licence in the Ordination Service,) the Creed, and the confession. He is permitted to baptize only in the absence of the priest; and perhaps the same remark may apply to the other occasional offices.

DEACONESS. A woman who served the Church in those offices in which the deacons could not with propriety exercise themselves. This order was also appointed in the apostolic age. They were generally widows who had been only once married, though this employment was sometimes exercised by virgins. Their office consisted in assisting at the baptism of women, in previously catechizing and instructing them, in visiting sick persons of their own sex, and in performing all those inferior offices towards the female part of the congregation, which the deacons were designed to execute for the men. St. Paul (Rom. xvi.) speaks of Phœbe as servant, or deaconess, of the church at Cenchrea, which was a haven of Corinth. Deaconesses appear to be the same persons as those whom Pliny, in his famous letter to Trajan, styles “ancillæ quæ ministræ dicebantur;” that is, “female attendants, called assistants, ministers, or servants.” It appears, then, that these were customary officers throughout the churches; and when the fury of persecution fell on Christians, these were among the first to suffer. They underwent the most cruel tortures, and even extreme old age was not spared. It is probable that they were blessed by the laying on of hands, but it is certain they were not permitted to execute any part of the sacerdotal office. This order continued in the Greek Church longer than in the Latin. It was generally disused in the Western Church in the fifth century, but continued in the Eastern Church until the twelfth. The deacon’s wife appears sometimes to have been called a deaconess, as the presbyter’s wife was styled presbytera, and the bishop’s wife episcopa.

DEAD. (See Burial of the Dead.) If all our prayers and endeavours for our friend prove unavailable for the continuance of his life, we must with patience submit to the will of God, “to whom the issues of life and death belong:” and therefore, after recommending his soul to God, which immediately upon its dissolution returns to Him, it is fit we should decently dispose of his body, which is left to our management and care. Not that the dead are anything the better for the honours which we perform to their corpses (for we know that several of the ancient philosophers cared not whether they were buried or not; and the ancient martyrs of the Christian Church despised their persecutors for threatening them with the want of a grave). But those who survive could never endure that the shame of nature should lie exposed, nor see the bodies of those they loved become a prey to birds and beasts. For these reasons, the very heathens called it a Divine institution, and a law of the immortal gods. And the Romans especially had a peculiar deity to preside over this affair. The Athenians were so strict, that they would not admit any to be magistrates, who had not taken care of their parents’ sepulture, and beheaded one of their generals after he had gotten a victory, for throwing the dead bodies of the slain, in a tempest, into the sea. And Plutarch relates, that, before they engaged with the Persians, they took a solemn oath, that, if they were conquerors, they would bury their foes; this being a privilege which even an enemy hath a right to, as being a debt which is owing to humanity.

2. It is true, indeed, the manner of funerals has varied according to the different customs of several countries; but all civilized nations have ever agreed in performing some funeral rites or other. The most ancient manner was by “burying them in the earth;” which is, indeed, so natural, that some brutes have been observed, by mere instinct, to bury their dead with wonderful care. The body, we know, was formed of the dust at first, and therefore it is fit it should “return to the earth as it was” (Gen. iii. 19; Eccles. xii. 7); insomuch that some heathens have, by the light of reason, called burying in the earth the being “hid in our mother’s lap,” and the being “covered with her skirt.” And that “interment,” or enclosing the dead body in the grave, was used anciently by the Egyptians and other nations of the East, is plain from the account we have of the embalming, and from their mummies, which are frequently found to this day whole and entire, though some of them have lain above three thousand years in their graves. That the same practice of burying was used by the patriarchs, and their successors the Jews, we have abundant testimony from the most ancient records in the world, the books of Moses; by which we find, that their funerals were performed, and their sepulchres provided with an officious piety (Gen. xxiii. 4; xxv. 9; xxxv. 29; xlix. 31); and that it was usual for parents to take an oath of their children, (which they religiously performed,) that they should bury them with their fathers, and carry their bones with them, whenever they quitted their land where they were. (Gen. xlvii. 29–31; xlix. 29–33; l. 25, 26; Exod. xiii. 19. See also Josh. xxiv. 32; Acts vii. 16; Heb. xi. 22.) In succeeding ages, indeed, it became a custom in some places to burn the bodies of the dead; which was owing partly to a fear that some injury might be offered them if they were only buried, by digging their corpses again out of their graves; and partly to a conceit, that the souls of those that were burnt were carried up by the flames to heaven.

3. But though other nations sometimes used interment and sometimes burning, yet the Jews confined themselves to the former alone. There is a place or two indeed in our translation of the Old Testament, (1 Sam. xxxi. 12; Amos vi. 10,) which might lead us to imagine that the rite of burning was also used by them sometimes. But upon consulting the original texts, and the customs of the Jews, it does not appear that the burnings there mentioned were anything more than the burning of odours and spices about their bodies, which was an honour they usually performed to their kings. (2 Chron. xvi. 14; xxi. 19; Jer. xxxiv. 5.) So that, notwithstanding these texts, we may safely enough conclude, that interment, or burying, was the only rite with them; as it was also in after-times with the Christian Church. For wherever Paganism was extirpated, the custom of burning was disused; and the first natural way of laying up the bodies of the deceased entire in the grave obtained in the room of it.

4. And this has always been done with such solemnity, as is proper to the occasion. Sometimes, indeed, it has been attended with an expensive pomp, that is unseemly and extravagant. But this is no reason why we should not give all the expressions of a decent respect to the memory of those whom God takes from us. The description of the persons who interred our Saviour, the enumeration of their virtues, and the everlasting commendation of her who spent three hundred pennyworth of spikenard to anoint his body to the burial, have always been thought sufficient grounds and encouragements for the careful and decent sepulture of Christians. And, indeed, if the regard due to a human soul, rendered some respect to the dead a principle that manifested itself to the common sense of heathens, shall we think that less care is due to the bodies of Christians, who once entertained a more glorious inhabitant, and were living temples of the Holy Ghost? (1 Cor. vi. 19;) to bodies which were consecrated to the service of God; which bore their part in the duties of religion; fought the good fight of faith and patience, self-denial and mortification; and underwent the fatigue of many hardships and afflictions for the sake of piety and virtue;—to bodies which, we believe, shall one day be awakened again from their sleep of death; have all their scattered particles of dust summoned together into their due order, and be “fashioned like to the glorious body of Christ” (Phil. iii. 21; see also 1 Cor. xv. 42–44); as being made partakers of the same glory with their immortal souls, as once they were of the same sufferings and good works. Surely bodies so honoured here, and to be so glorified hereafter, and which too we own, even in the state of death, to be under the care of a Divine providence and protection, are not to be exposed and despised by us as unworthy of our regard. Moved by these considerations, the primitive Christians, though they made no use of ointments whilst they lived, yet they did not think the most precious too costly to be used about the dead. And yet this was so far from being reproached with superstition, that it is ever reported as a laudable custom, and such as had something in it so engaging, so agreeable to the notions of civilized nature, as to have a very considerable influence upon the heathens, who observed and admired it; it becoming instrumental in disposing them to a favourable opinion at first, and afterwards to the embracing of the Christian religion, where these decencies and tender regards to deceased friends and good people, were so constantly, so carefully, and so religiously practised.—Dean Comber. Wheatly.

Christ’s Church, that is, the whole number of the faithful, is usually divided into two parts; namely, the Church militant, and the Church triumphant. By the Church militant, or in a state of warfare, we mean those Christians who are at present alive, and perpetually harassed with the temptations and assaults of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and whose life is consequently a continual warfare under the banner of our blessed Saviour. By the Church triumphant, we mean those Christians who have departed this life in God’s true faith and fear; and who now enjoy in some measure, and after the day of judgment shall be fully possessed of, that glory and triumph, which is the fruit of their labours, and the reward of those victories which they obtained over their spiritual adversaries, during the time of their trial and combat here upon earth.—Dr. Bennet.

After the Offertory in the eucharist is said, and the oblations of bread and wine, with the alms for the poor, are placed upon the table, the minister addresses this exhortation to the people: “Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here in earth.” The latter part of this sentence is wanting in Edward’s First Book. The words “militant here in earth,” which were designed expressly to exclude prayer for the dead, were inserted in the Second Book, in which that part of this prayer, which contained intercession for the dead, was expunged. It was the intention of the divines who made this alteration, to denote that prayers are not to be offered up for the dead, whose spiritual warfare is already accomplished; but for those only who are yet “fighting the good fight of faith,” and are consequently in a capacity of needing our prayers.—Shepherd.

Although the doctrine of purgatory be a comparatively modern doctrine, yet prayers for the justified dead, for the increase of their happiness, and for our reunion with them, were introduced early into the Church. But it can be proved:

First. That, the prayers of the primitive Church for the dead, being especially for those who were accounted saints par excellence, and including even the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Apostles, prayer to the departed saints, whoever they may be, as it is practised by the churches under the Roman obedience, must be contrary in theory, as it is in fact, to the primitive practice; since it were impossible to pray to and for the same persons.

Secondly. That it was not for the release of the spirit of the departed from purgatory that the Church supplicated Almighty God. For this also were incompatible with prayer for the Blessed Virgin, and other eminent saints, of which there was never any doubt but that they were already in Abraham’s bosom, or even, as in the case of martyrs, in heaven itself.

Thirdly. That works of supererogation formed no part of the system of primitive theology; since all were prayed for as requiring the mercy of God, though it was not declared to what particular end.

Fourthly. That the use of hired masses for the dead, who may have been persons of exceeding criminality, and have died in mortal sin, is utterly at variance with the practice of the Church of old.—See Archbishop Usher and Bingham.

DEADLY SIN. We pray in the Litany to be delivered from “all deadly sin.” In the strict sense of the word every sin is deadly, and would cause eternal death if it were not for the intervention of our blessed Saviour. Even what are called infirmities and frailties, are in this sense deadly. But persons under grace have for these offences “an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John ii. 2.) Their infirmities and frailties, therefore, if they are trying to overcome them, are not deadly to persons under grace, or baptized persons justified by faith, although, if persevered in, and uncorrected, they may terminate in deadly sin; and they consequently require continual repentance, lest they should grow into such a fearful burden. But even to persons under grace we learn, from 1 John v. 16, 17, that there are “sins unto death,”—which must mean sins that put us out of a state of grace, and this is done by any wilful sin persevered in. By deadly sin in a Christian is meant wilful sin, persevered in, which deprives us of all Christian privileges. (See Sin.)

DEAN. Of deans there are two sorts; 1st, the dean of a cathedral, who is an ecclesiastical magistrate, next in degree to the bishop. He is chief of the chapter, and it is supposed is called a dean, (Decanus,) from a similar title in ancient monasteries, of an officer who presided over ten monks.

The dean represents the Archpresbyter, or Protopapas, who all the world over, from the most ancient times, was found under one denomination or another in the principal church of the diocese, to which a body of clergy was uniformly attached. Notre Dame at Paris had a dean as early as 991 at least. There was a dean of Bangor in 603; of Llandaff in 612; at Canterbury from 825 to 1080, then the name of Prior was substituted. Salisbury had its dean in 1072; Lincoln, 1092. In conventual cathedrals, the head was generally prior, the bishop being virtually abbot. The dean was the first dignitary of the cathedral; the head of the corporation; and, in subordination to the bishop, has, according to the statutes of more ancient cathedrals, the cure of souls over the members of the cathedral, and the administration of the corrective discipline of the Church. He has also duties in the choir and the chapter in common with all the chapter. He is by our law a sole corporation, that is, he represents a whole succession, and is capable of taking an estate as dean, and conveying it to his successors. 2nd, Rural deans, whose office is of ancient date in the Church of England, long prior to the Reformation, as it has been throughout Europe, and which many of the bishops are now reviving. Their chief duty is to visit a certain number of parishes, and to report their condition to the bishop. (See Rural Dean.) The dean was not always head of the chapter abroad; the provost being sometimes the superior. But he had always the administration of the discipline in spirituals, [curam animarum, as it is expressly called in statutes both of home and foreign Churches,] the provosts often concerning themselves merely in temporals, and he had the superintendence of the choir, or cathedral body. (See Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, Lyons, 1787, voce Doyen.) They were, in fact, very much like the deans in our colleges, though more strictly limited ad sacra. The Dean of Faculty, in most ancient and some modern universities, presided over the meetings of their respective faculties, and maintained the academical discipline.

DEAN AND CHAPTER. This is the style and title of the governing body of a cathedral. A chapter consists of the dean, with a certain number of canons, or prebendaries, heads of the church—capita ecclesiæ. The origin of this institution is to be traced to a remote antiquity. A missionary bishop, when converting our ancestors, would take his position in some central town, with his attendant priests: these, as opportunity offered, would go to the neighbouring villages to preach the gospel, and administer the other offices of the Church. But they resided with the bishop, and were supported out of his revenues. By degrees parochial settlements were made; but still the bishop required the attendance of certain of the clergy at his cathedral, to be his council; (for the bishops never thought of acting without consulting their clergy;) and also to officiate in his principal church or cathedral. These persons, to qualify themselves for their office, gave themselves up to study, and to the maintenance and decoration of their sanctuary; the services of which were to be a model to all the lesser churches of the diocese. Forming, in the course of time, a corporation, they obtained property, and ceased to be dependent upon the bishop for a maintenance. And being considered the representatives of the clergy, upon them devolved the government of the diocese when vacant; and they obtained the privilege, doubtless on the same principle, of choosing the bishop, which originally belonged to the whole clergy of the diocese, in conjunction with the bishops of the province. In this privilege they were supported by the kings of the country, who perceived that they were more likely to intimidate a chapter into the election of the royal nominee, than the whole of the clergy of a diocese. But still the deans and chapters sometimes acting independently, an act was passed under Henry VIII., by which a dean and chapter refusing to elect the king’s nominee to the bishopric become individually outlawed, lose all their property, and are to be imprisoned during pleasure. Since that time these corporations have always succumbed to the royal will and pleasure. The great object of the institution, it will be perceived, is, 1st, To provide the bishop with a council; 2nd, To make provision for a learned body of divines, who, disengaged from parochial cares, may benefit the cause of religion by their writings; 3rd, To make provision, also, that in the cathedral church of each diocese the services shall be performed with rubrical strictness, and with all the solemnity and grandeur of which our services are capable.

It is not to be denied, that, during the last century, this institution was greatly abused. Patrons made use of it to enrich their own families or political partisans; and the cathedral clergy, instead of giving themselves up to learned labours, dwelt chiefly on their livings, coming merely for a short time to their cathedrals: as their estates advanced in value, they expended the income on themselves, instead of increasing the cathedral libraries, and rendering the choirs more efficient, by raising the salaries of the choristers, and doubling or trebling their number: finally, being forgetful of the command of the Church, that, “in cathedral and collegiate churches and colleges, where there are many priests and deacons, they shall all receive the communion with the priest, every Sunday at the least,” many deans and chapters have, most unjustifiably, discontinued the weekly communion. Whether individual members of chapters consider these observances superstitious or not, it is on these conditions they enjoy their property; and if they cannot conscientiously keep the conditions, they ought conscientiously to resign their places. These things required reform; and forecasting men, seeing no symptoms of improvement, expected that the arm of the Lord would be made bare for vengeance; and the Lord made use of the secular government of England as his instrument of chastisement. The British legislature, acting on the precedent of Cardinal Wolsey and Henry VIII., has seized a large portion of the property belonging to the deans and chapters, and has reduced the number of canons. May this be a warning to the deans and chapters as they now exist! May patrons make the cathedral close the abode of men of learning, and may the members of chapters sacrifice even their private property to render their cathedral choirs what they ought to be! May they have strength of mind to sacrifice all they have in the world, rather than elect as a bishop an unworthy nominee of the Crown, if, peradventure, the Crown nominate a Sabellian, or an Arian, or a Socinian heretic. (See Chapters, Canons, and Prebendaries.)

DECALOGUE. The ten precepts, or commandments, delivered by God to Moses, and by him written on two tables of stone, and delivered to the Hebrews, as the basis and foundation of their religion. The history of this great event, together with the ten commandments themselves, are recited at large in the 19th and 20th chapters of the book of Exodus.

The Jews called these commandments, by way of excellence, the ten words, from whence they had afterwards the name of Decalogue. But it is to be observed, that they joined the first and second into one, and divided the last into two. They understand that against stealing to relate to the stealing of men, or kidnapping, alleging, that the stealing of another’s goods or property is forbidden in the last commandment.—De Legib. Hebr. lib. i. c. 2.

“Most divines,” says the learned Spencer, “seem to have been of opinion, that God gave the Decalogue, to be a general rule of life and manners, and as it were a summary, to which all other precepts, either of the law or the gospel, may be reduced. Hence they rack their brains, to fix so large and extensive a meaning on all these commands, that all duties, respecting God or our neighbour, may be understood to be contained in them. But no one, who duly considers the matter, can think it probable, that the Decalogue was therefore given, that it might be a kind of compendium of all the other laws of the Pentateuch; since those eminent precepts of the law, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,’ and ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,’ cannot be found in the Decalogue, without affixing a meaning to some commands quite foreign to the natural sense of the words, and subjecting them to an arbitrary interpretation. To give my opinion in a few words; the chief scope and intent of the Decalogue was to root out idolatry and its more immediate effects, and to add force and authority to the other laws contained in the Pentateuch. For who can persuade himself, that God would have collected together, into the one little system of the Decalogue, those ten precepts, which have scarce any connexion with each other, had they not all naturally tended to destroy idolatry and its primary effects?” The author then proceeds to confirm the truth of this assertion by a distinct consideration of each precept of the two tables.

It has been a question, and even matter of admiration, why God, in delivering laws to the Hebrews, kept precisely to the number ten. This question is answered by the above-cited author, (Id. ib. § 2,) who assigns the following reasons for this proceeding. “First, the number ten exceeds all others in perfection and capacity: for in it are comprehended all the diversities of numbers and their analogies, and all the geometrical figures which have any relation to numbers. Secondly, A Decad seems to have been in most esteem and use, among all nations, from the earliest times. Thirdly, As the number ten comprehends in it all others, so the Decalogue was to be a kind of representative of all the other laws of Moses, which were too numerous to be distinctly and separately rehearsed from Mount Sinai. Lastly, The number ten was a sacred number, and most frequently applied to the things mentioned in the Law: as will be evident to those, who carefully read over the institutes of Moses.”

The Samaritans, to raise and maintain the credit of their temple on Mount Gerizim, forged an eleventh command or precept, which in their Pentateuch they added at the end of the Decalogue, both in Exodus and Deuteronomy. It was this: “When the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land of Canaan, whither thou goest to possess it, thou shalt erect to thyself large stones, and shalt write on them all the words of this Law. And, after thou shalt have passed over Jordan, thou shalt place those stones, which I command thee this day, on Mount Gerizim, and shalt build there an altar to the Lord thy God, an altar of stone,” &c.

DECLARATION. (See Conformity.)

DECORATED. The style of architecture which succeeded the Geometrical about 1315, and gave place to the Perpendicular about 1360.

The most obvious characteristic of this style is the window tracery (see Tracery); but all the parts and details have also their appropriate features. The doorway is no longer divided by a central shaft. The windows are larger than in the former style, and their mullions have in general fewer subordinations of mouldings. The corner buttresses are usually set diagonally instead of in pairs, and the buttresses generally are of considerable projection, and much enriched with pediments and niches. The piers consist generally of four shafts with intervening hollows, set lozengewise; and the detached shaft is wholly discontinued. The triforium, which had begun to lose its relative importance in the Geometrical, is in this style generally treated as a mere course of panelling at the base of the clerestory windows, which are proportionally enlarged. Arcading begins to be superseded by panelling. Foliage, and other carving, is treated with less force and nature than in the preceding style; and heraldry begins to appear. The vaulting (see Vaulting) is more intricate. One or two mouldings and decorations are almost peculiar to this style, especially the ogee in all its forms and in every position. The ball-flower and the scroll moulding, it has in common with the Geometrical, but far more frequently. (See Moulding.) The broach spire is still used, but begins to give way to the parapet and spire.

DECRETALS. The name given to the letters of popes, being in answer to questions proposed to them by some bishop or ecclesiastical judge, or even particular person, in which they determined business, as they thought fit. In the ninth century there appeared a collection of decretal letters ascribed to more than thirty popes, succeeding each other in the first three centuries. The author is unknown, but they are generally ascribed to a certain Isidore Mercator, and pass usually under his name. Their uniform tendency is to exalt papal power, and exactly on those points for which no sanction can be alleged from Scripture, or from the early periods of any genuine Church history; such as supreme authority over bishops, the receiving appeals from all parts of the world, and the reservation of causes for the hearing of the Roman see. In the words of Fleury, “They inflicted an irreparable wound on the discipline of the Church, by the new maxims which they introduced in regard to the judgment of bishops and the authority of the pope.” Dr. Barrow mentions them among the chief causes by which the power of the bishop of Rome has been advanced: “The forgery of the decretal epistles (wherein the ancient popes are made expressly to speak and act according to some of his highest pretences, devised long after their times, and which they never thought of, good men) did hugely conduce to his purpose; authorizing his encroachments by the suffrage of ancient doctrine and practice.” “Upon these spurious decretals,” (writes the historian of the middle ages,) “was built the great fabric of papal supremacy over the different national Churches: a fabric which has stood after its foundation crumbled beneath it; for no one has pretended to deny, during the last two centuries, that the imposture is too palpable for any but the most ignorant ages to credit.” Their effect was, to diminish the authority of metropolitans and provincial synods, by allowing to an accused bishop, not only the right of appeal, but the power also of removing any process into the supreme court at Rome. And on this account it has been supposed that the decrees were forged by some bishop who desired to reduce the power of his immediate superior. But whoever may have been the author, and whatever the origin, there is no doubt that the popes became, from the first, their most strenuous defenders.

The best account of these forgeries is to be found in the posthumous work of Van Espen, Commentarius in Jus Novum Canonicum, part ii. diss. 1, p. 451–475. See also De Marca, De Concord. iii. c. 4, 5, p. 242; Natalis Alexandri Hist. Eccles. sæc. i. diss. 13, p. 213; Coci Censura quorundam Scriptorum, &c., passim.—Sanderson. Robins, Evidence of Scripture against the Roman Church.

DEDICATION, FEAST OF. The wake or customary festival for the dedication of churches signifies the same as vigil or eve. The reason of the name is thus assigned in an old manuscript: “Ye shall understand and know how the evens were first founded in old times. In the beginning of Holy Church it was so, that the people came to the church with candles burning, and would wake and come with lights towards night to the church in their devotions: and after, they fell to lechery, and songs, and dances, harping and piping, and also to gluttony and sin; and so turned the holiness to cursedness. Wherefore the holy Fathers ordained the people to leave that waking, and to fast the even. But it is still called vigil, that is, waking in English: and it is also called the even, for at even they were wont to come to church.” It was in imitation of the primitive ἀγάπαι, or love feasts, (see Agapæ,) that such public assemblies, accompanied with friendly entertainments, were first held upon each return of the day of consecration, though not in the body of churches, yet in the churchyards, and most nearly adjoining places. This practice was established in England by Gregory the Great; who, in an epistle to Mellitus the abbot, gives injunctions to be delivered to Augustine the monk, a missionary to England; amongst which he allows the solemn anniversary of dedication to be celebrated in those churches which were made out of heathen temples, with religious feasts kept in sheds or arbours, made up with branches and boughs of trees round the said church. But as the love feasts held in the place of worship were soon liable to such great disorders, that they were not only condemned at Corinth by St. Paul, but prohibited to be kept in the house of God by the 20th canon of the Council of Laodicea, and the 30th of the third Council of Carthage: so, from a sense of the same inconveniences, this custom did not long continue of feasting in the churches or churchyards; but strangers and inhabitants paid the devotion of prayers and offerings in the church, and then adjourned their eating and drinking to the more proper place of public and private houses. The institution of these church encœnia, or wakes, was, without question, for good and laudable designs: at first, thankfully to commemorate the bounty and munificence of those who had founded and endowed the church; next, to incite others to the like generous acts of piety; and, chiefly, to maintain a Christian spirit of unity and charity, by such sociable and friendly meetings. And therefore care was taken to keep up the laudable custom. The laws of Edward the Confessor gave peace and protection in all parishes during the solemnity of the day of dedication, and the same privilege to all that were going to or returning from such solemnity. In a council held at Oxford, in the year 1222, it was ordained, that among other festivals should be observed the day of dedication of every church within the proper parish. And in a synod under Archbishop Islip, (who was promoted to the see of Canterbury in the year 1349,) the dedication feast is mentioned with particular respect. This solemnity was at first celebrated on the very day of dedication, as it annually returned. But the bishops sometimes gave authority for transposing the observance to some other day, and especially to Sunday, whereon the people could best attend the devotions and rites intended in this ceremony. Henry VIII. enjoined that all wakes should be kept the first Sunday in October.

This laudable custom of wakes prevailed for many ages, till the Puritans began to exclaim against it as a remnant of Popery. By degrees the humour grew so popular, that at the summer assizes held at Exeter, in the year 1627, the Lord Chief Baron Walter and Baron Denham made an order for suppression of all wakes. And a like order was made by Judge Richardson for the county of Somerset, in the year 1631. But on Bishop Laud’s complaint of these innovations, the king commanded the last order to be reversed; which Judge Richardson refusing to do, an account was required from the Bishop of Bath and Wells, how the said feast days, church ales, wakes, and revels, were for the most part celebrated and observed in his diocese. On the receipt of these instructions, the bishop sent for and advised with seventy-two of the most orthodox and able of his clergy; who certified under their hands, that, on these feast days, (which generally fell on Sundays,) the service of God was more solemnly performed, and the church much better frequented, both in the forenoon and afternoon, than on any other Sunday in the year; that the people very much desired the continuance of them; that the ministers did in most places the like, for these reasons, viz. for preserving the memorial of the dedication of their several churches, for civilizing the people, for composing differences by the mediation and meeting of friends, for increase of love and unity by these feasts of charity, and for relief and comfort of the poor. On the return of this certificate, Judge Richardson was again cited to the council table, and peremptorily commanded to reverse his former order. After which it was thought fit to reinforce the declaration of King James, when perhaps this was the only good reason assigned for that unnecessary and unhappy licence of sports: “We do ratify and publish this our blessed father’s decree, the rather because of late, in some counties of our kingdom, we find, that, under pretence of taking away abuses, there hath been a general forbidding not only of ordinary meetings, but of the feasts of the dedication of churches, commonly called wakes.” However, by such a popular prejudice against wakes, and by the intermission of them in the confusions that followed, they are now discontinued in many counties, especially in the east and some western parts of England, but are commonly observed in the north and in the midland counties.

DEFENDER OF THE FAITH. (Fidei Defensor.) A peculiar title belonging to the sovereign of England; as Catholic to the king of Spain, and Most Christian to the king of France. These titles were given by the popes of Rome. That of Fidei Defensor was first conferred by Pope Leo X. on King Henry VIII., for writing against Martin Luther; and the bull for it bears date quinto idus Octobris, 1521. It was afterwards confirmed by Clement VII. On Henry’s suppression of the monasteries, the pope of Rome deprived him of this title, and had the presumption and absurdity to depose him from his crown. Therefore the title was conferred by a higher authority than the pope, the parliament of England, in the thirty-fifth year of Henry’s reign. By some antiquarians it is maintained that the bull of Leo only revived a title long sustained by the English kings.

DEGRADATION is an ecclesiastical censure, whereby a clergyman is deprived of the holy orders which formerly he had, as of a priest or deacon; and by the canon law this may be done two ways, either summarily or by word only, or solemnly, as by divesting the party degraded of those ornaments and rights which were the ensigns and order of his degree.

Collier thus describes the form of degradation of a priest, in the case of Fawke, burnt for heresy in the reign of Henry IV. After being pronounced a heretic relapsed, he was solemnly degraded in the following manner:

From the order of | To be taken from him,
1 Priest. | 1 The paten, chalice, and pulling off his chasuble.
2 Deacon. | 2 The New Testament and the stole.
3 Sub-deacon. | 3 The albe and the maniple.
4 Acolyth. | 4 The candlestick, taper, urceolum.
5 Exorcist. | 5 The office for exorcisms.
6 Reader. | 6 The lectionarium, or legend book.
7 Ostiarius, or Sexton. | 7 The keys of the church-doors, and surplice.

After this, his ecclesiastical tonsure was obliterated, and the form of his degradation pronounced by the archbishop; and being thus deprived of his sacerdotal character, and dressed in a lay habit, he was put into the hands of the secular court, with the significant request, that he might be favourably received.

The ancient law for degradation is set forth in the sixth book of the Decretals; and the causes for degradation and deprivation are enumerated by Bishop Gibson.—See Gibson’s Codex, p. 1066–1068.

By Canon 122, Sentence against a minister, of deposition from the ministry, “shall be pronounced by the bishop only, with the assistance of his chancellor and the dean, (if they may conveniently be had,) and some of the prebendaries, if the court be kept near the cathedral church; or of the archdeacon, if he may be had conveniently, and two other at the least grave ministers and preachers to be called by the bishop, when the court is kept in other places.”

DEGREE. Psalms or Songs of Degrees is a title given to fifteen psalms, which are the 120th and all that follow to the 134th inclusive. The Hebrew text calls them a song of ascents. Junius and Tremellius translate the Hebrew, by a song of excellencies, or an excellent song, because of the excellent matter of them, as eminent persons are called men of high degree. (1 Chr. xvii. 17.) Some call them psalms of elevation, because, say they, they were sung with an exalted voice; or because at every psalm the voice was raised: but the translation of psalms of degrees has more generally obtained. Some interpreters think, that they were so called because they were sung upon the fifteen steps of the temple; but they are not agreed about the place where these fifteen steps were. Others think they were so called, because they were sung in a gallery, which they say was in the court of Israel, where sometimes the Levites read the law. But others think, that the most probable reason why they are called songs of degrees, or of ascent, is, because they were composed and sung by the Jews on the occasion of their going up to Jerusalem, after the deliverance from the captivity of Babylon, whether it were to implore this deliverance from God, or to return thanks for it after it had happened: others, that they were severally composed not only upon this, but upon other remarkable occasions when they made their ascent to the temple.

DEGREES in the universities denote a quality conferred on the students or members thereof, as a testimony of their proficiency in the arts and sciences, and entitling them to certain privileges. They were first instituted by Pope Eugenius III. at the suggestion of Gratian, the celebrated compiler of the canon law, in 1151; but were limited to the faculty of canon law, for the encouragement of which they were instituted; and consisted of the ranks of bachelor, licentiate, and doctor. Shortly after Peter Lombard instituted similar degrees in theology in the university of Paris. In the course of time degrees were given in other faculties, those of arts and medicine being added. In many of the foreign universities, theology and canon law have each their three classes of degrees as above stated; medicine has generally but two, bachelor and doctor; and arts two, bachelor and master. The designation of doctor in philosophy is very modern. The English universities have only two degrees, bachelor and doctor in the superior faculties; master and bachelor in arts. The student of civil law is not, properly speaking, a graduate. Formerly separate degrees were given in England (as abroad) in canon and civil law; but the distinction ceased in the 17th century. Oxford has for some time ceased to confer degrees in utroque jure, (i. e. civil and canon law,) but only in civil law. Hence her graduates are D. C. L. and B. C. L., and not L. L. D. and L. L. B., as at Cambridge and Dublin. The three ancient universities of England and Ireland confer degrees in music. Anciently degrees in grammar, doctorate, mastership, and baccalaurenti were given at Oxford or Cambridge. But they fell into disuse in the 17th century.

DEISTS. Those who deny the existence and necessity of any revelation, and profess to acknowledge that the being of a God is the chief article of their belief. The term Deist is derived from the Latin word Deus, God. The same persons are frequently called infidels, on account of their incredulity, or want of belief in the Christian dispensation of religion.—Consult Boyle’s Lectures, Leland’s View of Deistical Writers, Leslie’s Short and Easy Method with the Deists, Watson’s Apology for the Bible.

Dr. Clarke, (Evidences of Nat. and Rev. Rel. Introd.,) taking the denomination in its most extensive signification, distinguishes deists into four sorts. The first are, such as pretend to believe the existence of an eternal, infinite, independent, intelligent Being; and who, to avoid the name of Epicurean Atheists, teach also, that this Supreme Being made the world; though, at the same time, they agree with the Epicureans in this, that they fancy, God does not at all concern himself in the government of the world, nor has any regard to, or care of, what is done therein.

The second sort of deists are those, who believe, not only the being, but also the providence of God, with respect to the natural world; but who, not allowing any difference between moral good and evil, deny that God takes any notice of the morally good or evil actions of men; these things depending, as they imagine, on the arbitrary constitution of human laws.

A third sort of deists there are, who, having right apprehensions concerning the natural attributes of God, and his all-governing providence, and some notion of his moral perfections also; yet, being prejudiced against the notion of the immortality of the human soul, believe, that men perish entirely at death, and that one generation shall perpetually succeed another, without any future restoration or renovation of things.

A fourth, and the last sort of deists, are such, as believe the existence of a Supreme Being, together with his providence in the government of the world, as also all the obligations of natural religion; but so far only as these things are discoverable by the light of nature alone, without believing any Divine revelation.

These, Dr. Clarke observes, are the only true deists: but, as the principles of these men would naturally lead them to embrace the Christian revelation, he concludes, there is now no consistent scheme of deism in the world. “The heathen philosophers, those few of them, who taught and lived up to the obligations of natural religion, had indeed a consistent scheme of deism so far as it went. But the case is not so now. The same scheme is not any longer consistent with its own principles, if it does not now lead men to believe and embrace revelation, as it then taught them to hope for it. Deists, in our days, who reject revelation when offered to them, are not such men as Socrates and Cicero were; but, under pretence of deism, it is plain, they are generally ridiculers of all that is truly excellent in natural religion itself. Their trivial and vain cavils; their mocking and ridiculing, without and before examination; their directing the whole stress of their objections against particular customs, or particular and perhaps uncertain opinions, or explications of opinions, without at all considering the main body of religion; their loose, vain, and frothy discourses; and, above all, their vicious and immoral lives; show plainly and undeniably, that they are not really deists, but mere atheists; and consequently not capable to judge of the truth of Christianity.”

“We are fallen into an age, (says another learned author, Jenkyns, Reasonableness of Christ. Relig. in the Preface,) in which there are a sort of men, who have shown so great a forwardness to be no longer Christians, that have catched at all the little cavils and pretences against religion—but they both think and live so ill, that it is an argument for the goodness of any cause that they are against it. It was urged as a confirmation of the Christian religion by Tertullian, that it was hated and persecuted by Nero, the worst of men: and I am confident, it would be but small reputation to it in any age, if such men should be fond of it. They speak evil of the things they understand not, and are wont to talk with as much confidence against any point of religion, as if they had all the learning in the world in their keeping, when commonly they know little or nothing of what has been said for that against which they dispute.”

Prateolus (Elench. Hæres.) mentions a sect of deists (as they were called) which sprung up in Poland, in the year 1564. They were a branch of the Lutherans, and, coming into France in 1566, settled at Lyons. Their leader (he tells us) was one Gregorius Pauli, a minister of Cracow. They boasted, that God had bestowed on them much greater gifts than on Luther and others, and that the destruction of Antichrist was reserved for them. They asserted, that there is one nature, or Deity, common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but not one and the same essence; and that the Father alone is the one only true God.

These deists (as Prateolus calls them) ought rather to be denominated Arians.

DELEGATES. The court of delegates was so called, because these delegates sat by force of the king’s commission under the great seal, upon an appeal to the king in the court of Chancery, in three causes: 1. When a sentence was given in any ecclesiastical cause by the archbishop or his official: 2. When any sentence was given in any ecclesiastical cause in places exempt: 3. When a sentence was given in the admiral’s court, in suit civil and marine, by the order of the civil laws. And these commissioners were called delegates, because they were delegated by the king’s commission for these purposes.

For the origin of the high court of delegates, see 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, and 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, §4. By the 2 & 3 Wm. IV. c. 92, the powers of the high court of delegates, both in ecclesiastical and maritime causes, are transferred to her Majesty in council; which transfer is further regulated by the 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 41, and by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 69. This act does not extend to Ireland.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, consists of

The Lord President. |
The Lord Chancellor. |
The Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. | Provided they be councillors.
The Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench.
The Master of the Rolls.
The Vice-chancellor.
The Chief Justice of the Court ofCommon Pleas.
The Chief Baron of the Exchequer.
The Judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury.
The Judge of the Admiralty Court.
The Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy Court.
All who have held the aforenamed offices.
Two privy-councillors appointed by
the sign-manual. |

No matter is to be heard unless in the presence of at least four members of the committee; and no report or recommendation made to the Crown, unless a majority of the members present at the hearing shall concur in such report or recommendation.

DEMIURGE. (From δημιουργὸς, an artificer.) The name given by some Gnostic sects to the Creator of the world, who, according to them, was different from the supreme God. (See Gnostics.)

DEMONIACS. Persons possessed of the devil. That the persons spoken of in the New Testament as possessed of the devil, were not simply lunatics, is clear from a mere perusal of the facts recorded. The devils owned Christ to be the Messiah; they besought him not to torment them; they passed into the swine and drove them into the sea. The manner in which our Lord addressed the demoniacs clearly shows that they were really such: he not only rebuked the devils, but called them unclean spirits, asking them questions, commanding them to come out, &c. We find also that, for some time, in the early ages of the Church, demoniacs existed, as there was a peculiar service appointed in the Church for their cure. (See Energumens.)

DENARII DE CARITATE. (Lat.) Customary oblations, anciently made to cathedral churches, about the time of Pentecost, when the parish priests, and many of their parishioners, went in procession to visit their mother-church. This custom was afterwards changed into a settled due, and usually charged upon the parish priest, though at first it was but a gift of charity, or present, towards the support and ornament of the bishop’s see.

DENOMINATIONS, THE THREE. The general body of dissenting ministers of London and Westminster form an association so styled, which was organized in 1727. The object of the association appears to be political. The Three Denominations are, the Presbyterian, (now Socinian,) Independent, and Baptist.

DEO GRATIAS. (Lat.) God be thanked. A form of salutation, anciently used by Christians, when they accosted each other. The Donatists ridiculed the use of it; which St. Augustine defended, affirming, that a Christian had reason to return God thanks when he met a brother Christian. It is at present used only in the sacred offices of the Romish Church. We have something like it in the Communion Service of our own Church, in which the minister says, Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.

DEPOSITION. (See Degradation.)

DEPRECATIONS. (See Litany.)

DEPRIVATION is an ecclesiastical sentence, whereby a clergyman is deprived of his parsonage, vicarage, or other spiritual promotion or dignity.

By Canon 122. Sentence against a minister, of deprivation from his living, “shall be pronounced by the bishop only with the assistance of his chancellor and the dean, (if they may conveniently be had,) and some of the prebendaries, if the court be kept near the cathedral church; or of the archdeacon, if he may be had conveniently, and two other at the least grave ministers and preachers to be called by the bishop, when the court is kept in other places.”

The causes of deprivation may be reduced to three heads, viz. to want of capacity, contempt, and crimes. Nonconformity is thus specially punished by 1 Eliz. c. 2, 13 Eliz. c. 12, 14 Car. II. c. 4. Dilapidation used to be held a good cause of deprivation, yet that it has ever been inflicted as a punishment of dilapidation does not appear, either by the books of common or canon law. In all causes of deprivation, where a person is in actual possession of an ecclesiastical benefice, these things must concur: 1st, A monition or citation of the party to appear: 2nd, A charge given against him by way of libel or articles, to which he is to give an answer: 3rd, A competent time must be assigned, for proofs and interrogatories: 4th, The person accused shall have the liberty of counsel to defend his cause, to except against witnesses, and to bring legal proofs against them: and 5th, There must be a solemn sentence, read by the bishop, after hearing the merits of the cause, or pleadings on both sides. These are the fundamentals of all judicial proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts, in order to a deprivation. And if these things be not observed, the party has a just cause of appeal, and may have a remedy in a superior court.

By 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 31, spiritual persons trading contrary to the provisions of that act, may be, for the third offence, deprived.

DESK. This is the name usually given to the pulpit or pew in which morning and evening prayers are sung or said in the English churches. The using of this pulpit for prayer is peculiar to the English Church, and has a very unpleasant effect. The First Prayer Book of Edward VI. ordered “the priest, being in the choir, to begin the Lord’s Prayer, called Pater Noster, (with which the morning and evening services then began,) with a loud voice:” so that it was at that time the custom for the minister to sing or say the morning and evening prayer, not in a desk or pulpit, but at the upper end of the choir or chancel, near the altar, towards which, whether standing or kneeling, he always turned his face in the prayers. This gave great offence, however, though it had been the custom of the Church of England for many hundred years, to some superstitious weaker brethren, who so far forgot their charity as to call it anti-Christian. The outcry, however frivolous and vexatious, prevailed so far, that when, in the fifth year of King Edward, the Prayer Book was altered, the following rubric appeared instead of the old one, viz. “The morning and evening prayers shall be used in such places of the church, chapel, or chancel, and the minister shall so turn him, as the people best may hear. And if there be any controversy therein, the matter shall be referred to the ordinary, and he or his deputy shall appoint the place.” This caused great contentions—the more orthodox kneeling in the old way, and singing or saying the prayers in the chancel, and the innovators, or ultra-Protestants, adopting new forms, and performing all the services in the body of the church. In the reign of Elizabeth, the rubric was brought to its present form: “that the morning and evening prayers shall be used in the accustomed place in the church, chapel, or chancel,” by which was clearly meant the choir or chancel, which had been for centuries the accustomed place; and it cannot be supposed that the Second Book of Edward, which lasted only one year and a half, could establish a custom. A dispensing power, however, was left with the ordinary, who might determine it otherwise, if he saw just cause. Pursuant to this rubric, the morning and evening services were again, as formerly, sung or said in the chancel or choir. But in some churches, owing to the too great distance of the chancel from the body of the church, in others owing to the ultra-Protestant superstition of the parishioners, the ordinaries permitted the clergy to leave the chancel, and read prayers from a pew in the body of the church. This innovation and novelty, begun first by some few ordinaries, and recommended by them to others, grew by degrees to be more general, till at last it came to be the universal practice; insomuch that the convocation, in the beginning of King James the First’s reign, ordered that in every church there should be a convenient seat made for the minister to read service in. In new churches, where there can be no complaint of the size of the chancels, there seems to be no reason why the ordinaries should not now remove the desk, and send the clergy back to their proper place, to sing or say the prayers in the chancel. At all events, they might get rid of that unsightly nuisance, a second pulpit instead of a reading pew. If the prayers are to be preached to the people, as well as the sermon, one pulpit might suffice. It is gratifying to know, that since the article was written in the first edition of this work, this disfigurement of our churches has been very generally removed. It is to be observed, that the word does not once occur in the Prayer Book.

DEUS MISEREATUR. The Latin name for Psalm lxvii., which may be used after the second lesson at evening prayers, instead of the Nunc Dimittis, except on the twelfth day of the month, when it occurs among the psalms of the day. It was first inserted in our service in the Second Book of King Edward VI.

DEUTERONOMY. A canonical book of the Old Testament. The word implies a second law, the principal design of it being, a repetition of the laws already delivered; which was a necessary thing, inasmuch as the Israelites, who had heard it before, were dead in the wilderness, and there was sprung up another generation of men, who had not heard the Decalogue, or any other of the laws openly proclaimed. It contains likewise some new laws; such as the taking down malefactors from the tree in the evening; the making of battlements on the roofs of houses; the expiation of an unknown murder; the punishment to be inflicted upon a rebellious son; the distinction of the sexes by apparel; the marrying a brother’s wife after his decease: as also, orders and injunctions concerning divorce; laws concerning men-stealers; concerning unjust weights and measures; concerning the marrying of a captive woman; concerning servants that desert their master’s service; and several other laws, not only ecclesiastical and civil, but also military. There are inserted likewise some transactions, which happened in the last year of the travels of the Israelites through the wilderness.

Deuteronomy is the last book of the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses; though some have questioned whether it was written by that legislator, because, in the last chapter, mention is made of his death and burial, and of the succession of Joshua after him. But this only proves that the last chapter was not written by Moses, but added by some other person; most probably by Ezra, when he published an edition of the Holy Scriptures. (See Pentateuch.)

DEVIL. From Διάβολος, which signifies an accuser, or calumniator. The two words, Devil and Satan, are used in Scripture to signify the same wicked spirit, who with many others, his angels or under-agents, is fighting against God; and who has dominion over all the sons of Adam, except the regenerate; and who is, in his kingdom of this world, the nearest imaginable approximation, at infinite distance indeed, to the omnipotence of the Godhead.

DIACONATE. The office or order of a deacon. (See Deacon.)

DIACONICUM. (Gr. and Lat.) This word has different significations in ecclesiastical authors. Sometimes it is taken for that part of the ancient church in which the deacons used to sit during the performance of Divine service, namely, at the rails of the altar; sometimes for a building adjoining to the church, in which the sacred vessels and habits were laid up; sometimes for that part of the public prayers which the deacons pronounced. Lastly, it denotes an ecclesiastical book, in which are contained all things relating to the duty and office of a deacon, according to the rites of the Greek Church.

DIAPER. In church architecture, a decoration of large surfaces with a constantly recurring pattern, either carved or painted. Norman diapers are usually either fretted or zigzag lines, or imbrications of the masonry; and not only plain surfaces, but pillars, and small shafts, and even mouldings, are diapered, as the cable moulding surrounding the nave at Rochester. In the succeeding styles, flowers and leaves are the most frequent patterns, which, in the Geometrical style, are often of extreme beauty and delicacy. After the fourteenth century, diapers are painted only, and now even the hollows of mouldings are thus treated.

DIET. The assembly of the states of Germany. We shall only notice the more remarkable of those which have been held on the affairs of religion.

The Diet of Worms, in 1521, where Alexander, the pope’s nuncio, having charged Luther with heresy, the Duke of Saxony said, that Luther ought to be heard; which the emperor granted, and sent him a pass, provided he did not preach on this journey. Being come to Worms, he protested that he would not recant unless they would show him his errors by the word of God alone, and not by that of men; wherefore the emperor soon after outlawed him by an edict.

The first Diet of Nuremberg was held in 1523, when Francis Cheregat, Adrian VI.’s nuncio, demanded the execution of Leo X.’s bull, and of Charles V.’s edict, published at Worms, against Luther: but it was answered, that it was necessary to call a council in Germany, to satisfy the nation about its grievances, which were reduced to a hundred articles, some whereof struck at the pope’s authority, and the discipline of the Roman Church: they added that, in the interim, the Lutherans should be commanded not to write against the Roman Catholics, &c. All these things were brought into the form of an edict, and published in the emperor’s name.

The second Diet of Nuremberg was in 1524. Cardinal Cangegio, Pope Clement VII.’s legate, entered the town incognito, for fear of exasperating the people there: the Lutherans having the advantage, it was decreed that, with the emperor’s consent, the pope should call a council in Germany; but, in the interim, an assembly should be held at Spire, to determine what was to be believed and practised; and that to obey the emperor, the princes ought to order the observance of the edict of Worms as strictly as they could. Charles, angry at this, commanded that edict to be very strictly observed, and prohibited the assembly at Spire.

The first Diet of Spire was held in 1526. The emperor Charles V. being then held in Spain, named his brother, Archduke Ferdinand, to preside over that assembly, where the Duke of Saxony and Landgrave of Hesse demanded a full and free exercise of the Lutheran religion, so that the Lutherans preached there publicly against Popery; and the Lutheran princes’ servants had these five capital letters, V.D. M.I.Æ., embroidered on their sleeves, signifying, Verbum Dei manet in Æternum, to show publicly they would follow nothing else but the pure word of God. The archduke, not daring to oppose this, proposed two things, the first concerning the Popish religion, which was to be maintained in observing the edict of Worms; and the second concerning the aid demanded by Lewis, king of Hungary, against the Turks: the Lutherans prevailing about the first, it was decreed, that the emperor should be desired to call a general or national council in Germany within a year, and that in the mean time every one was to have liberty of conscience, and whilst they were deliberating in vain about the second, King Lewis was defeated and slain at the battle of Mohatz.

The second Diet of Spire was held in 1529. It was decreed against the Lutherans, that wherever the edict of Worms was received, it shall be lawful for nobody to change his opinion; but in the countries where the new religion (as they termed it) was received, it should be lawful to continue in it till the next council, if the old religion could not be reestablished there without sedition. Nevertheless the mass was not to be abolished there, and no Roman Catholic was allowed to turn Lutheran; that the Sacramentarians should be banished out of the empire, and the Anabaptists put to death; and that preachers should nowhere preach against the doctrine of the Church of Rome. This decree destroying that of the first Diet, six Lutheran princes, viz. the Elector of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburg, the two Dukes of Lunenburg, the Landgrave of Hesse, and the Prince of Anhalt, with the deputies of fourteen imperial towns, protested in writing, two days after, in the assembly, against that decree, which they would not obey, it being contrary to the gospel; and appealed to the general or national council, to the emperor, and to any other unprejudiced judge. From this solemn protestation came that famous name of Protestants, which the Lutherans took presently, and the Calvinists and other reformed Christians afterwards. They also protested against contributing anything towards the war against the Turks, till after the exercise of their religion was free in all Germany. Next year the emperor held the famous Diet of Augsburg.

The first Diet of Augsburg was called in the year 1530, by the emperor Charles V., to reunite the princes about some matters of religion, and to join them all together against the Turks. Here the Elector of Saxony, followed by many princes, presented the confession of faith called the Confession of Augsburg. The conference about matters of faith and discipline being concluded, the emperor ended the Diet by a decree, that nothing should be altered in the doctrine and ceremonies of the Church of Rome till a council should order it otherwise.

The second Diet of Augsburg was held in 1547. The electors being divided concerning the decisions of the Council of Trent, the emperor demanded that the management of this affair should be left to him, and it was resolved, that every one should conform to the council’s decisions.

The third Diet of Augsburg was held in 1548, when, the commissioners named to examine some memoirs about a confession of faith, not agreeing together, the emperor named three divines, who drew the design of that famous Interim so well known in Germany and elsewhere.

The fourth Diet of Augsburg was held in 1550, when the emperor complained that the Interim was not observed, and demanded that all should submit to the council, which they were going to renew at Trent; but Duke Maurice, one of Saxony’s deputies, protested that their master did submit to the council on this condition, that the divines of the Confession of Augsburg not only should be heard there, but should vote also like the Roman Catholic bishops, and that the pope should not preside: but, by plurality of votes, submission to the council was resolved on.

The first Diet of Ratisbon was held in 1541, for uniting the Protestants to the Church of Rome. The pope’s legate having altered the twenty-two articles drawn up by the Protestant divines, the emperor proposed to choose some learned divines that might agree peaceably upon the articles, and being desired by the Diet to choose them himself, he named three Papists, viz. Julius Phlugus, John Gropperus, and John Eckius; and three Protestants, viz. Philip Melancthon, Martin Bucer, and John Pistorius. After an examination and dispute of a whole month, those divines could never agree upon more than five or six articles, wherein the Diet still found some difficulties; wherefore the emperor, to end these controversies, ordered by an edict, that the decision of those doctors should be reserved to a general council, or to the national council of all Germany, or to the next Diet eighteen months after; and that, in the mean while, the Protestants should keep the articles agreed on, forbidding them to solicit anybody to change the old religion, (as they called it,) &c. But to gratify the Protestants in some measure, he gave them leave, by patent, to retain their religion, notwithstanding the edict.

The second Diet at Ratisbon was held in 1546: none of the Protestant confederate princes appeared; so that it was easily decreed here, by plurality of votes, that the Council of Trent was to be followed, which yet the Protestant deputies opposed, and this caused a war against them.

The third Diet of Ratisbon was held in 1557: the assembly demanded a conference between some famous doctors of both parties; which conference, held at Worms, between twelve Lutheran and as many Popish divines, was soon dissolved by the Lutherans’ division among themselves.—Broughton.

DIGNITARY. One who holds cathedral or other preferment to which jurisdiction is annexed.

The dignitaries in British cathedrals are, for the most part, the dean, precentor, chancellor, treasurer, and archdeacon. Sometimes the subdean and succentor canonicorum are so called; and in a few churches in Ireland, the provost, and sacrist (or treasurer). The only dignitary in cathedrals of the new foundation is the dean; as the archdeacon is not necessarily a member of such chapters. It is a vulgar error to style prebendaries, or canons residentiary, dignitaries. The prebendaries without dignity were styled canonici (or prebendarii) simplices.—Jebb.

DILAPIDATION is the incumbent suffering the chancel, or any other edifices, of his ecclesiastical living, to go to ruin or decay, by neglecting to repair the same; and it likewise extends to his committing, or suffering to be committed, any wilful waste in or upon the glebe, woods, or any other inheritance of the church. By the injunctions of King Edward VI. it is required, “that the proprietors, parsons, vicars, and clerks, having churches, chapels, or mansions, shall yearly bestow on the said mansions or chancels of their churches, being in decay, the fifth part of their benefices, till they be fully repaired; and the same being thus repaired, they shall always keep and maintain them in good estate.”—See Art. XIII. of Queen Elizabeth’s Injunctions.

By the constitutions of Othobon it is ordained, that “all clerks shall take care decently to repair the houses of their benefices and other buildings, as need shall require, whereunto they shall be earnestly admonished by their bishops or archdeacons; and if any of them, after the monition of the bishops or archdeacons, shall neglect to do the same for the space of two months, the bishop shall cause the same effectually to be done, at the cost and charges of such clerk, out of the profits of his church and benefice, by the authority of this present statute, causing so much thereof to be received as shall be sufficient for such reparation: the chancels also of the church they shall cause to be repaired by those who are bound thereunto according as is above expressed; also we do enjoin, by attestation of the Divine judgment, the archbishops and bishops, and other inferior prelates, that they do keep in repair their houses and other edifices, by causing such reparation to be made as they know to be needful.”—See 13 Eliz. c. 10; 17 Geo. III. c. 53; 21 Geo. III. c. 66; Gibson’s Codex, pp. 751–754, and Hodgson’s Instructions to the Clergy.

DIMISSORY LETTERS. In the ancient Christian Church, they were letters granted to the clergy, when they were to remove from their own diocese and settle in another, to testify, that they had the bishop’s leave to depart; whence they were called Dimissoriæ, and sometimes Pacificæ.

In the Church of England, dimissory letters are such as are used when a candidate for holy orders has a title in one diocese, and is to be ordained in another; in which case the proper diocesan sends his letters, directed to the ordaining bishop, giving leave that the bearer may be ordained by him.

Persons inferior to bishops cannot grant these letters, unless the bishop shall, by special commission, grant this power to his vicar-general; or unless the bishop be at a great distance from his diocese, in which case his vicar-general in spirituals may grant such licence as the chapter of a cathedral may do sede vacante; or, lastly, when a bishop is taken prisoner by the enemy, for then the chapter exercises the same rights and powers as if the bishop were naturally dead.

DIOCESE. The circuit of a bishop’s jurisdiction. The ecclesiastical division in England is, primarily, into two provinces, those of Canterbury and York. In Ireland into two, Armagh and Dublin; till lately, however, into four, Cashel and Tuam, besides the two now mentioned. A province is a circuit of an archbishop’s jurisdiction. Each province contains divers dioceses, or sees of suffragan bishops; whereof Canterbury includes twenty, and York five. Armagh and Dublin, five each; though till lately Armagh had seven, Dublin three, Cashel five, and Tuam three. Though, properly speaking, the Irish dioceses are far more numerous, as most of the bishops have more than one see under their jurisdiction; which nevertheless, though thus united as to episcopal government, have their separate chapters, ecclesiastical officers, &c. Every diocese in England is divided into archdeaconries, and each archdeaconry into rural deaneries, and every deanery into parishes. In Ireland, there is but one archdeaconry to each diocese, though in two instances, those of Glendaloch and Aghadoe, these dioceses have been so long united to the adjacent sees, that their boundaries are now unknown, and consequently the diocese of Dublin and Ardfert have apparently, though not really, two archdeacons each. The division into rural deaneries and parishes is as in England.

The division of the Church into dioceses may be viewed as a natural consequence of the institution of the office of bishops. The authority to exercise jurisdiction, when committed to several hands, requires that some boundaries be defined within which each party may employ his powers; otherwise disorder and confusion would ensue, and the Church, instead of being benefited by the appointment of governors, might be exposed to the double calamity of an overplus of them in one district, and a total deficiency of them in another. Hence we find, so early as the New Testament history, some plain indications of the rise of the diocesan system, in the cases respectively of James, bishop of Jerusalem; Timothy, bishop of Ephesus; Titus, of Crete, to whom may be added the “angels” or bishops of the seven churches in Asia. These were placed in cities, and had jurisdiction over the churches and inferior clergy in those cities, and probably in the country adjacent. The first dioceses were formed by planting a bishop in a city or considerable village, where he officiated regularly, and took the spiritual charge, not only of the city itself, but of the suburbs, or region lying round about it, within the verge of its [civil] jurisdiction; which seems to be the plain reason of that great and visible difference which we find in the extent of dioceses, some being very large, others very small, according as the civil government of each city happened to have a larger or lesser jurisdiction.

Thus, in our own Church, there were at first only seven bishoprics, and these were commensurate with the Saxon kingdoms. Since that time our Church has thought fit to lessen the size of her dioceses, and to multiply them into above twenty; and if she thought fit to add forty or a hundred more, she would not be without precedent in the primitive Church. It is a great misfortune to the Church of England that her dioceses, compared with the population, are so extensive and so few. It is impossible for our bishops to perform all their canonical duties, such as visiting annually every parish in the diocese, inspecting schools, Divine service, instruction, &c., besides baptizing, confirming, consecrating. Episcopal extension, as well as Church extension, is most important. We must seek to add to the number of our bishops. There will be prejudices and difficulties for some time to be overcome on the part of the State, which is not sufficiently religious to tolerate an increase in the number of spiritual peers. An addition to the number of our spiritual peers is however not what we seek, but that our spiritual pastors may be more numerous.

The ancient bishoprics being baronies, the possessors of them might sit in parliament; while the new bishoprics, not having baronies attached, might only qualify for a seat in the upper house of convocation. The beginning of a new system was made on the erection of the see of Manchester, in 1847, since which time the junior bishop has no seat in the House of Lords.

DIOCESAN. A bishop, as he stands related to his diocese. (See Bishop.)

DIPPERS. (See Dunkers.)

DIPTYCH. A kind of sacred book, or register, made use of in the ancient Christian Church, and in which were written the names of such eminent bishops, saints, and martyrs, as were particularly to be commemorated, just before oblation was made for the dead. It was called diptych (δίπτυχος) from its being folded together; and it was the deacon’s office to recite the names written in it, as occasion required. Some distinguish three sorts of diptychs: one, wherein the names of bishops only were written, such especially as had been governors of that particular church; a second, in which the names of the living were written, such in particular as were eminent for any office or dignity, or some benefaction and good work, in which rank were bishops, emperors, and magistrates; lastly, a third, containing the names of such as were deceased in catholic communion.

Theodoret mentions these kind of registers in relation to the case of St. Chrysostom, whose name, for some time, was left out of the diptychs, because he died under the sentence of excommunication, pronounced against him by Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, and other Eastern bishops, with whom the Western Church would not communicate until they had replaced his name in the diptychs; for, to erase a person’s name out of these books was the same thing as declaring him to have been an heretic, or some way deviating from the faith.—Bingham.

DIRECTORY. A kind of regulation for the performance of religious worship, drawn up by the Assembly of Divines in England, at the instance of the parliament, in the year 1644. It was designed to supply the place of the Liturgy, or Book of Common Prayer, the use of which the parliament had abolished. It consisted only of some general heads, which were to be managed and filled up at discretion; for it prescribed no form of prayer or circumstances of external worship, nor obliged the people to any responses, excepting Amen. The use of the Directory was enforced by an ordinance of the Lords and Commons at Westminster, which was repeated August 3rd, 1645. By this injunction, the Directory was ordered to be dispersed and published in all parishes, chapelries, donatives, &c. In opposition to this injunction, King Charles issued a proclamation at Oxford, November 13th, 1645, enjoining the use of the Common Prayer according to law, notwithstanding the pretended ordinances for the new Directory.

To give a short abstract of the Directory: It forbids all salutations and civil ceremony in the churches. The reading the Scripture in the congregation is declared to be part of the pastoral office. All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of the Apocrypha) are to be publicly read in the vulgar tongue. How large a portion is to be read at once is left to the minister, who has likewise the liberty of expounding, when he judges it necessary. It prescribes heads for the prayer before sermon; among which part of the prayer for the king is, to save him from evil counsel. It delivers rules for managing the sermon; the introduction to the text must be short and clear, drawn from the words or context, or some parallel place of Scripture; in dividing the text, the minister is to regard the order of the matter more than that of the words; he is not to burden the memory of his audience with too many divisions, nor perplex their understandings with logical phrases and terms of art; he is not to start unnecessary objections; and he is to be very sparing in citations from ecclesiastical, or other human writers, ancient or modern.

The Directory recommends the use of the Lord’s Prayer, as the most perfect model of devotion. It forbids private or lay persons to administer baptism, and enjoins it to be performed in the face of the congregation. It orders the communion table at the Lord’s supper to be so placed that the communicants may sit about it. The dead, according to the rules of the Directory, are to be buried without any prayers or religious ceremony.

The Roman Catholics publish an annual Directory for their laity, which serves the purpose of a book of reference in matters of ceremonial as settled by their communion.—Broughton.

DISCIPLE, in the first sense of the word, means one who learns any thing from another. Hence the followers of any teacher, philosopher, or head of a sect, are usually called his disciples. In the Christian sense of the term, disciples are the followers of Jesus Christ in general; but, in a more restrained sense, it denotes those who were the immediate followers and attendants on his person. The names disciple and apostle are often used synonymously in the gospel history; but sometimes the apostles are distinguished from disciples, as persons selected out of the number of disciples, to be the principal ministers of his religion. Of these there were twelve; whereas those who are simply styled disciples were seventy, or seventy-two, in number. There was not as yet any catalogue of the disciples in Eusebius’s time, i. e. in the fourth century. The Latins kept the festival of the seventy or seventy-two disciples on the 15th of July, and the Greeks on 4th of January.

DISCIPLINE, ECCLESIASTICAL. The Christian Church being a spiritual community or society of persons professing the religion of Jesus, and, as such, governed by spiritual or ecclesiastical laws, her discipline consists in putting those laws in execution, and inflicting the penalties enjoined by them against several sorts of offenders. To understand the true nature of church discipline, we must consider how it stood in the ancient Christian Church. And, first,

The primitive Church never pretended to exercise discipline upon any but such as were within her pale, in the largest sense, by some act of their own profession; and even upon these she never pretended to exercise her discipline so far as to cancel or disannul their baptism. But the discipline of the Church consisted in a power to deprive men of the benefits of external communion, such as public prayer, receiving the eucharist, and other acts of Divine worship. This power, before the establishment of the Church by human laws, was a mere spiritual authority, or, as St. Cyprian terms it, a spiritual sword, affecting the soul, and not the body. Sometimes, indeed, the Church craved assistance from the secular power, even when it was heathen, but more frequently after it was become Christian. But it is to be observed, that the Church never encouraged the magistrate to proceed against any one for mere error, or ecclesiastical misdemeanour, further than to punish the delinquent by a pecuniary mulct, or bodily punishment, such as confiscation or banishment; and St. Austin affirms, that no good men in the Catholic Church were pleased that heretics should be prosecuted unto death. Lesser punishments, they thought, might have their use, as means sometimes to bring them to consideration and repentance.

Nor was it a part of the ancient discipline to deprive men of their natural or civil rites. A master did not lose his authority over his family, a parent over his children, nor a magistrate his office and charge in the state, by being cast out of the Church. But the discipline of the Church being a mere spiritual power, was confined to, 1. The admonition of the offender; 2. The lesser and greater excommunication.

As to the objects of ecclesiastical discipline, they were all such delinquents as fell into great and scandalous crimes after baptism, whether men or women, priests or people, rich or poor, princes or subjects. That princes and magistrates fell under the Church’s censures, may be proved by several instances; particularly St. Chrysostom relates, that Babylas denied communion to one of the Roman emperors on account of a barbarous murder committed by him: St. Ambrose likewise denied communion to Maximus for shedding the blood of Gratian; and the same holy bishop absolutely refused to admit the emperor Theodosius the Great into his church, notwithstanding his humblest entreaties, because he had inhumanly put to death 7000 men at Thessalonica, without distinguishing the innocent from the guilty.

DISPENSATION. The providential dealing of God with his creatures. We thus speak of the Jewish dispensation and the Christian dispensation. (See Covenant of Redemption.)

In ecclesiastical law, by dispensation is meant the power vested in archbishops of dispensing, on particular emergencies, with certain minor regulations of the Church, more especially in her character as an establishment.

DISSENTERS. Separatists from the Church of England, and the service and worship thereof, whether Protestants or Papists. At the Revolution a law was enacted, that the statutes of Elizabeth and James I., concerning the discipline of the Church, should not extend to Protestant Dissenters. But persons dissenting were to subscribe the declaration of 30 Car. II. c. 1, and take the oath or declaration of fidelity, &c. They are not to hold their meetings until their place of worship is certified to the bishop, or to the justices of the quarter sessions, and registered; also they are not to keep the doors of their meeting-houses locked during the time of worship. Whoever disturbs or molests them in the performance of their worship, on conviction at the sessions, is to forfeit £20 by the statute of 1 W. & M.—Broughton.

At the present time there are in England 34 dissenting communities or sects; 26 native or indigenous, 9 foreign.

PROTESTANT SECTS.

Scottish Presbyterians:

Church of Scotland.

United Presbyterian Synod.

Presbyterian Church in England.

Independents, or Congregationalists.

Baptists:

General.

Particular.

Seventh Day.

Scotch.

New Connexion General.

Society of Friends.

Unitarians.

Moravians, or United Brethren.

Wesleyan Methodists:

Original Connexion.

New Connexion.

Primitive Methodists.

Bible Christians.

Wesleyan Association.

Independent Methodists.

Wesleyan Reformers.

Calvinistic Methodists:

Welsh Calvinistic Methodists.

Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion.

Sandemanians, or Glassites.

New Church.

Brethren.

FOREIGN:

Lutherans.

German Protestant Reformers.

Reformed Church of the Netherlands.

French Protestants.

OTHER CHRISTIAN SECTS.

Roman Catholics.

Greek Church.

German Catholics.

Italian Reformers.

Irvingites, or Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Latter-day Saints, or Mormons.

JEWS.

Registrar-general’s Report.

DIVINE. Something relating to God; a minister of the gospel; a priest; a theologian. (See Clergy.)

DIVINITY. The science of Divine things; theology; a title of the Godhead. (See Theology.) In strictness, meaning that department of sacred knowledge which has more peculiar reference to the attributes and essence of God.

DIVORCE. A separation of a married man and woman by the sentence of an ecclesiastical judge qualified to pronounce the same.

Among us, divorces are of two kinds, à mensâ et thoro, from bed and board; and à vinculo matrimonii, from the marriage tie. The former neither dissolves the marriage, nor debars the woman of her dower, nor bastardizes the issue; but the latter absolutely dissolves the marriage contract, making it void from the very beginning. The causes of a divorce à mensâ et thoro are adultery, cruelty of the husband, &c.; those of a divorce à vinculo matrimonii, precontract, consanguinity, impotency, &c. On this divorce the dower is gone, and the children, if any begotten, bastardized. On a divorce for adultery, some acts of parliament have allowed the innocent person to marry again.

DOCETÆ. Heretics, so called ἀπὸ τοῦ δοκέειν (apparere), because they taught that our Lord had only a seeming body, and that his actions and sufferings were not in reality, but in appearance. There was in the second century a sect which especially bore this name; but the Docetic error was common to many kinds of Gnostics. (See Gnostics.)

DOCTOR. One who has the highest degree in the faculties of divinity, law, physic, or music. (See Degree.)

DOCTRINE. A system of teaching. By Christian doctrine should be intended the principles or positions of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

DOGMA. A word used originally to express any doctrine of religion formally stated. Dogmatic theology is the statement of positive truths in religion. The indifference of later generations to positive truth is indicated, among other things, by the different notion which has come to be attached, in common discourse, to these words. By a dogma is now generally meant too positive or harsh a statement of uncertain or unimportant articles; and the epithet dogmatic is given to one who is rude or obtrusive, or overbearing in the statement of what he judges to be true.

DOMINICAL or SUNDAY LETTER. In the calendar, the first seven letters of the alphabet are applied to the days of the week, the letter A being always given to the 1st of January, whatsoever that day may be, and the others in succession to the following days. If the year consisted of 364 days, making an exact number of weeks, it is evident that no change would ever take place in these letters: thus, supposing the 1st of January in any given year to be Sunday, all the Sundays would be represented by A, not only in that year, but in all succeeding. There being, however, 365 days in the year, the first letter is again repeated on the 31st of December, and consequently the Sunday letter for the following year will be G. This retrocession of the letters will, from the same cause, continue every year, so as to make F the dominical letter of the third, &c. If every year were common, the process would continue regularly, and a cycle of seven years would suffice to restore the same letters to the same days as before. But the intercalation of a day, every bissextile or fourth year, has occasioned a variation in this respect. The bissextile year, containing 366 instead of 365 days, will throw the dominical letter of the following year back two letters, so that if the dominical letter at the beginning of the year be C, the dominical letter of the next year will be, not B, but A. This alteration is not effected by dropping a letter altogether, but by changing the dominical letter at the end of February, where the intercalation of a day takes place. In consequence of this change every fourth year, twenty-eight years must elapse before a complete revolution can take place in the dominical letter, and it is on this circumstance that the period of the solar cycle is founded.

DOMINICAN MONKS. The religious order of Dominic, or friars preachers; called in England Black friars, and in France Jacobins.

Dominic de Guzman was born in the year 1170, at Calaruega, a small town of the diocese of Osma, in Old Castile. According to the Romish legend, his mother, being with child of him, dreamed she was delivered of a little dog, which gave light to all the world, with a flambeau in his mouth. At six years of age he began to study humanity under the direction of his uncle, who was archpriest of the church of Gumyel de Ystan. The time he had to spare from his studies was spent in assisting at divine offices, singing in the churches, and adorning the altars. At thirteen years of age, he was sent to the university of Palencia, in the kingdom of Leon, where he spent six years in the study of philosophy and divinity. From that time he devoted himself to all manner of religious austerities, and he employed his time, successfully, in the conversion of sinners and heretics. This raised his reputation so high, that the bishop of Osma, resolving to reform the canons of his church, cast his eyes upon Dominic for that purpose, whom he invited to take upon him the habit of a canon in the church of Osma. Accordingly, Dominic astonished and edified the canons of Osma by his extraordinary humility, mortification, and other virtues. Some time after, Dominic was ordained priest by the bishop of Osma, and was made sub-prior of the chapter. That prelate, making a scruple of confining so great a treasure to his own church, sent Dominic out to exercise the ministry of an evangelical preacher; accordingly, he went through several provinces, as Galicia, Castile, and Aragon, converting many, till, in the year 1204, the bishop of Osma, being sent ambassador into France, took Dominic with him. In their passage through Languedoc, they were witnesses of the desolation occasioned by the Albigenses, and obtained leave of Pope Innocent III. to stay some time in that country, and labour on the conversion of those heretics. Here it was that Dominic resolved to put in execution the design he had long formed, of instituting a religious order, whose principal employment should be, preaching the gospel, converting heretics, defending the faith, and propagating Christianity. By degrees he collected together several persons, inspired with the same zeal, whose number soon increased to sixteen. Pope Innocent III. confirmed this institution, at the request of Dominic, who went to Rome for that purpose. They then agreed to embrace the rule of St. Augustine, to which they added statutes and constitutions which had formerly been observed either by the Carthusians, or the Premonstratenses. The principal articles enjoined perpetual silence, abstinence from flesh at all times, wearing of woollen, rigorous poverty, and several other austerities.

The first monastery of this order was established at Toulouse, by the bounty of the bishop of Toulouse, and Simon earl of Montfort. From thence Dominic sent out some of the community to several parts, to labour in preaching, which was the main design of his institute. In the year 1218 he founded the convent of Dominicans at Paris, in the Rue St. Jaques, from whence they had the name of Jacobins. At Metz, in Germany, he founded another monastery of his order; and another, soon after, at Venice. At Rome, he obtained of Pope Honorius III. the church of St. Sabina, where he and his companions took the habit which they pretended the Blessed Virgin showed to the holy Renaud of Orleans, being a white garment and scapular, to which they added a black mantle and hood ending in a point. In 1221, the order had sixty monasteries, being divided into eight provinces, those of Spain, Toulouse, France, Lombardy, Rome, Provence, Germany, and England. St. Dominic, having thus settled and enlarged his order, died at Bologna, August 4th, 1221, and was canonized by Pope Gregory IX., July 13th, 1234.

The order of the Dominicans, after the death of their founder, made a very considerable progress in Europe and elsewhere. They therefore erected four new provinces, namely, those of Greece, Poland, Denmark, and the Holy Land. Afterwards the number of monasteries increased to such a degree, that the order was divided into forty-five provinces, having spread itself into all parts of the world. It has produced a great number of martyrs, confessors, bishops, and holy virgins: there are reckoned of this order 3 popes, 60 cardinals, 150 archbishops, 800 bishops, besides the masters of the sacred palace, who have always been Dominicans.

There are nuns of this order, who owe their foundation to St. Dominic himself, who, whilst he was labouring on the conversion of the Albigenses, was so much concerned to see that some gentlemen of Guienne, not having wherewith to maintain their daughters, either sold or gave them to be brought up by heretics, that, with the assistance of the archbishop of Narbonne, and other charitable persons, he laid the foundation of a monastery at Prouille, where those poor maids might be brought up, and supplied with all necessaries for their subsistence. The habit of these religious was a white robe, a tawny mantle, and a black veil. Their founder obliged them to work at certain hours of the day, and particularly to spin yarn and flax. The nuns of this order had above 130 houses in Italy, 45 in France, 50 in Spain, 15 in Portugal, 40 in Germany, and many in Poland, Russia, and other countries. They never eat flesh, excepting in sickness; they wear no linen, and lie on straw beds; but many monasteries have mitigated this austerity.

In the year 1221, Dominic sent Gilbert du Fresney, with twelve brothers, into England, where they founded their first house at Oxford the same year, and soon after another at London. In the year 1276, the mayor and aldermen of the city of London gave them two streets by the river Thames, where they had a very commodious monastery; whence that place is still called Black Friars. They had monasteries likewise at Warwick, Canterbury, Stamford, Chelmsford, Dunwich, Ipswich, Norwich, Thetford, Exeter, Brecknock, Langley, and Guildford.

The Dominicans, being fortified with an authority from the court of Rome to preach and take confessions, made great encroachments upon the English bishops and the parochial clergy, insisting upon a liberty of preaching wherever they thought fit. And many persons of quality, especially women, deserted from the parochial clergy, and confessed to the Dominicans, insomuch that the character of the secular clergy was greatly sunk thereby. This innovation made way for a dissoluteness of manners; for the people, being under no necessity of confessing to their parish priest, broke through their duty with less reluctancy, in hopes of meeting with a Dominican confessor, those friars being generally in a travelling motion, making no stay where they came, and strangers to their penitents.—Brouqhton.

DONATISTS. Schismatics, originally partisans of Donatus, an African by birth, and bishop of Casæ Nigræ, in Numidia. A secret hatred against Cecilian, elected bishop of Carthage, notwithstanding the opposition of Donatus, excited the latter to form one of the most pernicious schisms that ever disturbed the peace of the Church. He accused Cecilian of having delivered up the sacred books to the Pagans, and pretended that his election was thereby void, and all those who adhered to him heretics. Under this false pretext of zeal for the Church, he set up for the head of a party, and about the year 312, taught that baptism, administered by heretics, was null; that the Church was not infallible; that it had erred in his time; and that he was to be the restorer of it. But a council, held at Arles in 314, acquitted Cecilian, and declared his election valid.

The schismatics, irritated at this sentence, refused to acquiesce in the decisions of the council; and the more firmly to support their cause, they thought it better to subscribe to the opinions of Donatus, and openly to declaim against the Catholics: they gave out, that the Church was become prostituted; they rebaptized the Catholics; they trod under foot the eucharist consecrated by priests of the Catholic communion; they overthrew their altars, burned their churches, and ran up and down decrying the Church. (See Circumcellians.) They had chosen into the place of Cecilian one Majorinus; but he dying soon after, they brought in one Donatus, different from him of Casæ Nigræ.

This new head of the cabal used so much violence against the Catholics, that the schismatics took their name from him. But as they could not prove that they composed a true Church, they sent one of their bishops to Rome, who secretly took upon him the title of bishop of Rome. This bishop being dead, the Donatists appointed him a successor. They attempted likewise to send some bishops into Spain, that they might say, their Church began to spread itself everywhere; but it was only in Africa that it could gain any considerable footing, and this want of diffusion was much insisted on by their opponents as an argument against their pretensions.

After many vain efforts to crush this schism, the emperor Honorius assembled a council of bishops at Carthage, in the year 410; where a disputation was held between seven of each party. Marcellinus, the emperor’s deputy, who presided in that assembly, decided in favour of the Catholics, and ordered them to take possession of all the churches, which the Donatist bishops had seized on by violence, or otherwise. This decree exasperated the Donatists; but the Catholic bishops used so much wisdom and prudence, that they insensibly brought over most of those who had strayed from the bosom of the Church. It appears, however, that the schism was not quite extinct till the 7th century.—Broughton.

DONATIVE. A donative is when the king, or any subject by his licence, founds a church or chapel, and ordains that it shall be merely in the gift or disposal of the patron, and vested absolutely in the clerk by the patron’s deed of donation, without presentation, institution, or induction. This is said to have been anciently the only way of conferring ecclesiastical benefices in England; the method of institution by the bishop not being established more early than the time of Archbishop Becket in the reign of Henry II. And therefore Pope Alexander III., (Decretal, 1. 3, t. 7, c. 3,) in a letter to Becket, severely inveighs against the prava consuetudo, as he calls it, of investiture conferred by the patron only: this however shows what was then the common usage. Others contend, that the claim of the bishops to institution is as old as the first planting of Christianity in this island; and, in proof of it, they allege a letter from the English nobility to the pope in the reign of Henry III., recorded by Matthew Paris, (A. D. 1239,) which speaks of presentation to the bishop as a thing immemorial. The truth seems to be that, where a benefice was to be conferred on a mere layman, he was first presented to the bishop, in order to receive ordination, who was at liberty to examine and refuse him: but where the clerk was already in orders, the living was usually vested in him by the sole donation of the patron; until about the middle of the twelfth century, when the pope endeavoured to introduce a kind of feudal dominion over ecclesiastical benefices, and, in consequence of that, began to claim and exercise the right of institution universally as a species of spiritual investiture.

By the act 14 & 15 Vict. c. 97, sec. 9, the right of perpetual nomination of an incumbent may be acquired by the person or body, their heirs, &c., who shall procure a church to be erected and endowed.

DONNELLAN LECTURES. Mrs. Anne Donnellan, in the last century, bequeathed a sum of £1243 to the college of Dublin, for the encouragement of religion, learning, and good manners; the application of the sum being intrusted to the provost and senior fellows; who, consequently, in 1794, resolved, that a lecturer should be annually appointed to preach six lectures in the college chapel: the subject of the lectures for each year being determined by them. The other regulations are analogous to those of the Bampton Lectures at Oxford. Many distinguished works have been the fruits of this Lecture: among them may be mentioned Dr. Graves’s Lectures on the Pentateuch, Archbishop Magee on Prophecy, &c.

DORMITORY, DORTOR, or DORTURE. The sleeping apartment in a monastic institution.

A place of sepulture is also so called, with reference, like the word cemetery, which has the same meaning, to the resurrection, at which time the bodies of the saints, which for the present repose in their graves, shall arise, or awake. But it must be borne in mind, that the word has reference to the sleep of the body, and not of the soul, which latter was never an article of the Christian faith.

DORT. The Synod of Dort was convened to compose the troubles occasioned by the celebrated Arminian controversy.

Arminius, professor of divinity at Leyden, had received his theological education at Geneva. After much profound meditation on the abstruse subject of predestination, he became dissatisfied with Calvin’s doctrine of the absolute decrees of God, in respect to the salvation and perdition of man; and, while he admitted the eternal prescience of the Deity, he held, with the Roman Catholic Church, that no mortal is rendered finally unhappy, by an eternal and invincible decree; and that the misery of those who perish comes from themselves. Many who were eminent for their talents and learning, and some who filled high situations in Holland, embraced his opinions; but, apparently at least, a great majority sided against them. The most active of these was Gomar, the colleague of Arminius in the professorship. Unfortunately, politics entered into the controversy. Most of the friends of Arminius were of the party which opposed the politics of the Prince of Orange; while, generally, the adversaries of Arminius were favourable to the views of that prince. Barneveldt and Grotius, two of the most respectable partisans of Arminius, were thrown into prison for their supposed practices against the state. The former perished on the scaffold; the latter, by his wife’s address, escaped from prison. While these disturbances were at the highest, Arminius died.

On his decease, the superintendence of the party devolved to Episcopius, who was, at that time, professor of theology at Leyden, and universally esteemed for his learning, his judgment, and his eloquence. The Arminian cause prospering under him, the opposite party took the alarm, and, in 1618, a synod was called at Dort, by the direction, and under the influence, of Prince Maurice. It was attended by deputies from the United Provinces, and from the Churches of England, Hesse, Bremen, Switzerland, and the Palatinate.

The synod adopted the Belgic Confession, decided in favour of absolute decrees, and excommunicated the Arminians. Its canons were published under the title of “Judicium Synodi nationalis reformatarum ecclesiarum habiti Dordrechti anno 1618 et 1619, de quinque doctrinæ capitibus, in ecclesiis Belgicis, controversis: Promulgatum VI. Maii MDCXIX. 4to.” It concludes the Sylloge Confessionum, printed at the Clarendon press.—Butler’s Confession of Faith.

DOXOLOGY. (See Gloria Patri.) A hymn used in the Divine service of Christians. The ancient doxology was only a single sentence, without a response, running in these words: “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen.” Part of the latter clause, “As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,” was inserted some time after the first composition. The fourth Council of Toledo, in the year 633, added the word “honour” to it, and read it, “Glory and honour be to the Father,” &c., because the prophet David says, “Bring glory and honour to the Lord.” It is not easy to say at what time the latter clause was inserted. Some ascribe it to the Council of Nice, and suppose it was added in opposition to the Arians. But the first express mention made of it is in the second Council of Vaison, an. 529, above two centuries later.

There was another small difference in the use of this ancient hymn; some reading it, “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, with the Holy Ghost;” others, “Glory be to the Father, in (or by) the Son, and by the Holy Ghost.” This difference of expression occasioned no disputes in the Church, till the rise of the Arian heresy: but, when the followers of Arius began to make use of the latter, and made it a distinguishing character of their party, it was entirely laid aside by the Catholics, and the use of it was enough to bring any one under suspicion of heterodoxy.

This hymn was of most general use, and was a doxology, or giving of praise to God, at the close of every solemn office. The Western Church repeated it at the end of every psalm, with some few exceptions; and omitted it on the three days before Easter, and in offices of the dead; and the Eastern Church used it only at the end of the last psalm. Many of their prayers were also concluded with it, particularly the solemn thanksgiving, or consecration-prayer at the eucharist. It was also the ordinary conclusion of their sermons.

There was likewise another hymn, of great note in the ancient Church, called the great doxology, or angelical hymn, beginning with those words, which the angels sung at our Saviour’s birth, “Glory be to God on high,” &c. This was chiefly used in the Communion Service. It was also used daily in men’s private devotions. In the Mozarabic liturgy it is appointed to be sung before the lessons on Christmas day. St. Chrysostom often mentions it, and observes that the Ascetics, or Christians who had retired from the world, met together daily to sing this hymn. Who first composed it, adding the remaining part to the words sung by the angels, is uncertain. Some suppose it to be as ancient as the time of Lucian, about the beginning of the second century. Others take it for the Gloria Patri; which is a dispute as difficult to be determined, as it is to find out the first author and original of this hymn.

Both these doxologies have a place in the liturgy of the Church of England, the former being repeated after every psalm, the latter used in the Communion Service.

As the ancient doxology of “Glory to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” was, among the Christians, a solemn profession of their belief in the Holy Trinity, so the Mohammedans, by their doxology, “There is but one God,” (to which they sometimes add, “and Mohammed is his prophet,”) which they use both in their public and private prayers, and in their acclamations, sufficiently show their disbelief of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead.—Bingham.

DRIPSTONE. In church architecture, the projecting moulding which crowns doors, windows, and other arches, in the exterior of a building.

DULCINISTS. Heretics, so denominated from one Dulcinus, a layman, of Novara in Lombardy, who lived in the beginning of the 14th century. He pretended to preach the reign of the Holy Ghost; and while he justly enough rejected the pope’s authority, he foolishly made himself to be the head of that third reign, saying, that the Father had reigned from the beginning of the world to the coming of Christ; and the Son’s reign began then, and continued until the year 1300. He was followed by a great many people to the Alps, where he and his wife were taken and burnt by the order of Clement IV.

DULIA. (Δουλεία.) The worship paid by Romanists to saints and angels, and to images. Not denying that all these are made by them objects of worship, the Papists invent a distinction of many kinds and degrees of worship, and very accurately assign to each object of worship its proper amount of reverence. The lowest degree is the dulia, which is given to saints and angels. Hyperdulia (ὑπερδουλεία) is reserved for the Blessed Virgin alone: and Latria (λατρεια) is given to the Lord himself, and to each person in the ever blessed and glorious Trinity. Images of either of these receive a relative worship of the same order. An image of a saint or angel, relative Dulia: an image of the Blessed Virgin, relative hyperdulia: an image of either person of the Blessed Trinity, relative Latria. (See Idolatry, Images, Invocation of Saints.)

DUNKERS, or DIPPERS. A sect of Baptists, originating (1724) in the teaching of one Conrad Peysel or Beissel, a German, in Philadelphia, one of the American states. They are distinguished not only by their adherence to the rite of baptism with trine immersion, which, like other Baptists, they of course confine to adults, but also by their rigid abstinence from flesh, except on particular occasions; by their living in monastic societies, by their peculiar garb, like that of the Dominican friars, and by their scruples with regard to resistance, war, slavery, and litigation. Their great settlement is at a place which they call Euphrata, in allusion to the lament of the Hebrews in their captivity, which they used to pour forth to their harps as they sat on the banks of the Euphrates.

EAGLE. A frequent, and the most beautiful, form of the lectern for reading the lessons from in churches. It has probably some reference to the eagle, which is the symbolical companion of St. John, in ecclesiastical design. The eagle is frequently employed in foreign churches, but generally for the chanting of the service, not for the lessons. Sometimes it is employed for the reading of the Epistles and Gospels, and there are instances of one being on each side of the choir or chancel. Several of the cathedrals and colleges in our universities have this kind of lecterns. Before the civil wars in 1651, there was in the cathedral of Waterford, a “great standing pelican to support the Bible, a brazen eagle,” and other ornaments.—Ryland’s Waterford. Winchester and St. John’s College, Cambridge, have of late years been provided with eagle lecterns. The “Lecterna” or Bible eagle at Peterborough was given by Abbot Ramsay and John Maldon in 1471.—Dugd. Monast. ed. 1830, i. 344.—Jebb.

EARLY ENGLISH, or LANCET, the first style of pure Gothic architecture, fully established about 1190, and merging in the Geometrical about 1245. The Lancet window is the principal characteristic of this style; but it has, besides, various peculiarities, (see Arcade, Capital, Moulding, Vaulting,) among which are the following:—The doorways are frequently divided by a central shaft. As compared with the preceding style, the buttresses have a considerable projection, and they usually terminate in a plain pediment. The flying buttress becomes frequent. Gables are of very high pitch; the parapet usually retains the corbel-table. Piers consist of a circular or octagonal shaft, surrounded by four or eight smaller ones, which stand free, except that, when of great length, they are generally banded in the centre. Purbeck or Petworth marble is often used both for the central, which is really the bearing shaft, and the smaller ones; but in this case the marble of the bearing shaft is laid as in the quarry, while the smaller shafts are set upwards, for the sake of greater length. The triforium still maintains its importance, though hardly so lofty as in the Norman style: it is usually of two smaller behind a principal arch, or of four smaller behind two principal arches. The clerestory is generally of the three Lancets, the central one much more lofty than the two others. The carving is extremely sharp and good, and very easily recognised, when it contains foliage, by the stiff stalks ending in crisped or curled leaves. Panels are often used to relieve large spaces of masonry, either blank or pierced; and sometimes in window-heads, and in triforium arcades, approach very nearly to the character of tracery. They are also often filled with figures. The dog-tooth, which had made its appearance in the Transition, is now extremely abundant, often filling the hollows of the mouldings in two or three continuous trails. The spires are almost invariably broach-spires.

EAST. (See also Bowing and Apostles’ Creed.) In the aspect of their churches, the ancient Christians reversed the order of the Jews, placing the altar on the east, so that in facing towards the altar in their devotions they were turned to the east. As the Jews began their day with the setting sun, so the followers of Christ began theirs with the rising sun. The eye of the Christian turned with peculiar interest to the east, whence the day-spring from on high had visited him. There the morning star of his hope fixed his admiring gaze. Thence arose the Sun of righteousness with all his heavenly influences. Thither, in prayer, his soul turned with kindling emotions to the altar of his God. And even in his grave, thither still he directed his slumbering eye, in quiet expectation of awakening to behold in the same direction the second appearing of his Lord, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to gather his saints.

In the ancient Church it was a ceremony almost of general use and practice, the turning the face to the east in their solemn adorations, which custom seems derived from the ceremonies of baptism, when it was usual to renounce the devil with the face to the west, and then turn to the east and make the covenant with Christ. Several reasons were given by the Fathers for this. First, As the east, the place of the day-spring from darkness, was the symbol of Christ, “the Sun of righteousness.” 2ndly, As it was the place of paradise, lost by the fall of the first Adam, and to be regained by the second Adam. 3rdly, That Christ made his appearance on earth in the east; there ascended into heaven; and thence will again come at the last day. And, 4thly, That the east, as the seat of light and brightness, was the most honourable part of the creation, and therefore peculiarly ascribed to God, the fountain of light, and illuminator of all things; as the west was ascribed to the devil, because he hides the light, and brings darkness on men to their destruction.

When we repeat the creed, it is customary to turn towards the east, that so, whilst we are making profession of our faith in the blessed Trinity, we may look towards that quarter of the heavens where God is supposed to have his peculiar residence of glory.—Wheatly.

Turning towards the east is an ancient custom,—as indeed in most religions, men have directed their worship some particular way. And this practice being intended only to honour Christ, the Sun of righteousness, who hath risen upon us, to enlighten us with that doctrine of salvation to which we then declare our adherence, it ought not to be condemned as superstition.—Secker.

Most churches are so contrived, that the greater part of the congregation faces the east. The Jews, in their dispersion throughout the world, when they prayed, turned their faces towards the mercy-seat and cherubim, where the ark stood. (2 Chron. vi. 36–38.) Daniel was found praying towards Jerusalem, (Dan. vi. 10,) because of the situation of the temple. And this has always been esteemed a very becoming way of expressing our belief in God.—Collis.

EASTER. A festival of the Christians observed in the memory of our Saviour’s resurrection. The Latins, and others, call it Pascha, an Hebrew word, which signifies “passage,” and is applied to the Jewish feast of the Passover, to which the Christian festival of Easter corresponds. This festival is called, in English, Easter, from the Saxon Eostre, an ancient goddess of that people, worshipped with peculiar ceremonies in the month of April.

Concerning the celebration of this festival, there were anciently very great disputes in the Church. Though all agreed in the observation of it in general, yet they differed very much as to the particular time when it was to be observed; some keeping it precisely on the same stated day every year; others, on the fourteenth day of the first moon in the new year, whatever day of the week it happened on; and others, on the first Sunday after the first full moon. This diversity occasioned a great dispute, in the second century, between the Asiatic Churches and the rest of the world; in the course of which Pope Victor excommunicated all those Churches. But the Council of Nice, in the year 324, decreed, that all Churches should keep the Pasch, or festival of Easter, on one and the same day, which should be always a Sunday. This decree was afterwards confirmed by the Council of Antioch, in the year 341. Yet this did not put an end to all disputes concerning the observation of this festival; for it was not easy to determine on what Sunday it was to be held, because, being a movable feast, it sometimes happened, that the Churches of one country kept it a week, or a month, sooner than other Churches, by reason of their different calculations. Therefore the Council of Nice is said to have decreed further, that the bishops of Alexandria should adjust a proper cycle, and inform the rest of the world, on what Sunday every year Easter was to be observed. Notwithstanding which, the Roman and Alexandrian accounts continued to differ, and sometimes varied a week, or a month, from each other; and no effectual cure was found for this, till, in the year 525, Dionysius Exiguus brought the Alexandrian canon, or cycle, entirely into use in the Roman Church. Meantime, the Churches of France and Britain kept to the old Roman canon, and it was two or three ages after, before the new Roman, that is, the Alexandrian canon was, not without some struggle and difficulty, settled among them.—Bingham, Orig. Eccles. b. xx. c. 5. Theod. lib. i. c. 10. Socrat. lib. ii. c. 9. Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. iii. c. 14. Leo, Ep. 63, ad Marcian. Imper.

But though the Christian Churches differed as to the time of celebrating Easter, yet they all agreed in showing a peculiar respect and honour to this festival. Gregory Nazianzen calls it the Queen of Festivals, and says, it excels all others as far as the sun exceeds the other stars. Hence, in some ancient writers, it is distinguished by the name of Dominica Gaudii, i. e. the “Sunday of joy.” One great instance of the public joy was given by the emperors, who were used to grant a general release to the prisons on this day, with an exception only to such criminals as were guilty of the highest crimes. The ancient Fathers frequently mention these Paschal indulgences, or acts of grace, and speak of them with great commendations. It was likewise usual at this holy season for private persons to grant slaves their freedom or manumission.—Orat. 19, in fun. Patris, t. v. Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 38, leg. 3. Cod. Justin. lib. iii. tit. 12, leg. 8.

To these expressions of public joy may be added, that the Christians were ambitious, at this time especially, to show their liberality to the poor. They likewise kept the whole week after Easter day, as part of the festival; holding religious assemblies every day, for prayer, preaching, and receiving the communion. Upon which account the author of the Constitutions requires servants to rest from their labour the whole week. All public games were prohibited during this whole season; as also all proceedings at law, except in some special and extraordinary cases.—Lib. viii. c. 53. Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. v. leg. 5. Ib. lib. ii. tit. viii.

The festival of Easter was, likewise, the most noted and solemn time of baptism, which, except in cases of necessity, was administered only at certain stated times of the year.

The eve, or vigil, of this festival was celebrated with more than ordinary pomp, with solemn watchings, and with multitudes of lighted torches, both in the churches and in private houses, so as to turn the night itself into day. This they did as a prodromus, or forerunner of that great light, the Sun of righteousness, which the next day arose upon the world.—Greg. Naz. Orat. ii. in Pasch.

The paschal canon, or rule, of Dionysius having become the standing rule, for the celebration of Easter, to all the Western Churches, it will be proper briefly to explain it. The particulars of it are as follows: viz. That Easter be always on the Sunday next after the Jewish Passover; that, the Jewish Passover being always on the fourteenth day of the first vernal moon, the Christian Easter is always to be the next Sunday after the said fourteenth day of that moon; that, to avoid all conformity with the Jews in this matter, if the fourteenth day of the said moon be on a Sunday, this festival is to be deferred to the Sunday following; that the first vernal moon is that, whose fourteenth day is either upon the day of the vernal equinox, or the next fourteenth day after it; that the vernal equinox, according to the Council of Nice, is fixed to the twenty-first day of March; that therefore the first vernal moon, according to this rule, is that, whose fourteenth day falls upon the 21st of March, or the first fourteenth day after; that the next Sunday after the fourteenth day of the vernal moon (which is called the paschal term) is always Easter day; that, therefore, the earliest paschal term being the 21st of March, the 22nd of March is the earliest Easter possible; and the 18th of April being the latest paschal term, the seventh day after, that is, the 25th of April, is the latest Easter possible; that the cycle of the moon, or golden number, always shows us the first day of the paschal moon, and the cycle of the sun, or dominical letter, always shows us which is the next Sunday after.—Prideaux, Connect. part ii. b. iv.

In the Romish Church, on Easter eve, the bells are rung about four in the afternoon; the ornaments of the churches and altars are changed from black to white; and the paschal taper is placed in a great candlestick made in the shape of an angel. On the morning of Easter Sunday, matins are said before day-break, because our Saviour rose at that time. When the pope officiates, two cardinal deacons are placed on the right and left of the altar, dressed in white robes, to represent the two angels who watched our Saviour’s sepulchre.—Sacra Cerem. Eccl. Rom. lib. ii.

In the Greek Church, it is usual, on Easter day, upon meeting their friends, to greet them with this salutation, “Jesus Christ is risen from the dead;” to which the person accosted replies, “He is risen indeed.” On Good Friday, two priests carry in procession, on their shoulders, the picture or representation of a tomb, in which the crucified Jesus, painted on a board, is deposited. On Easter Sunday, this sepulchre is carried out of the church, and exposed to public view, when the priest solemnly assures the people, that Christ is risen from the dead, and shows them the picture turned on the other side, which represents Jesus Christ rising out of the sepulchre. The whole congregation embrace each other, and, in transports of joy, shoot off pistols.—Tournefort’s Voyages, Letter III. Broughton.

The anniversary festival appointed in remembrance of the resurrection of our blessed Saviour from the state of death, to which he had subjected himself as an atonement for the sins of men. It is stated by Venerable Bede, that this name was given to this festival at the time when Christianity was first introduced among our Saxon ancestors in this island. Those people, says Bede, worshipped an imaginary deity, called Eostre, whose feast they celebrated every year at this season; the name remained when the worship was altered. Others conceive the name to be derived from an old Saxon word importing rising; Easter day thus signifying the day of resurrection. Easter Sunday is not strictly the anniversary day of our Saviour’s resurrection, but is the day appointed by the Church to be kept in remembrance of that event. After great difference of opinions, it was decided in the Council of Nice that Easter day should be kept on the Sunday following the Jewish feast of the Passover, which Passover is kept on the 14th day, or full moon, of the Jewish month Nisan. At the same time, to prevent all uncertainty in future, it was made a further rule of the Church, that the full moon next to the vernal (or spring) equinox should be taken for the full moon in the month Nisan, and the 21st of March be accounted the vernal equinox. Easter Sunday, therefore, is always the Sunday following the full moon which falls on, or next after, the 21st of March. Easter is thus observed with reference to the feast of the Passover, on account of the typical quality of that day; the annual sacrifice commanded by the Jewish law being regarded as a type of the greater sacrifice of Christ for our redemption, and the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt as a type of our deliverance from sin and death by his merits.

This was the birthday of our Saviour in his state of glory and exaltation, as his nativity was his birthday to his state of humiliation. It was anciently called the “great day,” and “the feast of feasts;” being by eminence “the day which the Lord hath made,” (Ps. cxviii. 24,) for the Fathers unanimously expound that passage of this day, and therefore with them, as with us, that psalm was always part of the office of the day. For the antiquity of the observation of this day innumerable authors might be produced; but the matter is not at all controverted.—L’Estrange.

This is the highest of all feasts, saith Epiphanius: this day Christ opened to us the door of life, being the first-fruits of those that rose from the dead: whose resurrection was our life; for he rose again for our justification. (Rom. iv. 25.)—Bp. Sparrow.

In the primitive times the Christians of all Churches on this day used this morning salutation, “Christ is risen;” to which those who were saluted answered, “Christ is risen indeed;” or else thus, “and hath appeared unto Simon;” a custom still retained in the Greek Church. And our Church, supposing us as eager of the joyful news as they were, is loth to withhold from us long the pleasure of expressing it; and therefore, as soon as the absolution is pronounced, and we are thereby rendered fit for rejoicing, she begins her office of praise with anthems proper to the day, encouraging her members to call upon one another “to keep the feast; for that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, and is also risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept,” &c.—Wheatly.

The first lesson in the morning is the twelfth chapter of Exodus, in which is mentioned the institution of the Passover, proper for this day, the feast of the Passover: for, as St. Augustine observes, “we do in this feast not only call to mind the history of our Saviour’s resurrection, but also celebrate the mystery of ours.” That as Christ this day rose again from death to life, so by Christ, and the virtue of his resurrection, shall we be made alive, and rise from death to life eternal. Christ is therefore our true Passover, whereof the other was a type: the lesson then is proper for the day. So is the first lesson for the evening, (Exod. xiv.,) for it is concerning the Israelites’ deliverance out of Egypt, a type of our deliverance from hell this day by Christ’s glorious resurrection. As that day Israel saw that great work, which the Lord did upon Egypt, (ver. 31,) so this day we see the great conquest over hell and death finished by Christ’s triumphant resurrection from the dead. The second lessons are plain. The Gospel gives us the full evidence of Christ’s resurrection; the Epistle tells us what use we should make of it, “If Christ be risen, seek those things that are above,” &c. The collect prays for grace, to make the use of it which the Epistle directs.

Thus holy Church is careful to teach and instruct all her children in the matter of the feast, preaching Christ’s resurrection to us, both in the type and prophecy out of the Old Testament, and in the history of it out of the New. And she does not only teach us to know what God hath done for us this day, but also she is careful that we may do our duty to God for this his marvellous goodness, commanding and directing us to pray for grace to do our duty, prescribing us excellent forms of adoring and blessing God for his mercy this day, such methods as the Holy Ghost hath set down, in which we may be sure to pray and praise God by the spirit.—Bp. Sparrow. On this day, as on Christmas day, there were formerly [in the First Book of King Edward VI.] two communions, whereof we have retained the former Epistle and Gospel.—Bp. Cosin.

Easter day is a scarlet day at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford. In choirs, the Responses and Litanies used to be universally, and in many places are still, solemnly sung to the organ; and the Responses, on the Monday and Tuesday following.—Jebb.

EASTER ANTHEMS. On Easter day, instead of the Venite, certain anthems are appointed to be said or sung. At the last review the first two verses now used were prefixed, and the authorized translation adopted. In the First Book of King Edward VI., these anthems were appointed to be said or sung “afore matins, the people being assembled in the church;” and were followed by the following Versicle and Response.

Priest. Show forth to all the nations the glory of God.

Answ. And among all people his wonderful works.

With a special prayer. (See Anthem.)

EBIONITES. Heretics in the first century; so called from their leader, Ebion. The Ebionites, as well as the Nazarenes, had their origin from the circumcised Christians, who had retired from Jerusalem to Pella, during the war between the Jews and Romans, and made their first appearance after the destruction of Jerusalem, about the time of Domitian, or a little before.

Ebion, the author of the heresy of the Ebionites, was a disciple of Cerinthus, and his successor. He improved upon the errors of his master, and added to them new opinions of his own. He began his preaching in Judea: he taught in Asia, and even at Rome: his tenets infected the isle of Cyprus. St. John opposed both Cerinthus and Ebion in Asia; and it is thought that this apostle wrote his Gospel, in the year 97, particularly against this heresy.

The Ebionites held the same errors as the Nazarenes. They united the ceremonies of the law with the precepts of the gospel: they observed both the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday. They called their place of assembling a synagogue, and not a church. They bathed every day, which was the custom of the Jews. In celebrating the eucharist, they made use of unleavened bread, but no wine.

They added to the observance of the law divers superstitions. They adored Jerusalem as the house of God. Like the Samaritans, they would not suffer a person of another religion to touch them. They abstained from the flesh of animals, and even from milk: and, lest any one should object to them that passage of the Gospel, where our Lord says he desires to eat of the passover, they corrupted it. When they were sick, or bitten by a serpent, they plunged themselves into water, and invoked all sorts of things to their assistance.

They disagreed among themselves in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ. Some of them said he was born, like other men, of Joseph and Mary, and acquired sanctification only by his good works. Others of them allowed that he was born of a virgin, but denied that he was the Word of God, or had a pre-existence before his human generation. They said he was indeed the only true prophet, but yet a mere man, who, by his virtue, had arrived at being called Christ and the Son of God. They supposed that Christ and the devil were two principles, which God had opposed the one to the other.

Though the Ebionites observed the law, yet they differed from the Jews in many points. They acknowledged the sanctity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and Joshua; but they laughed at all those who came after them. They rejected some parts of the Pentateuch; and when they were too closely pressed by these books, they entirely abandoned them.

Of the New Testament, they acknowledged only the Gospel of St. Matthew, that is, that which was written in Hebrew, and which they called the Gospel according to the Hebrews. But they took from it the two first chapters, and corrupted other passages of it. They absolutely rejected St. Paul as an apostate, and an enemy of the law, and published several calumnies against him. They had likewise false Acts of the Apostles, in which they mixed a great many fables.

As to their manner of life, they imitated the Carpocratians, the most infamous of all heretics. They rejected virginity and continence: they obliged children to marry very young: they allowed married persons to separate from each other, and marry again, as often as they pleased.

St. Justin, St. Irenæus, and Origen, wrote against the Ebionites. Symmachus, author of one of the Greek versions of the Scriptures, was an Ebionite.

ECCLESIASTES. A canonical book of the Old Testament. It is called “The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king of Jerusalem,” that is, of Solomon, who, from the great excellency of his instructions, was emphatically styled “the preacher.” The design of it is to show the vanity of all sublunary things, in order to which the author enumerates the several objects upon which men place their happiness in this life, and then discovers the emptiness and insufficiency of all worldly enjoyments, by many various reflections on the evils of human life. The conclusion of the whole is, in the words of the preacher, “Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” St. Jerome observes, that this pious inference prevented the Jews from suppressing this whole book of Ecclesiastes, which they had thoughts of doing, (as well as many other writings of Solomon, which are now lost and forgotten,) because it asserts that the creatures of God are vain, and all things as nothing; it was also thought to contain some dangerous opinions, and some particular expressions that might infuse doubts concerning the immortality of the soul.

The word Ecclesiastes, which is Greek, signifies a preacher. The Hebrews call it Coheleth, which literally signifies a collector, because it is supposed to be a sermon or discourse delivered to an assembly. The Talmudists will have King Hezekiah to be the author of it. Kimchi ascribes it to Isaiah, and Grotius to Zorobabel; but the book itself affords no foundation for these conjectures. On the contrary, as observed by Mr. Holden, “The author is expressly styled in the initiatory verse, the son of David, king in Jerusalem: and in the 12th verse he is described as king over Israel, in Jerusalem. These passages are found in every known MS., and in all the ancient versions; and Solomon, as is well known, was the only son of David who ever reigned in Jerusalem. The book has been thus admitted into the sacred canon as the production of Solomon, to whom it has also been ascribed by a regular and concurrent tradition. A collateral proof arises from the contents of the work itself, in which the author is stated to have excelled in wisdom beyond all who were before him in Jerusalem, and to have composed many proverbs: circumstances descriptive of Solomon, and of no other personage whose name is recorded in the Holy Scriptures. The writer is likewise represented as abounding in wealth and treasure, &c., extremely applicable to Solomon.” Mr. Holden, and Mr. Desvœux, in their very learned and exhaustive dissertations, completely refute the really shallow objections of Grotius, Dathe, Eichhorn, and others, as to Solomon’s authorship. They do not, however, quite agree as to the scope of the book. Mr. Desvœux (to whom Dr. Graves, in his Lectures on the Pentateuch, assents) states that his object is to prove the immortality of the soul, or rather the necessity of another state after this life, from such arguments as may be afforded by reason and experience. Mr. Holden abides by the generally received opinion, that it is “an arguing into the summum bonum, or chief good: not however merely as regarding happiness in this life, but that which in all its bearings and relations is conducive to the best interests of man. This he finally determines to be true wisdom: ... and every part of the discourse, when considered in reference to this object, tends to develope the nature of true wisdom, to display its excellence, or to recommend its acquirement.” So Bishop Gray: “he endeavours to illustrate the insufficiency of earthly enjoyment; not with design to excite in us a disgust to life, but to influence us to prepare for that state where there is no vanity.” Ecclesiastes may justly be considered as a sequel to the Book of Proverbs. Ecclesiastes, according to a modern author, is a dialogue in which a man of piety disputes against a libertine who favoured the opinions of the Sadducees; his reason is, because there are some things in it which seem to contradict each other, and could not proceed from the same person. But this may be wholly owing to Solomon’s method of disputing pro and con, and proposing the objections of the Sadducees, to which he replies.

The generality of commentators believe this book to be the product of Solomon’s repentance, after having experienced all the follies and pleasures of life; notwithstanding which, some have questioned whether Solomon be saved, and his repentance is still a problem in the Church of Rome.

ECCLESIASTIC. A person holding any office in the sacred ministry of the Church. (See Bishop, Priest, and Deacon.)

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIANS. (See Historians.)

ECCLESIASTICUS. An apocryphal book of Scripture, distinguished by this name because it was read (in ecclesia) in the church as a book of piety and instruction, but not of infallible authority; or it is so called, perhaps, to distinguish it from the book of Ecclesiastes; or to show that it contains, as well as the former, precepts and exhortations to wisdom and virtue. The anonymous preface to this work informs us, that the author of it was a Jew, called Jesus, the son of Sirach, who wrote it in Hebrew; but it was rendered into Greek by his grandson of the same name. The Hebrew copy of this book, which St. Jerome saw, was entitled Proverbs. By many of the ancients it was styled Παναρετος, the book of every virtue: but the most common name among the Greeks is, The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach. This book was written under the high priesthood of Onias III., and translated in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, or Physcon. Some of the ancients have ascribed it to Solomon. The author, no doubt, had in his view the subject and thoughts expressed in the Proverbs of that king, and has followed his method of teaching morality by sentences or maxims. This book begins with an exhortation to the pursuit of wisdom; after which follow many maxims of morality to the forty-fourth chapter, where the author begins to rehearse the praises of famous men, such as the patriarchs, prophets, and the most illustrious men of the Jewish nation. The Latin version of Ecclesiasticus has more in it than the Greek, several particulars being inserted in that, which are not in the other. These, Dr. Prideaux observes, seem to have been interpolated by the first author of that version; but now, the Hebrew being lost, the Greek, which was made from it by the grandson of the author, must stand for the original; and from that the English translation was made.

Parts of Ecclesiasticus are strikingly like the style of Solomon, and truly Hebraic in their cast, as has been remarked by Bishop Lowth in his 24th Prelection; who subjoins a translation of the 24th chapter into Hebrew. He recognises however a considerable difference between its style and that of Solomon.

ECLECTICS. A sect which arose in the Christian Church towards the close of the second century. They professed to make truth the only object of their inquiry, and to be ready to adopt from all the different systems and sects such tenets as they thought agreeable to it; and hence their name, from ἐκλεγω, to select. They preferred Plato to the other philosophers, and looked upon his opinions concerning God, the human soul, and things invisible, as conformable to the spirit and genius of the Christian doctrine. One of the principal patrons of this system was Ammonius Saccas, who at this time laid the foundation of that sect, afterwards distinguished by the name of the New Platonists, in the Alexandrian School.—Broughton.

ECONOMICAL. The economical method of disputing was that in which the disputants accommodated themselves, as much as possible, to the taste and prejudices of those whom they were endeavouring to gain over to the truth. Some of the early Christians carried this condescension too far, and abused St. Paul’s example. (1 Cor. ix. 20.) The word is derived from οἰκονομία, dispensatio rei familiaris, the discretionary arrangement of things in a house according to circumstances.

ECONOMIST. (Œconomus.) An officer in some cathedrals of Ireland, chosen periodically by the chapter out of their own body, whose office is to manage the common estate of the cathedral, to see to the necessary repairs, pay the church officers, &c.—Jebb.

ECONOMY ESTATE, or FUND. In some Irish cathedrals the common fund, for the support of the fabric, the payment of the inferior church officers, and sometimes certain members of the choir, is so called. It is not divisible among the cathedral body themselves. About half the cathedrals in Ireland are destitute of any common or corporate fund whatever.—Jebb.

ECUMENICAL. (From οἰκουμένη, the world.) A term applied to general councils of the Church, to distinguish them from provincial and diocesan synods. (See Councils.)

EDIFICATION. Literally, a building up; and in the figurative language of the New Testament, a growing in grace and holiness, whether of individuals or of the Church.

A pretence of greater edification has been a common ground of separation from the Church; but most absurdly, for “edification,” says Dean Sherlock, in his resolution of some cases of conscience which respect Church communion, is building up, and is applied to the Church, considered as God’s house and temple; and it is an odd way of building up the temple of God, by dividing and separating the parts of it from each other. The most proper signification of the word which our translators render by “edification,” is a house or building; and this is the proper sense wherein it belongs to the Christian Church: “ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building,” that is, the Church is God’s house or building. Thus the same apostle tells us that in Christ, “the whole building” (that is, the whole Christian Church) “fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.” (Ephes. ii. 21.) Hence the governors of the Church are called builders, and the apostles are called “labourers together with God,” in erecting this spiritual building; and St. Paul calls himself a “master builder.” Hence the increase, growth, and advances towards perfection in the Church, is called the building or edification of it. For this reason, St. Paul commends prophecy, or expounding the Scriptures, before speaking in unknown tongues without an interpreter, because by this the Church receives building or edification.

All those spiritual gifts, which were bestowed on the Christians, were for the building and edifying of the Church. The apostolical power in Church censures was “for edification, not for destruction” (2 Cor. x. 8); to build, and not to pull down; that is, to preserve the unity of the Church entire, and its communion pure. And we may observe, that this edification is primarily applied to the Church: “that the Church may receive edifying;” “that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church;” “for the edifying of the body of Christ.” (1 Cor. xiv. 5, 12; Ephes. iv. 12.) And it is very observable wherein the apostle places the edification of the body of Christ, viz. in unity and love: “till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” (Ephes. iv. 12, 13.) Till we are united by one faith unto one body, and perfect man, and “speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” (Ephes. iv. 15, 16.) This is an admirable description of the unity of the Church, in which all the parts are closely united and compacted together, as stones and timber are to make one house; and thus they grow into one body, and increase in mutual love and charity, which is the very building and edification of the Church, which is edified and built up in love, as the apostle adds, that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor. viii. 1.) This builds up the Church of Christ; and that not such a common charity as we have for all mankind, but such a love and sympathy as is peculiar to the members of the same body, and which none but members can have for each other. And now methinks I need not prove that schism and separation are not for the edification of the Church; to separate for edification is to pull down instead of building up. But these men do not seem to have any great regard to the edification of the Church, but only to their own particular edification: and we must grant that edification is sometimes applied to particular Christians in Scripture, according to St. Paul’s exhortation, “Comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.” (1 Thess. v. 11.) And this edifying one another, without question, signifies our promoting each other’s growth and progress in all Christian graces and virtues; and so the building and edification of the Church, signifies the growth and improvement of the Church in all spiritual wisdom and knowledge, and Christian graces. The edification of the Church consists in the edification of particular Christians; but then this is called edification or building, because this growth and improvement is in the unity and communion of the Church, and makes them one spiritual house and temple. Thus the Church is called the temple of God, and every particular Christian is God’s temple, wherein the Holy Spirit dwells; and yet God has but one temple, and the Holy Spirit dwells only in the Church of Christ; but particular Christians are God’s temple, and the Holy Spirit dwells in them as living members of the Christian Church; and thus by the same reason the Church is edified and built up, as it grows into a spiritual house and holy temple, by a firm and close union and communion of all its parts: and every Christian is edified, as he grows up in all Christian graces and virtues in the unity of the Church. And, therefore, whatever extraordinary means of edification men may fancy to themselves in a separation, the apostle knew no edification but in the communion of the Church; and indeed, if our growth and increase in all grace and virtue be more owing to the internal assistance of the Divine Spirit, than to the external administrations, as St. Paul tells us, “I have planted and Apollos watered, but God gave the increase; so then, neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase” (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7); and if the Divine Spirit confines his influences and operations to the unity of the Church, as the same apostle tells us that there is but “one body and one spirit,” (Eph. iv. 4,) which plainly signifies that the operations of this one spirit are appropriated to this one body, as the soul is to the body it animates;—then it does not seem a very likely way for edification, to cut ourselves off from the unity of Christ’s body.

ELDERS. (πρεσβύτεροι, hence Presbyterians.) Presbyterian sects have supposed that the order of lay-elders, as they denominate some of their officers, is sanctioned by Holy Scripture. It appears certain, however, that the “elders” mentioned by St. Paul (1 Tim. v.) did not hold the same office as those in the Presbyterian sects, but “laboured in the word and doctrine.” In this place the apostle means only ministers, when he directs that double honour should be paid to the elders that rule well, especially those who labour in the word and doctrine; and the distinction does not appear to consist in the order of officers, but in the degree of their diligence, faithfulness, and eminence in laboriously fulfilling their ministerial duties. It is said that Calvin admitted lay-elders into Church courts, on what he conceived to be the sanction of primitive practice, and, as an effectual method of preventing the return of inordinate power in a superior order of the clergy. To this it is answered by Catholics, that neither the name nor office of lay-elder was ever known to any general or provincial council, or even to any particular Church in the world, before the time of Calvin. (See Presbyterians.)

ELECTION. (See Predestination, Calvinism, Armininnism.) There are three views taken of election, all parties agreeing that some doctrine of election is taught in Holy Scripture,—the Calvinistic, the Arminian, and the Catholic.

By the Calvinists, (see Calvinism,) election is judged to be the election of certain individuals out of the great mass of mankind, directly and immediately, to eternal life, while all other individuals are either passively left, or actively doomed, to a certainty of eternal death; and the moving cause of that election is defined to be God’s unconditional and irrespective will and pleasure, inherent in, and exercised in consequence of, his absolute and uncontrollable sovereignty.

By the Arminians, or Remonstrants, (see Arminianism,) Scriptural election is pronounced to be the election of certain individuals, out of the great mass of mankind, directly and immediately to eternal life; and the moving cause of that election is asserted to be God’s eternal prevision of the future persevering holiness and consequent moral fitness of the individuals themselves, who thence have been thus elected.

Election under the gospel or Catholic view denotes, the election of various individuals into the pale of the visible Church, with God’s merciful purpose, that through faith and holiness they should attain everlasting glory, but with a possibility (since God governs his intelligent creatures on moral principles only) that through their own perverseness they may fail of attaining it.

Stanley Faber, from whose learned and most satisfactory work these definitions are taken, very clearly proves this to be the doctrine of the reformed Church of England; where, in the seventeenth Article, the Church of England, speaking of predestination to life, teaches not an election of certain individuals, either absolute or previsional, directly and immediately, to eternal happiness. But she teaches an election of certain individuals into the Church catholic, in order that there, according to the everlasting purpose and morally operating intention of God, they may be delivered from curse and damnation, and thus, indirectly and mediately, may be brought, through Christ, to everlasting glory; agreeably to God’s promises, as they are generically, not specifically, set forth to us in Holy Scripture.

That such is the real doctrine of the Church of England—in other words, that she teaches a predestination to life, not direct and immediate, but indirect and mediate—inevitably follows from the circumstance that, while in her sixteenth Article she hints at the possibility of the elect individually departing from grace given, in her Homilies and in her Burial Service, she distinctly states, that the elect, in her sense of the word, may, in their individual capacity, fall away utterly, and thus perish finally. Now, this statement is palpably incompatible with the tenet of a direct and immediate predestination of individuals to eternal life; for individuals, so predestinated, could not, by the very terms of their predestination, fall away utterly and irrecoverably. Therefore, the predestination to life, mentioned in the seventeenth Article, can only mean an indirect and mediate predestination of individuals; or, in other words, it can only mean a predestination of individuals to eternal life, through the medium of election into the Catholic Church; in God’s everlasting purpose and intention indeed; but still, (since God, in executing his purpose and intention, operates upon the minds of his intelligent creatures not physically, but morally,) with a possibility of their defeating that merciful purpose and intention, and thence of their finally falling away to everlasting destruction.

As the article, in connexion with the other documents of the Anglican Church, must, unless we place them in irreconcilable collision with each other, be understood to propound the doctrine of predestination after the manner and in the sense which has been specified; so it distinctly enjoins us to receive God’s promises, as they are generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture.

The word generally in this place is not opposed to unusually, but to particularly, and signifies generically. And the other documents of the Church of England agree with this interpretation of the seventeenth Article.

We may refer, in the first instance, to the peculiar phraseology introduced into the office of Infant Baptism. “Regard, we beseech thee, the supplications of thy congregation: sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin: and grant that this child, now to be baptized therein, may receive the fulness of thy grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Thus, in systematically generalizing phraseology, runs the prayer. Now the same prayer is recited over every child. Consequently, by the inevitable force of the word “remain” as here used, every child, baptismally brought into the pale of the Church, is declared to be, at that time, one of the number of God’s elect.

But the largest charity cannot believe that every child, baptismally brought into the pale of the Church, is elect in the sense of election as jointly maintained by Calvin and Arminius.

Therefore, agreeably to the tenor of her own explicit phraseology, the idea which the English Church annexes to the term election, can only be that of ecclesiastical individual election.

The matter is yet additionally established by the parallel phraseology, which occurs in the somewhat more modern office of Adult Baptism.

With the sole requisite alteration of “this person” for “this child,” the prayer is copied verbatim from the older office. Every adult, therefore, who is baptismally introduced into the pale of the Church, is, as such, declared to be one of the number of God’s elect people.

The same matter is still further established by the strictly homogeneous language of the Catechism.

Each questioned catechumen, who, as an admitted member of the Church, has already, in the baptismal office, been declared to be one of the elect, is directed to reply: that, as a chief article of the faith propounded in the Creed, he has learned “to believe in God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth” him “and all the elect people of God.”

Now, such an answer plainly makes every catechumen declare himself to be one of the elect.

But, in no conceivable sense which will harmonize with the general phraseology of the Anglican Church, save in that of ecclesiastical individual election only, can every catechumen be deemed one of God’s elect people.

Therefore the idea which to the Scriptural term election, is annexed by the Church of England, is that of ecclesiastical individual election.

The matter is also established by the parallel phraseology introduced into the Burial Service.

“We beseech thee, that it may please thee, of thy gracious goodness, shortly to accomplish the number of thine elect, and to hasten thy kingdom; that we, with all those that are departed in the true faith of thy holy name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in thy eternal and everlasting glory, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

In this prayer, the generic term “we” occurs in immediate connexion with “the number of thine elect.”

Therefore the evidently studied arrangement of the words, enforces the conclusion that every member of the Church, as designated by the term “we,” must be deemed one of God’s elect people.

Finally, the same matter is established, even in the familiar course of daily recitation, by the language of the very liturgy itself.

“Endue thy ministers with righteousness: and make thy chosen people joyful.

“O Lord, save thy people: and bless thine inheritance.”

Now, who are the “chosen people,” whom the Lord is here supplicated to “make joyful?”

Can we reasonably pronounce them, in the judgment of the Anglican Church, to be certain individuals of each actually praying congregation, who, in contradistinction to other individuals of the same congregation, are predestinated, either absolutely or previsionally, to eternal life?

Assuredly, the whole context forbids so incongruous a supposition; for, assuredly, the whole context requires us to pronounce, that “thy chosen people” are identical with “thine inheritance.”

But the entire tenor of the liturgy identifies “thine inheritance” with the Catholic Church.

Therefore, “thy chosen people” and the Catholic Church are terms, in point of import, identical. (See Perseverance.)

ELECTION OF BISHOPS. (See Bishops.)

ELEMENTS. The materials used in the sacraments, appointed for that purpose by our Lord himself. Thus water is the element of baptism, and bread and wine are the elements of the eucharist. With respect to the elements of the eucharist, it is ordered by the Church of England that, “when there is a communion, the priest shall then place upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient;” Then, that is, after the offertory, and after presenting the basin with the alms. This rubric being added to our liturgy at the last review, at the same time with the word “oblations,” in the prayer following, it is clearly evident, as Bishop Patrick has observed, that by that word are to be understood the elements of bread and wine, which the priest is to offer solemnly to God as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty over his creatures, and that from henceforth they might become properly and peculiarly his. For in all the Jewish sacrifices, of which the people were partakers, the viands or materials of the feast were first made God’s by a solemn oblation, and then afterwards eaten by the communicants, not as man’s, but as God’s provisions, who by thus entertaining them at his own table, declared himself reconciled, and again in covenant with them. And therefore our blessed Saviour, when he instituted the new sacrament of his own body and blood, first gave thanks and blessed the elements; that is, offered them up to God as Lord of the creatures, as the most ancient Fathers expound that passage; who for that reason, whenever they celebrated the holy eucharist, always offered the bread and wine for the communion to God upon the altar by this or some short ejaculation: “Lord, we offer thee thine own out of what thou hast bountifully given us.” After which they received them into the sacred banquet of the body and blood of his dear Son.

In the ancient Church they had generally a side table, or prothesis, near the altar, upon which the elements were laid till the first part of the communion service was over. Now, though we have not always a side table, and there is no express provision for one made in the Church of England, yet in the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI., the priest himself was ordered, in this place, to set both bread and wine upon the altar; but at the review in 1551, this and several other pious usages were thrown out, in condescension to ultra-Protestant superstition. (See Credence.) After which the Scotch liturgy was the first wherein we find it restored; and Mr. Mede having observed our liturgy to be defective in this particular, was probably the occasion, that, in the review of it after the Restoration, this primitive practice was restored, and the bread and wine ordered by the rubric to be set solemnly on the table by the priest himself. It appears, indeed, that the traditional practice of the immediately preceding times maintained its ground in many places after the alteration of the rubric; (see Hicke’s Treatises, i. 127–129, 322–324;) but the history of the change gives so marked a character to our present rubric, that a neglect of it is clearly a violation of the priest’s obligation to conformity. If the priest thus offends the consciences of the more enlightened members of a congregation, they should point out to him his mistake, which can only proceed from traditional negligence. In the coronation service of Queen Victoria, after the reading of the sentences in the Offertory, this rubric occurs. “And first the Queen offers bread and wine for the communion, which being brought out of King Edward’s chapel, and delivered into her hands, the bread upon the paten by the bishop who read the Epistle, and the wine in the chalice by the bishop that read the Gospel, are by the archbishop received from the Queen, and reverently placed upon the altar, and decently covered with a fair linen cloth, the archbishop first saying this prayer,” &c. (See Oblation and Offertory.)—See Wheatly.

ELEVATION. In architecture, a representation of a building, or of any portion of it, as it would appear if it were possible that the eye should be exactly opposite every part of it at the same time.

ELEVATION OF THE HOST. This Romish ceremony, condemned in our twenty-fifth Article, is not, comparatively speaking, an ancient rite. The Roman ritualists, Bona, Merati, Benedict XIV., Le Brun, &c., acknowledge that there is no trace of its existence before the eleventh or twelfth century in the West. The Ordo Romanus, Amalarius, Walafrid Strabo, and Micrologus, make no mention of the rite, though the last of these ritualists lived at the end of the eleventh century. The truth is, that no certain documents refer to it until the beginning of the thirteenth century, but it may possibly have existed in some places in the twelfth. The synodical constitutions of Odo de Sulli, bishop of Paris, about 1200, appoint this elevation, and it was probably then first introduced into the diocese of Paris. Innocent III., who wrote on the ceremonies of the mass at the beginning of the thirteenth century, does not speak of it; but, in the time of Honorius III., it had come into use, for he mentions it in an epistle to the Latin bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, A. D. 1219, where he commands that, at the elevation, the people should reverently bow. “Sacerdos quilibet frequenter doceat plebem suam, ut cum in celebratione missarum elevatur hostia salutaris, quilibet reverenter inclinet.” This was inserted in the decretals (c. sane de celebratione missarum) by Gregory IX., his successor, and thus became the law of the West. It is spoken of by Bonaventure, Durand, and the Council of Lambeth, in the latter part of the same century; and Cardinal Guido is said to have introduced this rite, or some part of it, at Cologne, about 1265.

We know then, that, in the thirteenth century, the host was elevated, and the people bowed or knelt at the same time. But if we are to judge by the authorities referred to by the Roman ritualists themselves, the writers of that and the following ages did not always interpret this as designed for the adoration of the elements, or even of Christ in the eucharist. Bonaventure (A. D. 1270) assigns eight reasons for the elevation, some of which relate to the duty or dispositions of the people on the occasion; but he does not notice the adoration of the elements. William, bishop of Paris, about 1220, ordered a bell to be rung at the elevation, that the people might be excited to pray: not to worship the host. “Præcipitur quod in celebratione missarum, quando corpus Christi elevatur, in ipsa elevatione, vel paulo ante, campana pulsetur, sicut alias fuit statutum, ut sic mentes fidelium ad orationem excitentur.” Cardinal Guido (A. D. 1265) ordained, that at the elevation all the people should pray for pardon. “Bonam illic consuetudinem instituit, ut ad elevationem hostiæ omnis populus in ecclesia ad sonitum nolæ veniam peteret, sicque usque ad calicis benedictionem prostratus jaceret.” The synod of Cologne (A. D. 1536) explained the people’s duty at the elevation to consist, in remembering the Lord’s death, and returning him thanks with minds raised to heaven. “Post elevationem consecrati corporis ac sanguinis Domini ... tum videretur silendum, et ab omni populo mortis Dominicæ commemoratio habenda, prostratisque humi corporibus, animis in cœlum erectis, gratiæ agendæ Christo Redemptori, qui nos sanguine suo lavit morteque redemit.”

On the other hand, Durand, (1286,) Lyndwood, (1430,) the diocesan synod of Augsburg, (1548,) and Cardinal Hosius, one of the papal legates at the synod of Trent, understood the prostration of the people as designed for the adoration of Christ as present in the eucharist. Certainly this has latterly become the common opinion, but from what has been said above it appears that, before the Reformation, and afterwards, many persons at the elevation directed their worship to God and Christ simply, without any exclusive reference to the presence of Christ in the eucharist.—Palmer.

EMBER DAYS. These are the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, after the first Sunday in Lent, the feast of Whitsunday, the 14th of September, and the 13th of December, all being fasting days; the Sundays following these days being the stated times of ordination in the Church. It is to be remarked, that the Sunday in December which begins the Ember week is always the third Sunday in Advent. The week in which these days fall are called Ember week. But as Sunday begins the week, the Ember collect is always to be read on the Sunday preceding the Ember days, not on that which follows them, as is sometimes erroneously done.

The derivation of the name is uncertain. It has been supposed by some to signify “ashes,” and by others “abstinence,” in allusion to the ancient custom connected with fasting. The fact that the Ember weeks return at stated periods, has led others to trace the name to a Saxon word signifying a “course,” or “cycle.” In the Western Church they were denominated “the Fasts of the Four Seasons:” and from this comes another, and perhaps the most probable, illustration—the Latin quatuor tempora (four seasons) being abbreviated into the German quatemper or quatember, and again, into the English ember. On these days the design of the Church is to call her members, by prayer and fasting, to invoke the Divine aid and blessing on the choice and commission of ministers of the gospel. The deep interest every Christian heart should feel in a matter of such infinite moment, should secure for these days the pious observance of the members of the Church.

EMBLEM. A visible, and usually an ornamental, symbol of some spiritual thing; of some great truth concerning the object of a Christian’s worship, of some object of his faith and hope, or of some mystery or privilege.

The use of emblems, under which the truths of Christianity were veiled from the heathen, while they were presented vividly to the minds of the faithful, is probably as old as Christianity itself: and the fancy of pious persons has continued it to the present day; many particular emblems having been so generally and almost universally used, as to have been interwoven almost with the very external habit of the Church itself. Among the most apt and venerable may be mentioned, the trine compass, (as it is called by Chaucer,)

“That of the trine compas Lord and gide is,”

or a circle inscribed within an equilateral triangle; denoting the co-equality and co-eternity of the three Divine persons in the ever blessed and undivided Trinity: the hand extended from the clouds in the attitude of benediction, for the first Person in the Trinity: the Lamb triumphant, the fish, (see Piscis,) the pelican wounding her own breast to feed her young, and others, for the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord: the dove, for the Holy Ghost. The chalice receiving the blood of the wounded Lamb, for the holy eucharist: the phœnix rising from the flames, for the resurrection: the cross, for the Christian’s life of conflict; the crown, for his hope of glory. All these are beautifully significant, and are very innocent in their use, as well as pious in their intention.

It is of the essence of a proper emblem that it be not, nor pretend to be, a simple representation. It then loses its allusive character, and becomes a mere picture of the thing itself. In theology there is another reason why this should be avoided: for when we attempt a representation of any object of Christian worship, we too nearly fall into idolatry. Hence the cross is admissible where the crucifix is not: and the not unfrequent representation of the Holy Trinity, in which the Father is represented as a man, supporting the Lord Jesus on the cross, is shocking to the reverent eye. For the like reasons the representations of the holy eucharist, under the old figure of a crucifix pouring blood into four cups placed to receive it, is very objectionable.

With regard to the use of emblems, they still afford very happy ornaments for churches and church furniture, especially perhaps for painted windows. In the primitive Church, the pious sometimes carried them on their persons. Clement of Alexandria has mentioned some which we ought to avoid, and others which we may employ; of which latter we may name a dove, a fish, a ship borne along by a full breeze, and an anchor. As the reason of the rule which he gives still holds, we may refer to his Pædag. iii. 11.

EMMANUEL, or IMMANUEL. A Hebrew word, which signifies “God with us.” Isaiah, (vii. 14,) in that celebrated prophecy, in which he foretells to Ahaz the birth of the Messiah from a virgin, says, This child shall be called Emmanuel, God with us. He repeats this while speaking of the enemy’s army, which, like a torrent, was to overflow Judea: “The stretching of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Emmanuel.” St. Matthew (i. 23) informs us, that this prophecy was accomplished in the birth of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, in whom the two natures, Divine and human, were united; so that he was really Emmanuel, or “God with us.”

ENCŒNIA. Festivals anciently kept on the days on which cities were built, or churches consecrated; and in later times, ceremonies renewed at certain periods, as at Oxford and Cambridge, at the celebration of founders and benefactors.

ENCRATITES, or CONTINENTS. A name given to a sect in the second century, because they condemned marriage, forbade the eating of flesh or drinking of wine, and rejected with a sort of horror all the comforts and conveniences of life. Tatian, an Assyrian, and a disciple of Justin Martyr, was the leader of this sect. He was greatly distinguished for his genius and learning, and the excessive austerity of his life and manners. He regarded matter as the fountain of all evil, and therefore recommended in a peculiar manner the mortification of the body. He distinguished the Creator of the world from the Supreme Being, denied the reality of Christ’s body, and blended the Christian religion with several corrupt tenets of the Oriental philosophy.

ENERGUMENS, DEMONIACS, from ἐνεργουμένοι, which in the largest sense denotes persons under the motion or operation of any spirit whatever, good or bad; but, in a restrained sense, is used by ecclesiastical writers to denote persons whose bodies are possessed by an evil spirit. Mention is often made in the primitive Church, of persons possessed of an evil spirit. The regulations of the Church bestowed upon them special care. They constituted a distinct class of Christians, bearing some relation both to the catechumens and the faithful; but differing from both in this, that they were under the special oversight and direction of exorcists, while they took part in some of the religious exercises of both classes.

Catechumens who, during their probationary exercises, became demoniacs, were never baptized until thoroughly healed, except in case of extreme sickness. Believers who became demoniacs, in the worst stage of their disease, like the weeping penitents, were not permitted to enter the church; but were retained under close inspection in the outer porch. When partially recovered they were permitted, with the audientes, to join in public worship, but they were not permitted to partake of the eucharist until wholly restored, except in the immediate prospect of death. In general, the energumens were subject to the same rules as the penitents.—Bingham.

ENGLAND. (See Church of England.)

ENOCH, THE PROPHECY OF. An apocryphal book, of which there remains but a few fragments.

Enoch was certainly one of the most illustrious prophets of the first world, since Moses says of him, that he “walked with God.” (Gen. v. 24.) This prophet is famed in the Church for two things: the first is, his being taken up into heaven without seeing death (Heb. xi. 5); the second is, his Prophecy, a passage of which St. Jude has cited in his Epistle. (Ver. 14.) The ancients greatly esteemed the Prophecy of Enoch. Tertullian expresses his concern, that it was not generally received in the world. That Father, on the authority of this book, deduces the original of idolatry, astrology, and unlawful arts, from the revolted angels, who married with the daughters of men. And it is on the testimony of this book, that the Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as Irenæus, Cyprian, Lactantius, received for true this fable of the marriage of the angels with the daughters of men. St. Augustine, who was less credulous, allows, indeed, that Enoch wrote something divine because he is cited by St. Jude; but he says, it was not without reason that this book was not inserted in the Canon, which was preserved in the temple of Jerusalem, and committed to the care of the sacrificators. St. Augustine sufficiently insinuates, that the authority of this book is doubtful, and that it cannot be proved that it was really written by Enoch. Indeed the account it gives of giants engendered by angels, and not by men, has manifestly the air of a fable; and the most judicious critics believe it ought not to be ascribed to Enoch. De Habitu Mulier. c. iii. De Civit. Dei, lib. xv. c. 23.

This apocryphal book lay a long time buried in darkness; till the learned Joseph Scaliger recovered a part of it. That author gives us some considerable fragments of it, in his notes on the chronicle of Eusebius; particularly in relation to the above-mentioned story of the marriage of the angels with the daughters of men.

Scaliger, Isaac Vossius, and other learned men, attribute this work to one of those Jews, who lived in the times between the Babylonish captivity and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Others are of opinion, it was written after the rise and establishment of Christianity, by one of those fanatics, with whom the primitive Church was filled, who made a ridiculous mixture of the Platonic philosophy and the Christian divinity: such as the authors, or forgers, of the Sibylline Oracles, the Dialogues of Hermes Trismegistus, and the like. The reasons of this opinion are these. 1. The original of the book is Greek; and therefore it was not composed by any Jew, living in Judea, or Chaldea; for they always wrote in Hebrew, or in some of its dialects. 2. It is evident the author was a Christian, because he makes perpetual allusions to the texts of the New Testament. It is therefore, probably, the invention of some Christian, who took occasion from the Epistle of St. Jude to forge this work. As for St. Jude himself, it is probable he cites what concerns the general judgment, not from any book then subsisting under the name of Enoch, but from tradition.—Jurieu, Hist. des Dogmes et Cultes, part i. c. 4.

ENTHRONISATION. (See Bishop.) The placing of a bishop in his stall or throne in his cathedral.

A distinction is sometimes made between the enthronisation of an archbishop and a bishop, the latter being called installation: but this appears to be a mere refinement of the middle ages, of which we have many such.—Jebb.

EPACT. In chronology, and in the tables for the calculation of Easter, a number indicating the excess of the solar above the lunar year. The solar year consisting, in round numbers, of 365 days, and the lunar of twelve months, of twenty-nine and a half days each, or 354 days, there will be an overplus in the solar year of eleven days, and this constitutes the Epact. In other words, the epact of any year expresses the number of days from the last new moon of the old year (which was the beginning of the present lunar year) to the first of January. In the first year, therefore, it will be 0; in the second 11 days; in the third twice 11 or 22; and in the fourth it would be 11 days more, or 33; but 30 days being a synodical month, will in that year be intercalated, making thirteen synodical months, and the remaining three is then the epact. In the following year, 11 will again be added, making fourteen for the epact, and so on to the end of the cycle, adding 11 to the epact of the last year, and always rejecting thirty, by counting it as an additional month. The epact is inserted in the table of moveable feasts in the Prayer Book.

EPHOD, a sort of ornament or upper garment, worn by the Hebrew priests. The word אפוד, ephod, is derived from אפד, aphad, which signifies to gird, or tie, for the ephod was a kind of girdle which, brought from behind the neck, and over the two shoulders, and hanging down before, was put cross upon the stomach; then carried round the waist, and made use of as a girdle to the tunic. There were two sorts of ephods, one of plain linen for the priests, and another embroidered for the high priest. As there was nothing singular in that used by common priests, Moses does not dwell upon the description of it, but of that belonging to the high priest he gives us a large and particular account. (Exod. xxviii. 6, &c.) It was composed of gold, blue, purple, crimson, and twisted cotton: upon that part of it which passed over the shoulders were two large precious stones, one on each shoulder, upon which were engraven the names of the twelve tribes, six upon each stone; and, where the ephod crossed upon the high priest’s breast, there was a square ornament called the pectoral, or breastplate.

St. Jerome observes, that the ephod was peculiar to the priesthood; and it was an opinion among the Jews, that no sort of worship, true or false, could subsist without a priesthood and ephod. Thus Micah, having made an idol and placed it in his house, did not fail to make an ephod for it. (Judges xvii. 5.) God foretold by Hosea, (iii. 4,) that the Israelites should be for a long time without kings, princes, sacrifices, altar, ephod, and teraphim; and Isaiah, speaking of the false gods who were worshipped by the Israelites, ascribes ephods to them.

The ephod is often taken for the pectoral or breastplate, and for the Urim and Thummim, which were fastened to it, because all this belonged to the ephod, and made but one piece with it. Though the ephod was properly an ecclesiastical habit, yet we find it sometimes worn by laymen. Samuel, though a Levite only, and a child, wore a linen ephod. (1 Sam. ii. 18.) And David, in the ceremony of removing the ark from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem, was girt with a linen ephod. (2 Sam. vi. 14.) The Levites regularly were not allowed to wear the ephod; but in the time of Agrippa, as we are told by Josephus, a little time before the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Levites obtained of that prince permission to wear the linen stole as well as the priests. The historian observes, that this was an innovation contrary to the laws of their country, which were never struck at with impunity.

Spencer and Cunæus are of opinion, that the Jewish kings had a right to wear the ephod, because David coming to Ziglag, and finding that the Amalekites had plundered the city, and carried away his and the people’s wives, ordered Abiathar the high priest to bring him the ephod, which being done, David inquired of the Lord, saying, “Shall I pursue after this troop?” &c. (1 Sam. xxx. 8); whence they infer that David consulted God by Urim and Thummim, and consequently put on the ephod. The generality of commentators believe, that David did not dress himself in the high priest’s ephod, and that the text signifies no more than that the king ordered Abiathar to put on the ephod, and consult God for him.

The ephod of Gideon is remarkable for having become the occasion of a new kind of idolatry to the Israelites. (Judges viii. 27.) What this consisted in, is matter of dispute among the learned. Some authors are of opinion that this ephod, as it is called, was an idol; others, that it was only a trophy in memory of that signal victory; and that the Israelites paid a kind of Divine worship to it, so that Gideon was the innocent cause of their idolatry; in like manner as Moses was, when he made the brazen serpent, which came afterwards to be worshipped.

EPIGONATON. An appendage of a lozenge shape, somewhat resembling a small maniple, worn on the right side, depending from the girdle. It is considered to represent the napkin with which our blessed Lord girded himself at the last supper, and has embroidered on it either a cross or the head of our Lord. In the Romish Church its use is confined to the pope. In the Greek Church it is used by all bishops. The epigonaton does not occur in the sacerdotal vestments of the English Church.—Palmer.

EPIPHANY. The epiphany, or manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles, is commemorated in the Church on the 6th of January, and denotes the day on which the wise men came from the East to worship the infant Jesus. (Matt. ii. 2.) Let us be thankful for the light of the gospel, which on that day began to shine on those who sat in darkness. (Isa. ix. 2; Matt. iv. 16.)

The word epiphany is derived from the compound verb ἐπιφαίνω, which signifies to manifest or declare. The Epiphany is observed as a scarlet day at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

The feast of Epiphany was not, originally, a distinct festival, but made a part of that of the nativity of Christ; which being celebrated twelve days, the first and last of which, according to the custom of the Jews in their feasts, were high or chief days of solemnity, either of these might fitly be called Epiphany, as that word signifies the appearance of Christ in the world.

This festival was, in one respect, more taken notice of, in the Greek Church, than the Nativity itself, being allowed as one of the three solemn times of baptism, which the Nativity was not; a privilege which it wanted in the Latin Church. St. Chrysostom tells us, that, this being likewise the day of our Saviour’s baptism, it was usual to carry home water, at midnight, from the church, and that it would remain as fresh and uncorrupt for one, two, or three years, as if immediately drawn from the spring.—Homil. 24, de Bapt. Christi.

Theodosius the Younger gave this festival an honourable place among those days, on which the public games were not allowed; and Justinian made it a day of vacation from all pleadings at law, as well as from popular pleasures. It is to be observed, likewise, that those to whom the care of the Paschal cycle, or rule for finding Easter, was committed, were obliged, on or about the time of Epiphany, to give public notice when Easter and Lent were to be kept the ensuing year.—Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. 5, leg. 5. Cod. Just. lib. iii. tit. 12, leg. 6.

EPISCOPACY. (See Bishops and Orders.) The ancient apostolical form of Church government, consisting in the superintendency of one over several other church officers. Bishops were always allowed to be of an order superior to presbyters; and, indeed, having all the powers that presbyters have, and some more peculiar to themselves, they must be of a different order necessarily. It is their peculiar office to ordain, which never was allowed to presbyters; and, anciently, the presbyter acted in dependence upon the bishop in the administration of the Lord’s supper and baptism, and even in preaching, in such manner that he could not do it regularly without the bishop’s approbation.

Our Church asserts, in the preface to the Ordinal, that the order of bishops was “from the apostles’ time;” referring us to those texts of Scripture occurring in the history of the Acts, and the apostolical Epistles, which are usually urged for the proof of the episcopal order. And of a great many which might be alleged these are some. In the short history which we have of the apostles, we find them exercising all the peculiar offices of the episcopal order. They ordain church ministers: “And when they had prayed they laid their hands on them.” (Acts vi. 6.) They confirm baptized persons: “Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost” (viii. 15). They excommunicate notorious offenders, as the incestuous person. (1 Cor. v. 5.) The like episcopal powers we find in Scripture committed to others, whom, from the tenor of Scripture, and the testimony of antiquity, we judge to have been advanced to that order. Not only a power of ordination, but a particular charge in conferring it, is given to Timothy; namely, that he “lay hands suddenly on no man.” (1 Tim. v. 22.) That he caution the presbyters under him “that they teach no other doctrine” (i. 3). Rules are given him how he should animadvert on an offending presbyter: “Against an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses,” (v. 19,) and to what conduct he should oblige the deacons (iii. 8). The same episcopal powers are committed to Titus, to “ordain elders in every city,” (Tit. i. 5,) and to excommunicate heretics after the first or second admonition (iii. 10). Now these are very good proofs to all reasonable men that diligently read the Holy Scriptures, that the order of bishops was inclusively “from,” that is, in, “the apostles’ time.”

But to all diligent and impartial readers of ancient writers the case is yet more out of doubt. The earliest ecclesiastical writer extant is Clemens Romanus, who wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians within forty years after our Saviour’s ascension. And he speaks not only of presbyters and deacons, but of bishops likewise, as an order in use in his time, clearly distinguishing also between the two orders of bishops and presbyters. In the epistles of Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch seventy years after Christ, in which he continued forty years, being martyred in the year of our Lord 108, just seven years after St. John’s death, all the three orders are clearly and exactly distinguished. Of lower authorities the instances are innumerable. Clement of Alexandria wrote in the latter end of the second century; and he mentions the three orders as the established use of the Church in his time. Origen, who lived at the same time, uses corresponding language. Tertullian likewise mentions these three orders as established ranks of the hierarchy. And so infinite other authors make these three orders perfectly distinct.—Dr. Nicholls.

Of the distinction among the governors of the Church there was never in ancient times made any question; nor did it seem disputable in the Church, except to one malcontent, Aërius, who did indeed get a name in story, but never made much noise, or obtained any vogue in the world. Very few followers he found in his heterodoxy. No great body even of heretics could find cause to dissent from the Church in this point. But all Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, Donatists, &c. maintained the distinction of orders among themselves, and acknowledged the duty of the inferior clergy to their bishops. And no wonder; seeing it standeth upon so very firm and clear grounds; upon the reason of the case, upon the testimony of Holy Scripture, upon general tradition, and unquestionable monuments of antiquity, upon the common judgment and practice of the greatest saints, persons most renowned for wisdom and piety in the Church.

Reason doth plainly require such subordinations. This all experience attesteth; this even the chief impugners of episcopal presidency do by their practice confess, who for prevention of disorders have been fain, of their own heads, to devise ecclesiastical subordination of classes, provinces, and nations; and to appoint moderators, or temporary bishops, in their assemblies. So that reason hath forced the dissenters from the Church to imitate it.

The Holy Scripture also doth plainly enough countenance this distinction. For therein we have represented one “angel” presiding over principal churches, which contained several presbyters, (Rev. ii. 1,) &c.: therein we find episcopal ordination and jurisdiction exercised: we have one bishop constituting presbyters in divers cities of his diocese, (Tit. i. 5; 1 Tim. v. 1, 17, 19, 20, 22,) &c.; ordering all things therein concerning ecclesiastical discipline; judging presbyters; rebuking “with all authority,” or imperiousness, as it were, (Tit. ii. 15,) and reconciling offenders, secluding heretics and scandalous persons.

In the Jewish Church there were an high priest, chief priest, a sanhedrim, or senate, or synod.

The government of congregations among God’s ancient people, which it is probable was the pattern that the apostles, no affecters of needless innovation, did follow in establishing ecclesiastical discipline among Christians, doth hereto agree; for in their synagogues, answering to our Christian churches, they had, as their elders and doctors, so over them an ἀρχισυνάγωγος, the head of the eldership, and president of the synagogue.

The primitive general use of Christians most effectually doth back the Scripture, and interpret it in favour of this distinction, scarce less than demonstrating it constituted by the apostles. For how otherwise is it imaginable, that all the Churches founded by the apostles in several most distant and disjointed places, at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at Alexandria, at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Rome, should presently conspire in acknowledgment and use of it? How could it, without apparent confederacy, be formed, how could it creep in without notable clatter, how could it be admitted without considerable opposition, if it were not in the foundation of those Churches laid by the apostles? How is it likely, that in those times of grievous persecution, falling chiefly upon the bishops, when to be eminent among Christians yielded slender reward, and exposed to extreme hazard; when to seek pre-eminence was in effect to court danger and trouble, torture and ruin, an ambition of irregularly advancing themselves above their brethren should so generally prevail among the ablest and best Christians? How could those famous martyrs for the Christian truth be some of them so unconscionable as to affect, others so irresolute as to yield to, such injurious encroachments? And how could all the holy Fathers, persons of so renowned, so approved wisdom and integrity, be so blind as not to discern such a corruption, or so bad as to abet it? How indeed could all God’s Church be so weak as to consent in judgment, so base as to comply in practice, with it? In fine, how can we conceive, that all the best monuments of antiquity down from the beginning, the acts, the epistles, the histories, the commentaries, the writings of all sorts, coming from the blessed martyrs and most holy confessors of our faith, should conspire to abuse us; the which do speak nothing but bishops; long catalogues and rows of bishops succeeding in this and that city; bishops contesting for the faith against pagan idolaters and heretical corrupters of Christian doctrine; bishops here teaching, and planting our religion by their labours, their suffering, and watering it with their blood?—Dr. Isaac Barrow.

It was so well known that a bishop was of a superior order to a presbyter, that it was deemed sacrilege by the fourth general council to thrust a bishop down from the first to the second degree. So that, however persecution and dire necessity may perhaps excuse some late Churches, for being forced to mix the two first orders, and to have only priests and deacons; yet we, who have a prescription of above 1600 (now 1700) years for us, even from the apostles’ time, have the right of our side, and must never depart therefrom.—Dean Comber.

EPISTLE. The Scriptural Epistles are letters which were addressed by the inspired apostles to Churches or individuals.

Of these, the apostle Paul wrote fourteen; viz.

1.

The Epistle to the Romans.

2.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians.

3.

The Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

4.

The Epistle to the Galatians.

5.

The Epistle to the Ephesians.

6.

The Epistle to the Philippians.

7.

The Epistle to the Colossians.

8.

The First Epistle to the Thessalonians.

9.

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.

10.

The First Epistle to Timothy.

11.

The Second Epistle to Timothy.

12.

The Epistle to Titus.

13.

The Epistle to Philemon.

14.

The Epistle to the Hebrews.

St. James wrote one, general, Epistle.

St. Peter, two.

St. John, three: and

St. Jude, one.

But by the Epistle in the liturgy we mean the first lesson in the Communion Service, which is so styled because it is generally taken from the Epistles of the holy apostles. Sometimes, however, it is taken from the Acts, and occasionally from the prophets. Almost all the lessons now read as Epistles in the English liturgy have been appointed to their present place, and used by our Church, for many ages. They are found in all the liturgies of our Church used before the revision, in the reign of Edward VI., and they also appear in all the monuments of the English liturgy, before the invasion of William the Conqueror. It is, in fact, probable that they are generally as old as the time of Augustine, A. D. 595. In this view, the lessons entitled Epistles in our liturgy have been used, with some alterations, for 1200 years by the Church of England. We must consider this more as a subject of interest and pleasure than of any great importance, since all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Yet we may remark, that the extracts read from the Epistles are generally devotional and practical, and, therefore, best adapted for ordinary comprehension and general edification.

EPISTOLER. In the 24th canon, and in the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, we find that a special reader, entitled an epistoler, is to read the Epistle in collegiate churches, vested in a cope. The canon and the injunctions here referred to will be found under the head Cathedral.

Epistolers are still statuteable officers in several cathedrals of the new foundation; though in most it has fallen into desuetude. It is retained at Durham. The epistoler and gospeller are sometimes called deacon and subdeacon, in the cathedral statutes. The epistoler, according to our present rubric, strictly interpreted, must be a priest. In the Roman Church he is a subdeacon. But by Archbishop Grindal’s Injunctions in 1571, it was required that parish clerks should be able to read the first Lesson and Epistle.—Jebb.

EPOCH. A term in chronology signifying a fixed point of time from which the succeeding years are numbered. The first epoch is the creation of the world, which, according to the Vulgate Bible, Archbishop Usher fixes in the year 710 of the Julian periods, and 4004 years before Jesus Christ. The second is the deluge, which, according to the Hebrew text, happened in the year of the world 1656. Six other epochs are commonly reckoned in sacred history: the building of the tower of Babel; the calling of Abraham; the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt; the dedication of the temple; the end of the Babylonish captivity; and the birth of Jesus Christ. In profane history are reckoned four epochs: the æra of Nabonassar, or death of Sardanapalus; the reign of Cyrus at Babylon; the reign of Alexander the Great over the Persians; and the beginning of the reign of Augustus, in which our Saviour was born.

ERASTIANS. So called from Erastus, a German heretic of the 16th century. The pastoral office, according to him, was only persuasive, like that of a professor of science over his students, without any power of the keys annexed. The Lord’s supper, and other ordinances of the gospel, were to be free and open to all. The minister might dissuade the vicious and unqualified from the communion, but might not refuse it, or inflict any kind of censure; the punishment of all offences, either of a civil or religious nature, being referred to the civil magistrate.

ESDRAS, the name of two apocryphal books of Scripture, which were always excluded the Jewish canon, and are too absurd to be admitted as canonical by the Romanists themselves. They are supposed to have been originally written in Greek, by some Hellenistical Jews, though some imagine that they were first written in Chaldee, and afterwards translated into Greek. It is uncertain when they were composed, though it is generally agreed that the author wrote before Josephus.

The First Book of Esdras is chiefly historical, and gives an account of the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, the building of the temple, and the establishment of Divine worship. The truth it contains is borrowed from the canonical books of Ezra (or Esdras, as the Greeks and Latins call him, and thence term these books, the Third and Fourth Book of Esdras); the rest is exceeding fabulous and trifling: this book however is by the Greeks allowed to be canonical. The Second Book of Esdras is written in the prophetical way, and pretends to visions and revelations, but so ridiculous and absurd, that the Spirit of God could have no concern in the dictating of them. The author believed that the day of judgment was at hand, and that all the souls both of good and bad men would be delivered out of hell after the day of judgment. He speaks of two monstrous animals created by God at the beginning of the world, in order to make a feast with them for all the elect, after the resurrection. He says, that the ten tribes are gone into a certain country, which he calls Arseret; that Ezra repaired the whole body of the Holy Scriptures, which were entirely lost; and he speaks of Jesus Christ and his apostles in so clear a manner, that the gospel itself is not more express.

The Books of Esdras are not read in the service of the Church of England. In the list of apocryphal books in the 6th Article, these are called the Third and Fourth Books of Esdras, because Ezra and Nehemiah were formerly joined in one book; and when they were separated, the book of Nehemiah, being considered as a continuation of the book of Ezra, was called by his name.—Bishop Tomline.

ESPOUSE, ESPOUSALS. A ceremony of betrothing, or coming under obligation for the purpose of marriage. It was a mutual agreement between the two parties, which usually preceded the marriage some considerable time. The distinction between espousals and marriage ought to be carefully attended to, as espousals in the East are sometimes contracted for years before the parties cohabit, and sometimes in very early youth. This custom is alluded to figuratively, as between God and his people, (Jer. ii. 2,) to whom he was a husband. (Jer. xxxi. 32.) The apostle says that he acted as a kind of assistant (pronuba) on this occasion (2 Cor. xi. 2.): “I have espoused you to Christ,” that is, I have drawn up the writings, settled the agreements, given pledges, &c., of that union. (See Isa. liv. 5; Matt. xxv. 6; Rev. xix.)

ESSENES. A very ancient sect, which was spread abroad through Syria, Egypt, and the neighbouring countries. They maintained that religion consisted wholly in contemplation and silence. Some of them passed their lives in a state of celibacy; others embraced the state of matrimony, which they considered as lawful, when entered into with the sole design of propagating the species, and not to satisfy the demands of lust. Some of them held the possibility of appeasing the Deity by sacrifices, though different from that of the Jews; and others maintained that no offering was acceptable to God but that of a serene and composed mind, addicted to the contemplation of divine things. They looked upon the law of Moses as an allegorical system of spiritual and mysterious truths, and renounced, in its explication, all regard to the outward letter.

ESTABLISHMENT. By a religious establishment is generally meant, in the present day, the religion, whether Christian or not, which is recognised by the State. Thus Presbyterianism is the establishment of Scotland, Mahomedanism that of Turkey. In England and Ireland the Catholic Church is the establishment. It has not been endowed by the State, which has rather robbed than enriched it; nor has it been established, like Presbyterianism in Scotland, by an act of the legislature. But being endowed by individual piety, it was for many ages the only community in this country which even pretended to be the Church: as such it was recognised by the State, and when in process of time the Catholic Church in this country asserted its independence of Rome, and reformed the abuses which had crept into it, it continued to be, as it always was, the religious community connected with the State; although, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, a sect in communion with Rome was founded in England, and arrogated to itself the name and titles which belong to our ancient Church, and to her alone. A slight reference to history will show what is meant. Soon after Augustine had been consecrated, in France, the first archbishop of Canterbury, his see was endowed with large revenues by King Ethelbert, who likewise established, at the instance of the archbishop, the dioceses of Rochester and London. The other kings of the heptarchy erected bishoprics equal to the size of their kingdoms. And the example was followed by their nobles, who converted their estates into parishes, erecting fit places of worship, and endowing them with tithes. (See Church of England.)

Thus was the Church established. For many years there appears to have continued a good understanding between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, the powers of which were, in most respects, as in these days, blended. But, after the moral world had been subdued, and papal tyranny had been established by the marvellous energies of Hildebrand, his crafty successors, the popes of Rome, soon perceived that, in order to secure their dominion, it was important, as far as possible, to sever the alliance which had hitherto subsisted between the Church and the State. Representing the Church as independent, they regarded the king as the head of the State, and the pope as supreme over the Church. No sectarian of the present day can be more hostile to the alliance between Church and State than were those divines, who in the middle ages were devoted to the popedom. Although the pope, however, had here in England, as elsewhere, many creatures and advocates, yet many and manful were the repulses he met with from our clergy, our kings, and the people. His authority, indeed, was, in this realm, a mere assumption, for he was never elected by any synod of our Church as its head. Still, assuming rights to which he could lay no lawful claim, his usurpations were continued until, in the reign of Henry VIII., the clergy, the monarch, and the people, could bear the tyranny no longer, but, throwing off the yoke, declared that the pope was not the head of the Church of England, but that, in these realms, the king is, as in times past he was, over all persons, and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, in these his dominions, supreme. This is the fact, and the history of the fact. The property of the Church remains with those who have descended in an unbroken line from the clergy to whom it was originally granted. If our title be disputed, it devolves upon the adversary to establish a prior claim. This the Protestant dissenter does not attempt to do; and, with respect to the Roman Catholic dissenters, we know, that instead of being descended from the original grantees, their line of succession began at Rome scarcely more than two centuries ago. Nor can they claim on the ground of greater similarity of doctrine, for transubstantiation, the worship of saints and images, half communion, constrained celibacy, &c., the doctrines and practices which distinguish the modern Romanists, were unknown to the Anglo-Saxon Church. Admitting, then, that we may differ in some particulars of practice from our ancestors, yet certainly we do not differ from them so much as the modern Romanists.

ESTHER. The Book of Esther is a canonical book of Scripture, containing the history of Esther. There has been some dispute whether it was a canonical book among the Jews. St. Jerome and other Christian writers maintain the affirmative, but St. Athanasius and some others incline to the opposite conclusion. It has, however, been received as canonical by the Church. The last six chapters, beginning at the fourth verse of the tenth chapter, are not in the Hebrew text. These are probably a composure of several pieces collected by the Hellenistical Jews, and are therefore deservedly thrown out of the canon of the sacred books by the Protestant Church; but the Latin and Greek Churches hold them canonical. As to the author of the Book of Esther, there is great uncertainty. Many of the Christian fathers attribute this history to Ezra. Eusebius believes it to be more modern. Others ascribe it to Joachim the high priest, the grandson of Josedec. Most conceive Mordecai to have been the author of it, and join Esther with him in the composition of it. M. Du Pin conjectures, that the great synagogue, to preserve the memory of this remarkable event, and to account for the original of the feast of Purim, ordered this book to be composed, which they approved and placed in the canon of their sacred books. It has been remarked, as a singular circumstance, that the Divine name does not once occur in this book.

ETERNITY. That mysterious attribute of God which implies his existence, as without end, so without beginning. The self-existent Being, observes Dr. Clarke, must of necessity be eternal. The ideas of eternity and self-existence are so closely connected, that, because something must of necessity be eternal, independently and without any outward cause of its being, therefore it must necessarily be self-existent; and, because it is impossible but something must be self-existent, therefore it is necessary that it must likewise be eternal. To be self-existent, is to exist by an absolute necessity in the nature of the thing itself. Now this necessity being absolute, and not depending upon anything external, must be always unalterably the same, nothing being alterable but what is capable of being affected by somewhat without itself. That being, therefore, which has no other cause of its existence but the absolute necessity of its own nature, must, of necessity, have existed from everlasting, without beginning, and must, of necessity, exist to everlasting, without end.

As to the manner of this eternal existence, it is manifest it herein infinitely transcends the manner of the existence of all created beings, even of such as shall exist for ever; that whereas it is not possible for their finite minds to comprehend all that is past, or to understand perfectly all things that are present, much less to know all that is future, or to have entirely in their power anything that is to come, but their thoughts, and knowledge, and power, must, of necessity, have degrees and periods, and be successive and transient as the things themselves: the eternal, supreme cause, on the contrary, must of necessity have such a perfect, independent, unchangeable comprehension of all things, that there can be no one point or instant of his eternal duration, wherein all things that are past, present, and to come, will not be as entirely known and represented to him in one single thought or view, and all things present and future be as equally and entirely in his power and direction, as if there was really no succession at all, but all things were actually present at once.

This is, in reality, the most incomprehensible of the Divine attributes. God is without beginning; the Father, always a Father, without beginning; the Son, always the only begotten of the Father, without beginning; the Holy Ghost, always proceeding from the Father and the Son, without beginning; the one God, always existing in the Trinity of his persons, without beginning.

“There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things visible and invisible; and in the unity of this Godhead, there be Three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”—Article I.

EUCHARIST. (From εὐχαριστία, giving of thanks.) (See Communion, Lord’s Supper, Elements, Consecration of the Elements, Sacrament, Sacrifice, Real Presence.) Sacramentum eucharistiæ is the name given to the Lord’s supper in our Latin articles, signifying, properly, thanksgiving or blessing, and fitly denoting this holy service as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It occurs in Ignatius, Irenæus, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, and others; and was adopted into the Latin language, as may be seen from Tertullian and Cyprian in many places.—Waterland. We have, however, an earlier allusion to the liturgy, under the title of eucharistia, or thanksgiving, in the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians; where, in forbidding and reasoning against the practice of some persons, who used the miraculous gift of tongues in an improper manner, namely, by celebrating the liturgy in an unknown language, he says, “When thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” (1 Cor. xiv. 16.) ἐπεὶ, εἂν εὐλογήσῃς τῷ πνεύματι, ὁ ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου πῶς ἐρεῖ τὸ ἀμὴν ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστιᾳ; ἐπειδὴ, τί λέγεις, οὐκ οἶδε. The meaning of this passage is obvious: “If thou shalt bless the bread and wine in an unknown language, which has been given to thee by the Holy Spirit, how shall the layman say Amen, ‘so be it,’ at the end of thy thanksgiving or liturgy, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” It is undeniable that St. Paul in this place uses exactly the same expressions to describe the supposed action as he has employed a short time before in designating the sacraments of Christ’s body and blood, and describing our Lord’s consecration at the last supper. Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χοιστοῦ ἐστι; “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” (1 Cor. x. 16.) Ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾖ παρεδίδοτο, ἔλαβεν ἄρτον, καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασε. (1 Cor. xi. 23.) “The Lord Jesus, in the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it.” The language of St. Paul also in the passage under consideration, as well as the action which he describes, is perfectly conformable to the description given by Justin Martyr of the celebration of the eucharist. “Then bread and a cup of water and wine is offered to the president of the brethren; and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of all, in the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and makes a very long thanksgiving, because God has thought us worthy of these things. And when he has ended the prayers and thanksgiving, all the people that are present signify their approbation, saying, Amen. For Amen in the Hebrew language signifies ‘so be it.’” Here we observe the “president” corresponding to the person who “blesses,” according to St. Paul, and performs the “thanksgiving.” The “people” corresponding to the “unlearned person” (or layman, as Chrysostom and Theodoret interpret the word) of St. Paul, and replying Amen, “so be it,” at the end of the thanksgiving in both passages. If we refer to all the ancient and primitive liturgies of the East and of Greece, the peculiar applicability of St. Paul’s argument to the Christian liturgy will appear still more. In the liturgy of Constantinople or Greece, which has probably been always used at Corinth, the bishop or priest takes bread, and “blesses” it in the course of a very long “thanksgiving,” at the end of which all the people answer, “Amen.” The same may be said of the liturgies of Antioch and Cæsarea, and, in fine, of all the countries of the East and Greece through which St. Paul bare rule or founded Churches. It may be added, that there is, we believe, no instance in the writings of the most primitive fathers, in which the Amen is ever said to have been repeated at the end of an office containing both blessing and thanksgiving, except in the liturgy of the eucharist.

All this shows plainly that the argument of St. Paul applies immediately and directly to the celebration of this sacrament. Whether we regard his own previous expressions, the language and the words of the earliest fathers, or the customs of the primitive Church exhibited in the ancient liturgies, we see the accurate coincidence between the case which he refers to, and the celebration of the eucharist.—Palmer’s Origines Liturgicæ, p. 114. We virtually adopt this word, when in the prayer after communion, we pray to God to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

EUCHARISTIC. Belonging to the service of the holy eucharist; or, in a larger sense, having the character of thanksgiving.

EUCHELAION. (Gr.) The oil of prayer. To such penitents (in the Greek Church) as are conscious of the guilt of any mortal sin, as adultery, fornication, or pride, is administered the sacrament of τὸ εὐχέλαιον, Euchelaion, which is performed by the bishop, or archbishop, assisted by seven priests, and begins with this prayer, “O Lord, who with the oil of thy mercies hast healed the wounds of our souls, do thou sanctify this oil, that those who are anointed therewith may be freed from their infirmities, and from all corporeal and spiritual evils.” This oil of prayer is pure and unmixed oil, without any other composition; a quantity whereof, sufficient to serve for the whole year, is consecrated, on Wednesday in the Holy Week, by the archbishop, or bishop. The Euchelaion of the Greek answers to the Extreme Unction of the Romanists.

In the administration of this oil of prayer, the priest dips some cotton at the end of a stick, and therewith anoints the penitent, in the form of a cross, on the forehead, on the chin, on each cheek, and on the backs and palms of the hands: after which he repeats this prayer—“Holy Father, physician of souls and bodies, who hast sent thine only Son Jesus Christ, healing infirmities and sins, to free us from death; heal this thy servant of corporeal and spiritual infirmities, and give him salvation and the grace of thy Christ, through the prayers of our more than holy lady, the mother of God, the eternal Virgin, through the assistance of the glorious, celestial, and incorporeal powers, through the virtue of the holy and life-giving cross, of the holy and glorious prophet, the forerunner, John the Baptist, and of the holy and glorious apostles.”—Ricaut.

EUCHOLOGION. (From εὐχὴ, preces, and λόγος, sermo.) The name of a liturgical book of the Greek Church, containing a collection of Divine services for the administration of the sacraments, conferring of orders, and other religious offices: it is properly their ritual, containing everything relating to religious ceremonies. Father Simon observes, that several of the most considerable divines of that Church, in Europe, met at Rome under Pope Urban VIII., to examine the Euchologion: Morinus, who was one of the congregation, mentions this ritual in his book De Congregationibus: the greatest part of the divines, being influenced by the sentiments of the schoolmen, were willing to reform this Greek ritual by that of the Church of Rome, as if there had been some heresies in it, or rather some passages which made the administration of the sacraments invalid; but some, who more perfectly understood the controversy, opposed the censure of the Euchologion: they proved this ritual was agreeable to the practice of the Greek Church before the schism of Photius, and that for this reason it could not be condemned, without condemning all the old Eastern communion.

EUDOXIANS. Certain heretics in the fourth century, whose founder was Eudoxius, bishop of Antioch, and afterwards of Constantinople. They adhered to the errors of the Aëtians and Eunomians, affirming the Son to be differently affected in his will from the Father, and made of nothing.

EULOGIÆ. (Gr.) So the Greek Church calls the Panis benedictus, or bread, over which a blessing is pronounced, and which is distributed to those who are unqualified to communicate. The name Eulogiæ was likewise anciently given to the consecrated pieces of bread which the bishops and priests sent to each other for the keeping up a friendly correspondence: those presents likewise, which were made out of respect or obligation, were called Eulogiæ.

St. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, about the end of the fourth century, having sent five Eulogiæ at one time to Romanian, speaks to him in these terms: “That I may not be wanting in the duties of brotherly love, I send you five pieces of bread, of the ammunition of the warfare of Jesus Christ, under whose standard we fight, following the laws of temperance and sobriety.”

EUNOMIANS. A sect, so called from Eunomius, who lived in the fourth century of Christianity; he was constituted bishop of Cyzicum, and stoutly defended the Arian heresy, maintaining that the Father was of a different nature from the Son, because no creature could be like his creator: he held that the Son of God did not substantially unite himself to the human nature, but only by virtue and his operations; he affirmed blasphemously that he knew God as well as God himself; and those that were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity he rebaptized, and was so averse to the mystery, that he forbade the trinal immersion at baptism. Upon divulging his tenets, he was expelled Cyzicum and forced also to leave Samosata, where he was also obtruded by the Arian faction. Valens restored him to Cyzicum, but being again expelled by the people, he applied himself to Eudoxius at Constantinople.

EUSTATHIANS. A denomination in the fourth century, who derived their name from Eustathius, a monk. This man was the occasion of great disorders and divisions in Armenia, Pontus, and the neighbouring countries; and, in consequence, he was condemned and excommunicated by the Council of Gangra, which was held soon after that of Nice.

EUTYCHIANS. Heretics in the fifth century, the followers of the error of Eutyches, who being a Constantinopolitan abbot, and contending against Nestorius, fell into a new heresy. He and his followers affirmed that Christ was one thing, the Word another; they denied the flesh of Christ to be like ours, but said he had a celestial body, which passed through the Virgin as through a channel; that there were two natures in Christ before the hypostatical union, but that, after it, there was but one, compounded of both; and thence concluded that the Divinity of Christ both suffered and died. Being condemned in a synod at Constantinople, he appealed to the emperor: after which, by the assistance of Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, he obtained a synod at Ephesus, called Latrocinium, or the assembly of thieves and robbers, wherein he got his heresy to be approved: however, in the fourth general council, under Marcian, A. D. 451, his errors were a second time condemned.

EVANGEL. (From εὐ, bene, and ἀγγελία, nuncius.) The gospel of Christ. The revealed history of our blessed Lord’s life.

EVANGELICAL. Agreeable to the gospel, or “evangel.” The term is used by that class of dissenters whose private judgment leads them to regard as Scriptural the facts of our Lord’s Divinity and atonement, to distinguish them from another class of dissenters, whose private judgment leads them to hold these sacred truths as unscriptural. (See the Evangelical Magazine.) The name is sometimes given to those persons who conform to the Church, but whose notions are supposed more nearly to coincide with the opinions of dissenters than with the doctrines of the Church; thereby most unjustly insinuating that the principles of all consistent members of the Church are not according to the gospel. The use of terms of distinction among members of the Church is much to be reprobated: among sects it cannot be avoided. In the strict and proper sense of the words, he who is truly evangelical must be a true member of the Church, and every true member of the Church must be truly evangelical.

EVANGELISTS. Persons chosen by the apostles to preach the gospel. It being impracticable for the twelve only to preach the gospel to all the world, Philip, among others, was engaged in this function. As for their rank in the Church, St. Paul places them after the apostles and prophets, but before the pastors and teachers, (Eph. iv. 11,) which makes Theodoret call them apostles of the second rank: they had no particular flock assigned, as bishops or ordinary pastors, but travelled from one place to another, according to their instructions received from the apostles, to whom they returned after they had executed their commission, so that, in short, this office, being extraordinary, expired with the apostles.

The title of Evangelists is now more particularly given to those four holy persons who wrote the history of our Saviour.

EVENS, or VIGILS. The nights or evenings before certain holy-days of the Church. Vigils are derived from the earliest periods of Christianity. In those times of persecution Christians held their assemblies in the night, in order to avoid detection. On these occasions they celebrated the memory of Christ’s death in the holy mysteries. When persecution had intermitted and finally ceased, although Christians were able to celebrate all their rites, and to minister the sacraments in the day-time, yet a custom which had commenced from necessity was retained from devotion and choice. The reason why some of the festivals have evens or vigils assigned, and some have not, appears to be this, that the festivals which have no vigils fall generally between Christmas and the Purification, or between Easter and Whitsuntide; which were always esteemed such seasons of joy that the Church did not think fit to intermingle them with any days of fasting and humiliation. To this rule there are exceptions, which may be severally accounted for, but such seems to be the rule: e.g. There is no vigil on St. Michael’s day, because, as Dr. Bisse remarks, the saints entered into joy through sufferings, and therefore their festivals are preceded by fasts; which circumstance is not applicable to the angels of God. St. Paul’s day commemorates not his martyrdom, but his conversion; St. Luke was not an apostle, nor does the calendar represent him as a martyr. The holy-days which have vigils may be seen in the Prayer Book, in the table of the Vigils, Fasts, and Days of Abstinence to be observed in the Year.

The eves are in some respects observed in colleges and choirs as Sundays. For example, in those places where the choral service was not daily, it was nevertheless performed on Saturday evenings and eves, as is still usual; though in some choirs the custom has fallen into abeyance. But in all colleges the regulation of the 17th canon is still observed, which directs that “all masters and fellows of colleges and halls, and all the scholars and students in either of the universities, shall in their churches and chapels, upon all Sundays, holy-days, and their eves, at the time of Divine service, wear surplices, according to the order of the Church of England; and such as are graduates, shall agreeably wear with their surplices such hoods as do severally appertain to their degrees.” At Oxford, however, except at Christ Church, the rule is not generally understood as applying to any but foundation members.

It is difficult to determine what analogy these evening services, preceding Sundays and holy-days, bear to those of the unreformed Church of England. The service for the vigil, in the Breviary, is not at vespers. There is a distinct service for the vigil from matins to nones inclusive, which has collects, &c. different from that of the Sunday or holy-day which it precedes. Ordinary Sundays have not vigils, either in our Church or in the Roman, except at Easter and Pentecost. By our calendar, therefore, the eve of the Sunday is plainly a different matter from the vigil. Though the collect for the Sunday is uniformly read on the preceding Saturday evening, it is not read when the holy-day has no vigil or eve. The Saturday evening service is to be considered as an introduction to that of Sunday.

Some clergymen doubt whether, in case of a holy-day with a vigil or eve falling on a Monday, the collect for that holy-day is to be read on the Sunday evening or on the Saturday. That the vigil or fast day must be kept on the Saturday, and not on the Sunday, is plain from the calendar. But whether this keeping of the vigil includes the commemoration of the holy-day by reading the collect, is not so evident. The question must first be solved, whether the service of the preceding evening is a vigil service, or the first vespers.—Jebb.

EVEN-SONG. (See Liturgy, Common Prayer.) Evening prayer, which is appointed to be sung or said. The office of even-song, or evening prayer, is a judicious abridgment of the offices of vespers (i. e. even-song) and compline, as used in our Church before the Reformation; and it appears that the revisers of our offices formed the introduction to evening prayer from those parts of both vespers and compline which seemed best suited to this place, and which presented uniformity with the introduction to morning prayer.

Even-song occurs in the table of Proper Lessons for Sundays and Holy-days, and Proper Psalms. It is in fact the same as the old word vespers; and only differs from the other authorized expression, evening prayer, in having more special reference to the psalms and hymns, and the anthem, those holy songs which make up so large a portion of the service.

EXALTATION OF THE CROSS. A festival of the Greek and Romish Churches observed on the 14th of December. It is founded on the following legend:

In the reign of Heraclius, Chosroes, king of Persia, sacked Jerusalem, and, together with other plunder, carried off that part of the cross left there in memory of our Saviour, by the empress Helena, which Chosroes sent into Persia. After many battles, in which the Persian was always defeated, Heraclius had the good fortune to recover the cross. This prince carried it to Jerusalem himself; and, laying aside his imperial ornaments, marched with it on his shoulders to the top of Mount Calvary, from whence it had been taken. The memory of this action was perpetuated by the festival of the re-establishment, or (as it is now called) the exaltation of the cross.

The latter name was given to this festival, because on this day they exalted or set up the cross in the great church at Constantinople, in order to show it to the people.

EXAMINATION FOR ORDERS. By Canon 35, “The bishop, before he admit any person to holy orders, shall diligently examine him, in the presence of those ministers that shall assist him at the imposition of hands; and if the bishop have any lawful impediment, he shall cause the said ministers carefully to examine every such person so to be ordered.... And if any bishop or suffragan shall admit any to sacred orders who is not so examined, and qualified as before we have ordained, [viz. in Canon 34,] the archbishop of his province, having notice thereof, and being assisted therein by one bishop, shall suspend the said bishop or suffragan so offending, from making either deacons or priests for the space of two years.”

Of common right, this examination pertaineth to the archdeacon, saith Lyndewood; and so saith the canon law, in which this is laid down as one branch of the archidiaconal office. Which is also supposed in our present form of ordination, both of priests and deacons, where the archdeacon’s office is to present the persons that are apt and meet. And for the regular method of examination, we are referred by Lyndewood to the canon upon that head, inserted in the body of the canon law, viz. When the bishop intends to hold an ordination, all who are desirous to be admitted into the ministry are to appear on the fourth day before the ordination; and then the bishop shall appoint some of the priests attending him, and others skilled in the Divine law, and exercised in the ecclesiastical sanctions, who shall diligently examine the life, age, and title of the persons to be ordained; at what place they had their education; whether they be well learned; whether they be instructed in the law of God; and they shall be diligently examined for three days successively; and so on the Saturday, they who are approved shall be presented to the bishop.

EXAMINATION BEFORE INSTITUTION. In the first settlement of the Church of England, the bishops of the several dioceses had them under their own immediate care, and that of the clergy living in a community with them, whom they sent abroad to several parts of their dioceses, as they saw occasion to employ them; but by degrees, they found it necessary to place presbyters within such a compass, that they might attend upon the service of God amongst the inhabitants. These precincts, which are since called parishes, were at first much larger; and when lords of manors were inclined to build churches for their own convenience, they found it necessary to make some endowments, to oblige those who officiated in their churches to a diligent attendance: upon this, the several bishops were very well content to let those patrons have the nomination of persons to those churches, provided they were satisfied of the fitness of those persons, and that it were not deferred beyond such a limited time. So that the right of patronage is really but a limited trust; and the bishops are still in law the judges of the fitness of the persons to be employed in the several parts of their dioceses. The patrons never had the absolute disposal of their benefices upon their own terms; but if they did not present fit persons within the limited time, the care of the places did return to the bishop, who was then bound to provide for them.

By the statute Articuli cleri, 9 Edward II. s. 1, c. 13, it is enacted as follows:—“It is desired that spiritual persons, whom our lord the king doth present unto benefices of the Church, (if the bishop will not admit them, either for lack of learning, or for other cause reasonable,) may not be under the examination of lay persons in the cases aforesaid, as it is now attempted, contrary to the decrees canonical; but that they may sue unto a spiritual judge for remedy, as right shall require.” The answer:—“Of the ability of a person presented unto a benefice of the Church, the examination belongeth to a spiritual judge; so it hath been used heretofore, and shall be hereafter.”

“Of the ability of a person presented”—De idoneitate personæ: so that it is required by law, that the person presented be idonea persona; for so be the words of the king’s writ, præsentare idoneam personam. And this idoneitas consisteth in divers expressions against persons presented:—1. Concerning the person, as if he be under age or a layman. 2. Concerning his conversation, as if he be criminous. 3. Concerning his inability to discharge his pastoral duty, as if he be unlearned, and not able to feed his flock with spiritual food. And the examination of the ability and sufficiency of the person presented belongs to the bishop, who is the ecclesiastical judge; and in this examination he is a judge, and not a minister, and may and ought to refuse the person presented, if he be not idonea persona.

“The examination belongeth to a spiritual judge;” and yet in some cases, notwithstanding this statute, idoneitas personæ shall be tried by the country, or else there should be a failure of justice, which the law will not suffer; as if the inability or insufficiency be alleged in a man that is dead, this case is out of the statute; for in such case the bishop cannot examine him; and, consequently, though the matter be spiritual, yet shall it be tried by a jury; and the court, being assisted by learned men in that profession, may instruct the jury as well of the ecclesiastical law in that case, as they usually do of the common law.

By a constitution of Archbishop Langton:—“We do enjoin, that if any one be canonically presented to a church, and there be no opposition, the bishop shall not delay to admit him longer than two months, provided he be sufficient.”

But by Canon 95—“Albeit by former constitutions of the Church of England, every bishop hath had two months’ space to inquire and inform himself of the sufficiency and qualities of every minister after he hath been presented unto him to be instituted into any benefice, yet for the avoiding of some inconveniences, we do now abridge and reduce the said two months unto eight and twenty days only. In respect of which abridgment we do ordain and appoint that no double quarrel shall hereafter be granted out of any of the archbishops’ courts, at the suit of any minister whatsoever, except he shall first take his personal oath, that the said eight and twenty days at the least are expired after he first tendered his presentation to the bishop, and that he refused to grant him institution thereupon; or shall enter into bond with sufficient sureties to prove the same to be true; under pain of suspension of the granter thereof from the execution of his office for half-a-year toties quoties, to be denounced by the said archbishop, and nullity of the double quarrel aforesaid so unduly procured, to all intents and purposes whatsoever. Always provided, that within the said eight and twenty days, the bishop shall not institute any other to the prejudice of the said party before presented, sub pœna nullitatis.

“Every bishop hath had.”—The canon mentions bishops, only because institution belongeth to them of common right; but it must also be understood to extend to others, who have this right by privilege or custom, as deans, deans and chapters, and others who have peculiar jurisdiction. Concerning whom it hath been unanimously adjudged, that if the archbishop shall give institution to any peculiar belonging to any ecclesiastical person or body, it is only voidable; because they being not free from this jurisdiction and visitation, the archbishop shall be supposed to have a concurrent jurisdiction, and in this case only to supply the defects of the inferiors, till the contrary appears. But if the archbishop grant institution to a peculiar in a lay hand, it is null and void; because he can have no jurisdiction there.

“To inquire and inform himself.”—In answer to an objection made, that the bishop ought to receive the clerk of him that comes first, otherwise he is a disturber, Hobart saith, the law is contrary; for as he may take competent time to examine the sufficiency and fitness of a clerk, so he may give convenient time to persons interested, to take knowledge of the avoidance, (even in case of death, and where notice is to be taken and not given,) to present their clerks to it.

Canon 39. “No bishop shall institute any to a benefice, who hath been ordained by any other bishop, except he first show unto him his letters of orders; and bring him a sufficient testimony of his former good life and behaviour, if the bishop shall require it; and, lastly, shall appear upon due examination to be worthy of his ministry.”

“Except he first show unto him his letters of orders.”—And by the 13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4, no person shall be capable to be admitted to any parsonage, vicarage, benefice, or other ecclesiastical promotion or dignity whatsoever, before such time as he shall be ordained priest, and bring a sufficient testimony of his former good life and behaviour. By the ancient laws of the Church, and particularly of the Church of England, the four things in which the bishop was to have full satisfaction in order to institution, were age, learning, behaviour, and orders. And there is scarce any one thing which the ancient canons of the Church more peremptorily forbid, than the admitting clergymen of one diocese to exercise their function in another, without first exhibiting the letters testimonial and commendatory of the bishop by whom they were ordained; and the constitutions of the Archbishops Reynolds and Arundel show that the same was the known law of the English Church, to wit, that none should be admitted to officiate (not so much as a chaplain or curate) in any diocese in which he was not born or ordained, unless he bring with him his letters of orders, and letters commendatory of his diocesan.

And, lastly, “shall appear, upon due examination, to be worthy of his ministry.”—As to the matter of learning, it hath been particularly allowed, not only by the courts of the King’s Bench and Common Pleas, but also by the High Court of Parliament, that the ordinary is not accountable to any temporal court, for the measures he takes or the rules by which he proceeds, in examining and judging (only he must examine in convenient time, and refuse in convenient time); and that the clerk’s having been ordained (and so presumed to be of good abilities) doth not take away or diminish the right which the statute above recited doth give to the bishop to whom the presentation is made to examine and judge.

EXARCH. An officer in the Greek Church, whose business it is to visit the provinces allotted to him, in order to inform himself of the lives and manners of the clergy; take cognizance of ecclesiastical causes; the manner of celebrating Divine service; the administration of the sacraments, particularly confession; the observance of the canons; monastic discipline; affairs of marriages; divorces, &c.

The title of exarchs, borrowed from the civil administration of the empire, was given about the fourth century to the chief bishops of certain large provinces; as the bishops of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and of Ephesus.

EXCOMMUNICATION is an ecclesiastical censure, whereby the person against whom it is pronounced is for the time cast out of the communion of the Church.

Excommunication is of two kinds, the lesser and the greater: the lesser excommunication is the depriving the offender of the use of the sacraments and Divine worship; and this sentence is passed by judges ecclesiastical, on such persons as are guilty of obstinacy or disobedience, in not appearing upon a citation, or not submitting to penance, or other injunctions of the court.

The greater excommunication is that whereby men are deprived, not only of the sacraments and the benefit of Divine offices, but of the society and conversation of the faithful.

If a person be excommunicated generally, as if the judge say, I excommunicate such a person, this shall be understood of the greater excommunication.

The law in many cases inflicts the censure of excommunication ipso facto upon offenders; which nevertheless is not intended so as to condemn any person without a lawful trial for his offence: but he must first be found guilty in the proper court; and then the law gives that judgment. And there are divers provincial constitutions, by which it is provided, that this sentence shall not be pronounced (in ordinary cases) without previous monition or notice to the parties, which also is agreeable to the ancient canon law.

By Canon 65. “All ordinaries shall in their several jurisdictions carefully see and give order, that as well those who for obstinate refusing to frequent Divine service established by public authority within this realm of England, as those also (especially those of the better sort and condition) who for notorious contumacy, or other notable crimes, stand lawfully excommunicate, (unless within three months immediately after the said sentence of excommunication pronounced against them, they reform themselves, and obtain the benefit of absolution,) be every six months ensuing, as well in the parish church as in the cathedral church of the diocese in which they remain, by the minister, openly in the time of Divine service upon some Sunday, denounced and declared excommunicate, that others may be thereby both admonished to refrain their company and society, and excited the rather to procure a writ de excommunicato capiendo, thereby to bring and reduce them into due order and obedience. Likewise the registrar of every ecclesiastical court shall yearly, between Michaelmas and Christmas, duly certify the archbishop of the province of all and singular the premises aforesaid.”

By Canon 68. “If the minister refuse to bury any corpse, except the party deceased were denounced excommunicated by the greater excommunication, for some grievous and notorious crime, and no man able to testify of his repentance, he shall be suspended by the bishop from his ministry for the space of three months.”

But by the rubric in the Book of Common Prayer, the Burial Office shall not be used for any that die excommunicate.

EXEAT. The permission given by the authorities in a college, to persons in statu pupillari, to leave their college residence for a time.

EXEDRÆ, in ecclesiastical antiquity, is the general name of such buildings as were distinct from the main body of the churches, and yet within the bounds of the Church, taken in its largest sense. Thus Eusebius, speaking of the church of Paulinus at Tyre, says, “When that curious artist had finished his famous structure within, he then set himself about the exedræ, or buildings that joined one to another by the sides of the church.” Among the exedræ, the chief was the baptistery, or place of baptism. Also the two vestries, or sacristies, as we should call them, still found in all Oriental churches; viz. the Diaconicum, wherein the sacred utensils, &c. were kept; and the Prothesis, where the side-table stood, on which the elements before consecration were placed.—Jebb.

EXEMPTION, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, means a privilege given by the pope to the clergy, and sometimes to the laity, to exempt or free them from the jurisdiction of their respective ordinaries.

When monasteries began to be erected, and governed by abbots of great quality, merit, and figure, these men, to cover their ambition, and to discharge themselves from the subjection which they owed to the bishops, procured grants from the court of Rome, to be received under the protection of St. Peter, and to be put immediately under subjection to the pope. This request being for the interest of the court of Rome, inasmuch as it contributed greatly to the advancement of the papal authority, all the monasteries were presently exempted. The chapters also of cathedral churches obtained exemptions upon the same score.

St. Bernard, who lived at the time when this invention was first put in practice, took the freedom to tell Pope Eugenius III. that it was no better than an abuse, and that it was by no means defensible, that an abbot should withdraw himself from the obedience due to his bishop; that the Church militant ought to be governed by the precedent of the Church triumphant, in which no angel ever said, “I will not be under the jurisdiction of an archangel.”

In after ages this abuse was carried so far, that, for a small charge, private priests procured exemption from the jurisdiction of their bishop. The Council of Trent made a small reformation in this matter, by abolishing the exemption of particular priests and friars, not living in cloisters, and that of chapters in criminal causes.—Sarpi’s Council of Trent.

EXHORTATION. By this general name the addresses of the minister to the people in the liturgy are called. While they are said, the people stand, in sign of respectful attention, but do not repeat them after the minister, since they are not addresses to the Almighty made in their name, but addresses to them only.

The ancient Church, indeed, had no such exhortations as those in our Communion Service; for their daily, or at least weekly, communions made it known that there was then no solemn assembly of Christians without it, and every one (not under censure) was expected to communicate. But now, when the time is somewhat uncertain, and our long omissions have made some of us ignorant, and others forgetful of this duty; most of us unwilling, and all of us more or less indisposed for it; it was thought both prudent and necessary to provide these exhortations to be read “when the minister gives warning of the communion, which he is always to do upon the Sunday, or some holy-day immediately preceding.”

As to the composures themselves, they are so extraordinary suitable, that if every communicant would duly weigh and consider them, they would be no small help towards a due preparation. The first contains proper exhortations and instructions how to prepare ourselves; the latter is more urgent, and applicable to those who generally turn their backs upon those holy mysteries, and shows the danger of those vain and frivolous excuses which men frequently make for their staying away. For which reason it is appointed by the rubric to be used instead of the former, whenever the minister shall observe that the people are “negligent to come.”—Wheatly.

The service of the Church of England is distinguished by the number and fitness of its exhortations. These are: one at the beginning of Morning and Evening Prayer; two in the Communion Service, when notice is given of the holy communion; another at the time of celebration. Five in the Baptismal Service; two in the office for receiving those into the Church who have been privately baptized; and five in the Baptism of those of Riper Years; one in the Confirmation Office; two in the Solemnization of Matrimony; two in the Visitation of the Sick; one in the Churching Service; two in the Commination Service; besides those in the Ordination Service. These may be considered as so many sermons of the Church, which assert her doctrines, and fully show what she expects from the faith and practice of her children.

EXODUS. (From the Greek ἔξοδος, going out; the term generally applied to the departure of the Israelites from Egypt.) The second book of the Bible is so called, because it is chiefly occupied with the account of that part of the sacred history. It comprehends the transactions of 145 years, from the death of Joseph in 2369 B. C. to the building of the Tabernacle in 2114.

EXORCISMS (from ἐξορκίζω, to conjure) were certain prayers used of old in the Christian churches for the dispossessing of devils. This custom of exorcism is as ancient as Christianity itself, being practised by our Saviour, the apostles, and the primitive Church; and the Christians were so well assured of the prevalency of their prayers upon these occasions, that they publicly offered the heathens to venture their lives upon the success of them.

In the form of baptism, in the liturgy of the 2 Edward VI., it was ordered thus:—“Then let the priest, looking upon the children, say, ‘I command thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that thou come out and depart from these infants, whom our Lord Jesus Christ hath vouchsafed to call to his holy baptism, to be made members of his body, and of his holy congregation; therefore, thou cursed spirit, remember thy sentence, remember thy judgment, remember the day to be at hand wherein thou shalt burn in fire everlasting, prepared for thee and thy angels; and presume not hereafter to exercise any tyranny towards these infants whom Christ hath bought with his precious blood, and by this his holy baptism called to be of his flock.’”

There was a custom which obtained in the early ages of the Church, which was to exorcise the baptized person, or to cast Satan out of him, who was supposed to have taken possession of his body in his unregenerate state. But because, in process of time, many superstitious and unwarrantable practices mixed with this ancient rite, especially in the Roman Church, our Reformers wisely thought fit to lay it quite aside, and to substitute in lieu of it these short excellent prayers: wherein the minister and the congregation put up their petitions to Almighty God, that the child may be delivered from the power of the devil, and receive all the benefits of the Divine grace and protection, without the ancient ceremony attending it.—Dr. Nicholls.

Canon 72. “No minister shall, without the licence of the bishop of the diocese, under his hand and seal, attempt, upon any pretence whatsoever, to cast out any devil or devils, under pain of the imputation of imposture or cozenage, and deposition from the ministry.”

EXORCISTS were persons ordained in the latter end of the third century, on purpose to take care of such as were demoniacs, or possessed with evil spirits. In the first ages of Christianity there were many persons who are represented as possessed with evil spirits, and exorcism was performed not by any particular set of men, but afterwards it was judged requisite by the bishops to appropriate this office by ordination. They are still a separate order in the Church of Rome.

EXPECTATION WEEK. The whole of the interval between Ascension Day and Whit Sunday is so called, because at this time the apostles continued in earnest prayer and expectation of the Comforter.

EXPIATION. A religious act, by which satisfaction or atonement is made for some crime, the guilt removed, and the obligation to punish cancelled. (Lev. xv. 15.)

EXPIATION, THE GREAT DAY OF. An annual solemnity of the Jews, observed upon the 10th day of the month Tisri, which answers to our September. The Hebrews call it Chippur, that is, “pardon,” because the sins of the whole people were then expiated or pardoned. (Lev. xvi. 29, 30.) On this occasion, the high priest laid aside his pectoral and embroidered ephod, because it was a day of humiliation. He offered first a bullock and a ram for his own sins and those of the priests; then he received from the heads of the people two goats for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, to be offered in the name of the whole multitude. It was determined by lot, which of the goats should be sacrificed, and which set at liberty. After this, he perfumed the sanctuary with incense, and sprinkled it with blood. Then, coming out, he sacrificed the goat upon which the lot had fallen. This done, the goat which was to be set at liberty being brought to him, he laid his hands upon its head, confessed his sins and the sins of the people, and then sent it away into some desert place.

The great day of Expiation was a day of rest and strict fasting: they confessed themselves ten times, and repeated the name of God as often: on this day likewise they put an end to all differences, and were reconciled to each other. Many Jews spent the night preceding the day of Expiation in prayer and penitential exercises. It was customary for the high priest to separate from his wife seven days before this solemnity. Upon the vigil, some of the elders attended the high priest, and their business was to prevent his eating too much, lest he should fall asleep. He was likewise to swear, that he would not change the ancient rites in any particular. On the day itself, the high priest washed himself five times, and changed his habit as often. When the ceremony was over, the high priest read the law, and gave the blessing to the people.—Buxtorf, Synag. Jud. c. xx. Basnage, Hist. des Juifs, t. v. lib. vii. c. 15.

The modern Jews prepare themselves for the great day of Expiation by prayer, and ablution. They carry wax candles to the synagogue: the most devout have two, one for the body, and the other for the soul. The women at the same time light up candles in their houses, from the brightness of which, and the consistency of the tallow or wax, they form presages. The whole day is spent in strict fasting, without exception of age or sex. At the conclusion of the solemnity, the high priest gives the blessing to the people; who return home, change their clothes, and sit down to a good meal.

The Jews believe, that Adam repented, and began his penance, on the solemn day of Expiation; that, on the same day, Abraham was circumcised, and Isaac bound in order to be sacrificed; lastly, that on this day, Moses descended from Mount Sinai, with the new tables of the law.

As sacrificing is now impracticable to the modern Jews, in regard that their temple is destroyed, they sacrifice a cock on this occasion, instead of the legal victims, in the manner following. The men take each of them a cock in their hands, and the women a hen. Then the master of the family walks into the middle of the room, and repeating several verses out of the Psalms, dashes the cock thrice on the head, pronouncing these words; “Let this cock pass as an exchange for me; let him stand in my place; let him be an expiation for me; let death befall this cock, but life and happiness belong to me, and all the people of Israel. Amen.” This prayer is thrice repeated by the master of the family; for himself, his children, and the strangers of his family. Then they proceed to kill the cock, and throw his entrails upon the top of the house, that the crows may come and carry them away, together with the sins of the family, into the wilderness: this is done by way of resemblance with the scape goat.

It is of this fast we are to understand that passage of the Acts, where St. Luke says, that St. Paul comforted those who were with him in the ship, “when sailing was become dangerous, because the fast was already past.” (Acts xxvii. 9.) For tempests are very frequent in the month of September, in which this solemnity falls, and this was much about the time that St. Paul took his voyage to Rome.

EXTRAVAGANTS. (See Decretals.) A name given to those decretal epistles of the popes after the Clementines. The first Extravagants are those of John XXIII., successor to Clement V.; they were so named because, at first, they were not digested, nor ranged with the other papal constitutions, but seemed to be, as it were, detached from the canon law; and they retained the same name when they were afterwards inserted into the body of the canon law. The collection of decretals, in 1483, were called the Common Extravagants, notwithstanding they were likewise embodied with the rest of the canon law.

EXTREME UNCTION. Of extreme unction the Romish Council of Trent asserts, “The holy unction of the sick was instituted by our Lord Christ, as truly and properly a sacrament of the New Testament, as is implied, indeed, in St. Mark; but commended and declared to the faithful by James, the apostle and brother of the Lord. “Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him.”” From which words, as the Church hath learned from apostolic tradition handed down, she teaches the matter, form, proper minister, and effect of this wholesome sacrament; for the Church has understood that the matter is oil blessed by the bishop, for unction most aptly represents the grace of the Holy Spirit wherewith the soul of the sick man is invisibly anointed: then that the form consists of these words, “By this anointing,” &c.

The following are the canons upon the subject passed by that council.

Canon I. If any shall say, that extreme unction is not truly or properly a sacrament instituted by our Lord Christ, and declared by the blessed apostle James; but only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human invention; let him be accursed.

Canon II. If any shall say, that the holy anointing of the sick does not confer grace, nor remit sins, nor relieve the sick, but that it has ceased, as if it were formerly only the grace of healing; let him be accursed.

Canon III. If any shall say, that the rite and usage of extreme unction, which, the holy Roman Church observes, is contrary to the sentence of the blessed apostle James, and, therefore, should be changed, and may be despised by Christians without sin; let him be accursed.

Canon IV. If any shall say, that the presbyters of the Church, whom St. James directs to be called for the anointing of the sick, are not priests ordained by the bishops, but elders in age, in any community; and that, therefore, the priest is not the only proper minister of extreme unction; let him be accursed.

Here the institution of extreme unction by our Lord is implied by Mark vi. 13, where it is said of the apostles, that “they anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.” But, by-and-by, (session 22, ch. 1,) we are told that the Christian priesthood was not instituted until our Lord’s last supper. Either, then, extreme unction is no sacrament, or they who are no priests can administer a sacrament; for the apostles were not priests, according to the Church of Rome, at the time spoken of by St. Mark. But, further, a sacrament is a visible form of invisible grace; but the passage in St. Mark speaks only of healing the body; and, therefore, Cajetan, as cited by Catharinus, rejects this text as inapplicable to this sacrament; and Suarez (in part iii. disp. 39, sect. 1, n. 5) says, that “when the apostles are said to anoint the sick and heal them, (Mark vi. 13,) this was not said in reference to the sacrament of unction, because their cures had not of themselves an immediate respect to the soul.” Nor will this pretended sacrament derive more assistance from the passage in St. James, in which they say that the institution by our Lord is proclaimed and declared by that apostle, at least if Cardinal Cajetan is any authority, who is thus cited by Catharinus in his Annotationes, Paris, 1535, p. 191, de Sacramento Unctionis Extremæ. “Sed et quod scribit B. Jacobus, ‘Infirmatur quis in vobis?’ &c., pariter negat reverendissimus ad hoc sacramentum pertinere, ita scribens, nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu, verba hæc loquuntur de sacramentali unctione extremæ unctionis, sed magis de unctione quam instituit Dominus Jesus exercendum in ægrotis. Textus enim non dicit, Infirmatur quis ad mortem? sed absolutè, Infirmatur quis?” &c. But that this rite, which they now call a sacrament, was originally applied chiefly to the healing of the body, is manifest from the prayers which accompanied it. “Cura quæsumus, Redemptor noster, gratia Spiritüs Sancti languores istius infirmi,” and so the directions, “in loco ubi plus dolor imminet, amplius perungatur.” Let the patient have most oil applied in the part where the pain is greatest.—Sacr. Gregor. by Menard, Paris, 1542, p. 252. From all which we come to the conclusion, that the allegations of the Council of Trent on this matter must be pronounced “not proven.” Which, if it were a mere opinion, would be of no great consequence. But when their assertion is supported by anathema, and every communicant in their Church bound to believe it as necessary to salvation, it serves to show the cruelty of this Roman mother both to her own children, and to them whom she reckons strangers. It is in vain that the Roman writers attempt to strengthen their cause by appeals to the Greek mysteries. The Greek mysteries and the Latin sacraments are not synonymous. And as concerns this of unction, which (as its epithet “extreme,” which the Romans have added, implies) is designed for persons in articulo mortis, or in exitu vitæ, as we have it in the third chapter, this derives as little countenance from the Greek Church as it does from St. James. For, in the Greek Church, the service of anointing is used to persons in any illness; and is used by them solely for recovery from sickness, as the following prayer at the application of the oil clearly shows. “O holy Father, the physician of our souls and bodies, who didst send thine only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to heal all diseases, and to deliver us from death, heal this thy servant M. from the bodily infirmity under which he now labours, and raise him up by the grace of Christ.”—Perceval, Roman Schism. King’s Greek Church.

Now that this miraculous gift (of healing all manner of diseases) is ceased, there is no reason why the mere ceremony of anointing with oil should continue; which yet is still used in the Church of Rome, and made a sacrament; though it signify nothing; for they do not pretend to heal men by it, nay, they pretend the contrary, because they never use it but in extremity, and where they look upon the person as past recovery; and if they do not think so, they would not use it.—Abp. Tillotson.

EZEKIEL, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Ezekiel was the son of Buzi, of the house of Aaron. He was carried captive to Babylon with Jechoniah. He began to prophesy in the fifth year of this captivity, which is the æra by which he reckons in all his prophecies. He continued to prophesy during twenty years. He was contemporary with Jeremiah, who prophesied at the same time in Judea. He foretold many events, particularly the destruction of the temple; the fatal catastrophe of those who revolted from Babylon to Egypt; and, at last, the happy return of the Jews into their own land. He distinctly predicts the plagues which were to fall upon the enemies of the Jews, as the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. He foretells the coming of the Messiah, and the flourishing state of his kingdom.—Du Pin, Canon of Scripture, b. i. c. iii. § 20.

The greatest part of this prophecy is easy, plain, and intelligible, referring chiefly to the manners and corruption of that degenerate age. Of all the prophets, Ezekiel abounds the most in enigmatical visions. His style (in the opinion of St. Jerome) is neither eloquent nor mean, but between both. He abounds in fine sentences, rich comparisons, and shows a great deal of learning in profane matters. The beginning and end of this book (by reason of the abstruse mysteries contained in them) were forbidden to be read by the Jews, before thirty years of age.

Ezekiel was called to be a prophet by being carried in a vision to Jerusalem, and there shown all the several sorts of idolatry, which were practised by the Jews in that place. This makes the subject of the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th chapters of his prophecies. At the same time God promised to those of the captivity, who kept themselves from these abominations, that he would be their protector, and restore them to the land of Israel. This is his theme in the 15th and following chapters. The 26th, 27th, and 28th chapters contain the threatenings of God’s judgments against Tyre, for insulting on the calamitous estate of Judah and Jerusalem. To these we may add his prophecy concerning the captivity of Zedekiah, contained in the 12th chapter; and that against Pharaoh Hophra, king of Egypt, in the 33rd. These are the principal prophecies of this book.—Prideaux, Connect. p. i. b. i.

It is said, that Ezekiel was put to death by the prince of his people, because he exhorted him to leave idolatry. It is pretended likewise, that his body was deposited in the same cave wherein Shem and Arphaxad were laid, on the bank of the Euphrates. His tomb, they say, is still to be seen: the Jews keep a lamp always burning in it, and boast, that they have there the prophet’s book, written with his own hand, which they read every year upon the great day of Expiation.

The Jewish Sanhedrim, we are told, once took it under their consideration, whether they should not suppress the prophecy of Ezekiel, on account of the obscurity of some parts of it; but that Rabbi Chananias prevented this design, by offering to remove all the difficulties. His proposal, they say, was accepted, and a present was made him of three hundred tun of oil for the use of his lamp, while he was employed in this undertaking. We may easily discover, that this is a mere fable and an hyperbole of the Talmudists.

EZRA. One of the canonical books of Scripture is called the Book of Ezra.

The book of Ezra was written in the latter end of the author’s life, and comprehends the transactions of about eighty, or, as some say, a hundred years. It includes the history of the Jews from the time of Cyrus’s edict for their return, to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. In this book are recorded the number of those Jews who returned from the captivity, Cyrus’s proclamation for the rebuilding of the temple, the laying of the foundations thereof, &c. Part of this book was written in the Chaldee language, namely, from the eighth verse of the fourth chapter to the twenty-seventh verse of the seventh chapter; all the rest was written in Hebrew.

FACULTY COURT belongs to the archbishop of Canterbury, and his officer is called the Master of the Faculties. His power is to grant dispensation to marry, to eat flesh on days prohibited, to hold two or more benefices ordinarily incompatible, and such like.

FAITH. (See Grace, Justification.) “We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.”—Article XI.

Faith, in its generic sense, either means the holding rightly the creeds of the Catholic Church, or means that very Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Thus, when the priest is directed, in the office for the Baptism of those of Riper Years, to inquire into the faith of the candidate, he asks his assent to one of the creeds; and, in the office for the Visitation of the Sick, he is required to use the same test, and this of course agrees with St. Paul’s statement: “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”

It should be noted, that we are justified by faith, not because of faith; for there is no more “merit” in our faith, than in our works. Faith therefore is not the cause, but the condition, of our justification, which is solely to be attributed to the bounty of God, and the merits of Christ.—Archdeacon Welchman.

I am sensible, says Dr. Waterland, that some very eminent men have expressed a dislike of the phrase, of the instrumentality of faith; and have also justly rejected the thing, according to the false notion which some had conceived of it. It cannot, with any tolerable sense or propriety, be looked upon as an instrument of conveyance in the hand of the efficient or principal cause; but it may justly and properly be looked upon as the instrument of reception in the hand of the recipient. It is not the mean by which the grace is wrought, effected, or conferred; but it may be, and is, the mean by which it is accepted or received: or, to express it a little differently, it is not the instrument of justification in the active sense of the word, but it is in the passive sense of it. It cannot be for nothing that St. Paul so often and so emphatically speaks of man’s being justified by faith, or through faith in Christ’s blood; and that he particularly notes it of Abraham, that he believed, and that his faith was counted to him for justification; when he might as easily have said, had he so meant, that man is justified by faith and works, or that Abraham, to whom the gospel was preached, was justified by gospel faith and obedience. Besides, it is certain, and is on all hands allowed, that, though St. Paul did not directly and expressly oppose faith to evangelical works, yet he comprehended the works of the moral law under those works which he excluded from the office of justifying, in his sense of justifying, in those passages; and further, he used such arguments as appear to extend to all kinds of works: for Abraham’s works were really evangelical works, and yet they were excluded. Add to this, that if justification could come even by evangelical works, without taking in faith in the meritorious sufferings and satisfaction of a mediator, then might we have “whereof to glory,” as needing no pardon; and then might it be justly said, that “Christ died in vain.” I must further own, that it is of great weight with me, that so early and so considerable a writer as Clemens of Rome, an apostolical man, should so interpret the doctrine of justifying faith, so as to oppose it plainly even to evangelical works, however exalted. It runs thus: “They (the ancient patriarchs) were all, therefore, greatly glorified and magnified; not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they themselves wrought, but through his good pleasure. And we also, being called through his good pleasure in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or the works which we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith by which Almighty God justified all from the beginning.” Here it is observable, that the word faith does not stand for the whole system of Christianity, or for Christian belief at large, but for some particular self-denying principle by which good men, even under the patriarchal and legal dispensations, laid hold on the mercy and promises of God, referring all, not to themselves or their own deservings, but to Divine goodness, in and through a mediator. It is true, Clemens elsewhere, and St. Paul almost everywhere, insists upon true holiness of heart, and obedience of life, as indispensable conditions of salvation or justification; and of that one would think there could be no question among men of any judgment or probity: but the question about conditions is very distinct from the other question about instruments; and, therefore, both parts may be true, viz. that faith and obedience are equally conditions, and equally indispensable where opportunities permit; and yet faith over and above is emphatically the instrument both of receiving and holding justification, or a title to salvation.

To explain this matter more distinctly, let it be remembered, that God may be considered (as I before noted) either as a party contracting with man, on very gracious terms, or as a judge to pronounce judgment upon him.

Man’s first coming into covenant (supposing him adult) is by assenting to it, and accepting of it, to have and to hold it on such kind of tenure as God proposes: that is to say, upon a self-denying tenure, considering himself as a guilty man, standing in need of pardon, and of borrowed merits, and at length resting upon mercy. So here the previous question is, whether a person shall consent to hold a privilege upon this submissive kind of tenure or not? Such assent or consent, if he comes into it, is the very thing which St. Paul and St. Clemens call faith; and this previous and general question is the question which both of them determine against any proud claimants who would hold by a more self-admiring tenure.

Or, if we next consider God as sitting in judgment, and man before the tribunal, going to plead his cause; here the question is, What kind of plea shall a man resolve to trust his salvation upon? Shall he stand upon his innocence, and rest upon strict law; or shall he plead guilty, and rest in an act of grace? If he chooses the former, he is proud, and sure to be cast; if he chooses the latter, he is safe so far, in throwing himself upon an act of grace. Now this question also, which St. Paul has decided, is previous to the question, what conditions even the act of grace itself finally insists upon? A question which St. James in particular, and the general tenor of the whole Scripture, has abundantly satisfied; and which could never have been made a question by any considerate or impartial Christian. What I am at present concerned with is to observe, that faith is emphatically the instrument by which an adult accepts the covenant of grace, consenting to hold by that kind of tenure, to be justified in that way, and to rest in that kind of plea, putting his salvation on that only issue. It appears to be a just observation which Dr. Whitby makes, (Pref. to the Epist. to Galat. p. 300,) that Abraham had faith (Heb. xi. 8) before what was said of his justification in Gen. xv. 6, and afterwards more abundantly, when he offered up his son Isaac; but yet neither of those instances was pitched upon by the apostle as fit for his purpose, because in both, obedience was joined with faith: whereas, here was a pure act of faith, without works, and of this act of faith it is said, “it was imputed to him for righteousness.” The sum is, none of our works are good enough to stand by themselves before Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. Christ only is pure enough for it at first hand, and they that are Christ’s at second hand, in and through him. Now, because it is by faith that we thus interpose, as it were, Christ between God and us, in order to gain acceptance by him; therefore faith is emphatically the instrument whereby we receive the grant of justification. Obedience is equally a condition or qualification, but not an instrument, not being that act of the mind whereby we look up to God and Christ, and whereby we embrace the promises.—Waterland on Justification.

There is not any one word which hath more significations than this hath in the word of God, especially in the New Testament. It sometimes signifies the acknowledgment of the true God, in opposition to heathenism; sometimes the Christian religion, in opposition to Judaism; sometimes the believing the power of Christ to heal diseases; sometimes the believing that he is the promised Messias; sometimes fidelity or faithfulness; sometimes a resolution of conscience concerning the lawfulness of anything: sometimes a reliance, affiance, or dependence on Christ either for temporal or spiritual matters; sometimes believing the truth of all Divine relations; sometimes obedience to God’s commands in the evangelical, not legal sense; sometimes the doctrine of the gospel, in opposition to the law of Moses; sometimes it is an aggregate of all other graces; sometimes the condition of the second covenant in opposition to the first: and other senses of it also there are, distinguishable by the contexture, and the matter treated of where the word is used.—Hammond, Practical Catechism.

FAITH, IMPLICIT. (See Implicit Faith.)

FAITHFUL. This was the favourite and universal name uniformly used in the primitive Church, to denote those who had been instructed in the Christian religion, and received by baptism into the communion of the Church. The apostolical Epistles are all addressed to “faithful men,” that is, to those who formed the visible Church in their respective localities; those who had made profession of the faith of Christ in holy baptism.

FALD STOOL. A small desk, at which the Litany is enjoined to be sung or said. It is generally placed, in those churches in which it is used, in the middle of the choir, sometimes near the steps of the altar. This word is probably derived from the barbarous Latin, falda, a place shut up, a fold. (See Litany.)

FALDISTORY. The episcopal seat, or throne, within the chancel; but more particularly, the bishop’s chair, near the altar, mentioned in the Ordination Service, in which he sits, while addressing the candidates for orders, &c.

FALL OF MAN. (See Original Sin.) The loss of those perfections and that happiness which his Maker bestowed on man at his creation, for the transgression of a positive command, given for the trial of his obedience. This doctrine may be stated in the language of our ninth Article:—“Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk,) but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone (the Latin is quam longissime i. e. as far as possible) from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore, in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek φρόημα σάρχος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.”

FAMILIARS OF THE INQUISITION. (See Inquisition.) In order to support the cruel proceedings of the Inquisition in Spain, great privileges were bestowed upon such of the nobility as were willing to degrade themselves so far as to become familiars of the holy office. The king himself assumed the title, and was protector of the order.

The business of these familiars was to assist in the apprehending of such persons as were accused, and to carry them to prison; upon which occasion the unhappy person was surrounded by such a number of these officious gentlemen, that, though he was neither fettered nor bound, there was no possibility of escaping out of their hands. As a reward of this base employment, the familiars were allowed to commit the most enormous actions, to debauch, assassinate, and kill with impunity. If they happened to be prosecuted for any crime, the Inquisition took upon itself the prosecution, and immediately the familiar entered himself as their prisoner; after which he was at liberty to go where he pleased, and act in all things as if he were free.

A gentleman, a familiar of the holy office at Corduba, having killed a person, the inquisitors were so strongly solicited against him, that they could not help condemning him pursuant to the laws. But the rest of the gentleman familiars getting a horse ready for him, and a sum of money, let him privately out of prison. Another, being put in prison for having disputed on free-will and grace, (for which any other person would have been punished with the utmost severity,) was only admonished not to argue any more upon religion, and presently set at liberty.—Broughton.

FANATICISM. When men add to enthusiasm and zeal for the cause which they believe to be the cause of truth, a hatred of those who are opposed to them, whether in politics or religion, they fall into fanaticism, and thus violating the law of Christian charity, are guilty of a great sin.

FARSE. An addition, used before the Reformation, in the vernacular tongue, to the Epistle in Latin, anciently used in some churches, forming an explication or paraphrase of the Latin text, verse by verse, for the benefit of the people. The subdeacon first repeated each verse of the epistle or lectio in Latin, and two choristers sang the farse or explanation. The following is an example from the Epistle with a farse for new-year’s day. “Good people, for whose salvation God deigned to clothe himself in flesh, and humbly live in a cradle, who has the whole world in his hands, render him sweet thanks, who in his life worked such wonders, and for our redemption humbled himself even to death.”—Lectio Epistolæ, &c. Then follows the lesson from the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus, and then the farse proceeds. “St. Paul sent this ditty,” &c.—See Burney’s History of Music, ii. 256.

FASTING. (See Abstinence and Fasts.) Abstinence from food.

By the regulations of the Church, fasting, though not defined as to its degree, is inculcated at seasons of peculiar penitence and humiliation, as a valuable auxiliary to the cultivation of habits of devotion and self-denial. Respecting its usefulness, there does not appear to have been much diversity of opinion until late years. Fasting was customary in the Church of God long before the introduction of Christianity, as may be seen in the Old Testament Scriptures. That it was sanctioned by our Saviour and his apostles, is equally plain. And that it was intended to continue in the future Church can scarcely be questioned; for Christ gave his disciples particular instructions respecting it, and in reprobating the abuses of it among the Pharisees, never objects to its legitimate use. He even declares, that after his ascension his disciples should fast: “The days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast in those days.” (Luke v. 35.) Accordingly, in the Acts of the Apostles occur several notices of fastings connected with religious devotions. St. Paul evidently practised it with some degree of frequency. (2 Cor. xi. 27.) He also recognises the custom, as known in the Corinthian Church, and makes some observations implying its continuance. From the days of the apostles to the present time, fasting has been regarded under various modifications as a valuable auxiliary to penitence. In former times, Christians were exceedingly strict in abstaining from every kind of food for nearly the whole of the appointed fast days, receiving only at stated times what was actually necessary for the support of life. At the season of Lent, much time was spent in mortification and open confession of sin, accompanied by those outward acts which tend to the control of the body and its appetites; a species of godly discipline still associated with the services of that solemn period of the ecclesiastical year.

In the practice of fasting, the intelligent Christian will not rest in the outward act, but regard it only as a means to a good end. All must acknowledge that this restraint, even upon the innocent appetites of the body, is eminently beneficial in assisting the operations of the mind. It brings the animal part of our nature into greater subservience to the spiritual. It tends to prevent that heaviness and indolence of the faculties, as well as that perturbation of the passions, which often proceed from indulgence and repletion of the body. It is thus highly useful in promoting that calmness of mind and clearness of thought, which are so very favourable to meditation and devotion. The great end of the observance is to “afflict the soul,” and to increase a genuine contrition of heart, and godly sorrow for sin. This being understood, abstinence will be approved of God, and made conducive to a growth in spiritual life.

The distinction between the Protestant and the Romish view of fasting is this, that the Roman regards the use of fasting as a means of grace; the Protestant, only as a useful exercise. It is not a means of grace, for it is nowhere ordained as such in the Scriptures of the New Testament; but it is a useful preparation for the means of grace, and as such the Scriptures have assumed that it will be resorted to by Christians.

FASTS. Those days which are appointed by the Church as seasons of abstinence and peculiar sorrow for sin. These are the forty days of Lent, including Ash Wednesday and Good Friday; the Ember days, the three Rogation days, and all the Fridays in the year, (except Christmas Day,) and the eves or vigils of certain festivals.

By Canon 72. “No minister shall, without the licence and direction of the bishop under hand and seal, appoint or keep any solemn fasts, either publicly, or in any private houses, other than such as by law are, or by public authority shall be, appointed, nor shall be wittingly present at any of them; under pain of suspension for the first fault, of excommunication for the second, and of deposition from the ministry for the third.”

By the rubric, the table of Vigils, Fasts, and Days of Abstinence to be observed in the Year, is as followeth, (which, although not in words, yet in substance, is the same with what is above expressed in the aforesaid statute,) viz. “The evens or vigils before the Nativity of our Lord, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, Easter Day, Ascension Day, Pentecost, St. Matthias, St. John Baptist, St. Peter, St. James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, St. Simon and St. Jude, St. Andrew, St. Thomas, All Saints. And if any of these feasts fall upon a Monday, then the vigil or fast day shall be kept upon the Saturday, and not upon the Sunday, next before it.” (See Fasting.)

That fasting or abstinence from our usual sustenance is a proper means to express sorrow and grief, and a fit method to dispose our minds towards the consideration of anything that is serious, nature seems to suggest; and therefore all nations, from ancient times, have used fasting as a part of repentance, and as a means to avert the anger of God. This is plain in the case of the Ninevites, (Jonah iii. 5,) whose notion of fasting, to appease the wrath of God, seems to have been common to them with the rest of mankind. In the Old Testament, besides the examples of private fasting by David, (Ps. lxix. 10,) and Daniel, (Dan. ix. 3,) and others, we have instances of public fasts observed by the whole nation of the Jews at once upon solemn occasions. (See Lev. xxiii. 26, &c.; 2 Chron. xx. 3; Ezra viii. 21; Jer. xxxvi. 9; Zech. viii. 19; Joel i. 14.) It is true indeed, in the New Testament, we find no positive precept, that expressly requires and commands us to fast; but our Saviour mentions fasting with almsgiving and prayer, which are unquestionable duties (Matt. vi. 1–18); and the directions he gave concerning the performance of it sufficiently suppose its necessity. And he himself was pleased, before he entered upon his ministry, to give us an extraordinary example in his own person, by fasting forty days and forty nights. (Matt. iv. 2.) He excused, indeed, his disciples from fasting, so long as he, “the bridegroom, was with them;” because that being a time of joy and gladness, it would be an improper season for tokens of sorrow; but then he intimates at the same time, that though it was not fit for them then, it would yet be their duty hereafter: for “the days,” says he, “will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then they shall fast.” (Matt. ix. 15.) And accordingly we find, that, after his ascension, the duty of fasting was not only recommended, (1 Cor. vii. 5,) but practised by the apostles, as any one may see by the texts of Scripture here referred to. (Acts xiii. 2, and xiv. 23; 1 Cor. ix. 27; 2 Cor. vi. 5, and xi. 27.) After the apostles, we find the primitive Christians very constant and regular in the observation of both their annual and weekly fasts. Their weekly fasts were kept on Wednesdays and Fridays, because on the one our Lord was betrayed, on the other crucified. The chief of their annual fasts was that of Lent, which they observed by way of preparation for their feast of Easter.

In the Church of Rome, fasting and abstinence admit of a distinction, and different days are appointed for each of them. But I do not find that the Church of England makes any difference between them. It is true, in the title of the table of Vigils, &c. she mentions “fasts and days of abstinence” separately; but when she comes to enumerate the particulars, she calls them all “days of fasting or abstinence,” without distinguishing the one from the other. The times she sets apart are such as she finds to have been observed by the earliest ages of the Church.—Wheatly.

FATHERS, THE. A term of honour applied generally to all the ancient Christian writers, whose works were in good repute in the Church, and who were not separated from its communion or from its faith. St. Bernard, who flourished in the twelfth century, is reputed to be the last of the Fathers. The Christian theologians after his time, adopted a new style of treating religious matters, and were called scholastics. Those writers who conversed with the apostles are generally called apostolical Fathers, as Ignatius, &c.

Of the authority of the Fathers, the Rev. Geo. Stanley Faber very justly observes: “Among unread or half-read persons of our present somewhat confident age, it is not an uncommon saying, that THEY disregard the early Fathers; and that THEY will abide by nothing but the Scriptures alone. If by a disregard of the early Fathers, they mean that they allow them not individually that personal authority which the Romanists claim for them, they certainly will not have me for their opponent. And accordingly I have shown, that in the interpretation of the Scripture terms, Election and Predestination, I regard the insulated individual authority of St. Augustine just as little as I regard the insulated individual authority of Calvin.

“But if by a disregard of the early Fathers, they mean that they regard them not as evidence of the FACT of what doctrines were or were not received by the primitive Church, and from her were or were not delivered to posterity, they might just as rationally talk of the surpassing wisdom of extinguishing the light of history, by way of more effectually improving and increasing our knowledge of past events; for, in truth, under the aspect in which they are specially important to us, the early Fathers are neither more nor less than so many historical witnesses.

“And if, by an abiding solely by the decision of Scripture, they mean that, utterly disregarding the recorded doctrinal system of that primitive Church which conversed with, and was taught by, the apostles, they will abide by nothing save their own crude and arbitrary private expositions of Scripture; we certainly may well admire their intrepidity, whatever we may think of their modesty; for in truth, by such a plan, while they call upon us to despise the sentiments of Christian antiquity, so far as we can learn them, upon distinct historical testimony, they expect us to receive, without hesitation, and as undoubted verities, their own more modern upstart speculations upon the sense of God’s holy word; that is to say, the evidence of the early Fathers, and the hermeneutic decisions of the primitive Church, we may laudably and profitably contemn, but themselves we must receive (for they themselves are content to receive themselves) as well nigh certain and infallible expositors of Scripture.”

The Apostolic Fathers are those writers of the apostolic age, whose names are given to certain treatises still extant; though some of them are spurious. These were Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp.

FEASTS, FESTIVALS, or HOLY-DAYS. Among the earliest means adopted by the holy Church for the purpose of impressing on the minds of her children the mysterious facts of the gospel history, was the appointment of a train of anniversaries and holy-days, with appropriate services commemorative of all the prominent transactions of the Redeemer’s life and death, and of the labours and virtues of the blessed apostles and evangelists. These institutions, so replete with hallowed associations, have descended to our own day; and the observance of them is commended by the assent of every discerning and unprejudiced mind, and is sustained by the very constitution of our nature, which loves to preserve the annual memory of important events, and is in the highest degree reasonable, delightful, profitable, and devout.

There is something truly admirable in the order and succession of these holy-days. The Church begins her ecclesiastical year with the Sundays in Advent, to remind us of the coming of Christ in the flesh. After these, we are brought to contemplate the mystery of the incarnation; and so, step by step, we follow the Church through all the events of our Saviour’s pilgrimage, to his ascension into heaven. In all this the grand object is to keep Christ perpetually before us, to make him and his doctrine the chief object in all our varied services. Every Sunday has its peculiar character, and has reference to some act or scene in the life of our Lord, or the redemption achieved by him, or the mystery of mercy carried on by the blessed Trinity. Thus every year brings the whole gospel history to view; and it will be found as a general rule, that the appointed portions of Scripture, in each day’s service, are mutually illustrative; the New Testament casting light on the Old, prophecy being admirably brought in contact with its accomplishment, so that no plan could be devised for a more profitable course of Scripture reading than that presented by the Church on her holy-days.

The objections against the keeping of holy-days are such as these. St. Paul says, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.” This occurs in the Epistle to the Galatians. Again, in the Epistle to the Colossians, “Let no man judge you in respect of a holy-day,” &c. From these it is argued, that as we are brought into the liberty of the gospel, we are no longer bound to the observance of holy-days, which are but “beggarly elements.” Respecting the first, it is surprising that no one has “conscientiously” drawn from it an inference for the neglect of the civil division of time; and in relation to both, it requires only an attentive reading of the Epistles from which they are taken, to see that they have no more connexion with the holy-days of the Church than with episcopacy. The apostle is warning the Gentile Christians to beware of the attempts of Judaizing teachers to subvert their faith. It was the aim of these to bring the converts under the obligations of the Jewish ritual, and some progress appears to have been made in their attempts. St. Paul, therefore, reminds them that these were but the shadow of good things to come, while Christ was the Body. The passages therefore have no relevancy to the question; or if they have, they show that while Christians abandoned the Jewish festivals, they were to observe their own. If they were to forsake the shadow, they were to cleave to the substance. It should moreover be remembered, that they apply to the Lord’s day no less than other holy-days appointed by the Church. To observe “Sabbaths,” is as much forbidden as aught else. And it is but one of the many inconsistencies of the Genevan doctrine with Scripture, that it enjoins a judaical observance of Sunday, and contemns a Christian observance of days hallowed in the Church’s history, and by gratitude to the glorious company of the apostles, the noble army of martyrs, and the illustrious line of confessors and saints, who have been baptized in tears and blood for Jesu’s sake.

Again; if we keep holy-days, we are said to favour Romanism. But these days were hallowed long before corruption was known in the Roman Church. And waiving this, let it be remembered, that we are accustomed to judge of things by their intrinsic worth, and the main point to be determined is, whether they are right or wrong. If they are right, we receive them; and if they are not right, we reject them, whether they are received by the Church of Rome or not.

Rubric before the Common Prayer. “A Table of all the Feasts that are to be observed in the Church of England throughout the Year: All Sundays in the year, the Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Conversion of St. Paul, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, St. Matthias the Apostle, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, St. Mark the Evangelist, St. Philip and St. James the Apostles, the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, St. Barnabas, the Nativity of St. John Baptist, St. Peter the Apostle, St. James the Apostle, St. Bartholomew the Apostle, St. Matthew the Apostle, St. Michael and all Angels, St. Luke the Evangelist, St. Simon and St. Jude the Apostles, All Saints, St. Andrew the Apostle, St. Thomas the Apostle, the Nativity of our Lord, St. Stephen the Martyr, St. John the Evangelist, the Holy Innocents, Monday and Tuesday in Easter week, Monday and Tuesday in Whitsun week.”

Rubric after the Nicene Creed. “The curate shall then declare to the people what holy-days or fasting days are in the week following to be observed.”

Canon 64. “Every parson, vicar, or curate shall, in his several charge, declare to the people every Sunday, at the time appointed in the communion book, whether there be any holy-days or fasting days the week following. And if any do hereafter wittingly offend herein, and being once admonished thereof by his ordinary, shall again omit that duty, let him be censured according to law, until he submit himself to the due performance of it.”

Canon 13. “All manner of persons within the Church of England shall from henceforth celebrate and keep the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, and other holy-days, according to God’s will and pleasure, and the orders of the Church of England prescribed on that behalf; that is, in hearing the word of God read and taught, in private and public prayers, in acknowledging their offences to God and amendment of the same, in reconciling themselves charitably to their neighbours where displeasure hath been, in oftentimes receiving the communion of the body and blood of Christ, in visiting of the poor and sick, using all godly and sober conversation.”

Canon 14. “The Common Prayer shall be said or sung, distinctly and reverently, upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book of Common Prayer, and their eves.”

Time is a circumstance no less inseparable from religious actions and place; for man, consisting of a soul and body, cannot always be actually engaged in the service of God: that’s the privilege of angels, and souls freed from the fetters of mortality. So long as we are here, we must worship God with respect to our present state, and consequently of necessity have some definite and particular time to do it in. Now, that man might not be left to a floating uncertainty, in a matter of so great importance, in all ages and nations, men have been guided by the very dictates of nature, to pitch upon some certain seasons, wherein to assemble, and meet together, to perform the public offices of religion.—Cave’s Prim. Christianity; and see this same sentiment, and the subject excellently treated, in Nelson’s Festivals and Fasts,—the Preliminary Instructions concerning Festivals.

This sanctification, or setting apart, of festival days, is a token of that thankfulness, and a part of that public honour, which we owe to God, for his admirable benefits; and these days or feasts set apart are of excellent use, being, as learned Hooker observes, the 1. Splendour and outward dignity of our religion; 2. Forcible witnesses of ancient truth; 3. Provocations to the exercise of all piety; 4. Shadows of our endless felicity in heaven; 5. On earth, everlasting records, teaching by the eye in a manner whatsoever we believe.

And concerning particulars: as, that the Jews had the sabbath, which did continually bring to mind the former world finished by creation; so the Christian Church hath her Lord’s days, or Sundays, to keep us in perpetual remembrance of a far better world, begun by him who came to restore all things, to make heaven and earth new. The rest of the holy festivals which we celebrate, have relation all to one head, Christ. We begin therefore our ecclesiastical year (as to some accounts, though not as to the order of our services) with the glorious annunciation of his birth by angelical message. Hereunto are added his blessed nativity itself, the mystery of his legal circumcision, the testification of his true incarnation by the purification of his blessed mother the Virgin Mary; his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven; the admirable sending down of his Spirit upon his chosen.

Again, forasmuch as we know that Christ hath not only been manifested great in himself, but great in other, his saints also; the days of whose departure out of this world are to the Church of Christ as the birth and coronation days of kings or emperors; therefore, special choice being made of the very flower of all occasions in this kind, there are annual selected times to meditate of Christ glorified in them, which had the honour to suffer for his sake, before they had age and ability to know him, namely, the blessed Innocents;—glorified in them which, knowing him, as St. Stephen, had the sight of that before death, whereinto such acceptable death doth lead;—glorified in those sages of the East, that came from far to adore him, and were conducted by strange light;—glorified in the second Elias of the world, sent before him to prepare his way;—glorified in every of those apostles, whom it pleased him to use as founders of his kingdom here;—glorified in the angels, as in St. Michael;—glorified in all those happy souls already possessed of bliss.—Sparrow’s Rationale.

In the injunctions of King Henry VIII., and the convocation of the clergy, A. D. 1536, it was ordered, that all the people might freely go to their work upon all holidays usually before kept, which fell either in the time of harvest, (counted from the 1st day of July to the 29th of September,) or in any time of the four terms, when the king’s judges sat at Westminster. But these holidays (in our book mentioned) are specially excepted, and commanded to be kept holy by every man.—Cosin’s Notes.

By statute 5 & 6 Edward VI. ch. 3, it was provided, that it should be “lawful for every husbandman, labourer, fisherman, and every other person of what estate, degree, or condition they be, upon the holidays aforesaid, in harvest, or at any other time in the year when necessity shall require, to labour, ride, fish, or work any kind of work, at their free wills and pleasure.” This was repealed by Queen Mary, but revived by James I. Queen Elizabeth, in the mean while, however, declared in her “injunctions,” that the people might “with a safe and quiet conscience, after their common prayer,” (which was then at an early hour,) “in the time of harvest, labour upon the holy and festival days, and save that thing which God hath sent.”

The moveable feasts are those which depend upon Easter, and consequently do not occur on the same day every year. There are, besides Easter, the Sundays after the Epiphany, Septuagesima Sunday, the first day of Lent, Rogation Sunday, (i. e. the Sunday before the Ascension,) Ascension Day, Whitsunday, Trinity Sunday, the Sundays after Trinity, and Advent Sunday.

FELLOWSHIP. An establishment in one of the colleges of an university, or in one of the few colleges not belonging to universities, with a share of its revenues.

FEUILLANS. A congregation of monks, settled towards the end of the 15th century, by John de la Barriere; he was a Cistercian, and the plan of his new congregation was a kind of a reformation of that order. His method of refining upon the old constitution was approved of by Pope Sixtus V.; the Feuillantines are nuns, who followed the same reformation.

FIFTH MONARCHY MEN were a set of enthusiasts in the time of Cromwell, who expected the sudden appearance of Christ to establish on earth a new monarchy or kingdom.

FILIATION OF THE SON OF GOD. (See Generation, Eternal.)

FINIAL, (in church architecture,) more anciently Crop. The termination of a pinnacle, spire, pediment, or ogeed hood-mould. Originally the term was applied to the whole pinnacle.

FIRST FRUITS were an act of simony, invented by the pope, who, during the period of his usurpation over our Church, bestowed benefices of the Church of England upon foreigners, upon condition that the first year’s produce was given to him, for the regaining of the Holy Land, or for some similar pretence: next, he prevailed on spiritual patrons to oblige their clergy to pay them; and at last he claimed and extorted them from those who were presented by the king or his temporal subjects. The first Protestant king, Henry VIII., took the first fruits from the pope, but instead of restoring them to the Church, vested them in the Crown. Queen Anne restored them to the Church, not by remitting them entirely, but by applying these superfluities of the larger benefices to make up the deficiencies of the smaller. To this end she granted her royal charter, whereby all the revenue of first fruits and tenths is vested in trustees for ever, to form a perpetual fund for the augmentation of small livings. This is usually called Queen Anne’s Bounty. (See Annates.)

FIVE POINTS (see Arminians and Calvinism) are the five doctrines controverted between the Arminians and Calvinists; relating to, 1. Particular Election; 2. Particular Redemption; 3. Moral Inability in a Fallen State; 4. Irresistible Grace; and 5. Final Perseverance of the Saints.

FLAGELLANTS. A name given, in the 13th century, to a sect of people among the Christians, who made a profession of disciplining themselves: it was begun in 1260, at Perugia, by Rainerus, a hermit, who exhorted people to do penance for their sins, and had a great number of followers. In 1349, they spread themselves over all Poland, Germany, France, Italy, and England, carrying a cross in their hands, a cowl upon their heads, and going naked to the waist; they lashed themselves twice a day, and once in the night, with knotted cords stuck with points of pins, and then lay grovelling upon the ground, crying out mercy: from this extravagance they fell into a gross heresy, affirming that their blood united in such a manner with Christ’s that it had the same virtue; that after thirty days’ whipping they were acquitted from the guilt and punishment of sin, so that they cared not for the sacraments. They persuaded the common people that the gospel had ceased, and allowed all sorts of perjuries. The frenzy lasted a long time, notwithstanding the censures of the Church, and the edicts of princes, for their suppression.

FLAGON. A vessel used to contain the wine, before and at the consecration, in the holy eucharist. In the marginal rubric in the prayer of consecration, the priest is ordered “to lay his hand upon every vessel (be it chalice or flagon) in which there is any wine to be consecrated,” but in the same prayer he is told to take the cup only in his hand; and the rubric before the form of administering the cup stands thus, “the minister that delivereth the cup.” The distinction then between the flagon and the cup or chalice will be, that the latter is the vessel in which the consecrated wine is administered; the flagon, that in which some of the wine is placed for consecration, if there be more than one vessel used.

FLORID STYLE OF GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. The later division of the Perpendicular style, which prevailed chiefly during the Tudor era, and is often called the Tudor style.

FLOWERS. Strewing with flowers is a very simple and most innocent method of ornamenting the Christian altar, which is enjoined indeed by no law, but which is sanctioned by the custom of some churches in this kingdom, in which also the Protestant churches in Germany agree. This way of bringing in the very smallest of God’s works to praise him is extremely ancient, and is several times alluded to by the Fathers; especially by St. Jerome, who does not think it unworthy a place in the panegyric of his friend Nepotian, that his pious care for the Divine worship was such that he made flowers of many kinds, and the leaves of trees, and the branches of the vine, contribute to the beauty and ornament of the church. These things, says St. Jerome, were, indeed, but trifling in themselves; but a pious mind, devoted to Christ, is intent upon small things as well as great, and neglects nothing that pertains even to the meanest office of the Church. This custom has been immemorially observed in some English churches. It has also been the custom in some places, on Easter morning to adorn with flowers the graves of those at least who died within the year.

FONT. (Fons, a fountain.) The vase or basin at which persons seeking regeneration are baptized. The rites of baptism in the first times were performed in fountains and rivers, both because their converts were many, and because those ages were unprovided with other baptisteries. We have no other remainder of this rite but the name: for hence it is that we call our baptisteries “Fonts,” which, when religion found peace, were built and consecrated for the more reverence and respect of the sacrament. These were placed at first at some distance from the church; (see Baptistery;) afterwards in the church porch, and that significantly, because baptism is the entrance into the Church mystical, as the porch of the temple. At last they were introduced into the church itself, being placed at the west end, near the south entrance. They were not admitted in the first instance into every church, but into the cathedral of the diocese, thence called “the mother church,” because it gave spiritual birth by baptism. Afterwards they were introduced into rural churches. Wheresoever they stood, they were always held in high estimation by true Christians. A font preserved in the royal jewel-house, and formerly used for the baptism of the infants of the royal family, was of silver. In England, the fonts are generally placed near the west door, or south-western porch.

Edm. “There shall be a font of stone or other competent material in every church, which shall be decently covered and kept, and not converted to other uses. And the water wherein the child shall be baptized shall not be kept above seven days in the font.”

By Canon 81. “According to a former constitution, too much neglected in many places, there shall be a font of stone in every church and chapel where baptism is to be ministered, the same to be set in the ancient usual places; in which only font the minister shall baptize publicly.”

“When there are children to be baptized, the parents shall give knowledge thereof over-night, or in the morning before the beginning of morning prayer, to the curate. And then the godfathers and godmothers, and the people with the children, must be ready at the font, either immediately after the last lesson at morning prayer, or else immediately after the last lesson at evening prayer, as the curate by his discretion shall appoint. And the priest coming to the font, (which is then to be filled with pure water,) and standing there, shall say.”—Rubric to the Ministration of Public Baptism of Infants, to be used in Church.

In which rubric it may be observed, that there is no note of a pewter, crockery, wedgewood, or other such like basin within the font, to hold the water, which the carelessness or irreverence of some has permitted of late; but that the font is to be filled with pure water: and also that it is then to be filled, and not just at the convenience of the clerk at any time previous; the like reverence being shown herein as in the parallel order about the elements in the other holy sacrament, “The priest shall then place upon the table,” &c.

“And if they shall be found fit, then the godfathers and godmothers (the people being assembled upon the Sunday or holy-day appointed) shall be ready to present them at the font, immediately after the second lesson, either at morning or evening prayer, as the curate in his discretion shall think fit.”

“Then shall the priest take each person to be baptized by the right hand, and placing him conveniently by the font, according to his discretion, shall ask the godfathers and godmothers the name? and then shall dip him in the water, or pour water upon him, saying.”—Rubrics in the Ministration of Baptism to such as are of Riper Years.

FORMATÆ. (See Literæ Formatæ.)

FORMS OF PRAYER, for Special Occasions. Besides the great festivals and fasts of the Church universal, there will be, in each Church, continually recurring occasions of thanksgiving or humiliation, and some events of importance, which ought to be thus celebrated, and for which forms of prayer will be accordingly appointed by competent authority. The days thus set apart in the Church of England for the celebration of great events in our history are four: the 5th of November, the 30th of January, the 29th of May, and the 20th of June, the reasons for which are thus set forth in the several titles to the services enjoined on those days:—

“A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving, to be used yearly upon the 5th day of November, for the happy deliverance of King James I., and the three estates of England, from the most traitorous and bloody-intended massacre by gunpowder. And also for the happy arrival of his Majesty King William on this day, for the deliverance of our Church and nation.”

“A Form of Prayer with Fasting, to be used yearly on the 30th of January, being the day of the martyrdom of the blessed King Charles the First; to implore the mercy of God, that neither the guilt of that sacred and innocent blood, nor those other sins, by which God was provoked to deliver up both us and our king into the hands of cruel and unreasonable men, may at any time hereafter be visited upon us or our posterity.”

“A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving to Almighty God, for having put an end to the great Rebellion, by the restitution of the king and royal family, and the restoration of the government, after many years’ interruption; which unspeakable mercies were wonderfully completed upon the 29th of May, in the year 1660. And in memory thereof that day in every year is by act of parliament appointed to be for ever kept holy.”

“A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving to Almighty God, to be used in all churches and chapels within this realm, every year, upon the 20th day of June, being the day on which her Majesty began her happy reign.”

When passing events, such as a pestilence, or its removal, call for humiliation or thanksgiving, it is usual for the Crown to require the archbishop of Canterbury to prepare a form of prayer for the occasion, which is then sent through the several suffragan bishops to the clergy in their respective dioceses, with the command of the archbishop and bishop that it shall be used on certain fixed days, so long as the occasion shall demand.

This charge would fall on each separate bishop, were the Church of England separated from the State, and not distributed into provinces.

FORMULARY. (See Common Prayer, Liturgy.) A book containing the rites, ceremonies, and prescribed forms of the Church. The formulary of the Church of England is the Book of Common Prayer.

This may be a convenient place to treat of forms of prayer generally.

To the illustrious divines who conducted the reformation of our Church, in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, any abstract objections to a prescribed form of prayer seem never to have occurred, for these were all the inventions of a later period. Ridiculous it would be, if we were going to address a human sovereign, to permit one of our number to utter in the royal presence any unpremeditated words, which might chance at the time to come into his head; and not less ridiculous,—if it be allowable to use such an expression under such circumstances,—would they have thought it to permit the priest to offer at the footstool of the King of kings, a petition in the name of the Church, of which the Church had no previous cognizance; to require the people to say “Amen” to prayers they had never considered, or to offer as joint prayers what they had never agreed to offer.

But, as has been observed, it was not upon the abstract question that they were called to decide. In their Church, the Church of England, when they were appointed to preside over it, they found prescribed forms of prayer in use. They were not rash innovators, who thought that whatever is must be wrong; but, on the contrary, they regarded the fact that a thing was already established as an argument a priori in its favour; and therefore they would only have inquired, whether prescribed forms of prayer were contrary to Scripture, if such an inquiry had been necessary. We say, if such an inquiry had been necessary, because the slightest acquaintance with Scripture must at once have convinced them that contrary to Scripture could not be that practice, for which we can plead the precedent of Moses and Miriam, and the daughters of Israel, of Aaron and his sons when they blessed the people, of Deborah and Barak; when the practice was even more directly sanctioned by the Holy Ghost at the time he inspired David and the psalmists; for what are the psalms but an inspired form of prayer for the use of the Church under the gospel, as well as under the law? The services of the synagogue, too, it is well known, were conducted according to a prescript form. To those services our blessed Lord did himself conform: and severely as he reproved the Jews for their departure, in various particulars, from the principles of their fathers, against their practice in this particular never did he utter one word of censure; nay, he confirmed the practice, when he himself gave to his disciples a form of prayer, and framed that prayer too on the model, and in some degree in the very words, of prayers then in use. Our Lord, moreover, when giving his directions to the rulers of his Church, at the same time that he conferred on them authority to bind and to loose, directed them to agree touching what they should ask for, which seems almost to convey an injunction to the rulers of every particular Church to provide their people with a form of prayer.

The fact that we find this injunction in Scripture, renders probable the universal tradition of the universal Church, which traces to the apostles, or apostolic men, the four great liturgies, (which have, in all parts of the Church, afforded the model according to which all others have been framed,) and which affirms that the apostles instituted a form of worship wherever they established a Church. It would be easy, if the occasion required it, to show, from a variety of passages in holy writ, that while much can be adduced in corroboration of this tradition, nothing but conjecture can be cited against it. With respect to those passages which, referring prayer to the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the soul of man, are sometimes brought forward as militating against the adoption of a form, they cannot have fallen under the notice of our reformers, since the application of them to this purpose was never dreamt of till about 200 years ago, when men, having determined in their wilfulness to reject the liturgy, searched for every possible authority which might, by constructions the most forced, support their determination; and the new interpretation they thus put upon Scripture, may be considered as rather the plea of their wishes than the verdict of their conviction. The adduction, indeed, of such passages for such a purpose is a gratuitous assumption of the question in dispute, and will not for a moment hold weight in the balance of the sanctuary. According to the interpretation of those ancients, whose judgment is the more valuable because (living before any controversy was raised on the subject) they were little likely to be warped, or their opinions determined, by the prejudices of sect, or the subtleties of system, what these passages of Scripture mean is this, and simply this: that the Holy Ghost, who is the author and giver of every good and perfect gift, must stir up in our hearts that spirit of devotion and holiness of temper, without which the service we render is but the service of the lips, and is useless, if not profane.

It is, then, to the mind with which we pray, not to the words which we adopt, that those passages of Scripture refer, in which we are exhorted to pray in the Spirit. But admitting, for the sake of argument, that where we are told that the Spirit will teach us to pray, the promise is applicable to the very expressions, even this cannot be produced as an argument against a form of prayer. For, whatever may be a man’s imaginary gift of prayer, this is quite certain, that his thoughts must precede his tongue; that before he speaks he must think. And not less clear is it, that after he has conceived a thought, he may, for a moment, restrain his tongue, and set down that thought upon paper. To suppose that the intervention of the materials for committing his thoughts to writing must, of necessity, drive away the Holy Spirit, would not only in itself be absurd, but it would be tantamount to a denial of the inspiration of the written Scriptures. If the first conceptions were of God and God’s Spirit, then, of course, they are so still, even after they have been written;—the mere writing of them, the mere committing of them to paper, can have nothing whatever to do with the question of inspiration, either one way or the other. If a man, therefore, asserts that his extemporary prayers are to be attributed to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, we can at once reply that our prayers, in our Prayer Book, are, on his own principles, quite as much so, with this further advantage, that they have been carefully compared with Scripture, and tested thereby. No Scriptural Christian, no one not mad with folly, will contend that, on that account, they are less spiritual; though, on the other hand, we may fairly doubt whether an extemporiser is not acting in direct opposition to Scripture, for Scripture says, (Eccles. v. 2,) “Be not rash with thy mouth to utter anything before God, for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth:” and who in the world is hasty to utter anything before God, if it be not the man who prays to him extemporally?

Again, the bishops and divines, by whom our Church was reformed, recognised it as the duty of the Church to excite emotions of solemnity rather than of enthusiasm, when she leads her children to the footstool of that throne which, if a throne of grace, is also a throne of glory. And, therefore, when discarding those ceremonies which, not of primitive usage, had been abused, and might be abused again, to the purposes of superstition, they still made ample provision that the services of the sanctuary should be conducted with decent ceremony, and orderly form, and impressive solemnity, and in our cathedrals and the royal chapels with magnificence and grandeur. They sought not to annihilate; they received with the profoundest respect those ancient ceremonials and forms of prayer which had been used in their Church from the first planting of Christianity in this island. These ancient forms, however, had been used in many respects, though gradually corrupted. In every age, men had made the attempt to render them more and more conformable to the spirit of the age, and (in ages of darkness) superstitions in practice, and novelties, and therefore errors, in doctrine, had crept in. Our wise-hearted reformers, intent, not on pleasing the people, nor regaining popularity, nor on consulting the spirit of the age, but simply and solely on ascertaining and maintaining the truth as it is in Jesus, having obtained a commission from the Crown, first of all compared the existing forms of worship with the inspired word of God, being determined at once to reject what was plainly and palpably at variance therewith. For example, the prayers before the Reformation had been offered in the Latin language, a language no longer intelligible to the mass of the people; but to pray in a tongue not understood by the people, is plainly and palpably at variance with Scripture; and, consequently, the first thing they did was to have the liturgy translated into English. Having taken care that nothing should remain in the forms of worship contrary to Scripture, they proceeded (by comparing them with the most ancient rituals) to renounce all usages not clearly primitive; and, diligently consulting the works of the Fathers, they embodied the doctrines universally received by the early Church in that book which was the result and glory of their labours, the Book of Common Prayer. The work of these commissioned divines was submitted to the convocation of the other bishops and clergy, and being approved by them, and authorized by the Crown, was laid before the two houses of parliament, and was accepted by the laity, who respectfully thanked the bishops for their labour. And thus it is seen, that the English Prayer Book was not composed in a few years, or by a few men; it has descended to us from the first ages of Christianity. It has been shown by Palmer, that there is scarcely a portion of our Prayer Book which cannot, in some way, be traced to ancient offices. And this it is important to note; first, because it shows that as the Papist in England is not justified in calling his the old Church, since ours is the old Church reformed, his a sect, in this country, comparatively new; so neither may he produce his in opposition to ours as the old liturgy. All that is really ancient we retained, when the bishops and divines who reformed our old Church corrected, from Scripture and antiquity, our old liturgy. What they rejected, and the Papists adhered to, were innovations and novelties introduced during the middle ages. And it is important to observe this, in the next place, since it is this fact which constitutes the value of the Prayer Book, regarded, as we do regard it, not only as a manual of devotion, but also as an interpreter of Scripture. It embodies the doctrines and observances which the early Christians (having received them from the apostles themselves) preserved with reverential care, and handed down as a sacred deposit to their posterity.

FRANCISCANS, or MINORITES. (Fratres Minores, as they were called by their founder.) An order of friars in the Romish Church, and so denominated from him they call St. Francis, their first founder in 1206, who prescribed the following rules to them: That the rule and life of the brother minors (for so he would have those of his order called) was to observe the gospel under obedience, possessing nothing as their own, and live in charity; then he showed how they should receive novices after a year’s noviciate, after which it was not allowed them to leave the order; he would have his friars make use of the Roman breviary, and the converts or lay-brethren to write every day, for their office, seventy-six Paternosters; besides Lent, he ordered them to fast from All-saints to Christmas, and to begin Lent on twelfthtide; he forbade them to ride on horseback, without some urgent necessity; and would have them in their journeys to eat of whatsoever was laid before them: they were to receive no money, neither directly nor indirectly; that they ought to get their livelihood by the labour of their hands, receiving for it anything but money; that they ought to possess nothing of their own, and when their labour was not sufficient to maintain them, they ought to go a begging, and, with the alms so collected, to help one another; that they ought to confess to their provincial ministers those sins, the absolution of which was reserved to them, that they might receive from them charitable corrections; that the election of their general ministers, superiors, &c. ought to be in a general assembly; that they ought not to preach without leave of the ordinaries of each diocese, and of their superiors. Then he prescribed the manner of admonition and correction; how that they ought not to enter into any nunnery, to be godfathers to any child, nor to undertake to go into any foreign countries to convert infidels, without leave of their provincial ministers; and then he bids them ask of the pope a cardinal for governor, protector, and corrector of the whole order.

Francis, their founder, was born in 1182, at Assisi, in the province of Umbria, in Italy, of noble parentage, but much more renowned for his holy life. His baptismal name was John, but he assumed that of Francis, from having learned the French language. He renounced a considerable estate, with all the pleasures of the world, to embrace a voluntary poverty, and live in the practice of the greatest austerities. Going barefoot, and embracing an apostolical life, he performed the office of preacher on Sundays and other festivals, in the parish churches. In the year 1206, or 1209, designing to establish a religious order, he presented to Pope Innocent III. a copy of the rules he had conceived, praying that his institute might be confirmed by the holy see. The pope, considering his despicable appearance, and the extreme rigour of his rules, bid him go find out swine, and deliver them the rule he had composed, as being fitter for such animals than for men. Francis, being withdrawn, went and rolled himself in the mire with some swine, and, in that filthy condition, again presented himself before the pope, beseeching him to grant his request. The pope, moved hereby, granted his petition, and confirmed his order.

From this time Francis became famous throughout all Italy, and many persons of birth, following his example, forsook the world, and put themselves under his direction. Thus this order of friars, called Minors, spread all over Europe; who, living in cities and towns, by tens and sevens, preached in the villages and parish churches, and instructed the rude country people. Some of them likewise went among the Saracens, and into Pagan countries, many of whom obtained the crown of martyrdom. Francis died at Assisi in 1226. He never received higher orders than the diaconate.

It is pretended that, a little before the death of St. Francis, there appeared wounds in his hands and feet, like those of our Saviour, continually bleeding, of which, after his death, there appeared not the least token. He was buried in his own oratory at Rome, and his name was inserted in the catalogue of saints.

The first monastery of this order was at Assisi, in Italy, where the Benedictines of that place gave St. Francis the church of St. Mary, called Portiuncula. Soon after, convents were erected in other places; and afterwards St. Francis founded others in Spain and Portugal. In the year 1215, this order was approved in the general Lateran council. Then St. Francis, returning to Assisi, held a general chapter, and sent missions into France, Germany, England, and other parts. This order made so great a progress in a short time, that, at the general chapter held at Assisi, in 1219, there met 5000 friars, who were only deputies from a much greater number. There were in the middle of the last century above 7000 houses of this order, and in them above 115,000 monks: there are also above 900 monasteries of Franciscan nuns. This order has produced four popes, forty-five cardinals, and an infinite number of patriarchs, archbishops, and two electors of the empire; besides a great number of learned men and missionaries.

The Franciscans came into England during the life of their founder, in the reign of King Henry III. Their first establishment was at Canterbury. They zealously opposed King Henry VIII., in the affair of his divorce; for which reason, at the suppression of the monasteries, they were expelled before all others, and above 200 of them thrown into gaols; thirty-two of them coupled in chains like dogs, and sent to distant prisons; others banished, and others condemned to death. Whilst this order flourished in England, this province was divided into seven parts or districts, called custodies, because each of them was governed by a provincial, or superior, called the custos, or guardian of the district. The seven custodies were, that of London, consisting of nine monasteries; that of York, consisting of seven monasteries; that of Cambridge, containing nine monasteries; that of Bristol, containing nine monasteries; that of Oxford, in which were eight monasteries; that of Newcastle, in which were nine monasteries; and that of Worcester, in which were nine monasteries; in all, sixty monasteries.

The first establishment of Franciscans in London was begun by four friars, who hired for themselves a certain house in Cornhill, of John Travers, then sheriff of London, and made it into little cells; where they lived till the summer following, when they were removed, by John Iwyn, citizen and mercer of London, to the parish of St. Nicholas in the shambles. There he assigned them land for the building of a monastery, and entered himself into the order.

FRATERNITIES, in Roman Catholic countries, are societies for the, so-called, improvement of devotion. They are of several sorts and several denominations. Some take their name from certain famous instruments of piety. The more remarkable are,

1. The fraternity of the Rosary. This society owes its rise to Dominic, the founder of the Rosary. He appointed it, they say, by order of the Blessed Virgin, at the time when he was labouring on the conversion of the Albigenses. After the saint’s death, the devotion of the Rosary became neglected, but was revived by Alanus de Rupe, about the year 1460. This fraternity is divided into two branches, that of the Common Rosary, and that of the Perpetual Rosary. The former is obliged, every week, to say the fifteen divisions of ten beads each, and to confess, and communicate, every first Sunday in the month. The brethren of it are likewise obliged to appear at all processions of the fraternity. The latter are under very strong engagements, the principal of which is, to repeat the rosary perpetually; i. e. there is always some one of them, who is actually saluting the Blessed Virgin in the name of the whole fraternity. 2. The fraternity of the Scapulary, whom it is pretended, according to the Sabbatine bull of Pope John XXII., the Blessed Virgin has promised to deliver out of hell the first Sunday after their death. 3. The fraternity of St. Francis’s girdle are clothed with a sack of a grey colour, which they tie with a cord; and in processions walk barefooted, carrying in their hands a wooden cross. 4. That of St. Austin’s leathern girdle comprehends a great many devotees. Italy, Spain, and Portugal are the countries where are seen the greatest number of these fraternities, some of which assume the name of arch-fraternity. Pope Clement VII. instituted the arch-fraternity of charity, which distributes bread every Sunday among the poor, and gives portions to forty poor girls on the feast of St. Jerome, their patron. The fraternity of death buries such dead as are abandoned by their relations, and causes masses to be celebrated for them.—Broughton.

FRATRICELLI. Certain heretics of Italy, who had their rise in the marquisate of Ancona, about 1294. They were most of them apostate monks, under a superior, called Pongiloup. They drew women after them on pretence of devotion, and were accused of uncleanness with them in their nocturnal meetings. They were charged with maintaining a community of wives and goods, and denying magistracy. Abundance of libertines flocked after them, because they countenanced their licentious way of living.

FREEMASONS. An ancient guild of architects, to whom church architecture owes much, and to whom is to be attributed a great part of the beauty and uniformity of the ecclesiastical edifices of the several well-marked architectural æras of the middle ages.

The Freemasons at present arrogate to themselves a monstrous antiquity; it is certain, however, that they were in existence early in the tenth century, and that before the close of that century they had been formally incorporated by the pope, with many exclusive privileges, answering to those which are now involved in a patent. The society consisted of persons of all nations and of every rank; and being strictly an ecclesiastical society, the tone of the architecture to which they gave their study became distinctively theological and significant. The principal ecclesiastics of the day were ranked among its members, and probably many of its clerical brethren were actually and actively engaged in its practical operations. In the present day, if the clergy would pay a little more attention to ecclesiastical architecture, we might perhaps rather emulate than regret the higher character of the sacred edifices of the middle ages.

FREE WILL. Since the introduction of Calvinism many persons have been led into perplexity on this subject, by not sufficiently distinguishing between the free will of spontaneous mental preference, and the good will of freely preferring virtue to vice.

By the ancients, on the contrary, who were frequently called upon to oppose the mischievous impiety of fatalism, while yet they stood pledged to maintain the vital doctrine of Divine grace, this distinction was well known and carefully observed.

The Manicheans so denied free will, as to hold a fatal necessity of sinning, whether the choice of the individual did or did not go along with the action.

The Pelagians so held free will, as to deny the need of Divine grace to make that free will a good will.

By the Catholics, each of these systems was alike rejected. They held, that man possesses free will; for, otherwise, he could not be an accountable subject of God’s moral government. But they also held, that, in consequence of the fall, his free will was a bad will: whence, with a perfect conscious freedom of choice or preference, and without any violence put upon his inclination, he, perpetually, though quite spontaneously, prefers unholiness to holiness; and thus requires the aid of Divine grace to make his bad will a good will.

The reader may see this point established by quotations from the Fathers in Faber’s work on “Election,” from which this article is taken. He shows also that the doctrine taught by Augustine and the ancients, is precisely that which is maintained by the reformers of our Anglican Church.

Those venerable and well-informed moderns resolve not our evil actions into the compulsory fatal necessity of Manicheism, on the one hand; nor, on the other hand, according to the presumptuous scheme of Pelagianism, do they claim for us a spontaneous choice or preference of good independently of the Divine assistance.

The simple freedom of man’s will, so that, whatever he chooses, he chooses not against his inclination, but through a direct and conscious internal preference of the thing chosen to the thing rejected: this simple freedom of man’s will they deny not.

But, while they acknowledge the simple freedom of man’s will, they assert the quality of its choice or preference to be so perverted by the fall, and to be so distorted by the influence of original sin, that, in order to his choosing the good and rejecting the evil, the grace of God, by Christ, must both make his bad will a good will, and must also still continue to co-operate with him even when that goodness of the will shall have been happily obtained.

In the tenth Article of the English Church, it is often not sufficiently observed, that our minutely accurate reformers do not say, that the grace of God, in the work of conversion, gives us free will, as if we were previously subject to a fatal necessity; but only that the grace of God, by Christ, prevents us that we may have a good will, and co-operates with us when we have that good will.

The doctrine, in short, of the English Church, when she declares that fallen man cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God, is not that we really prefer the spiritual life to the animal life, and are at the same time by a fatal necessity prevented from embracing it; but it is that we prefer the animal life to the spiritual life, and through the badness of our perverse will, shall continue to prefer it, until (as the Article speaks) the grace of God shall prevent us that we may have a good will, or until (as Holy Scripture speaks) the people of the Lord shall be willing in the day of his power.

FRIAR. (From frater, brother.) A term common to monks of all orders: founded on this, that there is a kind of brotherhood presumed between the religious persons of the same monastery. It is however commonly confined to monks of the mendicant orders. Friars are generally distinguished into these four principal branches,—1. Franciscans, Minors, or Grey Friars; 2. Augustines; 3. Dominicans, or Black Friars; 4. Carmelites, or White Friars. From these four the rest of the orders in the Roman Church descend. In a more particular sense the term Friar is applied to such monks as are not priests: for those in orders are usually dignified with the appellation of Father.

FRIDAY. Friday was, both in the Greek Church and Latin, a Litany or humiliation day, in memory of Christ crucified: and so is kept in ours. It is our weekly fast for our share in the death of Christ, and its gloom is only dispersed if Christmas day happens to fall thereon.

FUNERAL SERVICES. (See Burial of the Dead and Dead.) The office which the English Church appoints to be used at the burial of the dead is, like all her other offices, of most ancient date, having been used by the Church in the East and the West from the remotest antiquity, and having been only translated into English by the bishops and divines who reformed our Church. But against this office, as against others, cavils have been raised. The expression chiefly cavilled at in this service is that with which we commit our brother’s “body to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Now here it will be observed, that no certainty is expressed that the individual interred will rise to the resurrection of glory. The certainty is,—that there will be a resurrection to eternal life,—while a hope is first implied, and afterwards expressed, that in this resurrection the individual buried will have a part. And who are they who will chide the Church for hoping thus,—even though it be sometimes a hope against hope? The Church refuses to perform the funeral service over persons not baptized, or who have been excommunicated, because she only performs her good offices for those who are within her communion. More than this cannot be expected of any society. But the only class of persons who may have died within her communion, over whom she refuses to perform the burial service, is that of those who have died guilty of self-murder. It is so very evident that such persons died in impenitence and mortal sin, (unless they were insane when they did the act,) that she is therefore obliged to exclude them. With respect to all others, she remembers our Lord’s injunction—Judge not. He does not say, judge not harshly—he says, judge not—judge not at all. The province of judging belongs to God, and to God only. The Church leaves it to that supreme and irresponsible jurisdiction to make the necessary particular distinctions in the individual application of the doctrine she teaches generally. Surely those very persons who now cavil at the Church for her charity in this respect, would be the first to cast the stone at her, if, when they brought the body of a dead brother to the church, our clergy should have to say, “We will not express a hope in this case, because it does not admit of a hope;” as they must do if they were to take upon themselves the authority to judge in each particular case. No. Throughout the Burial Service we look to the bright side of the question, we remember that there is a resurrection to life, and we hope that to that resurrection each brother we inter will be admitted. And is the Church wrong? Then let the caviller stay away. If he chooses to judge of his departed relative, and to consign him without hope to the grave, let him bury him with the burial of an ass. We do not compel him to attend the services of the Church,—let him, then, stay away; if he comes, however, to the church, the Church will express her hope:

Better in silence hide their dead and go,
Than sing a hopeless dirge, or coldly chide
The faith that owns relief from earthly woe.

The last line of this quotation suggests another point to which attention must be directed, viz. the fact of our returning thanks to Almighty God for having “delivered our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world.” How, it is asked, can this be done with sincerity, at the very time when the tears and moans of weeping friends seem to belie the assertion? And we answer, it is because the Church assumes that those who attend her services are under the influence of Christian faith; and of Christian faith a most important part consists in the belief of God’s especial providence. Except by God’s permission, the true Christian believes that not a sparrow can fall to the ground, not a hair on our head can perish; and the true Christian also believeth that God doth not willingly afflict the children of men, but that when he chasteneth, he doth it even as a father chasteneth his child, for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness. Suppose that a parent be taken in the vigour of his strength, from a loving wife and helpless little ones,—and this is, perhaps, the severest dispensation we can conceive:—that the desolate and the destitute should grieve is natural. And are they to be blamed for this? No; for at the grave of Lazarus our blessed Lord groaned in his spirit and wept. Why, indeed, is affliction sent? Is it not sent for this very purpose—to make us grieve? And while affliction is impending, we may pray that it may be averted. Did not the Lord Jesus do the same? Thrice, in his agony, he prayed that the cup of sorrow might be removed from him; thereby affording us an example, that we may pray for the turning away of a calamity,—though at the same time affording us an example to say, when the prayer has not been granted, “Father, not my will, but thine be done.” And if the petition, the petition for the life of a parent or a friend, has not been granted, why has it been unheeded by the Father of mercies? The faith of the true Christian answers, even because God foresaw that it would be more conducive to the everlasting welfare of the lost one, the everlasting welfare of his desolate wife, to the everlasting welfare of his destitute children, that he should be taken at the very time he was. This, says the heart of faith, is mysterious in our eyes, but it is the Lord’s doing; it is the Lord, let him do what seemeth him good. It is thus that, in the midst of sighs and groans, the Christian spirit can give God thanks while nature weeps, grace consoles, and faith assures us that what has been done is right.

GALILEE. An appendage of some of our large churches is traditionally known by this name, and is supposed to be connected with some purposes of discipline, and to have borrowed its name from the words of the angel at the sepulchre to the women, “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.” (Mark xvi. 7.) The churches where a Galilee occurs are Durham, Lincoln, and Ely; but they have little in common except the name. That at Ely agrees with that at Durham in being at the west end of the church, but it differs in being to all appearance a mere porch of entrance, while that at Durham is a spacious building with five aisles and three altars; and, so far from its use being as a porch of entrance, the great west entrance was actually closed in the fifteenth century, while the Galilee in all probability retained its original use. That at Lincoln is at the south-west corner of the south transept; it is cruciform in plan, and has over it another chamber of the like size, once apparently arranged as a court of judicature, which favours the idea that the Galilee had some connexion with discipline. This was certainly the case at Durham, for there the consistory court has been held from time immemorial: and there Cardinal Langton erected a font for the children of persons who were excommunicate. But this was nearly 300 years after the building of the Galilee, which was certainly erected by Hugh Pudsey in the twelfth century, that women, who were allowed to proceed but a short distance into that particular church, might have a place where they might frequent the Divine ordinances; and this in itself had something of the nature of discipline. It may be worth noticing in addition, that all the three Galilees still remaining were erected between the middle of the twelfth and the middle of the thirteenth century.

GALLICAN CHURCH. (See Church of France.)

GARGOYLE, or GURGOYLE. A water spout, usually in Gothic buildings formed of some grotesque figure.

GEHENNA. The true origin and occasion of this word is this: there was an idol of Moloch, near Jerusalem, in the Valley of Hinnom, to which they offered human sacrifices. The Rabbis say, that they were wont to beat a drum, lest the people should hear the cries of the children that were thrown into the fire when they sacrificed them to idols. This valley was called Geenon, from Ge, which signifies a valley, and Ennom, which comes from Nahom, that signifies to groan; therefore hell, the place of eternal fire, is called Gehenna. The ancient writers did not make use of this word, and it was first used in the gospel.

GENERATION, THE ETERNAL. (See Eternity.) It is thus that the filiation without beginning of the Only Begotten of the Father is expressed.

The distinction of a threefold generation of the Son is well known among the learned, and is thus explained:—1. The first and most proper filiation and generation is his eternally existing in and of the Father, the eternal Λόγος of the eternal Mind. In respect of this, chiefly, he is the only begotten, and a distinct person from the Father. His other generations were rather condescensions, first to creatures in general, next to men in particular. 2. His second generation was his condescension, manifestation, coming forth, as it were, from the Father, (though never separated or divided from him,) to create the world: this was in time, and a voluntary thing; and in this respect, properly, he may be thought to be first-born of every creature, or before all creatures. 3. His third generation, or filiation, was when he condescended to be born of a pure virgin, and to become man also without ceasing to be God.—Waterland.

The second person of the Trinity is called the Son, yea, and the “only begotten Son of God,” because he was begotten of the Father, not as others are, by spiritual regeneration, but by eternal generation, as none but himself is, for the opening whereof we must know that God that made all things fruitful is not himself sterile or barren; but he that hath given power to animals to generate and produce others in their own nature, is himself much more able to produce one, not only like himself, but of the self-same nature with himself, as he did in begetting his Son, by communicating his own unbegotten essence and nature to him. For the person of the Son was most certainly begotten of the Father, or otherwise he would not be his Son; but his essence was unbegotten, otherwise he would not be God; and therefore the highest apprehensions that we can frame of this great mystery, the eternal generation of the Son of God, is only by conceiving the person of the Father to have communicated his Divine essence to the person of the Son; and so of himself begetting his other self the Son, by communicating his own eternal and unbegotten essence to him; I say, by communicating of his essence, not of his person to him (for then they would be both the same person, as now they are of the same essence); the essence of the Father did not beget the Son by communicating his person to him, but the person of the Father begat the Son by communicating his essence to him; so that the person of the Son is begotten, not communicated, but the essence of the Son is communicated, not begotten.

This notion of the Father’s begetting the Son, by communicating his essence to him, I ground upon the Son’s own words, who certainly best knew how himself was begotten: “For as the Father,” saith he, “hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” (John v. 26.) To have life in himself is an essential property of the Divine nature; and, therefore, wheresoever that is given or communicated, the nature itself must needs be given and communicated too.

Now here we see how God the Father communicated this his essential property, and so his essence, to the Son; and, by consequence, though he be a distinct person from him, yet he hath the same unbegotten essence with him; and therefore as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself, and so all other essential properties of the Divine nature, only with this personal distinction, that the Father hath this life in himself, not from the Son, but from himself; whereas, the Son hath it, not from himself, but from the Father; or, the Father is God of himself, not of the Son; the Son is the same God, but from the Father, not from himself, and therefore not the Father, but the Son, is rightly called by the Council of Nice, God of God, Light of light, yea, very God of very God.—Beveridge.

What we assert is, that God the Father from all eternity communicated to his Son his own individual nature and substance; so that the same Godhead which is in the Father originally and primarily, is also in the Son by derivation and communication. By this communication there was given to the Son all those attributes and perfections which do simply and absolutely belong to the Divine nature; there was a communication of all the properties which naturally belong to the essence communicated; and hence it is that the Son is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and the like, in the same infinite perfection as his Father is. The natural properties were thus communicated; but we cannot say the same of the personal properties, it being impossible they should be communicated, as being inseparable from the person: such are, the act of communicating the essence, the generation itself, and the personal pre-eminence of the Father, founded on that generation. These were not communicated, but are proper to the Father; as, on the other hand, the personal properties of the Son (filiation and subordination) are proper to the Son, and do not belong to the Father. And although in this incomprehensible mystery we use the term generation, (the Scripture having given us sufficient authority to do so, by styling him God’s Son, his proper Son, and his only begotten Son,) yet, by this term, we are not to understand a proceeding from non-existence to existence, which is the physical notion of generation; nor do we understand it in that low sense in which it is agreeable to creatures; but as it is consistent with the essential attributes of God, of which necessary existence is one. Nor, further, are we in this generation to suppose any division of the essence, or any external separation. The communication of the nature was not a separate one, like that of finite beings, but merely internal: and, though the Son be generated from the substance of the Father, (and thence be a distinct person from him,) yet he still continues to be in the Father, and the Father in him; herein differing from the production of all created beings, that in them the producer and the produced become two distinct individuals, which in this generation cannot be affirmed. The term used by the Greek Fathers to express this internal or undivided existence in the same nature, ἐμπεριχώρησις that of the Latin Fathers, circumincessio; and that distinction of the schoolmen, generatio ab intra; are terms which are as expressive as any words can be of a mystery so far above our comprehension. The Father and the Son by this communication do not become two Gods, (as Adam and Seth are two men,) but are only one God in the same undivided essence. The communication of this nature neither did, nor could, infringe the unity of it, because the Divine essence is simply one, and therefore cannot be divided; is absolutely infinite, and therefore incapable of being multiplied into more infinities. And this, by the way, sufficiently shows the weakness and falseness of that charge which has been so often thrown on the orthodox scheme of the Trinity, namely, that it is downright tritheism, and that to maintain that the three persons are each of them God, is in effect to maintain three Gods; a charge which is so far from being a just consequence of our principles, that it is manifestly inconsistent with them, and impossible to be true upon them. We hold the Divine essence to be one simple, indivisible essence; we assert that the Father communicated to the Son, without division, this his individual substance; and therefore, upon these our principles, the unity of the Divine essence must still unavoidably be preserved; and upon this scheme the three distinct persons neither are, nor can be, (what is falsely suggested against us,) three distinct Gods. This communication of the Divine substance to God the Son was not a temporary one, but strictly and absolutely eternal; eternal in the proper sense of that word; in the same sense in which eternity is ascribed to the Divine nature itself; and eternal, in the same sense as God the Father himself is so.—Stephens.

GENESIS. The first book of the Bible. The Hebrews call it ברשית, Bereschith, which signifies, in the beginning; these being the first words of the book. The Greeks gave it the name of Genesis, or Generation, because it contains the genealogy of the first patriarchs from Adam to the sons and grandsons of Jacob; or because it begins with the history of the creation of the world. It includes the history of 2369 years, from the beginning of the world to the death of the patriarch Joseph. Besides the history of the creation, it contains an account of the original innocence and fall of man, the propagation of mankind, the rise of religion, the invention of arts, the general defection and corruption of the world, the deluge, the restoration of the world, the division and peopling of the earth, the original of nations and kingdoms, the history of the first patriarchs down to Joseph, at whose death it ends.

GENTILE. (From Gentes.) All the people in the world, except the Jews, were called Gentiles.

GENTLEMEN OF THE CHAPEL ROYAL. The lay singers of the Royal Chapel are so called; and their duty is to perform with the priests, in order, the choral service there, which was formerly daily. According to the present rule, they attend in monthly courses of eight at a time. In ancient times this body was more numerous: Edward VI.’s chapel had thirty-two gentlemen; Queen Elizabeth’s thirty; James I.’s twenty-three.

GEOMETRICAL. The style of Gothic architecture which succeeded the Early English about 1245, and gave place to the Decorated about 1315.

In this style window tracery was first introduced, and it is distinguished from the tracery of the succeeding style by the use of simple geometrical forms, each in general perfect in itself, and not running into one another. (See Tracery, and the engravings there given.) From the use of tracery large windows naturally followed, sometimes even extending to six or eight lights; and from these larger openings in the walls some constructive changes followed, especially in the greater weight and projection of the buttresses. The doors are very often, as in the Early English, divided by a central shaft. The piers very soon lose the detached shafts, and are rather formed of solid clusters. In early examples the triforium is still retained as a distinct feature; in later, it is treated as a decorative band of panelling. Arcading is either discontinued, or increases very greatly in richness. Vaulting hardly advances upon the simple forms of the preceding style. All decorative features are of the very highest order of excellence, and are far more natural than either before or after, without losing in grace, or force, or character. There is no single decoration peculiar to this style, but crockets first appear in it, as also the ball-flower; on the other hand, the dog-tooth is quite given up.

GHOST. (See Holy Ghost.) A spirit. The third person in the blessed Trinity is spoken of as the Holy Ghost. Giving up the ghost means expiring, or dying.

GIRDLE. A cincture binding the alb round the waist. Formerly it was flat and broad, and sometimes adorned with jewels; in the Roman Catholic Church it has been changed into a long cord with dependent extremities and tassels. The zone is regarded as a type of purity.—Jebb.

GLEBE. Every church is of common right entitled to house and glebe.

These are both comprehended under the name of manse, and the rule of the canon law is, “Sancitum est, ut unicuique ecclesiæ unus mansus integer, absque ullo servitio, tribuatur.” This is repeated in the canons of Egbert; and the assigning of these was of such absolute necessity, that without them no church could be regularly consecrated. The fee simple of the glebe is in abeyance, from the French bayer, to expect, i. e. it is only in the remembrance, expectation, and intendment, of law. Lord Coke says, this was provided by the providence and wisdom of the law, for that the parson and vicar have cure of souls, and were bound to celebrate Divine service, and administer the sacraments, and therefore no act of the predecessor should make a discontinuance, to take away the entry of the successor, and to drive him to a real action whereby he might be destitute of maintenance in the mean time.

After induction, the freehold of the glebe is in the parson, but with these limitations: (1.) That he may not alienate, nor exchange, except upon the conditions set forth in the statutes cited below; (2.) that he may not commit waste by selling wood, &c.

But it has been adjudged that the digging of mines in glebe lands is not waste; for the court said, in denying a prohibition, “if this were accounted waste, no mines that are in glebe lands could ever be opened.”

Glebe lands, in the hands of the parson, shall not pay tithe to the vicar, though endowed generally of the tithes of all lands within the parish; nor being in the hands of the vicar, shall they pay tithe to the parson. This is according to the known maxim of the canon law, that “The Church shall not pay tithes to the Church;” but otherwise if the glebe be leased out, for then it shall be liable to pay tithes respectively as other lands are. By a statute of Henry VIII., if the parson dies in possession of glebe, and another is inducted before severance of the crop from the ground, his executor shall have the corn, but the successor shall have the tithes: the reason is, because, although the executor represents the testator, yet he cannot represent him as parson; inasmuch as another parson is inducted. By 13 Eliz. c. 10, the term for leasing glebe is limited to twenty-one years, or three lives. The 55 Geo. III. c. 147, 56 Geo. III. c. 52, 1 Geo. IV. c. 6, are acts for “enabling spiritual persons to exchange their parsonage houses or glebe lands.” (See also 6 Geo. IV. c. 8; 7 Geo. IV. c. 66; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 23; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 49; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 27; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 93.)

Canon 87. A Terrier of Glebe lands, and other Possessions belonging to Churches.—“We ordain that the archbishops and all bishops within their several dioceses shall procure (as much as in them lieth) that a true note and terrier of all the glebes, lands, meadows, gardens, orchards, houses, stocks, implements, tenements, and portions of tithes, lying out of their parishes, (which belong to any parsonage, or vicarage, or rural prebend,) be taken by the view of honest men in every parish, by the appointment of the bishop, (whereof the minister to be one,) and be laid up in the bishop’s registry, there to be for a perpetual memory thereof.”

By 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, the bishop may assign four acres of glebe to the curate, occupying the house of a non-resident incumbent, at a fixed rent, to be approved of by the bishop.

GLORIA IN EXCELSIS. “Glory be [to God] on high.” One of the doxologies of the Church, sometimes called the angelic hymn, because the first part of it was sung by the angels at Bethlehem. The latter portion of this celebrated hymn is ascribed to Telesphorus, bishop of Rome, about the year of Christ 139; and the whole hymn, with very little difference, is to be found in the Apostolical Constitutions, and was established to be used in the Church service by the fourth Council of Toledo, A. D. 633. It is used by both the Greek and Latin Church. “In the Eastern Church,” says Palmer, “this hymn is more than 1500 years old, and the Church of England has used it, either at the beginning or end of the liturgy, for above 1200 years.” It is now used at the conclusion of the Communion Service; but in the First Book of King Edward VI. was placed near the beginning. It is directed to be sung or said; and ought to be sung in all cathedrals at least, as it is still at Exeter, Durham, and occasionally at Worcester and Windsor.

GLORIA PATRI. “Glory be to the Father.” The Latin title of one of the primitive doxologies of the Church, sometimes called the lesser doxology, to distinguish it from the Gloria in excelsis, or angelic hymn. From the times of the apostles it has been customary to mingle ascriptions of glory with prayer, and to conclude the praises of the Church, and also sermons, with glory to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. The first part of the Gloria Patri is traced by St. Basil to the apostolic age. In the writings of the Fathers, doxologies are of very frequent occurrence, and in the early Church they appear to have been used as tests, by which orthodox Christians and Churches were distinguished from those which were infected with heresy. The doxologies then in use, though the same in substance, were various in form and mode of expression. The Arians soon took advantage of this diversity, and wrested some of them so as to appear to favour their own views. One of the doxologies which ran in these words, “Glory be to the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Ghost,” was employed by them in support of their heretical opinions. In consequence of this, and to set the true doctrine of the Church in the clearest light, the form, as now used, was adopted as the standing doxology of the Church. (See Doxology.)

Of the hymns that made a part of the service of the ancient Church, one of the most common was what is called the lesser doxology. The most ancient form of it was only a single sentence without a response—“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen.” Part of the latter clause, “As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,” was inserted some time after the first composition. In the fourth Council of Toledo, an. 633, the words, “As it was in the beginning,” &c., are omitted, but the word “honour” is added to “glory,” according to a decree of that council; that it should be said, “Glory and honour be to the Father:” forasmuch as the prophet David says, “Bring glory and honour to the Lord,” and John the Evangelist, in the Revelation, heard the voice of the heavenly host, saying, “Honour and glory be to our God, who sitteth on the throne.” (Rev. v. 13.) From whence they conclude, that it ought to be said on earth as it is sung in heaven. The Mozarabic liturgy, which was used in Spain a little after this time, has it in the very same form: “Glory and honour be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen.” The Catholics themselves of old were wont to say, some, “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;” others, “with the Holy Ghost;” and others, “in or by the Son, and by the Holy Ghost.” These different ways of expressing were all allowed, so long as no heterodox opinion was suspected to be couched under them. But when Arius had broached his heresy in the world, his followers would use no other form of glorification but the last, and made it a distinguishing character of their party to say, “Glory be to the Father, in, or by, the Son, and Holy Ghost:” intending hereby to denote, that the Son and Holy Ghost were inferior to the Father in substance, and, as creatures, of a different nature from him, as Sozomen and other ancient writers inform us. From this time it became scandalous, and brought any one under the suspicion of heterodoxy to use it, because the Arians had now, as it were, made it the shibboleth of their party. We may observe, that it was a hymn of most general use, and a doxology offered to God in the close of every solemn office. The Western Church repeated it at the end of every psalm, and the Eastern Church at the end of the last psalm.—The whole commonly running thus: “To Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be all glory, worship, thanksgiving, honour, and adoration, now and for ever, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.”—Bingham.

In this diversity there was certainly nothing either intended ill towards the truth, or which could be directly drawn into ill construction; but when, about the time of the Nicene Council, the Arians began to sow their seeds of heresy touching the inequality of the three persons, and, the better to colour their pretences, sheltered themselves under the protection of the doxology, “the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Ghost,” formerly used, to which they constantly adhere, the Council of Nice, to avoid all occasion of future question, held herself to that form which came nighest to the form of baptism composed by our Saviour, and the doctrine of Christian faith; prescribing it to be punctually observed by all such as were of the orthodox party.—L’Estrange.

It were well if this ancient heresy were so buried as never to rise or revive any more. But, alas! that weed was never so thoroughly rooted out, but the seeds of it soon sprang up again, to the depraving of the doctrine and disturbing the peace of the Church. In these later years there hath arisen up one Socinus, a man of a subtle and crafty wit, who hath rubbed up and revived the same heresy, by denying the Divinity and satisfaction of our blessed Saviour, and hath carried away many by his cunning and corrupt reasoning.—Hole.

If the reasoning of Basil be conclusive, or his opinion may be relied upon, this hymn, Gloria Patri, derives its origin from the apostles. Glorifying the Father, and the Son, together with the Holy Ghost, was in Basil’s judgment practised and prescribed by the apostles themselves. This, he believes, was one of the “ordinances,” or “traditions,” which St. Paul praises the Corinthians for keeping, as they had been delivered to them by him (1 Cor. xi. 2); and exhorts the Thessalonians to hold, as they had been taught, whether by word, or by epistle. (2 Thess. ii. 15.) On this principle, Basil accounts for the practice of ascribing glory to the Trinity, which in his day was universal.—In different passages of his works we find him thus arguing: “As we have received, so must we be baptized; as we are baptized, so must we believe; and as we have believed, so must we glorify the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”—Shepherd.

The earliest instance that we meet with of the use of this hymn, is found in the circular epistle of the Church of Smyrna, concerning the martyrdom of their beloved bishop Polycarp, from whence we learn that a doxology, nearly resembling Gloria Patri, was the last words he uttered. Polycarp was conversant with the apostles, and was consecrated bishop of Smyrna by St. John the Evangelist. To him, among others, St. John is said to have addressed the Revelation, in which Polycarp is entitled “the angel of the Church of Smyrna.” With some little difference in the phrase of their doxologies, the Christians of the three first ages agreed in uniformly expressing the same thing. Believing and confessing, that in the eternal Godhead there existed three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they ascribed to them all honour and glory.—Shepherd.

To this very day this serves for these two uses; first, as a shorter creed, and confession of our believing in “three persons and one God,” whereby we both declare ourselves to be in the communion of the Catholic Church, and also renounce all heretics who deny this great and distinguishing article of our faith; secondly, for a hymn of praise, by which we magnify the Father for our creation, the Son for our redemption, and the Holy Ghost for our sanctification; and to quicken us herein, we declare it was so “in the beginning,” for the angels sung the praises of the Trinity in the morning of the creation; and the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, saints and martyrs, did thus worship God from the beginning. The whole Church militant and triumphant doth it “now,” and shall do it for “ever,” not only in this “world,” but in that which is “without end.” Let us, therefore, with great devotion, join with this blessed company in so good a work, and give glory to the Father who granted our pardon, to the Son who purchased it, and to the Holy Ghost who sealed it.—Comber.

GLOSS. A comment.

GNOSTICS. (From γνώσις, knowledge.) The word Gnostic properly signifies a learned or enlightened person; and thus Clement of Alexandria uses it to denote the perfect Christian, who is the true Gnostic. But in its more common use, the term signifies a class of heretics, who pretended to superior knowledge, and mixed up some Christian ideas and terms with systems based on Platonism, Oriental philosophy, or corrupt Judaism. To this class most of the earliest sects belonged. Simon Magus may be considered as the forerunner of Gnosticism; and in the second century there were many varieties of Gnostics—as the followers of Basilides Saturninus, Carpocrates, Valentinus, &c. Of these the Carpocratians alone are said to have assumed the name.

The Gnostic systems held in common a belief in one supreme God, dwelling from eternity in the Pleroma, or fulness of light. From him proceed successive generations of spiritual beings—called by Valentinus Æons. In proportion as these emanations are more remote from the primal source, the likeness of his perfections in them is continually fainter. Matter is regarded as eternal, and as inherently evil. Out of it the world was formed, not by the Supreme God, but by the Demiurge—a being who is represented by some heresiarchs as merely a subordinate and unconscious instrument of the Divine will, and by others as positively malignant, and hostile to the Supreme. The Demiurge was the national God of the Jews—the God of the Old Testament; according, therefore, as he is viewed, the Mosaic economy is either recognised as preparatory, or is rejected as evil. The mission of Christ was for the purpose of delivering man from the tyranny of the Demiurge. But the Christ of Gnosticism was neither very God nor very man. His spiritual nature, being an emanation from the Supreme God, was necessarily inferior to its original; and, on the other hand, an emanation from God could not dwell in a material, and consequently evil, body. Either, therefore, Jesus was a mere man, on whom the Æon Christ descended at his baptism, to forsake him again before his crucifixion; or the body with which Christ seemed to be clothed was only a phantom, and all his actions were only in appearance. (See Docetæ.)

The same view as to the evil nature of matter led the Gnostics to deny the resurrection of the body. They could admit no other than a spiritual resurrection; the object of their philosophy was to emancipate the soul from its gross and material prison at death; the soul of the perfect Gnostic, having already risen in baptism, was to be gathered into the bosom of God, while such souls as yet lacked their full perfection, were to work it out in a series of transmigrations.

Since matter was evil, the Gnostic was required to overcome it. But here arose an important practical difference; for, while some sought the victory by a high ascetic abstraction from the things of sense, the baser kind professed to show their superiority and indifference by wallowing in impurity and excess.—(See Bardesanists, Basilidians, Carpocratians, Marcionites, Ophitæ, Valentinians.)

GOD. This is the name we give to that eternal, infinite, and incomprehensible Being, the Maker and Preserver of all things, who exists One Being in a Trinity of Persons. The name is derived from the Icelandic Godi, which signifies the supreme magistrate.

Article I. “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

The Father is God.

God the Father (John vi. 27; Gal. i. 1, 3; 1 Thess. i. 1). God, even the Father (1 Cor. xv. 24; 2 Cor. i. 3; James iii. 9). One God and Father (Eph. iv. 6). One God the Father (1 Cor. viii. 6); and the passages where God is spoken of as the Father of our Lord Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. xvi. 16; John iii. 16; vi. 27; Rom. v. 10; viii. 3; xv. 6).

The Son is God.

I. So expressly declared.

The mighty God (Isa. ix. 6). Make straight—a highway for our God! (xl. 3). Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever! (Ps. xlv. 6, with Heb. i. 8). I will save them by the Lord their God (Hosea i. 7). Immanuel, God with us (Isa. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23). The Word was God (John i. 1). My Lord and my God! (xx. 28; see Ps. xxxv. 23). Feed the Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood (Acts xx. 28). They stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, &c. (vii. 59). Christ is over all, God, blessed for ever! (Rom. ix. 5.) God was manifest in the flesh, &c., believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Tim. iii. 16). God our Saviour. (Titus ii. 10). The great God (13). Our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ (Gr.) (2 Pet. i. 1, with Titus ii. 13). Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us (1 John iii. 16). The true God, and eternal life (v. 20).

II. By necessary implication.

The angel Jehovah is God (Gen. xxxi. 11, with 13; and xxxv. 9–13, and 15; xvi. 9, with 13; Ex. iii. 2, with 4, and 6). I am Alpha and Omega—he that overcometh—I will be his God (Rev. xxi. 6, 7). We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, for,—every tongue shall confess to God (Rom. xiv. 10, 11). I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, &c. (Rev. xx. 12). Many shall he (John the Baptist) turn to the Lord their God, for he shall go before him (Luke i. 16, 17; with Matt. iii. 11, and xi. 10). The Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel (Rev. xxii. 6, with 16). I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify, &c. They tempted the most high God (Ps. lxxviii. 56), applied to Christ (1 Cor. x. 9). Behold the Lord God will come—behold his reward is with him (Isa. xl. 10, with Rev. xxii. 12, 20). Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me—I am Alpha and Omega. Surely I come quickly, Amen! even so, come, Lord Jesus!—To the only wise God, our Saviour, be glory, &c. Amen! (Jude 25).

III. From his attributes.

As he is wisdom itself (Prov. viii. throughout; Luke xi. 49, with Col. ii. 3).—As he is the holy one (Ps. xvi. 10); the most holy (Dan. ix. 24, with Rev. iii. 7).—As he is the truth (John xiv. 6, and Rev. iii. 7, with 1 John v. 20).—As he is eternal.—Eternal life (1 John i. 1, 2, and v. 20).—From his unchangeableness (Heb. i. 11, 12, and xiii. 8, with Mal. iii. 6).—His omnipresence (John iii. 13; Matt. xviii. 20; xxviii. 20; Eph. i. 23; iv. 10).—His omniscience (Rev. ii. 23; John ii. 24, 25; v. 42). Knowing the thoughts (Matt. ix. 4; xii. 15, 25; Mark ii. 8; Luke v. 22; vi. 8; ix. 47; xi. 17; John vi. 61, 64; xvi. 19; xxi. 17, with 1 Cor. iv. 5; this with 1 Kings viii. 39). Thou, even thou only, (O Lord God,) knowest the hearts of all the children of men.—Omnipotence: The works of creation. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made (John i. 3, with Ps. cii. 25; Col. i. 16, and Jer. x. 10, 11).—And providence. By him all things consist (Col. i. 17). Upholding all things by the word of his power (Heb. i. 3).—Judging the world. The Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead (2 Tim. iv. 1, &c., with Gen. xviii. 25, and Ps. l. 6). God is judge himself.—Raising the dead (John vi. 40, 54; v. 28, 29; with Deut. xxxii. 39). I, even I, am he, and there is no God with me; I kill, and I make alive!—The forgiveness of sins (Mark ii. 10, 11, &c., with Isa. xliii. 25). I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions, and Mark ii. 7.

IV. As Divine worship is due, and paid to him.

Being directed by prophecy. All kings shall fall down before him (Ps. lxxii. 11). All dominions shall serve and obey him (Dan. vii. 27). Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way (Ps. ii. 12). He is thy Lord, and worship thou him (xlv. 11). Let all the angels of God worship him! (Heb. i. 6.) All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. External worship was paid by the wise men (Matt. ii. 11)—by the leper (viii. 2)—by the ruler (ix. 18)—by the seamen in the storm (xiv. 33)—by the woman of Canaan (xv. 25)—by the blind man (John ix. 38)—by the Marys, &c. (Matt. xxviii. 9), and by his disciples (Rev. i. 17). At the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and in earth (Phil. ii. 10; compare this with Matt. iv. 10, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; and Neh. ix. 6, Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, &c., and the host of heaven worshippeth thee!).

V. As there must be faith, and hope, and trust in him.

See John iii. 15, 16; xiv. 1; xii. 44; Rom. x. 11; xv. 12; Acts xvi. 31; Eph. i. 12, 13, with Jer. xvii. 5. Cursed be the man that trusteth in man; whose heart departeth from the Lord! but blessed are all they that put their trust in him!

VI. As praise and thanksgiving are offered to him.

Daily shall he be praised (Ps. lxxii. 15). Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins, be glory and dominion for ever and ever! (Rev. i. 5, 6; compare Ps. cxlviii. 13). Let them praise the name of the Lord, for his name alone is excellent. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. i. 2, and Rev. v. 11–13). Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive honour, and glory, and blessing—blessing and honour and glory and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever!—Salvation to our God, who sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. Blessing, &c. be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen! (Rev. vii. 10–12).

The Holy Ghost is God.

This perhaps is only to be proved by implication and analogy.

I. In regard to title.

The Spirit of the Lord spake by me—the God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake (2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3). That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (Luke i. 35). She was found with child of the Holy Ghost (Matt. i. 18). Why—lie to the Holy Ghost—thou hast lied unto God (Acts v. 3, 4). Born of the Spirit (John iii. 6). Be born of God (1 John v. 4). Consider, too, no man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God (Heb. v. 4). Pray the Lord of the harvest that he will send forth labourers (Matt. ix. 38).—The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.—So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed (Acts xiii. 2, and 4). They shall be all taught of God (John vi. 45). Not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth (1 Cor. ii. 13). Ye are the temple of God (1 Cor. iii. 16). Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost (vi. 19). The hand of the Lord God fell there upon me, and he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head, and the Spirit lifted me up (Ezek. viii. 1–3).

See also the following passages, as respectively explaining each other: Luke ii. 26, with John xiv. 16, 17, and 1 Cor. xiv. 25.—Matt. iv. 1, with Luke xi. 4.—2 Cor. i. 3, with Acts ix. 31; John xiv. 26, &c.—1 Cor. ii. 11, with 14.—Matt. iv. 7, with Acts v. 9.—Gen. vi. 3, with 1 Pet. iii. 20.—Luke xi. 20, with Matt. xii. 28.—Acts iv. 24, 25, with i. 16,—and Luke i. 68, 70, with Acts xxviii. 25; and various others that might be noticed.

That the Father, under whatever names he is described and addressed, is God, is not disputable. That the Son is also God, it would seem much of rashness to doubt; since he was foretold by prophecy before his manifestation in the flesh, to be God, and appeared as God to the patriarchs.—God the Son, the angel and guardian of his people; for “God”—the Trinity in unity—“no man hath seen at any time.” That he must be a God who has such titles applied to him, such Divine attributes and offices, and to whom Divine worship is paid, the Arian allows, and the Socinian did not always deny; but that he is another—an inferior God, thus making more Gods than one, the voice of revelation expressly contradicts.

The Divinity of the Son is in fact proved both directly and incidentally; but the personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit are less decisively expressed and treated of—apparently because the Holy Ghost was never incarnate, nor appeared in a bodily form upon earth, and therefore we have not his frequent declarations, as we have those of the Son, nor direct addresses to him, as we have to the Father, to illustrate this point, but are left to gather the truth from the mouths of the prophets—the holy men of God, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. From their preaching we sufficiently learn that he joined in the work of creation—that he dwells in the temple of the body, (1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19, 20; 2 Cor. vi. 16,) and the faithful are therefore dedicated to him—that he is eternal, omnipresent, infinite in power and knowledge—that obedience is due to him, and the sin against him considered unpardonable—and that he is to be worshipped is implied by the apostolic form of benediction. That the Holy Spirit is a person is proved, independently of analogous reasoning, by a clear personal distinction between him and the Father and the Son.

The term God, when used in Holy Scripture in relation to the Father of our Lord Christ, is evidently used in a personal sense; and in such sense the Church also speaks of God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. But when it is announced that there is but one God, though he is the Father of all, the term is used essentially, and comprehends the sacred three. The unity of the Godhead is so unequivocally declared in Holy Scripture, that we dare not deny it: but neither, it is presumed, can we safely deny that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each of them God, without either impeaching the authenticity of most of the passages cited in this article, or making the word of God (itself) of none effect, by strifes of words, not to say profane and vain babblings.

GODFATHER. (See Sponsors.) He that holds the child at the baptismal font, and answers for him. The custom of godfathers or sponsors is very ancient in the Church. We find them mentioned by Tertullian, the Apostolical Constitutions, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. There were three sorts of sponsors: 1. For children. 2. For adult persons, who through sickness were not able to answer for themselves. 3. For such as could answer. The sureties for the first were obliged to be guardians of children’s Christian education; and indeed at first they were the parents of the children, and it was in extraordinary cases, either when the parent could not or would not, that others were admitted to be sureties. Sureties of the second sort were such as engaged to the Church that the adult person, who was grown incapable to answer for himself, did, when he was capable, desire to be baptized. But those of the third sort, who appeared with the person to be baptized, obliged themselves to admonish the person of his duty, as they had, before baptism, instructed him in it. Anciently deaconnesses were the sponsors for women, and the deacons were for the men. Parents were not forbidden to be sponsors for their children, before the Council of Mentz, A. D. 813. In the Church of Rome it is not lawful to marry any person to whom one stands related in this spiritual way; and this occasions numberless disputes, and numberless dispensations, which ring great sums of money to the exchequer of Rome.

Rubric. “There shall be for every male child to be baptized, two godfathers and one godmother; and for every female, one godfather and two godmothers.”

Canon 29. “No person shall be urged to be present, nor be admitted to answer as godfather for his own child; nor any godfather or godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech, than by the Book of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf. Neither shall any person be admitted godfather or godmother to any child at christening or confirmation, before the said person so undertaking hath received the holy communion.”

Rubric. “And the godfathers and godmothers, and the people with the children, must be ready at the font, either immediately after the last lesson at morning prayer, or else immediately after the last lesson at evening prayer, as the curate by his discretion shall appoint.”

GOLDEN NUMBER. By referring to the astronomical tables at the beginning of the Prayer Book, it will be seen that a large proportion of them are simply calculations of the day on which Easter will fall in any given year, and, by consequence, the moveable feasts depending on it. In the early Church, it is well known that there were many and long disputes on this point, the Eastern and Western Churches not agreeing on the particular day for the celebration of this festival. To remove these difficulties, the Council of Nice came to a decision, from which the following rule was framed, viz. “Easter day is always the first Sunday after the full moon which happens upon or next after the 21st day of March; and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter day is the Sunday after.”

To determine the time of Easter in any year, it was therefore only necessary to find out the precise time of the above full moon, and to calculate accordingly. Now if the solar year exactly corresponded with the lunar, the time of the paschal moon would be liable to no variation, and Easter would fall on the same day of every year; but as the lunar year is really shorter than the solar, by eleven days, it follows that the paschal moon must, for a course of years, always happen at a different period in each successive year. If then the above rule be observed, the time of Easter may vary from the 22nd of March to the 25th of April, but somewhere within these limits it will always fall. Hence the adoption by the Council of Nice of the Metonic Cycle, by which these changes might be determined with tolerable accuracy. From the great usefulness of this cycle, its numbers were usually written on the calendar in letters of gold, from which it derived the name of Golden Number.

GOOD FRIDAY. The Friday in Passion week received this name from the blessed effects of our Saviour’s sufferings, which are the ground of all our joy, and from those unspeakable good things he hath purchased for us by his death, whereby the blessed Jesus made expiation for the sins of the whole world, and by the shedding of his own blood, obtained eternal redemption for us. Among the Saxons it was called Long Friday; but for what reason, except for the long fastings and offices they then used, does not appear.

The commemoration of our Saviour’s sufferings hath been kept from the very first age of Christianity, and was always observed as a day of the strictest fasting and humiliation; not that the grief and affliction they then expressed did arise from the loss they sustained, but from a sense of the guilt of the sins of the whole world, which drew upon our blessed Redeemer that painful and shameful death of the cross.

The Gospel for this day (besides its coming in course) is properly taken out of St. John rather than any other evangelist, because he was the only one that was present at the passion, and stood by the cross while others fled: and, therefore, the passion being as it were represented before our eyes, his testimony is read who saw it himself, and from whose example we may learn not to be ashamed or afraid of the cross of Christ. The Epistle proves, from the insufficiency of the Jewish sacrifices, that they only typified a more sufficient one, which the Son of God did, as on this day, offer up, and by one oblation of himself then made upon the cross, complete all the other sacrifices, (which were only shadows of this,) and made full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. In imitation of which Divine and infinite love, the Church endeavours to show her charity to be boundless and unlimited, by praying in one of the proper collects, that the effects of Christ’s death may be as universal as the design of it, namely, that it may tend to the salvation of all, Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics.

How suitable the proper psalms are to the day, is obvious to any one that reads them with a due attention: they were all composed by David in times of the greatest calamity and distress, and do most of them belong mystically to the crucifixion of our Saviour; especially the twenty-second, which is the first for the morning, which was in several passages literally fulfilled by his sufferings, and, either part of it, or all, recited by him upon the cross. And for that reason (as St. Austin tells us) was always used upon that day by the African Church.

The first lesson for the morning is Genesis xxii., containing an account of Abraham’s readiness to offer up his son; thereby typifying that perfect oblation which was this day made by the Son of God; which was thought so proper a lesson for this occasion, that the Church used it upon this day in St. Austin’s time. The second lesson is St. John xviii., which needs no explanation. The first lesson for the evening contains a clear prophecy of the passion of Christ, and of the benefits which the Church thereby receives. The second lesson exhorts us to patience under afflictions, from the example of Christ, who suffered so much for us.—Wheatly.

The proper psalms and both the second lessons for Good Friday were added at the last review: and Genesis xxii., the first morning lesson, which was formerly read all through, limited to ver. 20.

GOOD WORKS. “Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.”—Article XII.

Good works are inseparable from our union with Christ; but then as effects of that union, not as causes or instruments. “We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” “Ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me—separate from me—ye can do nothing.” While, however, we regard good works as effects of our union with Christ, we must remember that they are an end also, nay, the end for which we have been united to him; and if so, a condition of the continuance of our union. “The branch cannot,” it is true, “bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine;” but yet its fruitfulness is the object of the care and pains which the vinedresser bestows upon it, and therefore a condition on which it is suffered to remain. “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” And as fruitfulness in good works is a condition on which we are suffered to continue in Christ, so also is it the measure according to which fresh supplies of grace are given; “every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” “Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance.” And yet further, which indeed follows upon the foregoing—our works are the rule by which God will judge us at the last day. These will declare, beyond all controversy, how far we have answered the end of our new creation; how far we have improved the talents intrusted to us; how far we are qualified and prepared for that kingdom, into which “there shall in nowise enter anything that defileth,” where “the people shall be all righteous,” where “the merciful” “shall receive mercy,” where “the pure in heart” “shall see God;” where the servant, who has so improved the pound intrusted to him as to have gained five pounds, shall be appointed to reign over five cities, and he who has gained ten pounds, shall have authority over ten cities.

It is one great secret of holy living to remember, that holiness is to be sought in and from Christ; to be wrought in us by his Spirit. We are too prone to overlook this great truth; to forget the strength which we have in Christ. We act as though, notwithstanding all that Christ hath done for us and in us, Christian virtue were nothing more than moral habits strengthened by exercise. Whereas, in truth, it takes a far higher range. It consists in habits doubtless; but they are habits of him who has been created anew in Christ Jesus; they are the habits of him who is one with Christ, and partaker of the Spirit of Christ; who has been planted together with Christ, in the likeness of his death, that he should be also in the likeness of his resurrection; and who has that blessed promise to cheer and encourage him in striving against sin. “Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”—Heurtley.

GOSPEL. (A word compounded of two Saxon words, god, “good,” and spell, a “message” or “tidings,” and so answering to the Greek εὐαγγέλιον.) God’s or Good Tidings—the glad tidings of the salvation wrought for man by the Lord Jesus Christ.

In a stricter sense, the word means each of the four histories of our Saviour, written by the Evangelists: in a more confined sense still, it means that portion of Scripture which is read immediately after the Epistle in the ante-communion service, and which is taken from one of the four Gospels. A Gospel is also read in the Baptismal Service.

In the mediæval Church there were always peculiar ceremonies used in honour of the Gospel, as for instance, the bringing special lights even during day-time, placing the book of the Gospels reverently on the altar, incensing them, &c. In the Anglican Church we retain some vestiges of this in standing whilst the Gospel is read, and preceding it by the “Glory be to thee, O Lord,” a sentence retained traditionally from the ancient Church.

GOSPELLER. The priest who in the Communion Service reads the Gospel, standing at the north side of the altar. In some cathedrals one of the clergy is so designated, and has this special duty among others to perform. By the 24th Canon, in cathedral and collegiate churches, a Gospeller (as well as an Epistoler) is to assist the priest, vested in a cope. Gospellers are statutable members of the several cathedrals of the new foundation, and an officer so called still officiates at Durham, though the office has generally fallen into desuetude; and, contrary to the ancient universal usage of the Church, even when many priests and deacons are present, it is usual for but two ministers to attend at the first part of the Communion Service: the principal minister reading the Gospel. Strictly speaking, the deacon is the minister for the Gospel; since, in the ordering of deacons, authority is given them to “read the Gospel in the Church of God.”—Jebb. (See also Epistoler.)

GOSSIP. A sponsor for an infant in baptism, from God and sib, a Saxon word, which signifies kindred, affinity: kin in God.

GOTHIC. A general term for that style of mediæval architecture of which the pointed arch is the most prominent character. Together with Romanesque (an equally general term for that style of which the round arch is the most prominent character) it comprehends all mediæval ecclesiastical architecture in England. The substyles with their dates may be roughly stated as follows:

Romanesque— |
| Saxon | to 1060
| Norman | 1066–1145
| Transition | 1145–1190
Gothic— |
| Early English | 1190–1245
| Geometrical | 1245–1315
| Decorated | 1315–1360
| Perpendicular | 1360–1550

The more minute characteristics must be sought under these several names, and it must be obvious that the accounts given within the small limits we can devote to the subject must be very superficial. The subject may be pursued in a number of works now before the public, as, first in date and not last in importance, Rickman’s “Attempt to distinguish the Styles of Architecture in England,” and last in time, Sharpe’s “Seven Periods of English Architecture.” The same mode of architecture prevailed in Ireland and Scotland, with some characteristic distinctions.

GRACE. This word is used in a variety of senses in Holy Scripture: but the general idea, as it relates to God, is his free favour and love; as it relates to men, the happy state of reconciliation and favour with God, wherein they stand, and the holy endowments, qualities, or habits of faith, hope, and love, which they possess.

“We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings: wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification.”—Article XI.

The most pious of those who lived under the Mosaic dispensation, often acknowledge the necessity of assistance from God. David prays to God to “open his eyes, to guide and direct him” (Ps. cxix. 18, 32–35); to “create in him a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within him.” (Ps. li. 10.) And Solomon says, that God “directeth men’s paths, and giveth grace to the lowly.” Even we, whose minds are enlightened by the pure precepts of the gospel, and influenced by the motives which it suggests, must still be convinced of our weakness and depravity, and of the necessity of Divine grace to regulate and strengthen our wills, and to co-operate with our endeavours after righteousness, as is clearly asserted in the New Testament. See the texts above cited, which sufficiently prove that we stand in need both of a preventing and of a co-operating grace; or, in the words of the Article, that “we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.”

Dr. Nicholls, after quoting many authorities to show, that the doctrine of Divine grace always prevailed in the Catholic Church, adds, “I have spent perhaps more time in these testimonies than was absolutely necessary; but whatever I have done is to show, that the doctrine of Divine grace is so essential a doctrine of Christianity, that not only the Holy Scriptures and the primitive Fathers assert it, but likewise that the Christians could not in any age maintain their religion without it; it being necessary, not only for the discharge of Christian duties, but for the performance of our ordinary devotions.” And this seems to have been the opinion of the compilers of our most excellent liturgy, in many parts of which both a preventing and co-operating grace is unequivocally acknowledged; particularly in the second collect for Evening Service, in the fourth collect at the end of the Communion Service, and in the collects for Easter Day, for the fifth Sunday after Easter, and for the 3rd, 9th, 17th, 19th, and 25th Sundays after Trinity.

This assistance of Divine grace is not inconsistent with the free agency of men (see Free Will): it does not place them under an irresistible restraint, or compel them to act contrary to their will. Though human nature is greatly depraved, yet every good disposition is not totally extinguished, nor is all power of right action entirely annihilated. Men may therefore make some spontaneous, though feeble, attempt to act conformably to their duty, which will be promoted and rendered effectual by the co-operation of God’s grace: or the grace of God may so far “prevent” our actual endeavours, as to awaken and dispose us to our duty; but yet not in such a degree, that we cannot withstand its influence. In either case our own exertions are necessary to enable us to “work out our own salvation,” but our “sufficiency” for that purpose is from God. The joint agency of God and man in the work of human salvation is pointed out in the following passage: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. ii. 12, 13); and therefore we may assure ourselves that free will and grace are not incompatible, though the mode and degree of their co-operation be utterly inexplicable.

GRACE AT MEALS. A short prayer, invoking a blessing upon our food, and expressive of gratitude to God for supplying our wants. The propriety of this act is evident from the traditional custom of the Church, and from the Divine command, as interpreted by this custom, (1 Thess. v. 18; 1 Cor. x. 31; 1 Tim. iv. 5,) and from the conduct of our Lord. (Mark viii. 6, 7.)

GRADUAL, or GRAIL. The antiphonary which, before the Reformation, supplied the anthems or verses for the beginning of the Communion, the Offertory, &c., was often called the Gradual, because some of the anthems were chanted on the steps (gradus) of the ambon or pulpit.

The Gradual is also an anthem sung in the Roman Church immediately after the Epistle.—Jebb.

GRAVE. The resting-place of a dead body. The spoliation and desecration of ancient sepulchres is as much an ecclesiastical offence as the robbing of a more recent grave; but where none feel themselves especially aggrieved, there are none to seek redress, and to bring offenders to justice. The law upon the subject seems to stand thus: A corpse once buried cannot legally be taken up to be deposited in another place, without a licence from the ordinary. But in case of a violent death the coroner may order the body to be disinterred, if it has been buried before he has had an opportunity of taking a view for the purposes of his inquest.

If the body, after it has been committed to the grave, be disturbed or removed, it is a subject of ecclesiastical cognizance: yet the common law also protects the corpse; for the taking up of dead bodies, for the purposes of dissection, is an indictable offence, as highly indecent, and contra bonos mores.

The property of things deposited with the dead, as the grave-clothes, &c., is in him that had property therein when the dead body was wrapped therewith, and the taking them is felony. The property in hatchments, or other ensigns of honour, is in the heir, or the person concerned in the hereditary distinction. (See Burial, and the list of acts of parliament appended to the word Cemetery.)

GREEK CHURCH. (See Church, Greek.)

GREGORIAN CHANT. (See Chant.) This general designation is given to the collection of chants compiled by Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, about A. D. 600. These chants have continued to be in use from that time to the present day, in the Western Church, and form the basis of our cathedral music. It is known that Gregory merely collected, arranged, and improved the chants which had already been used for centuries before his time. The most learned writers on the subject suppose that they are derived from those introduced by St. Ambrose into his church, at Milan, about A. D. 384. Great improvements, however, having been made in the science of music, subsequently to the time of St. Ambrose, Gregory took advantage of those improvements, and increased the number of ecclesiastical tones, (which somewhat resemble our modern keys,) from four to eight, of which number the Gregorian chants, properly so called, still consist. The four original tones are called authentic, the others plagal. All the eight are now used in some parts of the Greek Church, as in Russia, doubtless adopted from the West. They have been harmonized according to the more recently discovered laws of music, and thus harmonized possess a singular gravity, which character would alone justify their perpetual retention in the Church as the basis of church music.

The Gregorian chant is not limited to psalm chants; it includes the antiphons, versicles, graduals, &c., in short, all the hymns at the various services of the Romish Church. The eight tones, (which are by some multiplied to twelve,) are in fact so many scales, and all the Gregorian hymns or anthems must be written in one or other of these tones. The ancient Gregorian scale admitted no half notes, with the exception of B flat. The Psalm chants had considerable variation in each tone; these variations occurring in the second part of the chant: thus one tone may have three or four cadences; which in fact form so many separate chants. Much of the old English church music, since the Reformation, is based upon the Gregorian chant: though none of our standard musicians were ever servile followers of a system, which, though very venerable, is imperfect.

It may be as well to subjoin a simple rule for ascertaining the tones in which the Gregorian music is written in the old books. In the ancient breviaries and antiphonies, &c., the word EVOVAE frequently occurs, written under certain notes preceding the psalms appropriated to certain offices. This word contains the vowels of the concluding words of the Gloria Patri; viz. sEcVlOrVm AmEn: and by this is meant, that the notes placed above it form the second part of the chant to which the following psalm or psalms are sung: the first part being rarely written. Now to find the tone of the chant, we must take the first note of the Evovae, which is the dominant, or the prevailing, or reciting note of the chant (not the dominant as now technically understood by musicians): and we must take the last note of the Antiphon which follows the Psalm at length: and these two, according to the table here subjoined, give the tone of the chant: the first part of each variation in tone being, as before remarked, always the same; the second part being given in the Evovae. The Psalm Tones must be found out in one of the many movements of the Gregorian chant. Care must be taken not to take the last note of the abbreviated antiphon which precedes, but of that which follows, the psalm.

| Final note, in the Antiphon. | Dominant or reciting note, in the Evovae.
1st Tone | D | A
2nd Tone | D | F
3rd Tone | E | C
4th Tone | E | A
5th Tone | F | C
6th Tone | F | A
7th Tone | G | D
8th Tone | G | C

Of these tones the odd numbers are authentic, the even plagal. The authentic has always a relation to its plagal which follows, and has the same final note, though a different dominant.—Jebb.

GREY FRIARS. The Franciscans were so called from their grey clothing.

GUARDIAN OF THE SPIRITUALITIES. This is the person or persons in whom the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of any diocese resides, after the death or translation of a bishop. If the vacant see should be an archbishopric, then the dean and chapter are guardians. If a bishop, then the archdeacon of the province.

GURGOILE. (See Gargoyle.)

HABAKKUK, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. There is no mention in Scripture, either of the time when this prophet lived, or of the parents from whom he was descended. But as he prophesied the coming of the Chaldeans in the same manner as Jeremiah, it is conjectured that he lived at the same time.

The works of Habakkuk, which are indisputably his, are contained in three chapters. In these the prophet complains very pathetically of the disorders, which he observed in the kingdom of Judea. God reveals to him, that he would shortly punish them in a very terrible manner by the arms of the Chaldeans. He foretells the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar, his metamorphosis, and death. He foretells that the vast designs of Jehoiakim would be frustrated. He speaks against a prince (probably the king of Tyre) who built with blood and iniquity; and he accuses another king (perhaps the king of Egypt) of having intoxicated his friend, in order to discover his nakedness. The third chapter is a song, or prayer to God, whose majesty the prophet describes with the utmost grandeur and sublimity of expression.

HADES. (From ἁ, privative, and ἰδειν, to see; the invisible state of the departed.) See Hell.

HAGGAI, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Haggai was born, in all probability, at Babylon, from whence he returned with Zerubbabel. It was this prophet, who, by command from God, exhorted the Jews, after their return from the captivity, to finish the rebuilding of the temple, which they had intermitted for fourteen years. His remonstrances had their effect; and to encourage them to proceed in the work, he assured them from God, that the glory of this latter house should be greater than the glory of the former house: which was accordingly fulfilled, when Christ honoured it with his presence; for, with respect to the building, this latter temple was nothing in comparison of the former.

We know nothing certain of Haggai’s death. The Jews pretend, that he died in the last year of the reign of Darius, at the same time with the prophets Zechariah and Malachi, and that thereupon the spirit of prophecy ceased among the children of Israel. Epiphanius asserts that he was buried at Jerusalem among the priests. The Greeks keep his festival on the 16th of December, and the Latins on the 4th of July—De Vita et Morte Prophetarum.

HAGIOGRAPHA, i.e. Holy Writings. (From ἅγιος, holy, and γραφὴ, writing.) A word of great antiquity in the Christian Church, and often used by St. Jerome, taken from the custom of the synagogues, by which the Old Testament was divided into three parts, viz. Moses’s law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; by which last he meant the Psalms, the Proverbs, Job, Ezra, Chronicles, Solomon’s Song, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. The Jews reckon the Book of Daniel and the Lamentations among the Hagiographa, and not among the Prophets, for which Theodoret blames them: but it matters not much, since they acknowledge those books, which they call Hagiographa, to be inspired by God, and part of the sacred canon, as well as those of the first and second order.

HAGIOSCOPE. In church architecture, a contrivance, whether by perforating a wall, or by cutting away an angle of it, by which an altar may be seen from some place in a church, or about it, from which it would be otherwise hid. There is a most curious example at Ryhall in Rutland, where there is (or rather was, for it is now blocked up) an opening in the west wall of the north aisle, by which the three altars in the chancel and two aisles were commanded by a person outside the church, though within what seems to have been a little oratory, (now entirely removed,) dedicated to S. Tibald.

Openings sometimes seem to command other points, and may then be well enough called “Squints.” At Hannington, in Northamptonshire, for instance, is one which seems intended to enable a person in the porch to see the approach of the minister from Walgrave, a parish very generally united under the same incumbency with Hannington.

HALF COMMUNION, or COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. (See Communion and Cup.) The withholding of the cup in the eucharist from the laity. This is the practice of the Church of Rome, and is one of those grievous errors in which that corrupt Church deviates from Catholicism. Not the slightest colour can be brought in its favour, as the Romanists themselves at the Council of Constance were forced to confess: the authority of the primitive Church is against them, as that council acknowledges; nor can they plead the authority of any one of the ancient liturgies. The Church of Rome then is, in this matter, singular and schismatical.

HALLELUJAH. (See Alleluia.)

HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE. A conference appointed by James I. at Hampton Court, in 1603, in order to settle the disputes between the Church and the Puritans. Nine bishops, and as many dignitaries of the Church, appeared on one side, and four Puritan ministers on the other. It lasted for three days. Of this conference the result was a few slight alterations in the liturgy; the baptizing of infants by women, which had been practised in our Church for many hundred years, was forbidden; “remission of sins” inserted in the rubric of absolution; confirmation termed “laying on of hands;” all the thanksgivings, except the general one, were inserted in the Prayer Book; to the catechism was annexed the whole of the latter portion, relative to the two sacraments; and some words were altered in the dominical lessons, with a view to a new translation of the sacred volume.

HATCHMENT; more properly ACHIEVEMENT. In heraldry, the whole armorial bearings of any person fully emblazoned, with shield, crest, supporters, &c. This word is used in particular for the emblazonment of arms hung up in churches, in memory of a gentleman of coat armour, or one of any higher degree. There was formerly much of religion in heraldry; and as the coat was assumed with a religious feeling, so was it at last restored to the sanctuary, in token of thankful acknowledgment to Almighty God, with whose blessing it had been borne.

HEARSE. A frame set over the coffin of any great person deceased, and covered with a pall: also the carriage in which corpses are carried to the grave.

HEATHEN. (From ἔθνη, nations, or Gentiles.) Pagans who worship false gods.

HEAVEN. That place where God affords a nearer and more immediate view of himself, and a more sensible manifestation of his glory, than in other parts of the universe. That it is a place as well as a state, is clear from John xiv. 2, 3, and from the existence of our Lord’s body there, and the bodies of Enoch and Elijah.

HEBDOMADARIUS. The priest whose weekly turn it was to perform the divine offices in cathedrals and colleges. In some foreign cathedrals it is the designation of a clergyman corresponding to our minor canons, &c. In the Scottish universities the name was given to one of the superior members, whose weekly turn it was to superintend the discipline of the students. The office was effectively exercised at St. Andrew’s, at least, till of late years.—Jebb.

HELL. (Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic Hele, Hela, a “cavern;” “concealed place;” “mansion of the dead.”) Two entirely different words in the original language of the New Testament are rendered in our version by the single word “hell.” The first of these is Hades, which occurs eleven times in the New Testament, and in every case but one is translated “hell.” Now Hades is never used to denote the place of final torment, the regions of the damned; but signifies “the place of departed spirits,” whether good or bad,—the place where they are kept until the day of judgment, when they shall be re-united to their bodies, and go each to his appointed destiny. The other word, Gehenna, signifies the place of torment,—the eternal abode of the wicked. At the time when our translation was made, and the Prayer Book compiled, the English word “hell” had a more extensive meaning than it has at present. It originally signified to cover over or conceal; and it is still used in this sense in several parts of England, where, for example, to cover a church or a house with a roof is to hell the building, and the person by whom it is done is called a hellier. But the word also denoted the place of future misery, and is accordingly used in that sense in the New Testament, as the translation of Gehenna; and in consequence of the changes which our language has experienced during the last 200 years, it is now restricted to this particular meaning. (See Gehenna.)

Bearing in mind, then, that Hades was translated by the word “hell,” for want of another more exactly corresponding with the original, the reader will perceive that the article in the Creed, “He descended into hell,” does not refer to the place of final misery; but to that general receptacle of all departed human souls, both penitent and impenitent, where they are reserved in a state of comparative enjoyment or misery, to wait the morning of the resurrection, when their bodies being united to their souls, they will be advanced to complete felicity or woe, in heaven or hell.

One great use of the system of catechising, as enjoined by the Church, is the opportunity it affords of inculcating upon the people such distinctions as these.

It was necessary that our Lord’s death should be attended with all those circumstances which mark the death of men. Christ was possessed of a human nature, both body and soul, besides his Divinity. The body of man at death sinks to the grave; and the soul goes to Hades, or the place of departed spirits. In like manner the body of our Lord was laid in the tomb, but his soul went to the general repository of human disembodied spirits, “the lower parts of the earth,” (Ps. xvi. 10; Eph. iv. 9, with Ps. lxiii. 9, and Isa. v. 14,) Hades, the place of separated souls, not Gehenna, the place of condemnation; because if it relate to the place of either bliss or misery, it must be the former, in consistence with the Lord’s promise to the penitent thief. (Luke xxiii. 43.)

Five different opinions have been entertained on this subject. First, that the word “descended” is to be taken metaphorically; implying only the efficacy of Christ’s death as to the souls departed. But this seems refuted by the passage, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,” (Ps. xvi. 10,) whereas the efficacy of our Lord’s death still continues.

Secondly, that the descent into hell signifies the suffering the torments of the damned; and this in the stead of those who otherwise must have endured them. But it is not to be believed that our Lord could suffer from the “worm that never dieth”—the remorse of conscience, and a sense of the continuance and consequences of the displeasure of God, and consequent despair; or that he who overcame the powers of hell could suffer under their vengeance. Nor, again, can he, in this article, be said by a metaphor to have felt the torments of hell, by this meaning only the greatest torments, because all that he felt which we know of, was antecedent to his death, and not afterwards. The torments of hell then cannot be here meant literally, because not supported by truth, nor figuratively, because not applicable.

Thirdly, that the word “soul” does in this passage mean the body, and “hell” merely the grave; and the same words, both in Hebrew and Greek, as used respectively by the psalmist and the apostle, and translated the “soul,” do elsewhere in the Scriptures mean the “body.” As in Numb. vi. 6; Lev. xxi. 11; and xxii. 4; and more particularly, Numb. xix. 11, and 13. And Ainsworth, whose translation is the most literal of any, so uses the word. And again, with respect to the word “hell;” in some passages it can mean nothing but the grave, and is so used by our translation, when Ainsworth uses the word “hell,” as in Gen. xxxvii. 35, and xlii. 38. This mode of explication too, connected with the following article, will fulfil the prophecy, “Thou shalt not leave my soul (body) in hell” (the grave).

Fourthly, that by the “soul” may be understood the nobler part distinguished from the body; or the whole person, both soul and body; or the living soul distinguished from the immortal spirit. And by “hell,” no place whatever, but merely the condition of men in death. But this explanation involves an entirely novel idea as to Hades, which was always understood as some place where the souls of men entered, whether this is in the earth, or out of it, or in whatever unknown part; and from which the Greeks considered those to be excluded who came to a premature death, or whose bodies lay unburied. And in addition, the descent into hell thus explained would be tautologous, meaning nothing more than the being dead, which the preceding article had declared.

Fifthly, and this is apparently the best explanation, as it was always the opinion entertained by the Church—that the “soul” was the spirit, or rational part, of Christ, that which the Jews could “not kill,” and “hell,” a place distinguished equally from earth and from heaven. The passage may then mean, “Thou shalt not suffer my soul,” when separated from the body, and carried to the place assigned, as other souls are, to continue there as theirs do, but shalt, after a short interval only, reunite it to my body. That this was an opinion general in the Church, is proved, not only by the direct testimony of the Fathers, but by their arguments on the subject in answer to heretics.

They all fully agreed in a real descent of the soul of Christ into the place of souls departed; though they differed as to the persons whom he descended to visit, and the end for which he went. Some of them considered Hades, or “hell,” as the common receptacle of souls, both of the just and the unjust, and then thought that the soul of Christ went unto those only who had departed in the true faith and fear of God. But to this many could not agree, not thinking that Hades could ever, in Scripture, be taken for the place of happiness. And as to the end, those who held the former opinion of the common receptacle, imagined that Christ went unto the faithful to dissolve the power by which they were detained, and translate them into heaven. But to this change of place or condition many objected, conceiving that the souls of men shall not enter into heaven till after the general resurrection.

Some there were who, conceiving that this place did not include the blessed, imagined that the object of our Lord’s going into the place of torment, was to deliver some of the suffering souls, and translate them to a place of happiness. That this was done by preaching the gospel to them, that they after death might have an opportunity of receiving him, and then pass with him from death to life.

So that they all imagined that the soul of Christ descended into hell to preach the gospel to the spirits there, but differed as to whether it was to those who before believed, that they might now receive him; or to those who had before rejected him, that they might yet believe on him.

But there seem insurmountable objections both to the opinion that he preached to the faithful, for they were not “disobedient,” (as “in the days of Noah,”) nor could they need a publication of the gospel after the death of Christ, by virtue of which they were accepted while they lived; and to that, that he preached to the wicked, for they were not proper objects, or likely to be persuaded. The effect too of the preaching may be denied. There is no repentance in the grave, nor any passing the “great gulf” of separation. Again, with respect to the faithful, it is not certain that their souls were in a place where Christ would descend; or that they are now in another and better place than they were at first; or that Christ did descend into such place for such purpose; or that such effect was produced at such a time.

There is another opinion that has obtained, and perhaps more in our own Church, that Christ descended into hell to triumph over Satan and his powers in their own dominions, principally grounded on Col. ii. 11–15; Eph. iv. 8, 9. But these passages are not conclusive; and the argument seems inconsistent in those who object to the opinion, that the souls of the wicked have been released, or those of the saints removed.

The sound conclusion as to the whole, and what our belief might be, is, perhaps, first, as to fact, that the soul of Christ, separated from his body by death, did go into the common place of departed spirits, in order that he might appear, both alive and dead, as perfect man. All that was necessary for our redemption, by way of satisfaction, was effected on the cross. The exhibition of what was there merited, was effected by his resurrection; and between these, he satisfied the law of death. Secondly, as to the effect. By the descent of Christ into the regions of darkness, the souls of believers are kept from the torments which are there. As the grave and hell had no power over him, the “head,” so neither shall it have over “the members.” By his descent he freed us from all fear, by his resurrection and ascension he has secured our hope; and thus through “death, destroyed him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil.”

As he “was delivered for our offences,” so was he “raised again for our justification.” (Rom. iv. 25.) If this had not taken place, our “faith” would have been “vain;” we should have been “yet in our sins,” (1 Cor. xv. 14, 17,) for as we are “buried with him in baptism, we are quickened together with him,” (Col. ii. 12, 13,) and “begotten again to a lively hope,” by his “resurrection from the dead;” if “by him we believe in God that raised him up from the dead,” (1 Pet. i. 3, 21,) and “walk in newness of life.” (Rom. vi. 4; viii. 11; 1 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14; Eph. i. 19, 20; Heb. xiii. 20.) Therefore, “on the third day, he rose again from the dead, a living body,” (Luke xxiv. 39; John xx. 20, 27,) “quickened by the spirit,” (1 Pet. iii. 18,) and raised by himself, (John x. 18; ii. 19,) as this was typified in Isaac, “received” again by his father, as “in (or for) a figure,” (Heb. xi. 19,) and by the waved sheaf, the dedicated “first-fruits of the harvest.” (Lev. xxiii. 10, 11.) This, too, on the third day—the “first day of the week,” the Christian “sabbath,” (Matt, xxviii. 1; xx. 19, (thenceforward called “the Lord’s day,” Rev. i. 10,) John xx. 26; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2,) according to the deliverance of his type Jonah. (Matt. xii. 39, 40.) As this was frequently predicted by himself, (Matt. xii. 39, 40, and xvi. 21; xvii. 9; John ii. 19, 21,) confirmed by his enemies, (Matt. xxvi. 61; xxvii. 63; Mark xv. 29,) and by the angel, (Matt. xxviii. 6, 7, 17,) and the truth of it proved also by the precautions of his enemies, (Matt, xxviii. 13–15,) by his showing himself to his disciples several times, and “many days,” (John xx. 19, 26; xxi. 14; Acts xiii. 31,) as to “witnesses chosen before of God,” (Acts x. 41,) appointed expressly to bear testimony to this great truth, “unto the uttermost parts of the earth,” (Acts i. 8, 22; ii. 24, 31, 32; iii. 15; iv. 33; v. 32; x. 40; 1 Cor. xv. 15,) as was “also the Holy Ghost.” (Acts v. 32, and to others, 1 Cor. xv. 4–8.) Which truth, that “God hath raised him from the dead,” is to be received by “all men” as an “assurance” that “God will judge the world in righteousness by him.” (Acts xvii. 30–32.)

HERESIARCH. A leader in heresy.

HERESY. This word is derived from the Greek, αἵρεσις, a choice, and it means an arbitrary adoption, in matters of faith, of opinions at variance with the doctrines delivered by Christ and the apostles, and received by the Catholic Church. At the same time we may remark, that it is generally agreed that the opinion must be pertinaciously and obstinately held, in order to constitute formal heresy. And if there be a legitimate doubt in a controversy which of the two contrary doctrines is stated in Scripture and received by the Church, either may be held without heresy. It is obvious, also, that mere ignorance, or a temporary error in ignorance, is altogether different from heresy.

In the first year of Queen Elizabeth, an act of parliament was passed to enable persons to try heretics, and the following directions were given for their guidance:—“And such persons to whom the queen shall by letters patent under the great seal give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual, shall not in anywise have power to adjudge any matter or cause to be heresy, but only such as heretofore have been adjudged to be heresy by the authority of the canonical Scriptures, or by some of the first four general councils, or by any other general council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said canonical Scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be judged or determined to be heresy by the high court of parliament, with the assent of the clergy in their convocation.”

Heresies began very early in the Christian Church. Eusebius fixes the beginning of most of them to the reign of the emperor Adrian. And yet it is certain, that Simon Magus had published his errors before that time, and set up a sect, which gave rise to most of the ancient heresies.

The laws, both of the Church and State, were very severe against those who were adjudged to be heretics. Those of the State, made by the Christian emperors from the time of Constantine, are comprised under one title, De Hæreticis, in the Theodosian Code. The principal of them are, 1. The general note of infamy affixed to all heretics in common. 2. All commerce forbidden to be held with them. 3. The depriving them of all offices of profit and dignity. 4. The disqualifying them to dispose of their estates by will, or receive estates from others. 5. The imposing on them pecuniary mulcts. 6. The proscribing and banishing them. 7. The inflicting corporal punishment on them, such as scourging, &c., before banishment. Besides these laws, which chiefly affected the persons of heretics, there were several others, which tended to the extirpation of heresy: such as, 1. Those which forbade heretical teachers to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately. 2. Those which forbade heretics to hold public disputations. 3. Such laws as prohibited all heretical meetings and assemblies. 4. Those which deny to the children of heretical parents their patrimony and inheritance, unless they return to the Church. And, 5. Such laws as ordered the books of heretics to be burned. There were many other penal laws made against heretics, from the time of Constantine to Theodosius junior and Valentinian III. But the few already mentioned may be sufficient to give an idea of the rigour with which the empire treated such persons as held, or taught, opinions contrary to the faith of the Catholic Church, whose discipline towards heretics was no less severe than the civil laws.

For, 1. The Church was accustomed to pronounce a formal anathema or excommunication against them. Thus the Council of Nice ends her creed with an anathema against all those who opposed the doctrine there delivered. And there are innumerable instances of this kind to be found in the volumes of the Councils. 2. Some canons debarred them from the very lowest privileges of Church communion, forbidding them to enter into the church, so much as to hear the sermon, or the Scriptures read in the service of the catechumens. But this was no general rule; for liberty was often granted to heretics to be present at the sermons, in hopes of their conversion; and the historians tell us, that Chrysostom by this means brought over many to acknowledge the Divinity of Christ, whilst they had liberty to come and hear his sermons. 3. The Church prohibited all persons, under pain of excommunication, to join with heretics in any religious offices. 4. By the laws of the Church, no one was to eat, or converse familiarly with heretics; or to read their writings, or to contract any affinity with them: their names were to be struck out of the Diptychs, or sacred registers of the Church; and, if they died in heresy, no psalmody, or other solemnity, was to be used at their funeral. 5. The testimony of heretics was not to be taken in any ecclesiastical cause whatever. These are the chief ecclesiastical laws against heretics.

As to the terms of penance imposed upon relenting heretics, or such as were willing to renounce their errors, and be reconciled to the Church, they were various, and differed according to the canons of different councils, or the usages of different Churches. The Council of Eliberis (soon after A. D. 300) appoints ten years’ penance, before repenting heretics are admitted to communion. The Council of Agde (A. D. 506) contracted this term into that of three years. The Council of Epone (A. D. 517) reduced it to two years only.

The ancient Christian Church made a distinction between such heretics as contumaciously resisted the admonitions of the Church, and such as never had any admonition given them, for none were reputed formal heretics, or treated as such, till the Church had given them a first and second admonition, according to the apostle’s rule.

The principal sects of heretics, which disturbed the peace of the Church, sprung up in the first six centuries: most of the heresies, in after ages, being nothing but the old ones new vamped, or revived. The following table may serve to give the reader a compendious view of the most remarkable of the ancient heresies.

CENTURY I.

1. The Simonians, or followers of Simon Magus; who maintained that the world was created by angels; that there is no resurrection of the body; that women ought to be in common, &c.

2. Cerinthians and Ebionites, followers of Cerinthus and Ebion; who denied the Divinity of our Saviour, and blended the Mosaical ceremonies with Christianity, &c.

3. The Nicolaites, followers of Nicolas, deacon of Antioch; who allowed the promiscuous use of women, &c., alluded to by St. John in Rev. ii. 6, 15.

CENTURY II.

4. The Basilidians, followers of Basilides of Alexandria; who espoused the heresies of Simon Magus, and denied the reality of our Saviour’s crucifixion, &c.

5. The Carpocratians, followers of Carpocrates; who, besides adhering to the heresies of Simon Magus, rejected the Old Testament, and held that our Saviour was but a mere man, &c.

6. The Valentinians, followers of Valentinus; who corrupted the Christian doctrine with the Pythagorean and Platonic notions, &c.

7. The Gnostics; so called from their pretences to superior knowledge. The term Gnostics seems to have been a general name for many of the earliest heretics. (See Gnostics.)

8. The Nazarenes; who ingrafted the law of Moses on Christianity, &c.

9. The Millenarians or Chiliasts; so called, because they expected to reign with Christ, a thousand years, upon the earth.

10. The Cainites; a branch of the Valentinians, but particularly remarkable for paying a great regard to Cain and all the wicked men mentioned in the Scripture, &c.

11. The Sethians; who held that Seth, the son of Adam, was the Messiah.

12. The Quartodecimans; who observed Easter on the fourteenth day of the first month, in conformity to the Jewish custom of keeping the Passover.

13. The Cerdonians, followers of Cerdon; who held two contrary principles, denied the resurrection of the body, and threw the Four Gospels out of the canon of Scripture.

14. The Marcionites, followers of Marcion; who held three principles, denied the resurrection of the body, and declaimed against marriage, &c.

15. The Cataphrygians, or Montanists; who baptized the dead, and held Montanus to be the Holy Ghost, &c.

16. The Encratites, or Tatianists, followers of Tatian; who boasted of an extraordinary continency, and condemned marriage, &c.

17. The Alogians; so called, because they denied the Divinity of the Word, and rejected St. John’s Gospel, which particularly asserts it.

18. The Artotyrites; so called, because they offered bread and cheese in the eucharist.

19. The Angelics; so called, because they worshipped angels.

CENTURY III.

20. The Monarchici, or Patripassians, followers of Praxeas; who denied a plurality of persons in the Trinity, and affirmed that our Saviour was God the Father.

21. The Arabici; who believed that the soul dies, or sleeps, till the day of judgment, and then rises with the body.

22. The Aquarians; who used only water in the eucharist.

23. The Novatians; who would not allow those, who had lapsed in time of persecution, to be restored, upon repentance, to communion.

24. The Origenists, followers of Origen; who, among other things, held that the devil, and all the damned, will at last be saved.

25. The Melchisedechians: who held Melchisedech to be the Messiah.

26. The Sabellians, followers of Sabellius; who denied the Trinity, and affirmed that the distinction of persons in the Godhead was merely nominal, and founded only upon a diversity of attributes, &c.

27. The Manicheans, followers of Manes; who held that two opposite principles reigned over the world, the one good, the other bad, &c.

CENTURY IV.

28. The Arians, followers of Arius, a priest of Alexandria; who believed the Father and the Son not to be of the same nature, substance, or essence, and that there was a time when the Son was not, &c.

29. The Colluthians, followers of Colluthus; who confounded the evil of punishment with the evil of sin.

30. The Macedonians; who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.

31. The Agnoëtæ; so called, because they denied the certainty of the Divine prescience.

32. The Apollinarians, followers of Apollinaris; who asserted that our Saviour, at his incarnation, assumed a human body without a soul, and that the Word supplied the place of a soul, &c.

33. The Timotheans; who held, that our Saviour was incarnate only for the benefit and advantage of our bodies.

34. The Collyridians; so called, because they made a kind of goddess of the Blessed Virgin, and offered cakes to her.

35. The Seleucians, followers of Seleucus; who held that the Deity was corporeal; and that the matter of the universe was co-eternal with God.

36. The Priscillianists, followers of Priscillian, a Spanish bishop; who held all the errors of the Gnostics and Valentinians.

37. The Anthropomorphites; so called, because they ascribed a body to God, understanding literally those passages of Scripture which speak of God as having hands, eyes, feet, &c.

38. The Jovinianists, followers of Jovinian; who denied the virginity of Mary.

39. The Messalians; who chiefly pretended to prophecy.

40. The Bonosians, followers of Bonosus; who held that Jesus Christ was the Son of God only by adoption.

CENTURY V.

41. The Pelagians, followers of Pelagius; who denied the necessity of Divine grace, in order to salvation, &c.

42. Nestorians, followers of Nestorius; who distinguished our blessed Saviour into two persons, the one Divine, the other human.

43. The Eutychians, followers of Eutyches; who fell into the opposite error, and held, that there was but one nature in Jesus Christ.

44. The Theopaschites, followers of Petrus Fullo, bishop of Antioch; so called, because they affirmed that all the three persons in the Trinity were incarnate, and suffered upon the cross.

CENTURY VI.

45. The Predestinarians; so called, because they held that the salvation or damnation of men is pre-ordained, and that no man is saved or damned by his works.

46. The Apthartodocetes, or Incorruptibilists; so called, because they held that our Saviour’s body was incorruptible, and exempt from passion.

47. A second sect of Agnoëtæ; so called, because they held that our blessed Saviour, when upon earth, did not know the day of judgment.

48. The Monotheletes; who held that there was but one will in Jesus Christ.

These were the principal sects of heretics, which, in those early ages, infested the Christian Church. The succeeding ages produced a great variety of heretics likewise; as the Gnosimachi and Lampetians, in the seventh century; the Agonyclites in the eighth; the Berengarians, Simoniacs, and Vecilians, in the eleventh; the Bogomiles, in the twelfth; the Fratricelli and Beguards, in the thirteenth; to enumerate all which would be both tedious and uninteresting.—Broughton.

HERETIC. Dr. Johnson, in his dictionary, defines a heretic to be, “one who propagates his private opinions in opposition to the Catholic Church;” and the Catholic or universal Church, in the second general council, has pronounced those to be heretics “who, while they pretend to confess the sound faith, have separated and held meetings contrary to our canonical bishops.”—Conc. Const. Can. 6.

A man may be erroneous in doctrine and yet not a heretic; for heresy is a pertinacious adherence to an opinion when it is known that the Church has condemned it. (See the preceding article.)

Although the Scripture only is our guide, there are certain points of disputable doctrine on which the Church Universal has decided, e. g. the doctrine of the Trinity; and he who refuses “to hear the Church” on these points, is held a heretic by the Church Universal. There are certain points on which our own Church has decided, e. g. the doctrine of transubstantiation, and he who holds this doctrine is regarded as a heretic by the Church of England. For those who do not defer to the Church, to pronounce any one a heretic who professes to take the Bible for his guide, is an inconsistency which can only be accounted for by the existence, on the part of the offender, of a very intolerant and tyrannical disposition.

HERMENEUTÆ. (From ἑρμηνεύω, to interpret.) Persons in the ancient Church, whose business it was to render one language into another, as there was occasion, both in reading the Scriptures, and in the homilies that were made to the people; an office which was very important in those churches where the people spoke different languages, as in Palestine, where some spoke Syriac, others Greek; and in Africa, where some spoke the Latin, and others the Punic tongue.

HERMENEUTICS. (From ἑρμηνεύω, to interpret.) The principles and practice of translation and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures.—See Hartwell Horne’s Introduction and Ernesti’s Institutes.

HERMITAGES were cells constructed in private and solitary places, for single persons, or for small communities, and were sometimes annexed to larger religious houses.

HETERODOX. Contrary to the faith or doctrine established in the true Church.

HEXAPLA. A book containing the Hebrew text of the Bible, written in Hebrew and Greek characters, with the translations of the Septuagint, of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, in six several columns. There was added to it a fifth translation, found at Jericho, without the author’s name; and a sixth, named Nicopolitanum, because found at Nicopolis: Origen joined to it a translation of the Psalms, but still the book retained the name of Hexapla, because the fifth and sixth translations did not extend to the whole Bible; and so the same book of Origen had but six columns in divers places, eight in some, and nine in the Psalms. Others are of opinion that the two columns of the Hebrew text were not reckoned; and that the translation of the Psalms was not to be considered so as to give a new name to the book. When the edition contained only the translations of the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, it was called Tetrapla, and the name of Octapla was sometimes given to the eight versions, that is, to the collections containing the translations of Jericho and Nicopolis. Ruffinus, speaking of this elaborate work, affirms that Origen undertook it because of the continual controversies between the Jews and Christians: the Jews citing the Hebrew, and the Christians the Septuagint, in their disputes, this father was willing to let the Christians understand how the Jews read the Bible; and to this end, he laid the versions of Aquila, and some other Greek translations, before them, which had been made from the Hebrew; but few people being able to buy so great a work, Origen undertook to abridge it, and for that purpose published a version of the Septuagint, to which he added some supplements, taken out of Theodotion’s translation, in the places where the Septuagint had not rendered the Hebrew text; and which supplements were marked with an asterisk. He added also a small line like a spit, where the Septuagint had something that was not in the Hebrew text. The loss of the Hexapla is one of the greatest which the Church has sustained. But a few fragments remain, published by Montfauçon, in 1713; and by Bahrdt, (an abridgment, and not a very skilful one, of the former,) in 1769.

HIERARCHY. (See Bishops.) A designation equally applied to the ranks of celestial beings in the Jerusalem above, and to the apostolic order of the ministry in the Church below. In reference to the latter, it is an error to suppose that it necessarily implies temporal distinction, wealth, splendour, or any other adjuncts with which the ministry may, in certain times and countries, have been distinguished. These are mere accidents, which prejudice has identified with the being of a hierarchy, but from which no just inference can be drawn against the inherent spiritual dignity of the Christian priesthood.

HIGH PRIEST. The highest person in the divinely appointed ecclesiastical polity of the Jews. To him in the Christian Church answers the bishop, the presbyter answering to the priest, and the deacon to the Levite.

HISTORIANS, ECCLESIASTICAL. Those writers who record the acts and monuments of the Christian Church. After the evangelical historians, the most distinguished is Hegesippus, who lived principally in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 161–180). He wrote five books of ecclesiastical history, called Commentaries of the Acts of the Church, wherein he described the character of the holy apostles, their missions, &c., the remarkable events in the Church, and the several heresies, schisms, and persecutions which had afflicted it from our Lord’s death to the writer’s own times. All the writings of Hegesippus are now lost. Next follows Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, a pupil of Pamphilus, on which account he is often called Eusebius Pamphili. He wrote an ecclesiastical history in ten books, comprising a history of the Church from our Lord’s birth to the conversion of Constantine the Great, which he compiled chiefly from the commentary of Hegesippus. St. Jerome and Nicephorus derive the materials of their history from Eusebius. The histories written by Socrates, Theodoret, and Sozomen, relate to their own times only. These are the sources from which all modern historians of the early Church derive their materials.

HOLY-DAY. The day of some ecclesiastical festival. The rubric after the Nicene Creed directs that “the curate shall then declare to the people what holy-days or fasting days are in the week following to be observed.”

Canon 64. “Every parson, vicar, or curate shall, in his several charge, declare to the people every Sunday, at the time appointed in the Communion Book, whether there be any holy-days or fasting days the week following. And if any do hereafter willingly offend herein, and, being once admonished thereof by his ordinary, shall again omit that duty, let him be censured according to law until he submit himself to the due performance of it.”

Canon 13. “All manner of persons within the Church of England shall from henceforth celebrate and keep the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, and other holy-days, according to God’s will and pleasure, and the orders of the Church of England prescribed on that behalf: that is, in hearing the word of God read and taught, in private and public prayers, in acknowledging their offences to God, and amendment of the same, in reconciling themselves charitably to their neighbours where displeasure has often been, in oftentimes receiving the communion of the body and blood of Christ, in visiting of the poor and sick, using all godly and sober conversation.”

Canon 14. “The Common Prayer shall be said or sung distinctly and reverently upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book of Common Prayer, and their eves.”

HOLY GHOST. (See Procession.) The third Person of the adorable Trinity.

“The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.”—Article V.

The name Ghost, or Gast, in the ancient Saxon, signifies a spirit, to which the word holy is applied, as signifying a communication of the Divine holiness. Having been baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” we cannot say with the ignorant disciples, that “we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost” (Acts xix. 2); we are therefore called upon to believe in the Holy Ghost as we do in the Father and the Son; and for our authority in considering him to be a person as well as the others, we have not only the analogy of faith, but sufficient evidence in holy writ.

First, he is plainly distinguishable from the others; from the Father, as proceeding from him, (John xv. 26,) and from the Father and the Son, in being sent by one from the other; “The Comforter, whom I,” says our Lord, “will send unto you from the Father;” “If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” (John xv. 26; xvi. 7.) This was the Spirit promised before of the Father. (Isa. xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 25, with John xiv. 16; Acts i. 4; ii. 33.) He is sometimes termed “the Spirit of the Son,” as well as of the Father, (Gal. iv. 6,) and is given by the Father, (Eph. i. 17,) and sent in his Son’s name, (John xiv. 26,) as at other times by the Son. (John xv. 26; xvi. 7; xx. 21, 22.)

Secondly, such properties, attributes, and acts are ascribed to him as are only applicable to a person. He is spoken of in formal opposition to evil spirits, who are clearly represented as persons (1 Sam. xvi. 14; 2 Chron. xviii. 20, 21); and if expressions are used not exactly suitable to our conceptions of a person, this may well be allowed without its making him a mere quality or attribute. When God is said to “give” the Holy Ghost “to them that obey him,” (Acts v. 32,) it may be compared with similar passages respecting the Son: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,” &c., (John iii. 16,) in conformity to the prophecy, “Unto us a Son is given.” (Isa. ix. 6.)

Thirdly, he is also truly God, as is proved from the titles given to him by fair implication, (Acts v. 3, 4; Luke i. 35; and see 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3,) and the attributes of God, (Job xxxiii. 4; Ps. cxxxix. 7; Isa. xlviii. 16; with Acts xiii. 2; xx. 28; Mark xiii. 11; Rom. viii. 14; xv. 13, 19; 1 Cor. ii. 11,) and he is in two grand instances united to the Father and the Son, in perfect equality,—the form of baptism, by which we are admitted into the Church of God, (Matt. xxviii. 19,) and the apostolic benediction, the common Christian salutation. (2 Cor. xiii. 14.)

As he is the Holy Spirit of God, “the Spirit of holiness,” (Rom. i. 4,) so is he the cause of all holiness in man. That as the Son, by his sacrifice, put us in the way of salvation, (John iii. 16,) so must the Holy Spirit co-operate in sealing “us unto the day of redemption,” through his “sanctification,” and “belief of the truth,” (Rom. viii. 16; 2 Cor. i. 22; v. 5; Gal. vi. 8; Eph. i. 13, 14; iv. 30; Phil. i. 19; 2 Thess. ii. 13; Tit. iii. 5,) according as he has been promised. (Deut. xxix. 4; Jer. xxxii. 40; Ezek. xxxvi. 27; John vi. 44.) And this he does by regenerating us at baptism, (Matt. iii. 11; John iii. 5; Gal. iv. 29; Tit. iii. 5,) and making us the “sons of God,” (Rom. viii. 14–16; Gal. iv. 6,) and thus uniting us to our “head,” (1 Cor. vi. 17; xii. 12, 13; Eph. iv. 4; 1 John iii. 24,) and by instructing us in our duty, (Prov. i. 23; Ps. clxiii. 10; Isa. lix. 21: 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11; xii. 3; 2 Cor. iii. 3; Gal. v. 16, 25,) illuminating the understanding, (Neh. ix. 20; Isa. xxxii. 15, 16; Ezek, xxxvi. 27; Micah iii. 8; Rom. viii. 2, 5; Eph. i. 17, 18; 1 John iii. 24; iv. 13,) disposing the will, (Heb. iii. 7, 8; 1 Pet. i. 2, 22,) settling us in the faith and love of God, (Rom. v. 5; 2 Cor. iv. 13; 2 Tim. i. 7,) giving us power to obey, (Zech. iv. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 17; Eph. iii. 16,) helping us in prayer, (Zech. xii. 10; Rom. viii. 26; 1 Cor. xiv. 15; Jude 20,) and sanctifying us. (Rom. xv. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Gal. v. 16.) And as his very name, “the Comforter,” implies, he gives consolation and joy. (Acts ix. 31; Rom. xiv. 17; xv. 13; Gal. v. 22; 1 Thess. i. 6.)

It is necessary, then, that we believe in the Holy Ghost, as having been baptized to God in his name; and as we would receive the apostolic benediction, (2 Cor. xiii. 14; Phil. ii. 1,) and enjoy the kingdom of God on earth, which is “righteousness, and peace, and joy,” in him. (Rom. xiv. 17; Acts xiii. 52.)

HOLY TABLE, (ἅγια τράπεζα.) (See Altar.) The altar on which the appointed memorials of the death of Christ, namely, the bread and wine, are presented before God, as an oblation of thanksgiving, is called the Lord’s table, or the holy table; because his worshippers do there, as his guests, eat and drink these consecrated elements, in faith, to be thereby fed and nourished unto eternal life, by the spiritual food of his most precious body and blood.

HOLY THURSDAY. The day of our Lord’s ascension. (See Ascension Day.)

HOLY WATER. In the Romish Church, water blessed with an appropriate service by the priest, and placed in a shallow basin, called the holy water stoup, at the entrance of the Church. Its primary use was, that the hands of the worshippers might be washed, and “pure hands lifted up in prayer;” afterwards it symbolized their purification from defilement before engaging in prayer. The modern Romanists forget this, and, as if they thought that some intrinsic benefit resulted from the physical application of the holy water, independent of its mystic meaning, use it both on entering and leaving a church.

So many superstitions had become connected with the use of holy water, that it was discontinued at the Reformation.

HOLY WEEK. (See Passion Week.) The Passion week—the last week in Lent, in which the Church commemorates the cross and passion of our blessed and only Saviour.

HOMILIES. (From ὁμιλία, a sermon or discourse, delivered in a plain manner, so as to be understood by the common people.) The Homilies of the Church of England are two books of plain discourses, composed at the time of the Reformation, and appointed to be read in churches, on “any Sunday or holy-day, when there is no sermon.” The first volume of them was set out in the beginning of King Edward the Sixth’s reign in 1547, having been composed (as it is thought) by Archbishop Cranmer and Bishops Ridley and Latimer, when a competent number of ministers of sufficient abilities to preach in a public congregation was not to be found. It was reprinted in 1560. The second book appeared in 1563, having been printed the year before, (see Strype’s Life of Parker,) in the reign of Elizabeth. Bishop Jewell is supposed to have had a great share in its composition. In the first book, the homily on “Salvation” was probably written by Cranmer, as also those on “Faith” and “Good Works.” The homilies on the “Fear of Death,” and on the “Reading of Scripture,” have likewise been ascribed to the archbishop. That on the “Misery of Mankind,” which has sometimes been attributed to him, appears in Bishop Bonner’s volume of Homilies, A. D. 1555, with the name of “Jo. Harpesfield” attached to it. The homilies on “the Passion,” and on “the Resurrection,” are from Taverner’s “Postills,” published in 1540. Internal evidence arising out of certain homely expressions, and peculiar forms of ejaculation, the like to which appear in Latimer’s sermons, pretty clearly betray the hand of the Bishop of Worcester to have been engaged in the homily against “Brawling and Contention;” the one against “Adultery” may be safely given to Thomas Becon, one of Cranmer’s chaplains, in whose works, published in 1564, it is still to be found; of the rest nothing is known, but by the merest conjecture. In the second book, no single homily of them all has been appropriated.

All members of the Church of England agree that the Homilies “contain a godly and wholesome doctrine;” but they are not agreed as to the precise degree of authority to be attached to them. In them the authority of the Fathers, of the first six general Councils, and of the judgments of the Church generally, the holiness of the primitive Church, the secondary inspiration of the Apocrypha, the sacramental character of marriage and other ordinances, regeneration in holy baptism, and the real presence in the eucharist, are asserted. To some of these assertions ultra-Protestants of course demur.

By this approbation of the two books of Homilies it is not meant that every passage of Scripture, or argument that is made use of in them, is always convincing; or that every expression is so severely worded, that it may not need a little correction or explanation: all that we profess about them is only that they “contain a godly and wholesome doctrine.” This rather relates to the main importance and design of them, than to every passage in them. Though this may be said concerning them, that, considering the age wherein they were written, the imperfection of our language, and some inferior defects, they are two very extraordinary books. Some of them are better writ than others, and are equal to anything that has been writ upon those subjects since that time. Upon the whole matter, every one, who subscribes the Articles, ought to read them, otherwise he subscribes a blank; he approves a book implicitly, and binds himself to read it, as he may be required, without knowing anything concerning it. This approbation is not to be stretched so far, as to carry in it a special assent to every particular in that whole volume: but a man must be persuaded of the main of the doctrine that is taught in them.—Bp. Burnet.

The Church requires our assent and approbation to the Articles, and so in like manner to the Rubric, to be expressed in a different degree and manner from that in which we express our assent to the Homilies and the Canons; the same degree of preference being given to the Articles of religion before the Homilies, in point of doctrine, and to the Rubric before the body of Canons, in point of practice.

The Thirty-nine Articles, for instance, being the capital rule of our doctrine, as we are teachers in this Church; (they being this Church’s interpretation of the word of God in Scripture, so far as they go;) and designed as a bulwark against Popery and fanaticism; we are bound to a very full and explicit acknowledgment under our hands, that we do deliberately, and advisedly, and ex animo, assent to every part and proposition contained in them. For this everybody knows to be the meaning of clerical subscriptions, both before ordination, and as often as the three articles of the thirty-sixth canon are subscribed by us.

In the like manner the Rubric being the standard of uniformity of worship in our communion; the adding to which tends towards opening a gap to Popish superstitions, and the increase of human inventions in the service of God; and the subtracting from which tends towards paving a way to a fanatical disuse and contempt of rites and ceremonies; therefore we are obliged, not only to declare our ex animo approbation, assent, and consent, to the matter of the Rubric, but are laid under religious promises, that we will in every particular, prescribed in and by it, conform ourselves to it as the rule of our ministration.

And, indeed, considering that both the Articles and the Rubric are statute as well as canon law, and have equally the sanction and authority both of the temporal and spiritual legislatures; and considering the condition upon which we are admitted to minister in this established Church, which is our solemn reception of them both as our rule; I do not see how any man can, with a good conscience, continue acting as a minister of our Church, who can allow himself either to depart from her doctrine as expressed in her Articles, or from her rites and ceremonies as prescribed in the Service Book. Wherefore it is not without reason that the thirty-eighth canon, which is entitled “Revolters after subscription censured,” expressly denounces, that “if any minister, after having subscribed the three articles of the 36th canon, shall omit to use any of the orders and ceremonies prescribed in the Communion Book, he shall be suspended; and if after one month he reform not, he shall be excommunicated; and if after the space of another month he submit not himself, he shall be deposed from the ministry.”

But the case of Homilies and Canons is different from that of the Articles and Rubric. They are indeed equally set forth by authority. The one is as truly the doctrine, and the other is as truly the law, of the Church. But still the regard that we are supposed to pay to them is not equally the same. For, though we subscribe to the Homilies, yet this subscription amounts to no more than our acknowledgment, that “they contain a godly and wholesome doctrine necessary for the times they were written in, and fitting to be publicly taught unto the people;” and not that we will maintain every particular doctrine, or argument, or assertion, contained in them.

In like manner we say as to the Canons. “We receive them in general as a good body of ecclesiastical laws. We acknowledge the wholesomeness and fitness of them all for discipline, and order, and edification, and proper in every respect for the times in which they were drawn up. But we do not look upon every particular thereby enjoined as absolutely and indispensably requisite to be practised now by us in the manner it is enjoined, any more than we hold our approbation of every sentence or expression in the Book of Homilies to be necessary.—Archdeacon Sharp.

Were I asked the question, whether the clergymen of the Church of England subscribe to the doctrines of the Homilies, as well as to the Articles of Religion, I should, in sincerity and truth, be obliged to reply, most undoubtedly not. Neither at ordination, nor upon collation or institution to benefices, nor at any other period, is any such subscription required of the clergy. We cannot help remarking a broad distinction in the degree of authority attributed by our Church, to the Liturgy, the Articles, and the Books of Homilies, respectively. To the Liturgy, all beneficed clergymen are bound, within a limited period after institution or collation, open and publicly, before the congregation to which they have been appointed ministers, to declare their unfeigned assent and consent. To the Articles, the clergy are obliged, at various times, and on different occasions, solemnly to subscribe. But, however venerable and valuable the Homilies unquestionably are, we do not find them treated with any such distinction; and, by the simple fact, that no provision is made for their being signed, subscribed, or solemnly assented to, they are placed in an immeasurably lower grade than the other formularies. It is, indeed, asserted in the thirty-fifth Article, that “the Second Book of Homilies doth contain a goodly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times,” [the times in which it was prepared and published,] “as doth the former Book of Homilies:”—and, in subscribing to the Articles, every clergyman admits the truth of this assertion. But the assertion itself is both limited and guarded, and is very different from that full assurance and conviction expressed by the Church, and demanded of her ministers, respecting both our Articles and Liturgy.... I conceive the framers of our Articles merely to have asserted, that the Homilies, generally speaking, contained religious and moral instruction, good, and salutary, and necessary to be so administered under the peculiar circumstance of their own times.—Bishop Jebb: the Homilies considered.

It seems the author of the Homilies wrote them in haste, and the Church did wisely to reserve this authority of correcting and setting forth others. (See Rubric before Offertory.) For they have many scapes in them in special, although they contain in general many wholesome lessons for the people; in which sense our ministers do subscribe unto them, and no other.—Bp. Overall.

The authors of several of the Homilies are mentioned in Corry’s recent edition of them, who also shows how they were intended to bear upon the Antinomian as well as the Popish errors of the day.

HOMOIOUSIANS. Semi-Arians, who held that the nature of God the Son, though not the same, was similar to that of God the Father.

HOMOOUSIANS. A name given by Arians to Catholic Christians, for holding the doctrine of the Homoousion.

HOMOOUSION. (See Trinity.) This is the critical word of the Nicene Creed, and is used to express the real Divinity of Christ, and that, as derived from, and one with, the Father. The word was adopted from the necessity of the case, in a sense different from the ordinary philosophical use of it. Ὁμοούσιος properly means of the same nature, i. e. under the same general nature, or species; i. e. is applied to things which are but similar to each other, and are considered as one by an abstraction of our minds. Thus Aristotle speaks of the stars being ὁμοούσια with each other; and Porphyry, of the souls of brute animals being ὁμοούσιαι to ours. When, however, it was used in relation to the incommunicable essence of God, there was obviously no abstraction possible in contemplating him, who is above all comparison with his works. His nature is solitary, peculiar to himself, and one; so that, whatever was accounted to be ὁμοούσιος with him, was necessarily included in his individuality by all who would avoid recurring to the vagueness of philosophy, and were cautious to distinguish between the incommunicable essence of Jehovah and all created intelligences. And hence the fitness of the term to denote without metaphor the relation which the Logos bore in the orthodox creed to his eternal Father. Its use is explained by Athanasius as follows: “Though,” he says, “we cannot understand what is meant by the οὐσία of God, yet we know as much as this, that God exists (εῖναι), which is the way in which Scripture speaks of him; and after this pattern, when we wish to designate him distinctly, we say God, Father, Lord. When then he says in Scripture, ‘I am ὁ ὤν,’ and ‘I am Jehovah, God,’ or uses the plain word ‘God,’ we understand by such statements nothing but his incomprehensible οὐσία, and that he, who is there spoken of, exists (ἐστίν). Let no one then think it strange, that the Son of God should be said to be ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, of the substance of God; rather, let him agree to the explanation of the Nicene fathers, who, for the words ἐκ Θεοῦ, substituted the ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας. They considered the two phrases substantially the same, because, as we have said, the word God denotes nothing but the οὐσία αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος. On the other hand, if the word be not in such sense ἔκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, as to be the true Son of the Father according to his nature, but be said to be ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, merely as all creatures are such as being his work, then indeed he is not ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, nor Son κατ’ ὑσίαν, but so called from his virtue, as we may be who receive the title from grace.

Bishop Bull says that ὁμοούσιος is used by standard Greek writers to signify that which is of the same substance, essence, or nature. And he shows at large that the term was not invented by the Nicene Fathers, but was known in its present theological acceptation long before; by Irenæus, by Origen, (as Dionysius of Alexandria and Athanasius testify,) by Gregory Thaumaturgus, &c. See the 2nd section of that exhaustive and irrefragable treatise, the Defensio Fidei Nicænæ. See also Suicer in voc., from which it appears that the ante-Nicene fathers defined the word as signifying “that which is of the same nature, essence, eternity, and energy,” without any difference.

HOOD. The hood as used by us, is partly derived from the monastic caputium, partly from the canonical amice, or almutium. It was formerly used by the laity as well as the clergy, and by the monastic orders. In cathedral and collegiate churches, the hoods of the canons and prebendaries were frequently lined with fur or wool, and always worn in the choir. The term almutium, or amice, was peculiarly applied to these last. And such is the present usage in foreign churches, where the capitular canons are generally distinguished from the inferior members, by the colour or materials of the almuce. (See Amice.)—Palmer.

As used in England and Ireland, it is an ornamental fold that hangs down the back of a graduate to mark his degree. This part of the dress was formerly not intended for distinction and ornament, but for use. It was generally fastened to the back of the cope or other vesture, and in case of rain or cold was drawn over the head. In the universities the hoods of the graduates were made to signify their degrees by varying the colours and materials. The hoods at our three principal universities, Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, vary considerably from one another: with this agreement, that all Doctors are distinguished by a scarlet hood, the linings (at Oxford and Dublin) varying according to the different faculties. Originally however it would appear that they were the same, probably till after the Restoration. Masters of Arts had originally fur hoods, like the proctors at Oxford, whose dress is in fact that of full costume of a Master of Arts; Bachelors in other faculties wore silk hoods of some intermediate colour; and Bachelors of Arts stuff hoods lined with lambs’ wool. The hoods in the Scottish universities followed the pattern of those of the university of Paris.—Jebb.

By the 58th canon, every minister saying the public prayers, or ministering the sacraments, or other rites of the Church, if they are graduates, shall wear upon their surplice, at such times, such hoods as by the orders of the universities are agreeable to their degrees.

HOSANNA, signifies as much as Save now. The Jews call their feast of Tabernacles, Hosanna Rabba, i. e. the great Hosanna; the origin of that word is, because on that day they prayed for the salvation and forgiveness of all the sins of the people. Therefore they used the word Hosanna in all their prayers; which implies, Save, I pray, according to Buxtorf; but Anthony Nebrissensis observes after Rabbi Elias, that the Jews call the willow branches, which they carry at the feast, Hosanna, because they sing Hosanna, shaking them everywhere. And Grotius observes, that the feasts of the Jews did not only signify their going out of Egypt, the memory of which they celebrated, but also the expectation of the Messias: and that still on the day when they carry those branches, they wished to celebrate that feast at the coming of the Messias; from whence he concludes, that the people carrying those branches before our Saviour, showed their joy, acknowledging him to be the Messias.

HOSPITALS, were houses for the relief of poor and impotent persons, and were generally incorporated by royal patents, and made capable of gifts and grants in succession. Some of these in England are very noble foundations, as St. Cross at Winchester, founded in the reign of King Stephen, &c. In most cathedral towns there are hospitals, often connected with the cathedrals. Christ’s Hospital in London was one of those many excellent endowments, to which the funds of alienated monasteries would have been more largely directed, had secular avarice permitted.

HOSPITALLERS, or Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. Knights who took their name from an hospital built in Jerusalem for the use of pilgrims coming to the Holy Land. They were to provide for such pilgrims, and to protect them on the road. They came to England in the year 1100, and here they arrived to such power that their superior had a seat in the House of Lords, and ranked as the first lay baron.

HOSPITIUM, or Domus Hospitium. In ancient monasteries, the place where pilgrims and other strangers were received and entertained.

HOST. (See Transubstantiation.) From hostia, a victim. The bread used by the Roman Catholic Church in the celebration of the eucharist. It is unleavened, thin, flat, and of circular form, and has certain mystic signs impressed on it. Romanists worship the host, under a false presumption that the elements are no longer bread and wine, but transubstantiated into the real body and blood of Christ.

HOSTIARIUS. (See Ostiarius.) The second master in some of the old endowed schools, as Winchester, is so called. Hence usher.

HOUR GLASS. The usual length of sermons in the English Church, from the Reformation till the latter part of the seventeenth century, was an hour. Puritans preached much longer—two, three, and even four hours. For the measurement of the time of sermon, hour glasses were frequently attached to pulpits, and in some churches the stand for the glass, if not the instrument itself, still remains.

HOURS OF PRAYER. The Church of England, at the revision of our offices in the reign of Edward VI., only prescribed public worship in the morning and evening: and in making this regulation she was perfectly justified: for though it is the duty of Christians to pray continually, yet the precise times and seasons of prayer, termed Canonical Hours, do not rest on any Divine command; neither have they ever been pronounced binding on all Churches by any general council; neither has there been any uniformity in the practice of the Christian Church in this respect. The hours of prayer before the Reformation were seven in number,—matins, the first, third, sixth, and ninth hours, vespers, and compline. The office of matins, or morning prayer, according to the Church of England, is a judicious abridgment of her ancient services for matins, lauds, and prime; and the office of even-song, or evening prayer, in like manner, is an abridgment of the ancient service for vespers and compline. Both these offices have received several improvements in imitation of the ancient discipline of the Churches of Egypt, Gaul, and Spain.—Palmer.

The offices for the third, sixth, and ninth hours, were shorter than the others, and were nearly the same every day. Bishop Cosin drew up, by royal command, a form of devotion for private use for the different canonical hours. It is supposed that the seven hours of prayer took their rise from the example of the psalm, “Seven times a day do I give thanks unto thee;” but the ancient usage of the Church does not sanction more than two or three times for stated public prayer. (See Primer.)

HOUSEL. (Saxon.) The blessed eucharist. Johnson derives it from the Gothic hunsel, a sacrifice, or hostia, dim. hostiola, Latin. Todd, in his emendations, remarks on the verb to housel, that an old lexicography defines it specially, “to administer the communion to one who lieth on his death-bed.” It was, perhaps, in later times more generally used in this sense: still it was often employed, as we find from Chaucer, and writers as late as the time of Henry VIII., as in Saxon times, to signify absolutely the receiving of the eucharist.—Jebb.

HUGUENOTS. A name by which the French Protestants were distinguished, very early in their history. The name is of uncertain derivation; some deduce it from one of the gates of the city of Tours, called Hugon’s, at which these Protestants held their first assemblies; others from the words Huc nos, with which their original protest commenced; others from the German, Eidgenossen, (associated by oath,) which first became Egnots and afterwards Huguenots.

The origin of the sect in France dates from the reign of Francis I., when the principles and doctrines of the German Reformers found many disciples among their Gallic neighbours. As everywhere else, so in France, the new doctrines spread with great rapidity, and called forth the energies both of Church and State to repress them. Both Francis and his successor, Henry II., placed the Huguenots under various penal disabilities, and they were subjected to the violence of the factious French among their opponents, without protection from the State: but the most terrible deed of horror which was perpetrated against them was the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day. (See Bartholomew.) A scene which stands recorded in history, as if to teach us to how great a depth of cruelty and oppression mankind may be driven by fanaticism.

In the reign of Henry IV. the Huguenots were protected by the edict of Nantes, which was revoked, however, in 1685, by Cardinal Mazarin, the minister of Louis XIV.: on this occasion 500,000 of this persecuted race took refuge in the neighbouring Protestant states. At the Revolution, the Huguenots were restored to their civil rights, so far as civil rights were left to any citizens of a libertine and infidel state: and at present their ministers, like those of all Christian sects, are paid a scanty pittance by the State.

In doctrine and discipline the Huguenots symbolized with Calvin, and the sect which he originated at Geneva.

HULSEAN LECTURES. Lectures delivered at Cambridge, under the will of the Rev. John Hulse, late of Elworth, bearing date the 12th day of July, 1777. The number, originally twenty, is now reduced to eight.

HUMANITY OF OUR LORD, is his possessing a true human body and a true human soul. (See Jesus.)

HUSSITES. The followers of John Huss, of Bohemia, who maintained Wickliff’s opinions in 1407, with wonderful zeal. The emperor Sigismond sent to him, to persuade him to defend his doctrine before the Council of Constance, which he did A. D. 1414, having obtained a passport and an assurance of safe conduct from the emperor. There were seven months spent in examining him, and two bishops were sent into Bohemia, to inform themselves of the doctrine he preached; and for his firm adherence to the same, he was condemned to be burnt alive with his books, which sentence was executed in 1415, contrary to the safe-conduct, which the Council of Constance basely said that the emperor was not bound to keep to a heretic. His followers believed that the Church consisted only of those predestinated to glory, and that the reprobates were no part of it; that the condemnation of the five and forty articles of Wickliff was wicked and unreasonable. Moreri adds, that they partly afterwards subdivided, and opposed both their bishops and secular princes in Bohemia; where, if we must take his word, they were the occasion of great disorders and civil commotions in the fifteenth century.

HUTCHINSONIANS. “The name of Hutchinsonians,” says Jones of Nayland, who, with Bishops Horne and Horsley, was the most distinguished of those who bore the name, “was given to those gentlemen who studied Hebrew, and examined the writings of John Hutchinson, Esq., [born at Spennythorpe, in Yorkshire, 1674,] and became inclined to favour his opinions in theology and philosophy. The theological opinions of these divines, so far as they were distinguished from those of their own age, related chiefly to the explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity, [see Note L. to Dr. Mill’s five Sermons on the Temptation of Christ,] and to the manner in which they confirmed Divine revelation generally, by reference to the natural creation. The notion of a Trinity, it was maintained, was the token from the three agents in the system of nature, fire, light, and air, on which all natural light and motion depend, and which were said to signify the three supreme powers of the Godhead in the administration of the spiritual world. This led to their opposing Newton’s theory of a vacuum and gravity, and to their denying that most matter is, like the mind, capable of active qualities, and to their ascribing attraction, repulsion, &c., to subtle causes not immaterial.

In natural philosophy they maintained that the present condition of the earth bears evident marks of an universal flood, and that extraneous fossils are to be accounted for by the same catastrophe. They urged great precaution in the study of classical heathen literature, under the conviction that it had tended to produce pantheistic notions, then so popular. They also looked with some suspicion upon what is called natural religion, and to many passages of Scripture they gave a figurative, rather than a literal, interpretation.—See Jones’s Life of Bishop Horne.

The learned and pious Parkhurst was a Hutchinsonian; and his peculiar opinions not a little influenced his etymological conjectures, though in no way interfering with his orthodoxy and sound scholarship.

HYMN. A song of adoration. It is certain from Holy Scripture, that the Christians were wont to sing hymns in the apostles’ time; and it is probable that St. Ignatius appointed them to be sung by each side of the choir. It is probable also that the place of these hymns was, as now, after the lessons: for St. Ambrose notes, that as, after one angel had published the gospel, a multitude joined with him in praising God, so, when one minister hath read the gospel, all the people glorify God. The same appears to have been the custom from St. Augustine, and from a constitution of the Council of Laodicea, in the year 365. As for the particular hymns of our Church, they are, as of old in the primitive Church, generally taken out of Scripture; yet as they also made use of some hymns not found in Scripture, so do we.

Hymns may be said to consist of three kinds: (1.) Metrical, such as were in use in the daily service of the unreformed Church. Of this kind there is but one formally authorized by the Church of England, viz. the Veni Creator. (2.) Canticles, appointed to be said or sung in the daily service, and divided into verses, and pointed, like the Psalms. The Te Deum, and the Benedictus, are so expressly called in the Prayer Book; and such by implication are the Benedicite, (called a canticle,) the Magnificat, and Nunc Dimittis. (3.) Those portions of the Communion Service which are appointed to be said or sung, but not arranged like the Canticles: as the Tersanctus, and the Gloria in Excelsis. St. Paul (Eph. v. 19, and Col. iii. 16) speaks of psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. The first of these words would seem to refer to the mizmor, or psalm, properly so called; the second to the tehikah, or jubilant song of praise; the last to the shir, or song; all of which words occur both in the titles, and the text, of the Book of Psalms. (See Song.)

HYPERDULIA. (See Dulia and Idolatry.)

HYPOSTASIS. A theological Christian term, for the true knowledge of the meaning of which take this short account. The Greeks took it in the first three centuries for particular substance, and therefore said there were three hypostases, that is, three “Persons,” according to the Latins. Where some of the Eastern people understanding the word hypostases in another sense, would not call the Persons three hypostases. Athanasius showed them in a council held at Alexandria in 362, that they all said the same thing, and that all the difference was, that they gave to the same word two different significations: and thus he reconciled them together. It is evident that the word hypostasis signifies two things: first, an individual particular substance; secondly, a common nature or essence. Now when the Fathers say there are “three hypostases,” their meaning is to be judged from the time they lived in; if it be one of the three first centuries, they meant all along three distinct agents, of which the Father was supreme. If one of much later date uses the expression, he means, most probably, little more than a mode of existence in a common nature.

HYPOSTATICAL UNION. The union of the human nature of our LORD with the Divine; constituting two natures in one person, and not two persons in one nature, as the Nestorians assert. (See Union.)

HYPOTHETICAL, This term is sometimes used in relation to a baptism administered to a child, of whom it is uncertain whether he has been already baptized or not. The rubric states, that “if they who bring the infant to the church do make such uncertain answers to the priest’s questions, as that it cannot appear that the child was baptized with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” then the priest, on performing the baptism, is to use this form of words, viz. “If thou art not already baptized, N——, I baptize thee in the name,” &c.

This, therefore, is called an hypothetical or conditional form, being used only on the supposition that the child may not have already received baptism.

HYPSISTARIANS. Heretics in the fourth century of Christianity. According to Gregory Nazianzen, (whose own father had once been a member of the sect, but afterwards became a Christian bishop,) they made a mixture of the Jewish religion and paganism, for they worshipped fire with the pagans, and observed the sabbath, and legal abstinence from meats, with the Jews.

ICONOCLASTS, or IMAGE BREAKERS. (See Images, Image Worship, and Idolatry.) From εἰκὼν, an image, and κλάω, to break. A name given to the image-breakers in the eighth century. Sarantapechs, or Serantampicus, a Jew, persuaded Ezidus, or Gizidus, king of the Arabs, to take the images of saints out of churches that belonged to the Christians: and some time after, Bazere, [but Baronius writes Beser,] becoming a Mahometan in Syria, where he was a slave, insinuated himself so much into the favour of Leo Isauricus, that this prince, at his and the persuasion of other Jews, who had foretold him his coming to the empire, declared against images, about 726, ordered the statue of Christ, placed over one of the gates of the city, to be thrown down, and being enraged at a tumult occasioned thereby, issued a proclamation wherein he abolished the use of statues, and menaced the worshippers with severe punishments; and all the solicitations of Germanus the patriarch, and of the bishop of Rome, could prevail nothing in their favour. His son and successor Constantine forbade praying to saints or the Virgin; he set at nought the pope, and assembled a council, in which his proceedings were approved; but this council, being condemned at Rome, the emperor strove more than ever to gain his point. Leo IV. succeeded in 775, and reigned but four years, leaving his son Constantine under the tutelage of the empress Irene. In her time, A. D. 787, was held the second Council of Nice, in which, according to Baronius, a request was made that the image of Christ and of the saints might be restored. But Spanheim says that Philip the emperor, and John, patriarch of Constantinople, having rejected the sixth general council against the Monotheletes in 712, took away the pictures of the Fathers of that and the former councils, hung up by the emperor Justinian, in the portico of St. Sophia; and that the pope thereupon, in a synod at Rome, ordered the like images to be placed in St. Peter’s church, and thenceforth worshipped; their use until that time being purely historical. The Saracens, offended at that superstition, persecuted the Christians; and Leo calling a synod issued a proclamation, condemning the worship of images, but granting that they might be hung up in churches, the better to prevent idolatry; and upon a further dispute with Pope Gregory II., who excommunicated him, and absolved his subjects from their obedience in 730, he commanded that they should be quite taken down and destroyed. Constantine Copronymus followed his father’s example, and in the thirteenth year of his reign, anno 744, assembled the seventh general council of the Greeks, wherein images and their worshippers were condemned. His son Leo IV. followed his steps, who, at his death, leaving the empress Irene to administer the state during the minority of Constantine VII., she, to gain the monks over to her interest, made use of them to restore images, advanced Tarasius from a laic to be patriarch of Constantinople, and so managed the council which she called at Nice, that they decreed several sorts of worship to images; as salutation, incense, kissing, wax lights, &c., but neither approved images of the Trinity, statues, nor any carved work. Constantine being of age, and opposing this procedure, was barbarously deprived of his sight and life by his unnatural mother Irene; an act which is commended by Cardinal Baronius, who declared the emperor Leo incapable of the crown, which he calls a rare example to posterity not to suffer heretical princes to reign. On the other side, the popes imitated their predecessors in their hatred to the Greek emperors, whom they despoiled of their exarchate of Ravenna, and their other possessions in Italy, which, by the help of the French, was turned into St. Peter’s patrimony; but that the French, Germans, and other northern countries, abhorred image worship, is plain by the capitulary of Charlemagne against images, and the acts of the synod of Frankfort under that prince, who also wrote four books to Pope Adrian against image worship, and the illegal Council of Nice above mentioned. Image worship was also opposed by other emperors who succeeded; as also by the Churches of Italy, Germany, France, and Britain, particularly by the learned Alcuin.

IDES. A word occurring in the Roman calendar, inserted in all correct editions of the Prayer Book. The ides were eight days in each month: in March, May, July, and October, the ides ended on the 15th, and in all other months, on the 13th day. The word Ides, taken from the Greek, (ειἶδος,) means an aspect or appearance, and was primarily used to denote the full moon. The system of the original Roman calendar was founded on the change of the moon, the nones being the completion of the first quarter, as the ides were of the second.—Stephens, Book of Common Prayer; Notes on the Calendar.

IDOLATRY. (See Images and Iconoclasts.) From εἶδωλον, an idol, and λατρεία, worship. The worship of idols. This is one of the crying sins of the Church of Rome. Palmer, in his Essay on the Church, mentions some of the idolatries and heresies which are held without censure in the Roman communion.

I. It is maintained without censure that Latria, or the worship paid to the Divine nature, is also due to—

Images of Christ;

Images of the Trinity;

Images of God the Father;

Relics of the blood, flesh, hair, and nails of Christ;

Relics of the true cross;

Relics of the nails, spear, sponge, scourge, reed, pillar, linen, cloth, napkin of Veronica, seamless coat, purple robe, inscription on the cross, and other instruments of the passion;

Images of the cross;

The Bible;

The Blessed Virgin.

All these creatures ought, according to the doctrines taught commonly and without censure in the Roman communion, to receive the very worship paid to God.

II. Divine honours are practically offered to the Virgin and to all the saints and angels. It has been repeatedly and clearly shown, that they are addressed in exactly the same terms in which we ought to address God; that the same sort of confidence is expressed in their power; that they are acknowledged to be the authors of grace and salvation. These idolatries are generally practised without opposition or censure.

III. The Virgin is blasphemously asserted to be superior to God the Son, and to command him. She is represented as the source of all grace, while believers are taught to look on Jesus with dread. The work of redemption is said to be divided between her and our Lord.

IV. It is maintained that justification leaves the sinner subject to the wrath and vengeance of God.

V. That the temporal afflictions of the righteous are caused by the wrath of an angry God.

VI. That the righteous suffer the tortures of hell-fire after death.

VII. That the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is repeated or continued in the eucharist.

These and other errors contrary to faith are inculcated within the communion of the Roman Church, without censure or open opposition.—Palmer.

ILE. (See Aisle.) The passages in a church, parallel to the nave, from which they are separated by rows of columns and piers, being narrower and lower. The same term is applied to the side passages which sometimes mark the transept and the choir. The aisles of the apin are more properly called the ambulatory. The aisles were adopted from the ancient Basilicas, in which they are for the most part found. They are of comparatively rare occurrence in the Oriental churches. The word is derived from the Latin ala, which was used in an architectural sense to mean a side building, as we use wing. Thus Vitruvius, as quoted by Facciolati; “In ædificiis alæ dicuntur structura ad latria ædium, dextra, et sinistra protensæ, ut columnarum ordines, vel porticus; quas Græci quoque πτερὰ et πτέρυγας appellant.” And thus in French, the same word aile signifies a wing and a church aisle.

ILLUMINATI, or ALLUMBRADOS. Certain Spanish heretics who began to appear in the world about 1575; but the authors being severely punished, this sect was stifled, as it were, until 1623, and then awakened with more vigour in the diocese of Seville. The edict against them specifies seventy-six different errors, whereof the principal are, that with the assistance of mental prayer and union with God, (which they boasted of,) they were in such a state of perfection as not to need either good works, or the sacraments of the Church. Soon after these were suppressed, a new sect, under the same name, appeared in France. These, too, were entirely extinguished in the year 1635. Among other extravagances, they held that friar Antony Bocquet had a system of belief and practice revealed to him which exceeded all that was in Christianity; that by virtue of that method, people might improve to the same degree of perfection and glory that saints and the Virgin Mary had; that none of the doctors of the Church knew anything of devotion; that St. Peter was a good, well-meaning man only; St. Paul never heard scarce anything of devotion; that the whole Church lay in darkness and misbelief; that God regarded nothing but himself; that within ten years their notions would prevail all the world over; and then there would be no occasion for priests, monks, or any religious distinctions.

IMAGES. In the religious sense of the word, there appears to have been little or no use of images in the Christian Church for the first three or four hundred years, as is evident from the silence of all ancient authors, and of the heathens themselves, who never recriminated, or charged the use of images on the primitive Christians. There are positive proofs in the fourth century, that the use of images was not allowed; particularly, the Council of Eliberis decrees that pictures ought not to be put in churches, lest that which is worshipped be painted upon the walls. Petavius gives this general reason for the prohibition of all images whatever at that time—because the remembrance of idolatry was yet fresh in men’s minds. About the latter end of the fourth century, pictures of saints and martyrs began to creep into the churches. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, ordered his church to be painted with Scripture histories, such as those of Esther, Job, Tobit, and Judith. And St. Augustine often speaks of the pictures of Abraham offering his son Isaac, and those of St. Peter and St. Paul, but without approving the use of them; on the contrary he tells us, the Church condemned such as paid a religious veneration to pictures, and daily endeavoured to correct them, as untoward children.

It was not till after the second Council of Nice that images of God, or the Trinity, were allowed in churches. Pope Gregory II., who was otherwise a great stickler for images, in that very epistle which he wrote to the emperor Leo to defend the worship of them, denies it to be lawful to make any image of the Divine nature. Nor did the ancient Christians approve of massy images, or statues of wood, metal, or stone, but only pictures or paintings to be used in churches, and those symbolical rather than any other. Thus, a lamb was the symbol of Jesus Christ, and a dove of the Holy Ghost. But the sixth general council forbade the picturing Christ any more under the figure of a lamb, and ordered that he should be represented by the effigies of a man. By this time, it is presumed, the worship of images was begun, anno 692.

The worship of images occasioned great contests both in the Eastern and Western Churches. (See Iconoclasts.) Nicephorus, who had wrested the empire from Irene, in the year 802, maintained the worship of images. The emperor Michael, in 813, declared against the worship of images, and expelled Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, Theodorus Studita, Nicetas, and others, who had asserted it. Michael II., desiring to re-establish peace in the East, proposed to assemble a council, to which both the Iconoclasts (those who broke down images) and the asserters of image worship should be admitted; but the latter refusing to sit with heretics, as they called the Iconoclasts, the emperor found out a medium. He left all men free to worship or not worship images, and published a regulation, forbidding the taking of crosses out of the churches, to put images in their place; the paying of adoration to the images themselves; the clothing of statues; the making them godfathers and godmothers to children; the lighting candles before them, and offering incense to them, &c. Michael sent ambassadors into the West to get this regulation approved. These ministers applied themselves to Louis le Debonnaire, who sent an embassy to Rome upon this subject. But the Romans, and Pope Pascal I., did not admit of the regulation; and a synod, held at Paris in 824, was of opinion, that though the use of images ought not to be prohibited, yet it was not allowable to pay them any religious worship. At length the emperor Michael settled his regulation in the East; and his son Theophilus, who succeeded him in the year 829, held a council at Constantinople, in which the Iconoclasts were condemned, and the worship of images restored. It does not appear that there was any controversy afterwards about images. The French and Germans used themselves, by degrees, to pay an outward honour to images, and conformed to the Church of Rome.

Image worship is one great article of modern Popery. “No sooner is a man advanced a little forward into their churches, (says a modern author, speaking of the Roman Catholics,) and begins to look about him, but he will find his eyes and attention attracted by the number of lamps and wax candles, which are constantly burning before the shrines and images of their saints; a sight which will not only surprise a stranger by the novelty of it, but will furnish him with one proof and example of the conformity of the Romish with the Pagan worship, by recalling to his memory many passages of the heathen authors, where their perpetual lamps and candles are described as continually burning before the altars and statues of their deities.” The Romanists believe that the saint to whom the image is dedicated presides in a particular manner about its shrine, and works miracles by the intervention of its image; insomuch that, if the image were destroyed or taken away, the saint would no longer perform any miracle in that place. This is exactly the notion of Paganism, that the gods resided in their statues or images. “Minucius Felix, rallying the gods of the heathens, (they are M. Jurieu’s words,) says: Ecce funditur, fabricatur; nondum Deus est. Ecce plumbatur, construitur, erigitur: nec adhuc Deus. Ecce ornatur, consecratur, oratur; tum postremo Deus est. I am mistaken if the same thing may not be said of the Romish saints. They cast an image, they work it with a hammer; it is not yet a saint. They set it upright, and fasten it with lead; neither is it yet a saint. They adorn, consecrate, and dedicate it; behold, at last, a complete saint!”

By a decree of the Council of Trent, it is forbidden to set up any extraordinary and unusual image in the churches, without the bishop’s approbation first obtained. As to the consecration of images, they proceed in the same manner as at the benediction of a new cross. At saying the prayer, the saint, whom the image represents, is named: after which the priest sprinkles the image with holy water. But when an image of the Virgin Mary is to be blessed, it is thrice incensed, besides sprinkling: to which are added the Ave Mary, psalms, and anthems, and a double sign of the cross.

The Roman Catholics talk much of the miraculous effects of the images of their saints, forgetting that lying wonders are a sign of Antichrist. The image of Jesus Christ, which, feeling itself wounded with a dagger by an impious wretch, laid its hand upon the wound, is famous at Naples. The image of St. Catharine of Siena has often driven out devils, and wrought other miracles. Our Lady of Lucca, insolently attacked by a soldier, (who threw stones at her, and had nearly broken the holy child’s head, which she held on her right arm,) immediately set it on her left; and the child liked sitting on that arm so well, that, since that accident, he has never changed his situation.—Broughton.

IMAGE WORSHIP. All the points of doctrine or practice in which the Church of Rome differs from the Church of England are novelties, introduced gradually in the middle ages: of these the worship of images is the earliest practice, which received the sanction of what the Papists call a general council, though the second Council of Nice, A. D. 787, was in fact no general council. As this is the earliest authority for any of the Roman peculiarities, and as the Church of England at that early period was remarkably concerned in resisting the novelty, it may not be out of place to mention the circumstances as they are concisely stated by Perceval. The emperor Charlemagne, who was very much offended at the decrees of this council in favour of images, sent a copy of them into England. Alcuin, a most learned member of the Church of England, attacked them, and having produced Scriptural authority against them, transmitted the same to Charlemagne in the name of the bishops of the Church of England. Roger Hoveden, Simon of Durham, and Matthew of Westminster, mention the fact, and speak of the worship of images as being execrated by the whole Church. Charlemagne, pursuing his hostility to the Nicene Council, drew up four books against it, and transmitted them to Pope Adrian; who replied to them in an epistle “concerning images, against those who impugn the Nicene Synod,” as the title is given, together with the epistle itself, in the seventh volume of Labbe and Cossart’s Councils. The genuineness of these books is admitted by all the chief Roman writers. For the purpose of considering the subject more fully, Charlemagne assembled a great council of British, Gallican, German, and Italian bishops at Frankfort, at which two legates from the bishop of Rome were present; where, after mature deliberation, the decrees of the soi-disant general Council of Nice, notwithstanding Pope Adrian’s countenance, were “rejected,” “despised,” and “condemned.” The synod at Frankfort remains a monument of a noble stand in defence of the ancient religion, in which the Church of England had an honourable share, occupying, a thousand years ago, the self-same ground we now maintain, of protesting against Roman corruptions of the Catholic faith.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. (See Conception, Immaculate.)

IMMERSION. A mode of administering the sacrament of baptism, by which first the right side, then the left, then the face, are dipped in the font. Immersion is the mode of baptizing first prescribed in our office of public baptism; but it is permitted to pour water upon the child, if the godfathers and godmothers certify that the child is weak. (See Affusion.)

IMMOVEABLE FEASTS. (See Moveable Feasts.)

IMPANATION. A term (like transubstantiation and consubstantiation) used to designate a false notion of the manner of the presence of the body and blood of our blessed Lord in the holy eucharist.

This word is formed from the Latin panis (bread), as the word incarnation is formed from the Latin caro, carnis (flesh): and as incarnation signifies the eternal Word’s becoming flesh, or taking our nature for the purpose of our redemption; so does impanation signify the Divine person Jesus Christ, God and man, becoming bread [and wine], or taking the nature of bread, for the purposes of the holy eucharist: so that, as in the one Divine person Jesus Christ there were two perfect natures, God and man; so in the eucharistic elements, according to the doctrine expressed by the word impanation, there are two perfect natures—one of the Divine Son of the Blessed Virgin, and another of the eucharistic elements; the two natures being one, not in a figurative, but in a real and literal sense, by a kind of hypostatical union.

It does not occur to us that there is any sect which holds this false notion; but there are some individuals to whom it seems the true method of reconciling those apparent oppositions, (which are of the very essence of a mystery,) which occur in the Catholic statement of the doctrine of the holy eucharist. The nearest approach to the doctrine of impanation avowed by any sect, is that of the Lutherans. (See Consubstantiation.)

IMPLICIT FAITH. The faith which is given without reserve or examination, such as the Church of Rome requires of her members. The reliance we have on the Church of England is grounded on the fact, that she undertakes to prove that all her doctrines are Scriptural, but the Church of Rome requires credence on her own authority. The Church of England places the Bible as an authority above the Church, the Church of Rome makes the authority of the Church co-ordinate with that of the Bible. The Romish divines teach that we are to observe, not how the Church proves anything, but what she says: that the will of God is, that we should believe and confide in his ministers in the same manner as himself. Cardinal Toletus, in his instructions for priests, asserts, “that if a rustic believes his bishop proposing an heretical tenet for an article of faith, such belief is meritorious.” Cardinal Cusanus tells us, “That irrational obedience is the most consummate and perfect obedience, when we obey without attending to reason, as a beast obeys his driver.” In an epistle to the Bohemians he has these words: “I assert that there are no precepts of Christ but those which are received as such by the Church (meaning the Church of Rome). When the Church changes her judgment, God changes his judgment likewise.”

IMPOSITION, or LAYING ON OF HANDS. St. Paul (Heb. vi. 2) speaks of the doctrine of laying on of hands as one of the fundamentals of Christianity: it is an ecclesiastical action, by which a blessing is conveyed from God through his minister to a person prepared by repentance and faith to receive it. It is one of the most ancient forms in the world, sanctioned by the practice of Jacob, Moses, the apostles, and our blessed Lord himself. It is the form by which the bishop conveys his blessing in confirmation.

This ceremony has been always esteemed so essential a part of ordination, that any other way of conferring orders without it has been judged invalid. The imposition of hands undoubtedly took its rise from the practice of the Jewish Church, in initiating persons for performing any sacred office, or conferring any employ of dignity or power. Thus Joshua was inaugurated to his high office. (Numb. xxvii. 23.) Hence the Jews derived their custom of ordaining their rabbis by imposition of hands. The same ceremony we find used by the apostles, as often as they admitted any new members into the ministry of the Church. For, when they ordained the first deacons, it is recorded, that after praying “they laid hands on them.” (Acts vi. 6.) At the ordination of Barnabas and Paul it is said, that they “fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them.” (Acts xiii. 3.) When St. Paul bids Timothy have regard to the graces conferred in his ordination, he observes that these were conferred by imposition of hands: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” (1 Tim. iv. 14.) And in his other Epistle he exhorts him to “stir up the gift of God which was in him by the putting on of his hands.” (2 Tim. i. 6.) The primitive Christians, following exactly after this copy, never admitted any into orders but with this ceremony: so that the ancient councils seldom use any other word for ordination than “imposition of hands;” and the ancient writers of the Church signify, that the clerical character, and the gifts of the Spirit, were conferred by this action.

It must be observed here, that the imposition of the bishop’s hand alone is required in the ordination of a deacon, in conformity to the usage of the ancient Church.—Dr. Nicholls.

This was always a distinction between the three superior and five inferior orders, that the first were given by imposition of hands, and the second were not.—Dr. Burn.

IMPROPRIATION. Ecclesiastical property, the profits of which are in the hands of a layman; thus distinguished from appropriation, which is when the profits of a benefice are in the hands of a college, &c. Impropriations have arisen from the confiscation of monasteries in the time of Henry VIII., when, instead of restoring the tithes to ecclesiastical uses, they were given to rapacious laymen. Archbishop Laud exerted himself greatly to buy up impropriations.

IMPUTATION. The attributing a character to a person which he does not really possess; thus, when in holy baptism we are justified, the righteousness is imputed as well as imparted to us. The imputation which respects our justification before God, is God’s gracious reckoning of the righteousness of Christ to believers, and his acceptance of these persons as righteous on that account; their sins being imputed to him, and his obedience being imputed to them. Rom. iv. 6, 7; v. 18, 19; 2 Cor. v. 21. (See Faith and Justification.)

INCARNATION. The act whereby the Son of God assumed the human nature; or the mystery by which the Eternal Word was made man, in order to accomplish the work of our salvation.

The doctrine of the incarnation as laid down in the third General Council, that of Ephesus, (A. D. 431,) is as follows:—“The great and holy synod (of Nice) said, that he ‘who was begotten of the Father, as the only-begotten Son by nature; who was true God of true God, Light of light, by whom the Father made all things; that he descended, became incarnate, and was made man, suffered, rose on the third day, and ascended into the heavens.’ These words and doctrines we ought to follow, in considering what is meant by the Word of God being ‘incarnate and made man.’

“We do not say that the nature of the Word was converted and became flesh; nor that it was changed into perfect man, consisting of body and soul: but rather, that the Word, uniting to himself personally flesh, animated by a rational soul, became man in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, and became the Son of man, not merely by will and affection, nor merely by the assumption of one aspect or appearance; but that different natures were joined in a real unity, and that there is one Christ and Son, of two natures; the difference of natures not being taken away by their union.... It is said also, that he who was before all ages and begotten of the Father, was ‘born according to the flesh, of a woman:’ not as if his Divine nature had taken its beginning from the Holy Virgin ... but because for us, and for our salvation, he united personally to himself the nature of man, and proceeded from a woman; therefore he is said to be ‘born according to the flesh.’... So also we say that he ‘suffered and rose again,’ not as if God the Word had suffered in his own nature the stripes, the nails, or the other wounds; for the Godhead cannot suffer, as it is incorporeal: but because that which had become his own body suffered, he is said to suffer those things for us. For he who was incapable of suffering was in a suffering body. In like manner we understand his ‘death.’... Because his own body, by the grace of God, as Paul saith, tasted death for every man, he is said to suffer death,” &c.

INCENSE. The use of incense in connexion with the eucharist was unknown in the Church until the time of Gregory the Great, in the latter part of the sixth century. It then became prevalent in the Church, but has been long disused by the Church of England.—Bingham.

INCOMPREHENSIBLE. In the Athanasian Creed it is said, that “the Father is incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, the Holy Ghost incomprehensible;” which means that the Father is illimitable, the Son illimitable, the Holy Ghost illimitable. At the time when this creed was translated, the word incomprehensible was not confined to the sense it now bears, of inconceivable, or beyond the reach of our understanding; but it then meant, not comprehended within limits.

INCORRUPTICOLÆ, or Aphthartodocetæ, or Phantasiastæ. Heretics who had their original at Alexandria, in the time of the emperor Justinian. The beginning of the controversy was among the Eutychians, whether the body of Christ was corruptible or incorruptible from his conception: Severus held it corruptible; Julian of Halicarnassus held the contrary, that our Lord’s body was not obnoxious to hunger, thirst, or weariness; and that he did but seemingly suffer such things; from whence they were called Phantasiastæ. The emperor Justinian, in the very end of his reign, favoured these heretics, and persecuted the orthodox.

INCUMBENT. He who is in present possession of a benefice.

INDEPENDENTS. Like the Presbyterians, the Independents sprang from Puritanism, and were originally formed in Holland, about the year 1610, but their distinguishing doctrine seems to have been previously maintained in England by the Brownists, who were banished, or emigrated, in 1593.

The Independent idea of the word “Church,” says Adam, from whom this article is abridged, is, that it is never used but in two senses—as including the whole body of the redeemed, whether in heaven or in earth, who are called “the general assembly,” &c. (Heb. xii. 23); and, again, “the whole family in heaven and in earth” (Eph. iii. 15); or, as one single congregation. Hence their distinguishing tenet is grounded upon the notion that the primitive bishops were not overseers of dioceses, but pastors of single independent congregations.

That which unites them, or rather which distinguishes them from other denominations of Christians, is their maintaining that the power of Church government and discipline is lodged neither in the bishop, nor in a presbytery or senate of Church rulers distinct from the people, but in the community of the faithful at large; and their disclaiming, more or less, every form of union between Churches, and assigning to each congregation the exclusive government of itself, as a body corporate, having full power within itself to admit and exclude members; to choose Church officers; and, when the good of the society requires it, to depose them, without being accountable to classes, presbyteries, synods, convocations, councils, or any jurisdiction whatever.

In doctrine they are strictly Calvinistic. But many of the Independents, both at home and abroad, reject the use of “all creeds and confessions drawn up by fallible men;” and merely require of their teachers a declaration of their belief in the truth of the gospel and its leading doctrines, and of their adherence to the Scriptures as the sole standard of faith and practice, and the only test of doctrine, or the only criterion of faith. And in general they require from all persons who wish to be admitted into their communion, an account, either verbal or written, of what is called their experience; in which, not only a declaration of their faith in the Lord Jesus, and their purpose, by grace, to devote themselves to him, is expected, but likewise a recital of the steps by which they were led to a knowledge and profession of the gospel.

In regard to Church government and discipline, it may be sufficient to remark here, after what has already been said, that Independents in general agree with the Presbyterians, “in maintaining the identity of presbyters and bishops, and believe that a plurality of presbyters, pastors, or bishops, in one church, is taught in Scripture, rather than the common usage of one bishop over many congregations;” but they conceive their own mode of discipline to be “as much beyond the presbyterian, as presbytery is preferable to prelacy:” and, that one distinguishing feature of their discipline is, their maintaining “the right of the Church, or body of Christians, to determine who shall be admitted into their communion, and also to exclude from their fellowship those who may prove themselves unworthy members.

This their regard to purity of communion, whereby they profess to receive only accredited, or really serious Christians, has been termed the grand Independent principle.

The earliest account of the number of Independent congregations refers to 1812; before that period, Independent and Presbyterian congregations were returned together. In 1812, there seem to have been 1024 Independent churches in England and Wales (799 in England, and 225 in Wales). In 1838, an estimate gives 1840 churches in England and Wales. The present Census makes the number 3244 (2604 in England, and 640 in Wales); with accommodation (after making an allowance for 185 incomplete returns) for 1,063,136 persons. The attendance on the Census-Sunday was as follows—after making an addition for 59 chapels for which the numbers are not given—Morning, 524,612; Afternoon, 232,285; Evening, 457,162.—Registrar’s Report, 1851.

INDEXES. (Prohibitory and Expurgatory.) The books generally bearing the title of Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes, are catalogues of authors and works either condemned in toto, or censured and corrected chiefly by expunction, issued from the Church of modern Rome, and published by authority of her ruling members and societies so empowered.

The Prohibitory Index specifies and prohibits entire authors or works, whether of known or of unknown authors. This book has been frequently published, with successive enlargements, to the present time, under the express sanction of the reigning pontiff. It may be considered as a kind of periodical publication of the papacy.

The other class of indexes, the Expurgatory, contains a particular examination of the works occurring in it, and specifies the passages condemned to be expunged or altered. Such a work, in proportion to the number of works embraced by it, must be, and in the case of the Spanish indexes of the kind, is, voluminous. For a general history of these indexes the reader is referred to Mendham’s “Literary Policy of the Church of Rome.”

INDUCTION. This may be compared to livery and seisin of a freehold, for it is putting a minister in actual possession of the Church to which he is presented, and of the glebe land and other temporalities thereof; for before induction he hath no freehold in them. The usual method of induction is by virtue of a mandate under the seal of the bishop, to the archdeacon of the place, who either himself, or by his warrant to all clergymen within his archdeaconry, inducts the new incumbent by taking his hand, laying it on the key of the church in the door, and pronouncing these words, “I induct you into the real and actual possession of the rectory or vicarage of H——, with all its profits and appurtenances.” Then he opens the door of the church, and puts the person in possession of it, who enters to offer his devotions, which done he tolls a bell to summon his parishioners.

INDULGENCES. One of the evil practices of the Church of Rome, of whose doctrine upon the subject the following outline may be given:—

The conferring of indulgences, which are denominated “the heavenly treasures of the Church,” (Conc. Tri. Decret. Sess. XX.,) is said to be the “gift of Christ to the Church.” (Sess. XXV.) To understand the nature of indulgences we must observe, that “the temporal punishment due to sin, by the decree of God, when its guilt and eternal punishment are remitted, may consist either of evil in this life, or of temporal suffering in the next, which temporal suffering in the next life is called purgatory; that the Church has received power from God to remit both of these inflictions, and this remission is called an indulgence.”—Butler’s Book of the Rom. Cath. Ch. p. 110. “It is the received doctrine of the Church, that an indulgence, when truly gained, is not barely a relaxation of the canonical penance enjoined by the Church, but also an actual remission by God himself, of the whole, or part, of the temporal punishment due to it in his sight.”—Milner’s End of Controv. p. 305. Pope Leo X., in his bull De Indulgentiis, whose object he states to be “that no one in future may allege ignorance of the doctrine of the Roman Church respecting indulgences, and their efficacy,” declares, “that the Roman pontiff, vicar of Christ on earth, can, for reasonable causes, by the powers of the keys, grant to the faithful, whether in this life or in purgatory, indulgences, out of the superabundance of the merits of Christ and of the saints (expressly called a treasure); and that those who have truly obtained these indulgences are released from so much of the temporal punishment due for their actual sins to the Divine justice, as is equivalent to the indulgence granted and obtained.”—Bulla Leon. X. adv. Luther. Clement VI., in the bull Unigenitus, explains this matter more fully:—“As a single drop of Christ’s blood would have sufficed for the redemption of the whole human race,” so the rest was not lost, but “was a treasure which he acquired for the militant Church, to be used for the benefit of his sons; which treasure he would not suffer to be hid in a napkin, or buried in the ground, but committed it to be dispensed by St. Peter, and his successors, his own vicars upon earth, for proper and reasonable causes, for the total or partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin; and for an augmentation of this treasure the merits of the Blessed Mother of God, and of all the elect, are known to come in aid.” “We have resolved,” says Pope Leo XII., in his bull of indiction for the universal jubilee, in 1824, “in virtue of the authority given us by heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits, sufferings, and virtues of Christ our Lord, and of his Virgin Mother, and of all the saints, which the author of human salvation has intrusted to our dispensation. During this year of the jubilee, we mercifully give and grant, in the Lord, a plenary indulgence, remission, and pardon of all their sins, to all the faithful of Christ, truly penitent, and confessing their sins, and receiving the holy communion, who shall visit the churches of blessed Peter and Paul,” &c. “We offer you,” says Ganganelli, in his bull De Indulgentiis, “a share of all the riches of Divine mercy, which have been intrusted to us, and chiefly those which have their origin in the blood of Christ. We will then open to you all the gates of the rich reservoir of atonement, derived from the merits of the Mother of God, the holy apostles, the blood of the martyrs, and the good works of all the saints. We invite you, then, to drink of this overflowing stream of indulgence, to enrich yourselves in the inexhaustible treasures of the Church, according to the custom of our ancestors. Do not, then, let slip the present occasion, this favourable time, these salutary days, employing them to appease the justice of God, and obtain your pardon.”

The reasonable causes, on account of which indulgences are given, are, where “the cause be pious, that is, not a work which is merely temporal, or vain, or in no respect pertaining to the Divine glory, but for any work whatsoever, which tends to the honour of God, or the service of the Church, an indulgence will be valid. We see, occasionally, the very greatest indulgences given for the very lightest causes; as when a plenary indulgence is granted to all who stand before the gates of St. Peter, whilst the pope gives the solemn blessing to the people on Easter day;” for “indulgences do not depend, for their efficacy, on consideration of the work enjoined, but on the infinite treasure of the merits of Christ and the saints, which is a consideration surpassing and transcending everything that is granted by an indulgence.” In some cases “the work enjoined must not only be pious and useful, but bear a certain proportion with the indulgence; that is, the work enjoined must tend to an end more pleasing in the sight of God, than the satisfaction remitted,” “although it is not necessary that it be in itself very meritorious, or satisfactory, or difficult, and laborious, (though these things ought to be regarded too,) but that it be a mean apt and useful towards obtaining the end for which the indulgence is granted.” “As the large resort of people,” before the gates of St. Peter, when the pope gives his solemn blessing, “is a mean, apt and useful, to set forth faith, respecting the head of the Church, and to the honour of the apostolic see, which is the end of the indulgence.”—Bellarmine de Indulgentiis, lib. i. c. 12. The first General Lateran Council granted “remission of sins to whoever shall go to Jerusalem, and effectually help to oppose the infidels.”—Can. XI. The third and fourth Lateran Councils granted the same indulgence to those who set themselves to destroy heretics, or who shall take up arms against them.—See Labbe, vol. x. p. 1523. Boniface VIII. granted, not only a full and large, but the most full, pardon of all sins to all that visit Rome the first year in every century. Clement V. decreed, that they who should, at the jubilee, visit such and such churches, should obtain “a most full remission of all their sins;” and he not only granted a “plenary absolution of all sins, to all who died on the road to Rome,” but “also commanded the angels of paradise to carry the soul direct to heaven.”

“Sincere repentance,” we are told, “is always enjoined, or implied, in the grant of an indulgence, and is indispensably necessary for every grace.”—Milner’s End of Controversy, p. 304. But as the dead are removed from the possibility, so are they from the necessity, of repentance; “as the pope,” says Bellarmine, “applies the satisfactions of Christ and the saints to the dead, by means of works enjoined on the living, they are applied, not in the way of judicial absolution, but in the way of payment (per modum solutionis). For as when a person gives alms, or fasts, or makes a pilgrimage, on account of the dead, the effect is, not that he obtains absolution for them from their liability to punishment, but he presents to God that particular satisfaction for them, in order that God, on receiving it, may liberate the dead from the debt of punishment which they had to pay. In like manner, the pope does not absolve the deceased, but offers to God, out of the measure of satisfaction, as much as is necessary to free them.”—Id. Their object is “to afford succour to such as have departed real penitents in the love of God, yet before they had duly satisfied, by fruits worthy of penance, for sins of commission and omission, and are now purifying in the fire of purgatory; that an entrance may be opened for them into that country, where nothing defiled is admitted.”—Bull. Leo. XII.

“As the power of granting indulgences was given by Christ to the Church, and she has exercised it in the most ancient times, this holy synod teaches, and commands, that the use of them, as being greatly salutary to the Christian people, and approved by the authority of councils, shall be retained; and she anathematizes those who say they are useless, or deny to the Church the power of granting them; but in this grant, the synod wishes that moderation, agreeably to the ancient and approved practice of the Church, be exercised; lest, by too great facility, ecclesiastical discipline be weakened.”—Conc. Trid. Sess. XXV. de Indulg.

“The chief pontiffs, by virtue of the supreme authority given them in the Universal Church, have justly assumed the power of reserving some graver criminal causes to their own peculiar judgment.”—Conc. Trid. Sess. XIV. cap. 7. “The more weighty criminal charges against bishops, which deserve deposition and deprivation, may be judged and determined only by the supreme Roman pontiff.”—Conc. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cap. 5.

“No testimony,” says Clementius, “can be produced from any father, or any ancient Church, that either this doctrine, or the practice of such indulgences, was known, or used, for 1200 years.”—Exam. Conc. Trid. de Indulg. c. 4. Many of these indulgences can only be obtained from the supreme pontiff; for obtaining which an office is opened at Rome, and a table of fees, payable to the chancery of Rome, published by authority. The pardon of a heretic is fixed at £36 9s.; whilst marrying one wife, after murdering another, may be commuted by the payment of £8 2s. 9d. A pardon for perjury is charged at 9s.; simony, 10s. 6d.; robbery, 12s.; seduction, 9s.; incest, 7s. 6d.; murder, 7s. 6d. Now, is not this taxation a virtual encouragement to the commission of the most shocking crimes, when absolution for them is granted and proffered on such easy terms? This seems to be, in fact, the establishing a complete traffic for sins, and must be accounted a great source of corruption and depravity.

“These pardons,” says Silvester de Prierio, “are not known to us by the authority of the Scriptures, but by the authority of the Church of Rome, and the popes; which is greater than the authority of the Scriptures.”—Con. Luth. pag. Indul. They were first sanctioned by Urban II., as a reward for those who engaged in a crusade against the Mahometans, for the recovery of Palestine. To these Urban promised the remission of all their sins, and to open to them the gates of heaven.

From these extracts we may learn, that the members of the Church of Rome did formerly, and do now, teach and believe on the subject of indulgences; 1st, That these pardons are to be paid for; 2nd, That they are granted through the merits of the Virgin and of the saints, as well as through the death and sufferings of our blessed Saviour; 3rd, That these pardons are more effectual at Rome than elsewhere, and that they are better at the time of the pope’s jubilee than in other years.

Now in all this, such doctrines do openly and plainly contradict the word of God. For in the first place, the prophet Isaiah, instead of calling for money, says, “Ho every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk, without money and without price.” (lv. 1.) Instead of speaking like Tetzel, St. Paul says, “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” (Rom. iii. 24, 25.) And, unlike the pope, “The spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. xxii. 17.)

In the next place, the merits of saints are never said in Scripture to be the cause of their own salvation, or of that of others; for all that are saved are said to be saved through faith in Christ; which faith produceth in them good works, as naturally as a tree produceth fruit. St. Peter declares, that “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, but only the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts iv. 12.)

And, in the last place, as to the idea, that it is better to worship God in one city or country than in another, our Lord has plainly said, No, in his conversation with the woman of Samaria. She said, “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” (John iv. 20–23.)

In saluting the Corinthian Church, St. Paul joins with them “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” (1 Cor. i. 2.) The Scripture does not tell us of any particular times, in which prayer is more acceptable to God than at others; but they exhort us to “seek the Lord while he may be found, and to call upon him while he is near.” (Isa. i. 6.) “To-day, if you will hear his voice, harden not your heart.” (Ps. xcv. 7, 8.) “Boast not thyself of to-morrow, for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.” (Prov. xxvii. 1.) “Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Cor. vi. 2.) So that while God thus offers in the Bible, forgiveness through Christ, to all who shall repent and believe the gospel; the Church of Rome presumes to tell her people, that it will be better for them, while they profess to repent and believe, to pay their money; and safer for them to come to Rome on jubilee years, or to some other place in a jubilee month, to receive the benefits of their absolution. Surely the people who believe all this, rather than their Bible, are like the Jews whom Jeremiah, in God’s name, thus describes:—“My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Jer. ii. 13.) Or, rather, it is to be feared, that the whole body, teachers and people, are like those of whom our Lord said, “They be blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” (Matt. xv. 14.)—O’Donoghue.

INDULTS, in the Church of Rome, is a power of presenting to benefices, granted to certain persons by the pope. Of this kind is the Indult of kings, and sovereign princes, in the Romish communion, and that of the parliament of Paris. By the Concordat for the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, made between Francis I. and Leo X. in 1516, the king has the power of nominating to bishoprics, and other consistorial benefices in his realm. At the same time, by a particular bull, the pope granted to the king the privilege of nominating to the churches of Bretagne and Provence. The bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, being yielded to the French king by the treaty of Munster, in 1648, Pope Alexander VIII. in 1664, and Clement IX. in 1668, granted the king an Indult for these three bishoprics; and in 1668 the same Pope Clement IX. granted the king an Indult of the same purport, for the benefices in the counties of Rousillon, Artois, and the Low Countries.

In the year 1424, Pope Martin V. granted to the parliament of Paris this right of presentation to benefices, which they declined to accept. Eugenius IV. granted them the like privilege, which did not take effect by reason of a decree of the Council of Basil, which took away all expectative graces. Lastly, at the interview between the emperor Charles V. and King Francis I. at Nice, in 1538, Pope Paul III., who was present as a mediator, gave an Indult to the parliament of Paris, reviving that formerly granted by Eugenius IV.

The cardinals, likewise, have an Indult granted them by agreement between Pope Paul IV. and the sacred college, in 1555, which is always confirmed by the popes at the time of their election. By this treaty or agreement the cardinals have the free disposal of all the benefices depending on them, without being interrupted by any prior collations from the Pope. By this Indult the cardinals are empowered, likewise, to bestow a benefice in commendam.

INFALLIBILITY. In one sense the universal Church is infallible. It has an infallible guide in the Holy Scriptures. Holy Scripture contains all religious truth. And the Church having the Scriptures is so far infallibly guided. But there is no infallible guide to the interpretation of Scripture. If it were so, then there would be an authority above the Scriptures. Hence the wisdom of our twentieth Article: “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy writ, yet as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.”

Here the authority of the Church in subordination to Scripture is clearly laid down. To the same effect is our twenty-first Article. “General councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the spirit and word of God,) they may err, and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them, as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.”—Beveridge.

But although we can have no infallible guide beyond the Scriptures, yet there may be a proper certainty in matters of faith, doctrine, and discipline, without infallibility. This, in his “Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” that great divine, Dr. Waterland, shows from the words of Chillingworth. “Though we pretend not to certain means of not erring in interpreting all Scripture, particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous, yet this, methinks, should be no impediment; but that we may have certain means of not erring in and about the sense of those places which are so plain and clear that they need no interpreters; and in such we say our faith is contained. If you ask me, how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places? I ask you again, can you be sure that you understand what I or any man else says? God be thanked that we have sufficient means to be certain enough of the truth of our faith; but the privilege of not being in possibility of erring, that we challenge not, because we have as little reason as you to do so, and you have none at all. If you ask, seeing we may possibly err, how can we be assured we do not? I ask you again, seeing your eyesight may deceive you, how can you be sure you see the sun when you do see it? A pretty sophism! That whosoever possibly may err, cannot be certain that he doth not err. A judge may possibly err in judgment; can he, therefore, never have assurance that he hath judged right? A traveller may possibly mistake his way; must I, therefore, be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my hall to my chamber? Or can our London carrier have no certainty, in the middle of the day, when he is sober and in his wits, that he is in the way to London? These, you see, are right worthy consequences, and yet they are as like to your own, as an egg to an egg, or milk to milk.

“Methinks, so subtile a man as you are should easily apprehend a wide difference between authority to do a thing and infallibility in doing it. The former, the doctor, together with the Article of the Church of England, attributeth to the Church, nay, to particular Churches, and I subscribe to his opinion; that is, an authority of determining controversies of faith, according to plain and evident Scripture and universal tradition and infallibility, while they proceed according to this rule. As if there should arise an heretic that should call in question Christ’s passion and resurrection, the Church has authority to determine this controversy, and infallible direction how to do it, and to excommunicate this man if he should persist in his errors.

“The ground of your error here is, your not distinguishing between actual certainty and absolute infallibility. Geometricians are not infallible in their own science; yet they are very certain of what they see demonstrated: and carpenters are not infallible, yet certain of the straightness of those things which agree with their rule and square. So though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her definitions, whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall proceed according to her rule; yet being certain of the infallibility of her rule, and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it, she may be certain of the truth of some particular decrees, and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is true.

“Though the Church being not infallible, I cannot believe her in everything she says; yet I can and must believe her in everything she proves, either by Scripture, reason, or universal tradition, be it fundamental or not fundamental. Though she may err in some things, yet she does not err in what she proves, though it be not fundamental. Protestants believing Scripture to be the word of God, may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it. For what if they say the Catholic Church, much more themselves, may possibly err in some fundamental points, is it therefore consequent they can be certain of none such? What if a wiser man than I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle, may I not, therefore, without any arrogance or inconsequence, conceive myself certain that I understand him in some plain places which carry their sense before them? We pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot err, but only to a sufficient certainty that we do not err, but rightly understand those things that are plain, whether fundamental or not fundamental. That God is, and is a rewarder of them that seek him; that, &c. These we conceive both true, because the Scripture says so, and truths fundamental, because they are necessary parts of the gospel, whereof our Saviour says, Qui non crediderit, damnabitur.

“I do heartily acknowledge and believe the articles of our faith to be in themselves truths as certain and infallible as the very common principles of geometry or metaphysics; but that there is required of us a knowledge of them and an adherence to them, as certain as that of sense or science; that such a certainty is required of us under pain of damnation, so that no man can hope to be in a state of salvation but he that finds in himself such a degree of faith, such a strength of adherence; this I have already demonstrated to be a great error, and of dangerous and pernicious consequence.

“Though I deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest degree, infallibly certain, of the truth of the things which we believe, (for this were to know and not believe, neither is it possible unless our evidence of it, be it natural or supernatural, were of the highest degree,) yet I deny not but we ought to be, and may be, infallibly certain that we are to believe the religion of Christ. For, 1. This is most certain, that we are in all things to do according to wisdom and reason, rather than against it. 2. This is as certain, that wisdom and reason require that we should believe those things which are by many degrees more credible and probable than the contrary. 3. This is as certain, that to every man who considers impartially what great things may be said for the truth of Christianity, and what poor things they are which may be said against it, either for any other religion, or for none at all, it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible, that the Christian religion is true, than the contrary. And from all these premises, this conclusion evidently follows, that it is infallibly certain, that we are firmly to believe the truth of the Christian religion. There is an abundance of arguments exceedingly credible, inducing men to believe the truth of Christianity; I say, so credible, that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince, that in true wisdom and prudence, the articles of it deserve credit, and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God.”—Waterland. Chillingworth.

The Roman Church has no authorized doctrine of infallibility, though its existence is practically assumed, and is bound up with the whole catalogue of usurpations. The Council of Trent defined many minute and unimportant matters, yet on that which involved so much, it published no definition at all; neither pronouncing where the gift is lodged, nor under what conditions it is exercised, nor to what subjects it extends; nay, not even asserting that it exists at all. Suarez says that the pope’s infallibility is a question of faith; Bellarmine, that it is not; and Stapleton, that, though the denial of it is scandalous and offensive, it is perhaps not heretical; while Gerson, with a very large and learned school of Roman theologians, rejects the doctrine altogether. And none of these opinions have been censured.

Again, if we ask whether, in point of fact, any pope has ever been a heretic, we shall get nothing but inconsistent and contradictory replies. Coster says, that not one has ever taught heresy, or fallen into error; and he makes this an argument for the doctrine itself. Pighius goes further, and says, that the pope is so confirmed in the faith, that he could not fall into error either publicly or privately, even if he would; while, on the other hand, there is a multitude of Roman writers, who fully admit the heresies of Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, and the rest; either condemning them absolutely, or extenuating their acts on some special ground. The Council of Pisa, A. D. 1409, in its sentence of deposition against the rivals, pronounces them both heretics. And so previous councils have condemned former popes; yet the question is still in debate.

As a matter of doctrine, then, we have a long line of the greatest theologians that the Roman Church has ever produced, denying in explicit terms that any gift of infallibility at all was conveyed to the bishops of Rome by the words of Christ. And on the question of fact we find the very chief defenders of the pope’s prerogatives, admitting that he may deceive men by his example, and lead them into error; and that he may publish decrees, and insert them in the body of canon law, which yet contradict the tradition of the Church and the truth of the gospel. The claim of infallibility, which advances no Scripture proof, except one perverted text; and which is maintained in the face of all these hesitations and contradictions, these disproofs on the one side, and injurious admissions on the other; can be nothing else but a delusion and a fraud.—S. Robins.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. (See Church of Rome, Popery.) On this subject we give the following remarks of Bishop Beveridge:—That the Catholic or universal Church is infallible, so as constantly and firmly to maintain and hold every particular truth delivered in the gospel, in one place or other of it, I think cannot well be denied; but that any particular Church, or the Church of Rome in particular, is infallible, we have expressly denied and opposed in the Thirty-nine Articles, it being there expressly asserted, that “the Church of Rome hath erred,” and that “not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but even in matters of faith.”

Now to prove that the Church of Rome hath erred, even in matters of faith, I think the best way is to compare the doctrine maintained by them with the doctrine delivered in these Articles. For whatsoever is contained in these Articles, we have, or shall, by the assistance of God, prove to be consonant to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; and, by consequence, to be a real truth. And, therefore, whatsoever is any way contrary to what is here delivered, must needs be an error. And so that besides other errors which the Church of Rome holds, be sure, whereinsoever it differs from the doctrine of the Church of England, therein it errs. Now to prove that the Church of Rome doth hold such doctrines as are contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, I shall not insist upon any particular, though never so eminent, persons amongst them that have delivered many doctrines contrary to ours. For I know, as it is amongst ourselves, that is not an error of our Church which is the error of some one or many particular persons in it; so also amongst them, everything that Bellarmine, Johannes de Turrecremata, Gregorius de Valentia, Alphonsus de Castro, or any of the grandees of their Church, saith, cannot be accounted as an error of their Church if it be false; nor if it be true, as the truth of the whole Church. A Church may be Catholic though it hath many heretics in it; and a Church may be heretical though it hath many Catholics in it. And therefore I say, to prove the doctrine of their Church to be erroneous, I shall not take any notice of the errors of particular persons, but of the errors deliberately and unanimously concluded upon, and subscribed to, and published as the doctrine of that Church, by the whole Church itself met together in council. For the doctrine delivered by a council cannot be denied to be the doctrine of the whole Church there represented. As the doctrine delivered in these Articles, because it was concluded upon in a council of English divines, is accounted the doctrine of the Church of England; so the doctrine concluded upon in a council of Romish divines, cannot be denied to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome. And of all the councils they have held, that which I shall pitch upon in this case, is the Council of Trent, both because it was the most general council they ever held, and also because it was held about the same time at Trent that our convocation that composed these Articles was held at London. For it was in the year of our Lord 1562, that our convocation, that concluded upon these Articles, was holden at London; and though the Council of Trent was begun in the year of our Lord 1545, yet it was not concluded nor confirmed till the fifth year of Pope Pius IV., A. D. 1563, as appears from Pope Pius III.’s bull for the confirmation of it. So that our convocation was held within the same time that that council was; and so our Church concluded upon truths here, whilst theirs agreed upon errors there. Neither need we go any further to prove that they agreed upon errors, than by showing that many things that they did then subscribe to, were contrary to what our Church, about the same time, concluded upon. For all our Articles are, as we may see, agreeable to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; and they delivering many things quite contrary to the said Articles, so many of them must needs be contrary to Scripture, reason, and Fathers too, and therefore cannot but be errors. And so in showing that the doctrine of the Church of Rome is, in many things, contrary to the Church of England, I shall prove from Scripture, reason, and Fathers, the truth of this proposition, that the Church of Rome hath erred even in matters of faith.

Now, though there be many things wherein the Church of Rome did at that, and so still doth at this, time disagree with ours; yet I shall pick out but some of those propositions that do, in plain terms, contradict these Articles.

As, first, we say, (Art. VI.,) “Scripture is sufficient, &c., and the other books, (viz. commonly called the Apocrypha,) the Church doth not apply them to establish any doctrine.” But the Church of Rome thrusts them into the body of canonical Scriptures, and accounts them as canonical as any of the rest; saying, “But this synod thought good to write down to this decree an index of the holy books, lest any one should doubt which they are that are received by this council. Now they are the under-written. Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, Esdras the first and second, which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Hester, Job, Psalter of one hundred and fifty Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, twelve Lesser Prophets, that is, Osee, &c., two books of the Maccabees, the first and second. Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, &c. as ours. But if any one doth not receive all these books, with every part of them, as they use to be read in the Catholic (viz. the Roman) Church, and as they are contained in the ancient vulgar Latin edition, for holy and canonical, and shall knowingly contemn the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

Secondly, we say that “original sin is the fault and corruption of every man, none excepted.” (Art. IX.) But they say, “but this synod declares it is not their intention to comprehend the blessed and unspotted Virgin Mary, the mother of God, in this decree, where it treats of original sin.”

Thirdly, we say, “We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ by faith, and so justified by faith only.” (Art. XI.) But they say, “If any one say that a sinner is justified by faith only, that he so understand that nothing else is required to attain the grace of justification, and that it is no ways necessary that he should be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will, let him be anathema.”

Fourthly, we say, “Works before justification have the nature of sin.” (Art. XIII.) But they, “If any one say, that all the works which are done before justification, howsoever they are done, are truly sins, or deserve the hatred of God; or by how much the more vehemently a man strives to dispose himself for grace, by so much the more grievously doth he sin, let him be anathema.”

Fifthly, we say, “Christ was alone without sin.” (Art. XV.) They say, that the Virgin Mary also was. “If any one say, that a man being once justified can sin no more, nor lose his grace, and therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that he can avoid through his whole life all even venial sins, unless by a special privilege from God, as the Church holdeth concerning the blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.”

Sixthly, we say, “The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping, and adoration, as well of images as relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.” (Art. XXII.) But they, “Seeing the Catholic Church taught by the Holy Ghost out of the Holy Scriptures, and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, in holy councils, and last of all in this general synod, hath taught that there is a purgatory, and that souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the sacrifices of the acceptable altar; this holy synod commands the bishops, that they would diligently study, that the sound doctrine concerning purgatory delivered from the holy Fathers and sacred councils be, by Christ’s faithful people, believed, held, taught, and preached everywhere.” And again, “This holy synod commands all bishops and others, that have the charge and care of teaching, that according to the use of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and the consent of the holy Fathers, and the decrees of sacred councils, especially concerning the intercession and invocation of saints, the honour of relics, and the lawful use of images, they diligently instruct the faithful, teaching that the saints, reigning together with Christ, do offer up their prayers to God for men, and that it is good and profitable simply to invocate or pray unto them,” &c. And that, “the bodies of the holy martyrs, and others, that live with Christ, are to be worshipped,” &c. And also, “that images of Christ, the God-bearing Virgin, and other saints, are to be had and retained, especially in churches, and that due honour and veneration be given to them.” And presently, “But if any one teach or think anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.”

Seventhly, we say, “It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God, and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the church, or to administer the sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.” (Art. XXIV.) But they, “If any one say, that the custom of the Church of Rome, whereby part of the canon and the words of consecration are uttered with a loud voice, is to be condemned, or that mass ought to be celebrated only in the vulgar tongue, or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the cup, for that it is contrary to Christ’s institution, let him be anathema.”

Eighthly, we say, “There are but two sacraments.” (Art. XXV.) They, “If any one say, that the sacraments of the new law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or that there are more or less than seven, to wit, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, or that any of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament, let him be anathema.”

Ninthly, we say, “Transubstantiation is repugnant to the Scripture, and overthroweth the nature of a sacrament.” (Art. XXVIII.) But they, “But because Christ our Redeemer said, that that which he offered under the shape of bread was truly his body, therefore it was always believed in the Church of God; and, last of all, this holy synod doth now declare it, that, by the consecration of bread and wine is made the changing of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his blood; which change is fitly and properly called, by the holy Catholic Church, transubstantiation.”

Tenthly, we say, “The sacrament of our Lord’s supper is not to be worshipped.” (Art. XXVIII.) But they, “There is therefore no place of doubting left, but that all the faithful of Christ, according to the custom always received in the Catholic Church, should give to this most holy sacrament, in the adoration of it, that worship of service which is due to the true God.”

Eleventhly, we say, “The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay-people.” (Art. XXX.) But they, “If any one say, that, from the command of God and the necessity of salvation, all and every believer in Christ ought to receive both kinds of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, let him be anathema.”

Twelfthly, we say, “The sacrifices of the mass are blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” (Art. XXXI.) But they, “If any one say that in the mass there is not a true and proper sacrifice offered to God, or that to be offered is nothing else but for Christ to be given to us to eat, let him be anathema.”

There are many other things wherein the doctrine established by the Church of Rome contradicteth ours; but these may be enough to show both the falseness of the calumny that ignorant people put upon our Church of England, as if it was returning to Popery, whereas the doctrine established by our Church doth, in so many and plain terms, contradict the established doctrine of theirs; and also it shows the truth of this part of our doctrine, that some part of theirs is false. For seeing whatsoever is here set down as the doctrine of our Church, is grounded upon Scripture, consented to by reason, and delivered by the Fathers, it cannot but be true doctrine; and seeing theirs do so frequently contradict ours, it cannot but in such things that are so contradictory to ours be false doctrine. And therefore we may well conclude, that even the Church of Rome too hath erred, yea, in matters of faith, and that if she denies it, she must add that to the rest of her errors.—Beveridge.

Concerning the pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome, the celebrated Bishop Bull observes, “We Protestants profess and prove, by most evident arguments, that the Church of Rome hath in sundry points erred, and is guilty of innovation. The patrons of that Church, not able to answer those arguments of ours, tell us this cannot be; that the Church of Rome is infallible, and cannot possibly be guilty of such innovation. Is not this an admirable way of reasoning and disputation? Can the Romanists produce arguments to prove that their Church cannot err, so clear and evident as these alleged by us to demonstrate that she hath erred? Surely no. To make this plain, if I can be infallibly certain that my senses, rightly disposed, and all due requisites to sensation supposed, are infallible, and cannot be deceived about their proper objects (and if I cannot be assured of this, the apostles had no infallible assurance of that which is the foundation of the Christian faith, the resurrection of Christ, which was evidenced to them by their testimony of sense, and that testimony pronounced infallible, Acts i. 3; 1 John i. 1, 2); then I may be infallibly certain that the Church of Rome is not infallible, yea, that she hath grossly erred in her doctrine of transubstantiation, teaching the bread and wine, after the words of consecration, to be turned into the very flesh and blood of Christ, which yet all my senses assure me to remain still the same in nature and substance, that is, bread and wine. If I can be infallibly certain that Christ himself is infallible, that he would not, could not, appoint an institution that should be dangerous and scandalous to his Church, viz. of receiving the holy eucharist in both kinds; if I can be infallibly certain that the whole Church of Christ, that was under the guidance and direction of the apostles, were not grossly deceived, and engaged by the apostles themselves in a practice dangerous and scandalous (and of this I may be as infallibly sure as I am of the truth of the gospel itself); then I may be infallibly certain that the Church of Rome not only may err, but hath grossly erred in that determination of hers, whereby she rejects (in the Council of Constance) communion in both kinds, as a dangerous and scandalous practice. And in the same manner we might proceed to show the falsehood of divers other determinations of the Church of Rome, if this paper would permit; but these are sufficient to any person that shall consult his serious reason. Indeed, I look upon it as a wonderful both just and wise providence of God, that he hath suffered the Church of Rome to fall into such gross errors, (which otherwise it is scarce imaginable how men in their wits, that had not renounced not only the Scriptures, but their reason, yea, and their senses too, could be overtaken with,) and to determine them for articles of faith. For hereby a person of the meanest capacity (so he be sincere, and not under the prejudice of education) may evidently discern with what a strange kind of impudence that Church arrogates to herself an infallibility in all her determinations. And for such of our Church that have been informed of these things, and yet shall leave our communion, and follow the guidance of that Church upon the account of her infallibility, I fear they are in the number of those miserable persons described by the apostle, (2 Thess. ii. 11, 12,) who are given up to strong delusion, that they may believe a lie, &c. That which follows in the text I dread to mention; God avert it from them!”

INFANT BAPTISM. (See Baptism, Infant.)

INFIRMARIAN. An officer in a monastery, who had the care of the sick and infirm. A dignitary in Nice cathedral was so called.—Jebb.

INFINITY. An attribute of God. The idea of infinity or immensity is so closely connected with that of self-existence, that, because it is impossible but something must be infinite, independently and of itself, therefore it must of necessity be self-existent: and because something must of necessity be self-existent, therefore it is necessary that it must likewise be infinite. A necessarily existent being must be everywhere as well as always unalterably the same. For a necessity, which is not everywhere the same, is plainly a consequential necessity only, depending upon some external cause. Whatever therefore exists by an absolute necessity in its own nature, must needs be infinite, as well as eternal. To suppose a finite being to be self-existent, is to say, that it is a contradiction for that being not to exist, the absence of which may yet be conceived without a contradiction; which is the greatest absurdity in the world.

From hence it follows, that the infinity of the self-existent Being must be an infinity of fulness, as well as of immensity; that is, it must not only be without limits, but also without diversity, defect, or interruption. It follows, likewise, that the self-existent Being must be a most simple, unchangeable, incorruptible Being, without parts, figure, motion, divisibility, or any other such properties, as we find in matter. For all these things do plainly and necessarily imply finiteness in their very notion, and are utterly inconsistent with complete infinity.

As to the particular manner in which the Supreme Being is infinite, or everywhere present—this is as impossible for our finite understandings to comprehend and explain, as it is for us to form an adequate idea of infinity. The schoolmen have presumed to assert, that the immensity of God is a point, as his eternity (they think) is an instant. But this being altogether unintelligible, we may more safely affirm, that the Supreme Cause is at all times equally present, both in his simple essence, and by the immediate and perfect exercise of all his attributes, to every point of the boundless immensity, as if it were really all but one single point.—Clarke.

INITIATED. In the early ages of the Church, this term was applied to those who had been baptized, and admitted to a knowledge of the higher mysteries of the gospel. The discipline of the Church at that period, made it necessary that candidates for baptism should pass through a long probation, in the character of catechumens. While in this preparatory state, they were not allowed to be present at the celebration of the eucharist; and in sermons and homilies in their presence, the speaker either waived altogether any direct statement of the sublimer doctrines of Christianity, or alluded to them in an obscure manner, not intelligible to the uninitiated, but sufficiently clear to be interpreted by those for whom they were intended, viz. the baptized or initiated. Hence the phrase so common in the homilies of the Fathers, “the initiated understand what is said.”

INNOCENTS’ DAY. One of the holy-days of the Church. Its design is to commemorate one of the most thrilling events in the gospel history. The innocents were they who suffered death under the cruel decree of Herod, who thought, by a general slaughter of young children, to have accomplished the death of the infant Jesus. They are so called from the Latin term innocentes or innocui, harmless babes, altogether incapable of defending themselves from the malice of their inhuman persecutors. The celebration of the martyrdom of these innocents was very ancient. It occurs on the 28th of December.

INQUISITION. A tribunal, or court of justice, in Roman Catholic countries, erected by the popes for the examination and punishment of heretics.

Before the conversion of the empire to Christianity, there was no other tribunal, for the inquiry into matters of faith and doctrine, but that of the bishops; nor any other way of punishing obstinate heretics, but that of excommunication. But the Roman emperors, being converted to Christianity, thought themselves obliged to interpose in the punishment of crimes committed against God, and for this purpose made laws, (which may be found in the Theodosian and Justinian codes,) by which heretics were sentenced to banishment and forfeiture of estates. Thus there were two courts of judicature against heretics, the one spiritual, the other civil. The ecclesiastical court pronounced upon the right, declared what was heresy, and excommunicated heretics. When this was done, the civil courts undertook the prosecution, and punished those, in their persons and fortunes, who were convicted of heresy.

This method lasted till after the year 800. From this time the jurisdiction of the Western bishops over heretics was enlarged, and they had now authority both to convict and punish them, by imprisonment, and several acts of discipline, warranted by the canons and custom: but they could not execute the imperial laws of banishment upon them. Matters stood thus until the 12th century, when the great growth and power of heresies (as they were called) began to give no small disturbance to the Church. However, the popes could do no more than send legates and preachers to endeavour the conversion of heretics, particularly the Albigenses, who about this time were the occasion of great disturbances in Languedoc. Hither Father Dominic and his followers (called from him Dominicans) were sent by Pope Innocent III., with orders to excite the Catholic princes and people to extirpate heretics, to inquire out their number and quality, and to transmit a faithful account thereof to Rome. Hence they were called Inquisitors; and this gave birth to the formidable tribunal of the Inquisition, which was received in all Italy, and the dominions of Spain, excepting the kingdom of Naples, and the Low Countries, where Charles V., and after him Philip II. of Spain, endeavouring to establish it, in 1567, by the Duke of Alva, thereby incurred the loss of the United Provinces.

This tribunal takes cognizance of heresy, Judaism, Mahometanism, and polygamy; and the people stand in so much fear of it, that parents deliver up their children, husbands their wives, and masters their servants, to its officers, without daring in the least to murmur. The prisoners are shut up in frightful dungeons, where they are kept for several months, till they themselves turn their own accusers, and declare the cause of their imprisonment; for they are never confronted with witnesses. Their friends go into mourning, and speak of them as dead, not daring to solicit their pardon, lest they should be brought in as accomplices. When there is no shadow of proof against the pretended criminal, he is discharged, after a tedious imprisonment, and the loss of the greatest part of his effects.

The sentence against the prisoners of the Inquisition is publicly pronounced, and with extraordinary solemnity. This is called Auto da fé, that is, Act or Decree of Faith. In Portugal, they erect a theatre, capable of holding 3000 persons, on which they place a very rich altar, and raise seats on each side in the form of an amphitheatre, where the criminals are placed; over against whom is a high chair, whither they are called one by one, to hear their doom, pronounced by one of the Inquisitors. The prisoners know their doom by the clothes they wear that day. Those who wear their own clothes, are discharged upon payment of a fine. Those who have a Santo Benito, or straight yellow coat without sleeves, charged with St. Andrew’s cross, have their lives, but forfeit their effects. Those who have the resemblance of flames, made of red serge, sewed upon their Santo Benito, without any cross, are pardoned, but threatened to be burnt, if ever they relapse. But those who, besides these flames, have on their Santo Benito their own picture, environed with figures of devils, are condemned to die. The Inquisitors, who are ecclesiastics, do not pronounce the sentence of death, but form and read an act, wherein they say, that the criminal, being convicted of such a crime by his own proper confession, is delivered with much reluctancy to the secular power, to be punished according to his demerits. This writing they give to seven judges, who attend at the right side of the altar. These condemn the criminal to be first hanged, and then burnt: but Jews are burnt alive. The public place for execution in Portugal is called Roussi, whither the Confraternity of Mercy attend, and pray for the prisoner.

The Inquisition of Goa, in the Indies, is very powerful, the principal inquisitor having more respect showed him than either the archbishop or viceroy. The criminals, sentenced by this tribunal to die, are clad much after the same manner as in Portugal. Such as are convicted of magic, wear paper caps in the form of sugar-loaves, covered with flames and frightful figures of devils. All the criminals go in procession to a church chosen for the ceremony, and have each of them a godfather, who is answerable for their forthcoming after the ceremony is over. In this procession the criminals walk barefooted, carrying lighted tapers in their hands: the least guilty march foremost. After the last of them that are to be discharged, comes one carrying a crucifix, and followed by those who are to die. The next day after the execution, the pictures of the executed are carried to the church of the Dominicans. The head only is represented surrounded with firebrands, and underneath is written the name, quality, and crime of the person executed.

The Inquisition of Venice, consisting of the pope’s nuncio residing there, the patriarch of Venice, the father inquisitor, and two senators, is nothing near so severe as those of Spain and Portugal. It does not hinder the Greeks and Armenians from the exercise of their religion; and it tolerates the Jews, who wear scarlet caps for the sake of distinction. In fine, the power of this tribunal is so limited by the states, that, in the university of Padua, degrees are taken without requiring the candidates to make the profession of faith enjoined by the popes; insomuch that schismatics, Jews, and those they call heretics, daily take their degrees in law and physic there.

The Inquisition of Rome is a congregation of twelve cardinals, and some other officers, and the pope presides in it in person. This is accounted the highest tribunal in Rome. It began in the time of Pope Paul IV., on occasion of the spreading of Lutheranism. The standard of the Inquisition is of red damask, on which is painted a cross, with an olive branch on one side, and a sword on the other: the motto in these words of the 73rd psalm, Exurge, Domine, et judica causam meam.

INSPIRATION. (See Holy Ghost.) The extraordinary and supernatural influence of the Spirit of God on the human mind, by which the prophets and sacred writers were qualified to receive and set forth Divine communications, without any mixture of error. In this sense the term occurs in 2 Tim. iii. 16. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” &c. (See Scriptures, Inspiration of.)

The word inspiration also expresses that ordinary operation of the Spirit, by which men are inwardly moved and excited both to will and to do such things as are pleasing to God, and through which all the powers of their minds are elevated, purified, and invigorated. “There is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” (Job xxxii. 8.) In this latter sense the term and its kindred verb frequently appear in the offices of the Church; as in the petitions, “Grant, that by thy holy inspiration we may think those things that are good;” “Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit;” “Beseeching thee to inspire continually the universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord;” and

“Come, Holy Ghost, our souls inspire,

And lighten with celestial fire;”

“Visit our minds, into our hearts

Thy heavenly grace inspire.”

INSTALLATION. The act of giving visible possession of his office to a canon or prebendary of a cathedral, by placing him in his stall. It is also applied to the placing of a bishop in his episcopal throne in his cathedral church; enthronization being said to be proper to archbishops only; but this appears a technical and unreal distinction invented in the middle ages.

The installation of the Knights of the Garter is a religious ceremony, performed in the Chapel of St. George, at Windsor. (See Ashmole’s Institution of the Order of the Garter.) Those of the Knights of the Bath in Henry VII.’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey, and of the Knights of St. Patrick in the Cathedral of St. Patrick’s in Dublin, are, according to the statutes of the orders, conducted upon the same model.

INSTITUTION. The act by which the bishop commits to a clergyman the cure of a church.

Canon 40. “To avoid the detestable sin of simony, every archbishop, bishop, or other person having authority to admit, institute, or collate, to any spiritual or ecclesiastical function, dignity, or benefice, shall, before every such admission, institution, or collation, minister to every person to be admitted, instituted, or collated, the oath against simony.”

The following papers are to be sent to the bishop by the clergyman, who is to be instituted or collated:—

1. Presentation to the benefice or cathedral preferment, duly stamped and executed by the patron [or petition, not on stamp, if the person to be instituted happens to be patron of the benefice].

The stamp duty upon presentations is now regulated by the acts 5 & 6 Vict. c. 79, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 72, and it is an ad valorem duty upon the net yearly value of the preferment or benefice, such value to be ascertained by the certificate of the ecclesiastical commissioners for England indorsed upon the instrument of presentation.

The following is the scale of stamp duty to which presentations are liable:—

Where the annual value is under £300 | £5 stamp.
If it amounts to £300 and is less than £400 | 10
If it amounts to £400 and is less than £500 | 15
If it amounts to £500 and is less than £600 | 20
and so on; an additional £5 being required for every £100 annual value.

In the case of collations, and also of institutions proceeding upon the petition of the patron, the certificate of yearly value must be written upon, and the stamp affixed to, the instrument of collation, or of institution, respectively.

The following is the scale of duty to which collations and institutions proceeding upon petition are liable:—

Where the annual value is under £300 | £7 stamp.
If it amounts to £300 and is less than £400 | 12
If it amounts to £400 and is less than £500 | 17
If it amounts to £500 and is less than £600 | 22
and so on; an additional £5 being required for every £100 annual value.

In order to procure the certificate of value from the ecclesiastical commissioners, application should be made by the secretary to the commissioners, in the following form:—

Application for Certificate of the Value of a Living under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 79, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 72.

TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS FOR ENGLAND.

The ——, of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, and in the patronage of ——, having become vacant on the —— day of —— last, by the —— of the Rev. ——; and the Rev. —— being about to be —— thereto, the ecclesiastical commissioners for England are requested to certify the net yearly value thereof, according to the provisions of the acts 5 & 6 Vict. c. 79, and 6 and 7 Vict. c. 72.

(Date) ——.

(Signature) ——.

In answer to this application, a form of certificate will be sent from the office of the ecclesiastical commissioners, which is to be indorsed on the instrument of presentation, &c., and then transmitted to the same office for signature; after which, the presentation, &c. will, on its being taken to the Stamp Office, be properly stamped.

2. Letters of orders, deacon, and priest.

3. Letters testimonial by three beneficed clergymen, in the following form:—

To the Right Reverend ——, Lord Bishop of ——.

We, whose names are hereunder written, testify and make known, that A. B., clerk, A. M., (or other degree,) presented (or to be collated, as the case may be) to the canonry, &c., &c., (or to the rectory or vicarage, as the case may be,) of ——, in the county of ——, in your lordship’s diocese, hath been personally known to us for the space of three years last past; that we have had opportunities of observing his conduct; that, during the whole of that time, we verily believe that he lived piously, soberly, and honestly; nor have we at any time heard anything to the contrary thereof; nor hath he at any time, as far as we know or believe, held, written, or taught anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the United Church of England and Ireland; and, moreover, we believe him in our consciences to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy to be admitted to the said canonry, or benefice (as the case may be).

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands, this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 18—

C. D. rector of ——.

E. F. vicar of ——.

G. H. rector of ——.

If all the subscribers are not beneficed in the diocese of the bishop to whom the testimonial is addressed, the counter-signature of the bishop of the diocese wherein their benefices are respectively situate is required.

4. A short statement of the title of the patron in case of a change of patron since the last incumbent was presented.

The same subscriptions and declarations are to be made, and oaths taken, as by a clergyman on being licensed to a perpetual curacy. (See Curacy.)

If the clergyman presented, or to be collated, should be in possession of other preferment, it will be necessary for him, (if he wishes to continue to hold a cathedral preferment, or a benefice with the cathedral preferment, or benefice to which he has been presented, or is to be collated,) to look to the provisions of the act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, sect. 1 to sect. 14, before he is instituted, or collated.

INTENTION. Priest’s Intention. On this subject the following is the eleventh canon of the Council of Trent:—“If any shall say that there is not required in the ministers while they perform and confer the sacraments, at least the intention of doing what the Church does, let him be accursed.”

This is a monstrous and fearful assertion, which supposes it to be in the power of every malicious or sceptical priest to deprive the holiest of God’s worshippers of the grace which is sought in the sacraments. There is mention of this notion in Pope Eugenius’s letter to the Armenians at the Council of Florence; but this was the first time that a reputed general council sanctioned it. But the Church of Rome is not content with placing all receivers of sacraments at the mercy of the priest’s intention; and when we know how many avowed infidels there have been found in the ranks of her priesthood, this alone (according to her own theory) opens a fearful door to doubt and hesitation, affecting the validity of the ordinations and administrations within her pale since the Council of Trent; but in the sacrament of the holy eucharist she has placed the communicants at the mercy of the baker’s and vintner’s intention, and any malevolent tradesman who supplies the wine and wafers to be used in the Lord’s supper, has it in its power, according to their rubrics, to deprive the communicants of the grace of the sacrament. For, “Si panis non sit triticeus, vel si triticeus, admixtus sit granis alterius generis in tanta quantitate, ut non mancat panis triticeus, vel sit alioqui corruptus: non conficitur sacramentum.” “Si sit confectus de aqua rosacea, vel alterius distillationis, dubium est an conficiatur.” “Si vinum sit factum penitus acetum, vel penitus putridum, vel de uvis acerbis seu non maturis expressum; vel ei admixtum tantum aquæ ut vinum sit corruptum, non conficitur sacramentum.”—Rubricæ Generales Missalis Rom.

INTERCESSIONS. That part of the Litany in which, having already prayed for ourselves, we now proceed to supplicate God’s mercy for others. The intercessions are accompanied by the response, “We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.” (See Litany.) The different species of prayer are alluded to by St. Paul, 1 Tim. ii. 1. “I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men.” δεήσεις, προσευχὰς, ἐντεύξεις, εὐχαριστίας.

INTERCESSOR. (See Lord and Jesus.) One who pleads in behalf of another. The title is applied emphatically to our blessed Lord, “who ever liveth to make intercession for us.” The practice of the Romanists in investing angels and departed saints with the character of intercessors, is rejected as being unsanctioned by Catholic antiquity, as resting on no Scriptural authority, and as being derogatory to the dignity of our Redeemer. (See Invocation, Saints, Idolatry.)

INTERDICT. An ecclesiastical censure, whereby the Church of Rome forbids the administration of the sacraments and the performance of Divine service to a kingdom, province, town, &c. Some people pretend this custom was introduced in the fourth or fifth century; but the opinion that it began in the ninth, is much more probable: there are some instances of it since that age, and particularly Alexander III., in 1170, superciliously put the kingdom of England under an interdict, forbidding the clergy to perform any part of Divine service unless baptism to infants, taking confessions, and giving absolutions to dying penitents, which was the usual restraint of an interdict; but the succeeding popes, for reasons best known to themselves, seldom make use of it.—Broughton.

INTERIM. (Lat.) The name of a formulary, or confession of faith, obtruded upon the Protestants, after the death of Luther, by the emperor Charles V., when he had defeated their forces. It was so called, because it was only to take place in the Interim, till a general council should decide all the points in question between the Protestants and Catholics. The occasion of it was this: the emperor had made choice of three divines, viz. Julius Pflug, bishop of Naumberg, Michael Helding, titular bishop of Sidon, and John Agricola, preacher to the Elector of Brandenburg; who drew up a project consisting of twenty-six articles concerning the points of religion in dispute between the Catholics and Protestants. The controverted points were, the state of Adam before and after his fall; the redemption of mankind by Jesus Christ; the justification of sins; charity and good works; the confidence we ought to have in God, that our sins are remitted; the Church, and its true marks; its power, authority, and ministers; the pope and bishops; the sacraments; the mass; the commemoration of saints; their intercession; and prayers for the dead.

The emperor sent this project to the pope for his approbation, which he refused; whereupon Charles V. published the imperial constitution called the Interim, wherein he declared, that “it was his will, that all his Catholic dominions should, for the future, inviolably observe the customs, statutes, and ordinances of the Universal Church; and that those who had separated themselves from it, should either reunite themselves to it, or at least conform to this constitution; and that all should quietly expect the decisions of the general council.” This ordinance was published in the Diet of Augsburg, May 15th, 1548. But this device neither pleased the pope nor the Protestants; the Lutheran preachers openly declared they would not receive it, alleging that it reestablished Popery. Some chose rather to quit their chairs and livings than to subscribe it; nor would the Duke of Saxony receive it. Calvin, and several others, wrote against it. On the other side, the emperor was so severe against those who refused to accept, that he disfranchised the cities of Magdeburg and Constance, for their opposition.—Broughton.

INTERMEDIATE STATE. A term made use of to denote the state of the soul between death and the resurrection. From the Scriptures speaking frequently of the dead sleeping in their graves, many have supposed that the soul sleeps till the resurrection, i. e. is in a state of entire insensibility. But against this opinion, and that the soul, after death, enters immediately into a state of conscious happiness or misery, though not of final reward or punishment, the following passages seem to be conclusive: Matt. xvii. 3; Luke xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. v. 6; Phil. i. 21; Luke xvi. 22, 23; Rev. vi. 9. (See Hell.)

INTONATION, properly speaking, the recitation by the chanter, or rector chori, of the commencing words of the psalm or hymn, before the choir begins: as is often practised in the English choirs, with respect to the Venite, the Te Deum, the Nicene Creed, and the Gloria in Excelsis. The intonations of the Gregorian Psalm chant are regularly prescribed. Intonation is also applied to the commencement of each verse of the Canticles (sung however by the choir) before the reciting note. The intonations are the same as in the psalm chants; but in the latter they are confined to the first verse of each psalm. The word is sometimes, but inaccurately, used for the chanting of the services by the priest or minister in the musical tone proper to choirs—Jebb.

INTROIT. In the ancient Church a psalm was sung or chanted immediately before the collect, Epistle, and Gospel. As this took place while the priest was entering within the septum or rails of the altar, it acquired the name of Introitus or Introit.

Cardinal Bona says that Introits, as used in the Roman Church, were introduced by Pope Cœlestine (A. D. 422–432). The Introit consists of one or more verses, generally from the Psalms, but sometimes from other parts of Scripture. This anthem is the Introit, properly so called. Then follows a verse from the psalm (anciently a whole psalm): then the Gloria Patri, after which the Introit, or commencing anthem, is repeated. The First Prayer Book of Edward VI., (A. D. 1549,) appoints special psalms to be used as Introits on all Sundays and holy-days. These differ altogether from the Roman Introits, both in their selection and in their construction. They are entire psalms, with the Gloria Patri, and without any verse. The psalm or hymn now universally sung in our churches before the Communion Service, may be said to represent the Introit, as Bishop Bull observes. “In cathedral or mother churches there is still a decent distinction between the two services: for before the priest goes to the altar to read the second service, there is a short but excellent anthem sung, in imitation whereof in the churches of London, and in other greater churches of the country, instead of that anthem there is part of a psalm sung.”—Jebb.

In Clifford’s Introduction, (1664,) it appears that a voluntary at that time preceded the Communion Service at St. Paul’s. Shortly after this time, the custom arose, now universal in choirs, of singing a Sanctus in this place: St. Paul’s, Westminster, and Canterbury were the first to adopt it. In parish churches, a metrical psalm is usually sung in this place, and very properly.

INVENTION OF THE HOLY CROSS. A festival kept by the Church of Rome, in memory of the day on which they affirm our Saviour’s cross was found by the empress Helena, in the time of Constantine the Great; concerning which the following story has been fabricated. That princess being at Jerusalem, was informed that the cross of our Saviour was buried in the sepulchre, upon which she ordered them to dig, when they found the cross and the nails, together with the crosses of the two thieves: but the wood on which the inscription was made being separated from the cross, they could not distinguish that of our Saviour from the others, till Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, found out the following expedient: he ordered a dying woman to be brought and laid upon the crosses, two of which gave her no manner of relief, but being set upon the third, she perfectly recovered from the first moment she touched it, whereby they plainly discovered that it was the same on which our Saviour suffered. The empress built a stately church in the place where the cross was found, where she left some part of the wood richly ornamented, carrying the rest with the nails to Constantinople.

INVESTITURE. The act of conferring a bishopric, by delivering a pastoral staff or ring. Concerning the right of investiture, violent disputes arose in the middle ages, between the emperors and the popes, for an account of which the reader is referred to Mosheim, Cent. XI. part ii. chap. 2, the account being too long for insertion here.

INVISIBLES. A distinguishing name given to the disciples of Osiander, Flacius Illyricus, Swenkfeld, &c., being so denominated because they denied the perpetual visibility of the Church. Palmer remarks, that the reformed seem generally to have taught the doctrine of the visibility of the Church, until some of them deemed it necessary, in consequence of their controversy with the Romanists, who asked them where their Church existed before Luther, to maintain that the Church might sometimes be invisible. This mistaken view appears in the Belgic Confession, and was adopted by some of the Protestants; but it arose entirely from their error in forsaking the defensive ground which their predecessors had taken at first, and placing themselves in the false position of claiming the exclusive title of the Church of Christ, according to the ordinary signification of the term. Jurieu, a minister of the French Protestants, has shown this, and has endeavoured to prove that the Church of Christ is essentially visible, and that it never remained obscured, without ministry or sacraments, even in the persecutions, or in the time of Arianism. The same truth has been acknowledged by several denominations of dissenters in Britain.

INVITATORY. Some text of Scripture, adapted and chosen for the occasion of the day, and used in ancient times before the Venite, which is also called the Invitatory Psalm.

The Invitatories, as given in the Roman Breviaries, are two verses, “Adoremus Dominum, qui fecit nos,” and “qui fecit nos:” the former sung before and after the psalm, and at the end of the 2nd, 6th, and 1Oth verses; and the latter at the end of the 4th and 8th.—Jebb.

INVOCATION. The commencing part of the Litany, containing the invocation of each Person of the Godhead, severally, and of the Blessed Trinity in Unity. This distinction is made in the margin of Nicholls’s edition of the Common Prayer.

INVOCATION OF SAINTS. The thirty-fifth canon of the Council of Laodicea runs thus: “It does not behove Christians to leave the Church of God, and go and invoke angels, and make assemblies; which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one be detected idling in their secret idolatry, let him be accursed, because he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and gone to idolatry.” This plain testimony of the fathers of the primitive Church, against the invocation and worshipping of angels, which is denounced as idolatry, is not to be set aside by all the ingenuity of the Roman writers.—See their attempts, Labbe and Cossart, i. 1526. The subtle distinctions of Latria, Dulia, and the rest, had not entered the imagination of Theodoret when he cited this canon as condemning the worshipping of angels, σύνοδος ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ τῆς Φρυγίας νόμῳ κεκώλυκε τὸ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις προσεύχεσθαι (Comm. Coloss. ii. 18); nor into that of Origen, who expressly says, that men ought not to worship or adore the angels, for that all prayer and supplication, and intercession and thanksgiving, should be made to God alone, (Contra Celsum, v. § 4,) and that right reason forbids the invocation of them.—Ibid. § 5.

But in the twenty-fifth session of the Popish Council of Trent, the synod thus rules: “Of the invocation, veneration, and relics of the saints, and the sacred images, the holy synod commands the bishops and others who have the office and care of instruction, that according to the custom of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has been received from the first ages of the Christian religion, the consent of the holy Fathers, and the decrees of the sacred councils, they make it a chief point diligently to instruct the faithful concerning the intercession and invocation of saints, the honour of relics, and the lawful use of images, teaching them that the saints reigning together with Christ, offer to God their prayers for men; that it is good and useful to invoke them with supplication, and, on account of the benefits obtained from God through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour, to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and assistance; but that they who deny that the saints enjoying eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert either that they do not pray for men, or that the invoking them that they may pray for each of us, is idolatry; or that it is contrary to the word of God, and opposed to the honour of the one Mediator between God and man; or that it is folly, either by word or thought, to supplicate them who are reigning in heaven; are impious in their opinions.

“Also that the holy bodies of the holy martyrs and others living with Christ, which were living members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and are by him to be raised to eternal life, and glorified, ought to be venerated by the faithful; by means of which the faithful receive many benefits. So that they who declare that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of the saints, or that the honour which the faithful pay to them and other sacred monuments is useless, and that it is in vain to celebrate the memory of the saints for the sake of obtaining their assistance, are utterly to be condemned, as the Church already has condemned them, and does so at the present time.

“Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints, are to be especially had and retained in the churches; and due honour and veneration to be given to them, not because it is supposed that there is any divinity or virtue in them on account of which they are to be worshipped, nor because anything is to be asked of them, nor that confidence is to be placed in images, as of old was done by the heathens, who placed their hope in idols, but because the honour which is shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent; so that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads and fall down, we worship Christ, and venerate the saints, whose likeness they bear. That is what has been sanctioned by the decrees of the councils against the opposers of images, especially those of the second Nicene Synod.

“But let the bishops diligently teach that by stories of the mysteries of our redemption, expressed in pictures or other representations, the people are taught and confirmed in commemorating and carefully bearing in mind the articles of faith, as also that great advantage is derived from all the sacred images, not only because the people are thereby reminded of the benefits and gifts which Christ has conferred upon them, but also because the miracles of God by the saints, and their wholesome examples, are submitted to the eyes of the faithful, that they may give thanks to God for them, and dispose their lives and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love God, and to cultivate religion.

“Canon. If any shall teach or think contrary to these decrees, let him be accursed.”

The first council which decreed this invocation and intercession, is denounced by the Romanists themselves as schismatical and heretical; it was the Council at Constantinople, under Constantine Copronymus. Nor have all the researches of the Romish advocates availed to adduce from the early ages one single writer, layman or ecclesiastic, who has enjoined this practice as a duty. All that they have succeeded in showing is, that in the course of the first five centuries several individual writers are to be found who commend the practice as useful. Against these we will cite the following; and from a comparison of the passages cited on both sides, it will be clear that although, notwithstanding the reproof of the apostle, (Col. ii. 18,) the invocation of angels, and afterwards of saints, obtained in some places in the Christian Church, it was always an open point which men were free to reject or not, as they might think fit; and that, therefore, both the Council of Copronymus in the eighth century, and the Council of Trent in the sixteenth, were violating ecclesiastical tradition, when by their anathemas they sought to abridge Christian liberty by confirming a corrupt and foolish custom; especially when the caution of the apostle Paul, and the decree of the Council of Laodicea, are taken into consideration. It is a remarkable thing that, among all the liturgies which Messrs. Kirke and Berrington have cited in their volume, entitled, “The Faith of the Catholics,” Lond. 1830, amounting to eleven, only one is to be found, and that of the Nestorian heretics, containing an invocation to a saint for intercession:—thus showing how wide a distinction is to be drawn between the excited expressions of individual writers, and the authorized practice of the Church. All the other liturgies do no more than the Roman canon of the mass; viz. 1st, assume, generally, that the saints departed pray for the saints militant; and, 2ndly, pray to God to hear their intercessions. This is no more tantamount to an invocation of the saints, than a prayer to God for the assistance of the angels would be tantamount to a prayer to the angels themselves.—Perceval.

IRELAND. (See Church of Ireland.)

IRVINGITES. The followers of Edward Irving, a minister of the Scottish establishment, who was born in 1792, and died in 1834. In 1822, he was appointed to a Scotch presbyterian congregation, and for some years officiated in a chapel with great applause, but was at length deposed from his ministry by the presbytery, for holding an awful heresy concerning our blessed Lord, whose nature he considered as peccable, or capable of sin. He still continued, however, to act as minister of a congregation in London. Both in Scotland and in England he had many followers; and since his death Irvingism has found its way into Germany and other foreign countries. The first form which his party assumed was connected with certain notions concerning the millennium, and the immediately impending advent of our blessed Lord: and presently after, as precursors of the expected event, miraculous gifts of tongues, of prophecy, of healing, and even of raising the dead, were pretended to by his followers; though Irving himself never pretended to those more miraculous endowments. Superadded to these notions, was a singularly constructed hierarchy, of apostles, angels, &c. They affect the name of Apostolicals.

The Irvingites call themselves The Catholic and Apostolic Church; and the following sketch of the denomination was supplied by a member to Mr. Horace Mann, and printed by him in the Census Report of 1851.

“The body to which this name is applied make no exclusive claim to it: they simply object to be called by any other. They acknowledge it to be the common title of the one Church baptized into Christ, which has existed in all ages, and of which they claim to be members. They have always protested against the application to them of the term ‘Irvingites;’ which appellation they consider to be untrue and offensive, though derived from one whom, when living, they held in high regard as a devoted minister of Christ.

“They do not profess to be, and refuse to acknowledge that they are, separatists from the Church established or dominant in the land of their habitation, or from the general body of Christians therein. They recognise the continuance of the Church from the days of the first apostles, and of three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, by succession from the apostles. They justify their meeting in separate congregations from the charge of schism, on the ground of the same being permitted and authorized by an ordinance of paramount authority, which they believe God has restored for the benefit of the whole Church. And so far from professing to be another sect in addition to the numerous sects already dividing the Church, or to be ‘the One Church,’ to the exclusion of all other bodies, they believe that their special mission is to reunite the scattered members of the one body of Christ.

“The only standards of faith which they recognise are the three creeds of the Catholic Church—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed, and that called the Creed of St. Athanasius. The speciality of their religious belief, whereby they are distinguished from other Christian communities, stands in this: that they hold apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors, to be abiding ministries in the Church, and that these ministries, together with the power and gifts of the Holy Ghost, dispensed and distributed among her members, are necessary for preparing and perfecting the Church for the second advent of the Lord; and that supreme rule in the Church ought to be exercised, as at the first, by twelve apostles, not elected or ordained by men, but called and sent forth immediately by God.

“The congregations which have been authorized as above stated, are placed under the pastoral rule of angels or bishops, with whom are associated, in the work of the ministry, priests and deacons. The deacons are a distinct and separate order of ministers, taken from the midst of, and chosen by, the respective congregations in which they are to serve, and are ordained either by apostles or by angels receiving commission thereunto. The priests are first called to their office by the word through the prophets, (“no man taking this honour to himself,”) and then ordained by apostles; and from among the priests, by a like call and ordination, are the angels set in their places.

“With respect to the times of worship, the holy eucharist is celebrated, and the communion is administered, every Lord’s day, and more or less frequently during the week, according to the number of priests in each particular congregation; and, where the congregations are large, the first and last hours of every day, reckoning from 6 A. M. to 6 P. M., are appointed for Divine worship; and, if there be a sufficient number of ministers, there are, in addition, prayers daily at 9 A. M. and 3 P. M., with other services for the more special object of teaching and preaching.

“In the forms of worship observed, the prayers and other devotions to be found in the principal liturgies of the Christian Church are introduced by preference, wherever appropriate; and in all their services the bishops and clergy of the Catholic Church, and all Christian kings, princes, and governors, are remembered before God. It may also be observed, that in their ritual observances and offices of worship external and material things have their place. They contend that, as through the washing of water men are admitted into the Christian covenant, and as bread and wine duly consecrated are ordained to be used not merely for spiritual food, but for purposes of sacramental and symbolic agency, so also that the use of other material things, such as oil, lights, incense, &c., as symbols and exponents of spiritual realities, belongs to the dispensation of the gospel.

“Besides free-will offerings, the tenth of their increase, including income of every description, is brought up to the Lord, (it being regarded as a sacred duty that tithe should be dedicated to his service alone,) and is apportioned among those who are separated to the ministry.

“In England there are about 30 congregations, comprising nearly 6000 communicants; and the number is gradually on the increase. There are also congregations in Scotland and Ireland, a considerable number in Germany, and several in France, Switzerland, and America.”

Of late years, it is said, this denomination has made considerable progress, so that from 1846 to 1851 the number of communicants in England has increased by a third, while great success has been achieved on the continent and in America. Returns from 32 chapels (chiefly in the southern counties of England) have been furnished to the Census Office. These contained (allowing for one chapel for which the sittings are not mentioned) accommodation for 7437 persons. The attendance, on the Census-Sunday, was, (making an estimated addition for two chapels with regard to which no information was received,) Morning, 3176; Afternoon, 1659; Evening, 2707.

ISAIAH, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Isaiah is the first of the four greater prophets, the other three being Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. He was of royal blood, his father Amos being brother to Azariah, king of Judah. He prophesied from the end of the reign of Uzziah, to the time of Manasseh; by whose order, according to a Jewish tradition, he was sawn asunder with a wooden saw. He delivered his predictions under the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. The first five chapters of his prophecy relate to the reign of Uzziah; the vision of the sixth chapter happened in the time of Jotham; the next chapters, to the fifteenth, include his prophecies under the reign of Ahaz; and those that happened under the reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh are related in the next chapters, to the end.

The style of this prophet is noble, sublime, and florid. Grotius calls him the Demosthenes of the Hebrews. He had the advantage above the other prophets of improving his diction by conversing with men of the greatest parts and elocution. This added a gravity, force, and vehemence to what he said. He impartially reproved the vices and disorders of the age he lived in, and openly displayed the judgments of God, which were hanging over the Jewish nation; at the same time denouncing vengeance on those foreign nations, which were instrumental in inflicting those judgments, viz. the Assyrians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Moabites, Edomites, Tyrians, and Arabians. He clearly foretold the deliverance of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, by the hand of Cyrus king of Persia; and this he expressly mentioned an hundred years before it came to pass. But the most remarkable of his predictions are those concerning the Messiah. He, in plain terms, foretold, not only the coming of Christ in the flesh, but all the great and memorable circumstances of his life and death. He speaks, says St. Jerome, rather of things past than to come; and he may rather be called an Evangelist, than a Prophet.

Besides the prophecies of Isaiah still extant, he wrote a book concerning the actions of Uzziah, cited in the Chronicles; but it is now lost. Origen, Epiphanius, and St. Jerome speak of another book, called “The Ascension of Isaiah.” Some of the Jews ascribe to him the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Solomon’s Song, and the Book of Job.

ITALIC VERSION. The old Italic Version, or Vetus Itala, is the name usually given to that translation of the sacred Scriptures into the Latin language, which was generally used until the time of St. Jerome, being distinguished for its clearness and fidelity among the many versions then existing. It was however translated from the Greek in the Old Testament, as well as the New; and is supposed to have been executed in the early part of the 2nd century. St. Jerome, dissatisfied with the ruggedness and imperfections of the old Italic, first commenced a revision of it, which, however, he did not complete; and afterwards made a new translation, which at first gradually, but at length universally, obtained in the Latin Church, under the name of the Vulgate. Of the old Italic Version, the Psalter and Book of Job, corrected by Jerome, remain; and are published in the Benedictine edition of St. Jerome’s Works. The apocryphal books of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, the two Books of Maccabees, and perhaps, as may be collected from Dr. Hody, the remaining chapters of Esther, and the Song of the Three Children, also belong to this translation. (See Vulgate and Psalter.) Consult Walton’s Prolegomena, and Hodius de Bibliorum textibus originalibus, (who corrects Walton in one of his statements,) for a full account of this version.

JACOBITES, or JACOBINS. Eastern Christians, so denominated from Jacob, a Syrian, the disciple of Eutyches and Dioscorus, whose heresy he spread so much in Asia and Africa, in the 6th century, that at last, in the 7th, the different sects of the Eutychians were swallowed up by that of the Jacobites, which also comprehended all the Monophysites of the East, i. e. such as acknowledged only one nature in Christ. Their Asian patriarch resides at Caramit, in Mesopotamia; Alexandria is the see of the African one, and he follows the errors of Dioscorus and the Cophti. M. Simon relates that under the name of Jacobins must be included all the Monophysites of the East, whether Armenians, Cophti, or Abyssines, acknowledging but one nature in Christ; he adds, the number of the Jacobins, properly so called, is but small, there not being above thirty or forty thousand families of them, which principally inhabit Syria and Mesopotamia: they are divided among themselves, one part embracing, and the other disowning, the communion of the Church of Rome. These last are not all united, having two opposite patriarchs, one at Caramit, and the other at Dorzapharan; besides these two, he says, there is one of the same opinion with the Latins, residing at Aleppo.

JAMES’S, ST., DAY, (July 25th,) the day on which the Church celebrates the memory of the apostle James the Great, or the Elder. He was one of the sons of Zebedee, and brother of St. John. He was the first of the apostles who won the crown of martyrdom. (Acts xii. 2.)

JAMES’S, ST., GENERAL EPISTLE. A canonical book of the New Testament. It was written by St. James the Less, called also the Lord’s brother; who was chosen by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem. The date of this Epistle is placed by Dr. Mills in, or just before, the year 60; two years after which the writer suffered martyrdom, under the high priesthood of Ananus, and procuratorship of Albinus.

This general Epistle is addressed partly to the infidel, and partly to the believing Jews. The writer’s design was to correct the errors, soften the ungoverned zeal, and reform the indecent behaviour, of the former; and to comfort the latter under the hardships they then did, or shortly were to suffer, for the sake of Christianity. It is directed to the Jews and Jewish converts of the dispersion, but no doubt was calculated for the improvement likewise of those Jews, over whom the apostle presided in the special character of their bishop.

This Epistle is the first of the Catholic or General Epistles, in the canon of Scripture; which are so called, because they were written, not to one, but to several Christian Churches.

JANSENISTS, in France, are those who follow the opinions of Jansenius, a doctor of divinity of the university of Louvain, and bishop of Ypres. In the year 1640, the two universities of Louvain and Douay thought fit to condemn the loose doctrine of the Jesuits, particularly Father Molina and Father Leonard Celsus, concerning grace and predestination. This having set the controversy on foot, Jansenius opposed to the doctrine of the Jesuits the sentiments of St. Augustine, and wrote a treatise upon grace, which he entitled Augustinus. The treatise was attacked by the Jesuits, who accused Jansenius of maintaining dangerous and heretical opinions: nor did they stop here, but obtained of Pope Urban VIII., in 1642, a formal condemnation of Jansenius’s treatise. The partisans of Jansenius gave out, that this bull was spurious, and composed by a person entirely devoted to the Jesuits.

After the death of Urban VIII., the affair of Jansenism began to be more warmly controverted, and gave birth to an infinite number of polemical writings concerning Grace. What occasioned some mirth in these disputes was, the titles which each party gave to their writings. One writer published The Torch of St. Augustine; another found Snuffers for St. Augustine’s Torch. F. Veron composed A Gag for the Jansenists: and the like. In the year 1650, sixty-eight bishops of France subscribed a letter to Pope Innocent X., to obtain of him an inquiry into, and condemnation of, the five famous propositions which follow, extracted from Jansenius’s Augustinus:—

I. Some of God’s commandments are impossible to be kept by the righteous, even though they are willing to observe them.

II. A man doth never resist inward grace, in the state of fallen nature.

III. In order to merit, or not merit, it is not necessary that a man should have a liberty free from necessity. It is sufficient that he hath a liberty free from restraint.

IV. The Semi-Pelagians were heretics, because they asserted the necessity of an inward preventing grace for every action.

V. It is a Semi-Pelagian opinion to say, that Jesus Christ died for all mankind, without exception.

In the year 1652, the pope appointed a congregation for examining into the matter relating to Grace. In this congregation Jansenius was condemned, and the bull of condemnation published, May 31, 1653. After its publication at Paris, the pulpits were filled with violent outcries and alarms against the heresy of the Jansenists. The year 1656 produced the famous “Provincial Letters” of M. Pascal, under the name of Louis de Montalte, in defence of Messieurs de Port Royal, who were looked upon as the bulwark of Jansenism. The same year, Pope Alexander VII. issued another bull, in which he condemned the five propositions of Jansenius. The Jansenists affirm that the five condemned propositions are not to be found in Jansenius’s treatise upon Grace, but that some enemies of Jansenius, having caused them to be printed on a sheet, inserted them in a book, and thereby deceived the pope.

Among the enemies of the Jansenists was a certain sect of fanatics, called Brothers of the Sodality of the blessed Sacrament. They sprung up at Caen, in 1659, and gave out that their smell was so nice, that they could distinguish a Jansenist by the very scent, and that all the clergy in that city, except two, were Jansenists.

At last Clement XI. put an end to the disputes about Jansenism by his constitution of July 17, 1705; in which, after having recited the constitutions of his predecessors in relation to this affair, he declares, that, to pay a proper obedience to the papal constitutions concerning the present question, it is necessary to receive them with a respectful silence. The clergy assembled at Paris approved and accepted this bull, on the 21st of August, the same year; and no one dared to oppose it. This is the famous bull Unigenitus, so called from its beginning with the words, Unigenitus Dei Filius.—Broughton.

Jansenism still exists in Holland, where the archbishop of Utrecht presides over the communion.

JANUARY, THIRTIETH OF. (See Forms of Prayer.)

JEHOVAH. One of the names given in Scripture to Almighty God, and peculiar to him, signifying the Being who is self-existent, and gives existence to others.

The name is also given to our blessed Saviour, and is a proof of his Godhead. (Compare Isaiah xl. 3, with Matt. iii. 3, and Isaiah vi., with John xii. 41.) The Jews had so great a veneration for this name, that they left off the custom of pronouncing it, whereby its true pronunciation was forgotten. It is called the Tetragrammaton, (Τετραγράμματον,) or name of four letters, and containing in itself the past and future tenses, as well as the present participle, and signifies, He who was, is, and shall be: i. e. the Eternal, the Unchangeable, the Faithful.

The same veneration seems to have actuated most Christian communities in their translation of the word, rendered in Greek by Κύριος, in Latin by Dominus, and in English by Lord. The word Jehovah occurs but four times simply, and five times in composition, in our authorized translation.

JEREMIAH, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. This divine writer was of the race of the priests, the son of Hilkiuh of Anathoth, in the tribe of Benjamin. He was called to the prophetic office, when he was very young, about the thirteenth year of Josiah, and continued in the discharge of it above forty years. He was not carried captive to Babylon with the other Jews, but remained in Judea, to lament the desolation of his country. He was afterwards a prisoner in Egypt, with his disciple Baruch, where it is supposed he died in a very advanced age. Some of the Christian Fathers tell us, he was stoned to death by the Jews for preaching against their idolatry; and some say, he was put to death by Pharaoh Hophra, because of his prophecy against him.

Part of the prophecy of Jeremiah relates to the time after the captivity of Israel, and before that of Judah, from the first chapter to the forty-fourth; and part of it was in the time of the latter captivity, from the forty-fourth chapter to the end. The prophet lays open the sins of the kingdom of Judah with great freedom and boldness, and reminds them of the severe judgments which had befallen the ten tribes for the same offences; he passionately laments their misfortune, and recommends a speedy reformation to them. Afterwards he predicts the grievous calamities that were approaching, particularly the seventy years’ captivity in Chaldea. He likewise foretells their deliverance and happy return, and the recompence which Babylon, Moab, and other enemies of the Jews, should meet with in due time. There are likewise several intimations in this prophecy concerning the kingdom of the Messiah; also several remarkable visions and types, and historical passages relating to those times.

The fifty-second chapter does not belong to the prophecy of Jeremiah, which concludes, at the end of the fifty-first chapter, with these words: “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.” The last, or fifty-second chapter, (which probably was added by Ezra,) contains a narrative of the taking of Jerusalem, and of what happened during the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, to the death of Jechonias. St. Jerome has observed upon this prophet, that his style is more easy than that of Isaiah and Hosea; that he retains something of the rusticity of the village where he was born; but that he is very learned and majestic, and equal to those two prophets in the sense of his prophecy.

JESUITS, or the SOCIETY OF JESUS. A society which, at one period, extended its influence to the very ends of the earth, and proved the main pillar of the papal hierarchy,—which wormed itself into almost absolute power, occupying the high places, and leading captive the ecclesiastical dictator of the world,—must be an object of some curiosity to the inquisitive mind.

Ignatius Loyola, a native of Biscay, is well known to have been the founder of this, nominally, religious order. He was born in 1491, and became first a page to Ferdinand V., king of Spain, and then an officer in his army. In 1521 he was wounded in both legs at the siege of Pampeluna, when having had leisure to study a book of Lives of the Saints, he devoted himself to the service of the Virgin; and his military ardour becoming metamorphosed into superstitious zeal, he went on a pilgrimage into the Holy Land. Upon his return to Europe, he studied in the universities of Spain, whence he removed into France, and formed a plan for the institution of this new order, which he presented to the pope. But, notwithstanding the high pretensions of Loyola to inspiration, Paul III. refused his request, till his scruples were removed by an irresistible argument addressed to his self-interest: it was proposed that every member should make a vow of unconditional obedience to the pope, without requiring any support from the holy see. The order was, therefore, instituted in 1540, and Loyola appointed to be the first general.

The plan of the society was completed by the two immediate successors of the founder, Lainez and Aquaviva, both of whom excelled their master in ability and the science of government; and, in a few years, the society established itself in every Catholic country, acquiring prodigious wealth, and exciting the apprehensions of all the enemies of the Romish faith.

To Lainez are ascribed the Secreta Monita, or secret instructions of the order; which were first discovered when Christian, duke of Brunswick, seized the Jesuits’ college at Paderborn, in Westphalia, at which time he gave their books and manuscripts to the Capuchins, who found these secret instructions among the archives of their rector. After this, another copy was detected at Prague, in the college of the Jesuits.

The Jesuits are taught to consider themselves as formed for action, in opposition to the monastic orders, who retire from the concerns of the world; and in engaging in all civil and commercial transactions, insinuating themselves into the friendship of persons of rank, studying the disposition of all classes, with a view of obtaining an influence over them, and undertaking missions to distant nations, it is an essential principle of their policy, by every means, to extend the Catholic faith. No labour is spared, no intrigue omitted, that may prove conducive to this purpose.

The constitution of the society is monarchical. A general is chosen for life by deputies from the several provinces. His power is supreme and universal. Every member is at his entire disposal, and is required to submit his will and sentiments to his dictation, and to listen to his injunctions, as if uttered by Christ himself. The fortune, person, and conscience of the whole society are at his disposal, and he can dispense his order not only from the vows of poverty, chastity, and monastic obedience, but even from submission to the pope whenever he pleases. He nominates and removes provincials, rectors, professors, and all officers of the order, superintends the universities, houses, and missions, decides controversies, and forms or dissolves contracts. No member can express any opinion of his own; and the society has its prisons, independent of the secular authority.

There are four classes of members,—the novitiates or probationers, the approved disciples, the coadjutors, and the professors of the four vows. The education of youth was always considered by them as their peculiar province,—aware of the influence which such a measure would infallibly secure over another generation: and before the conclusion of the sixteenth century the Jesuits had obtained the chief direction of the youthful mind in every Roman Catholic country in Europe. They had become the confessors of almost all its monarchs, and the spiritual guides of nearly every person distinguished for rank or influence. At different periods they obtained the direction of the most considerable courts, and took part in every intrigue and revolution.

Notwithstanding their vow of poverty, they accumulated, upon various pretences, immense wealth. They claimed exemption from tithes under a bull of Gregory XIII., who was devoted to their interests; and, by obtaining a special licence from the court of Rome to trade with the nations whom they professed to convert, they carried on a lucrative commerce in the East and West Indies, formed settlements in different countries, and acquired possession of a large province in South America, (Paraguay,) where they reigned as sovereigns over some hundred thousand subjects.

Their policy is uniformly to inculcate attachment to the Order, and by a pliant morality to soothe and gratify the passions of mankind, for the purpose of securing their patronage. They proclaim the duty of opposing princes who are inimical to the Catholic faith, and have employed every weapon, every artful and every intolerant measure, to resist the progress of Protestantism.

In Portugal, where the Jesuits were first received, they obtained the direction of the court, which for many years delivered to them the consciences of its princes and the education of the people. Portugal opened the door to their missions, and gave them establishments in Asia, Africa, and America. They usurped the sovereignty of Paraguay, and resisted the forces of Portugal and Spain, who claimed it. The court of Lisbon, and even Rome herself, protested in vain against their excesses. The league in France was, in reality, a conspiracy of the Jesuits, under the sanction of Sixtus V., to disturb the succession to the throne of France. The Jesuits’ college at Paris was the grand focus of the seditions and treasons which then agitated the state, and the ruler of the Jesuits was president of the Council of Sixteen, which gave the impulse to the leagues formed there and throughout France. Matthieu, a Jesuit and confessor of Henry III., was called “the Courier of the League,” on account of his frequent journeys to and from Rome at that disastrous period.

In Germany the society appropriated the richest benefices, particularly those of the monasteries of St. Benedict and St. Bernard. Catherine of Austria confided in them, and was supplanted; and loud outcries were uttered against them by the sufferers in Vienna, in the states of Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, and elsewhere. Their cruelties in Poland will never be forgotten. They were expelled from Abyssinia, Japan, Malta, Cochin, Moscow, Venice, and other places, for their gross misconduct; and in America and Asia they carried devastation and blood wherever they went. The great object of the persecution of the Protestants in Savoy was the confiscation of their property, in order to endow the colleges of the Jesuits. They had, no doubt, a share in the atrocities of the Duke of Alva in the Low Countries. They boasted of the friendship of Catherine de Medicis, who espoused their cause, and under whose influence the massacre of St. Bartholomew was executed. Louis XIV. had three Jesuit confessors, which may explain the revocation of the edict of Nantes.

The Jesuits have been notorious for attempting the lives of princes. The reign of Queen Elizabeth presents a succession of plots. In her proclamation, dated Nov. 15, 1602, she says, that “the Jesuits had fomented the plots against her person, excited her subjects to revolt, provoked foreign princes to compass her death, engaged in all affairs of state, and by their language and writings had undertaken to dispose of her crown.”

Lucius enumerates five conspiracies of the Jesuits against James I. before he had reigned a year. They contrived the Gunpowder Plot. So late as the time of George I. both houses of parliament reported, that the evidence examined by them on the conspiracy of Plunket and Layer had satisfactorily shown that it had for its object the destruction of the king, the subversion of the laws, and the crowning of the Popish pretender; and they state that “Plunket was born at Dublin, and bred up at the Jesuits’ college at Vienna.” Henry III. of France was assassinated by Clement, a Jesuit, in 1589. The Jesuits murdered William, prince of Orange, in 1584. They attempted the life of Louis XV. for imposing silence on the polemics of their order, and were also guilty of innumerable other atrocities.

The pernicious spirit and constitution of this order rendered it early detested by the principal powers of Europe; and while Pascal, by his “Provincial Letters,” exposed the morality of the society, and thus overthrew their influence over the multitude, different potentates concurred, from time to time, to destroy or prevent its establishments. Charles V. opposed the order in his dominions: it was expelled in England by the proclamation of James I. in 1604; in Venice, in 1606; in Portugal, in 1759; in France, in 1764; in Spain and Sicily, in 1767, and suppressed and abolished by Pope Clement XIV. in 1775. Our own age has witnessed its revival, and is even now suffering from the increased energy of its members.

JESUITESSES. An order of nuns, who had monasteries in Italy and Flanders. They followed the Jesuit rules; and though their order was not approved at Rome, yet they had several monasteries, where they had a lady abbess, who took the Jesuit vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. They did not confine themselves to their cloisters, but went abroad and preached. They were two English young women, who, by the instigation of Father Gerard, set up this order, intending it for the use of missionaries into England. This order was suppressed by a bull of Pope Urban VIII., A. D. 1630.

JESUS, is the same with the Hebrew name Joshua, or Jehoshua, i. e. Jehovah the Saviour. As the name Jesus was given to the blessed Lord by Divine command, so was the name of the son of Nun changed by Moses from Hoshea, (the Saviour,) to Joshua; he being a type of our blessed Lord. (Num. xiii. 16.) (See Christ, Messiah, Lord.) The name that was given by the Divine command to the Saviour of the world. He is called Christ (anointed), because he was anointed to the mediatorial office, and Jesus (Saviour), because he came to save his people from their sins.

We are to regard him, as he is our Saviour. I will place salvation in Jesus “the Saviour” (Phil. iii. 20),—thus declared by prophecy (Isa. xix. 20), and for this reason so expressly called (Matt. i. 21; Luke i. 31), and the prophecies truly fulfilled (Luke ii. 11; Acts v. 31, xiii. 23), is “the Saviour of the world” (John iv. 42; iii. 17; 1 John iv. 14), “the Saviour of all men” (1 Tim. iv. 10; Luke ix. 56; John xii. 47), who “came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. i. 15; Luke v. 32; Rom. v. 8; 1 John iii. 5), “the Lord and Saviour” (2 Pet. ii. 20; iii. 2), “the captain of their salvation” (Heb. ii. 10). And he is revealed as the only way to salvation thus predicted (Isa. xxxv. 8; xlix. 6; li. 5; lix. 16; lxiii. 1; Joel ii. 32; Matt. i. 21; Acts iv. 12; Heb. ix. 8),—so by himself declared (Matt. xviii. 11; Luke xix. 9),—and by those speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Luke i. 69, with 67; ii. 30, with 26, 27; Acts ii. 21; Eph. ii. 18).

He was sent by God for this purpose (John iii. 17; Acts v. 31, xiii. 23; 1 John iv. 14), and is declared to be “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. v. 9; Isa. li. 6, 8),—that “confess” him (Rom. x. 9), “believe on” him (Rom. x. 9; Eph. ii. 8; Acts xvi. 31; x. 43,) and “call on the name of the Lord” (Acts ii. 21),—“to the Jews first” (Rom. i. 16; Isa. xlv. 17; xlvi. 13; lxii. 1, 11; Jer. xxxiii. 15, 16; Zech. ix. 9; Luke i. 69, 77; Acts xi. 19; xv. 11; xiii. 23, 46), “and also to the Greek” (Rom. i. 16),—the Gentiles (Isa. xlv. 22; xlix. 6; li. 5; lii. 10; Luke iii. 6; Acts xxviii. 28; Rom. iii. 29; x. 12; xv. 16; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11.)

To “that blessed hope” we now look (Tit. ii. 13), through “the righteousness of God and our Saviour” (of our God and Saviour, Gr.) (2 Pet. i. 1),—“our Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Tim. i. 10; Tit. i. 4; iii. 6). Our salvation has been effected by the sacrifice of himself; “in him have we redemption—the forgiveness of sins;” not purchased “with corruptible things,” but with his own “precious blood” (Eph. i. 7; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19), for “he gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. ii. 6). And thus having made “peace through the blood of his cross,” he has “reconciled both”—Jews and Gentiles—“unto God in one body.” (Col. i. 20; Eph. ii. 16.) (See Bowing at the name of Jesus.) Joshua, the successor of Moses, is called Jesus in our translation of the New Testament, Acts vii. 45, and Heb. iv. 8. Both names are the same in the LXX. and the Greek Testament, Ἰησοῦς.

JEWS. The general name given the descendants of Abraham, though in strictness it originally belonged only to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with the Levites settled among them, who constituted the kingdom of Judah. It has long been synonymous with Israelites. On their laws and customs the reader must consult the books of Moses. The modern Jews have introduced many very remarkable customs. When any person is buried, his nearest relation keeps the house a week, sitting on the ground all the time, excepting on the sabbath day, when they go to prayers. During this week they do no business. The husband and the wife are to lodge asunder; and there come at least ten people, morning and evening, to say the accustomed prayers. They pray for the soul of the person deceased constantly that week. When the week is ended they go to the synagogue, and light up lamps and pray, and promise to give alms for the soul of the deceased. This charitable service is repeated at the end of every month, and every year. It is customary for the son to say every morning and evening the prayer for his father’s or mother’s soul. They believe a paradise, where the blessed enjoy a beatific vision: and a hell for wicked men, in which some shall continue for ever, others only for a time. No Jew, unless a heretic, or nonconformist to their Rabbins’ rules, shall continue in hell above a year. Their creed consists of thirteen articles:—1. There is one God, Creator of all things, all-perfect, all-sufficient. 2. That he is an uncompounded, invisible essence. 3. That he is immaterial. 4. Absolutely eternal. 5. Alone to be worshipped, without any mediators or intercessors. 6. That there have been, and may be, prophets. 7. That Moses was the greatest prophet. 8. That every syllable of the law was given to Moses by inspiration; and that the traditionary expositions of the precepts were entirely a Divine revelation given to Moses. 9. That the law is immutable. 10. That God knows and governs all our actions. 11. That he rewards the observance, and punishes the violation, of his laws. 12. That the Messiah will appear, but that his coming is delayed. 13. That God will raise the dead, and judge all mankind.

They confess to none but God Almighty; and this commonly on Mondays, and Thursdays, and all fast-days: on the great day of expiation they repeat their confessions several times.

There are three sects of them in these times. The greatest and first of these is that of the Rabbanim, who, besides the Scriptures, receive the Talmud. The second is the Caraites, who receive only the Scriptures; and the third is that of the Cuthim, of which there are very few, who admit only the Pentateuch, or books of Moses.—Broughton.

JOB. One of the books in the sacred canon, the first of the poetical books of the Old Testament, and probably the most ancient work that exists in any form. There have been many differences of opinion upon almost all imaginable questions concerning this book, the date, the scene, the author, whether it is to be accounted a narrative of real events, or a Divine allegory, being warmly debated by different critics. That Job is a real person, seems however to be determined by the mention of him with Noah and Daniel, (of whose proper personal existence and history there can be no doubt,) in the fourteenth chapter of Ezekiel. Into the other questions it is less important to enter.

JOHN, ST., BAPTIST’S DAY. This festival, in honour of St. John the Baptist, is observed on the 24th of June.

JOHN, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. The day appointed for the commemoration of “the beloved disciple.” St. John the evangelist (so called from the Greek term which signifies the messenger of glad tidings) was a Galilean by birth, the son of Zebedee and Salome, the younger brother of James, but not of him who was surnamed the Just, and who was the brother of our Lord. His brother James and he were surnamed by Jesus the Sons of Thunder, for their peculiar zeal and fervency for his honour, which we see manifested in St. John’s sedulous assertions of our Lord’s Divinity. He was the most beloved by our Saviour of all the disciples.

St. John exercised his ministry in Asia Minor, and having excited enemies through preaching the doctrines of Christ, was carried prisoner from Ephesus to Rome, in the year 92. Subsequently to this he was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote his Revelation. He was afterwards recalled from his exile by Nero the emperor, and then returned to Ephesus. His three Epistles were written with reference to some prevailing heresies of the times; and the scope of his Gospel, which was his last work, shows that the apostle had in view the same deniers of the Divinity of the Saviour. He survived till the reign of Trajan, and died at the age of nearly 100 years.

St. John the Evangelist’s day is on the 27th of December.

JOHN’S, ST., GENERAL EPISTLES. Three canonical books of the New Testament, being letters written by St. John the evangelist. (See the last article.)

The First Epistle of St. John has always been received by the Church as genuine. Though there is neither inscription nor direction, it appears, by the beginning of chap. ii., to be a Catholic or General Epistle, addressed not to one, but many Christians. It is probable he wrote it towards the end of his life, because he mentions the opinion which then prevailed, that the day of judgment was at hand, and Antichrist ready to appear. He insists upon the advantages of faith in Christ; he exhorts those to whom he writes not to suffer themselves to be seduced by false teachers; and recommends to them good works, the love of God and our neighbour, purity, and other Christian virtues. This Epistle, for matter and style, is much like the Gospel written by the same apostle.

The two other Epistles which carry his name, have not always been so generally received. On the contrary, some of the ancients were of opinion that they were written by another John, called the Elder, a disciple of the apostle’s, mentioned by Papias. However, Irenæus quotes the second under the name of John, the disciple of our Lord. In truth, the spirit, the sentiments, and style of these two Epistles are not only like, but often the same as the First Epistle; which plainly bespeaks one and the same author.

The Second Epistle of St. John is directed to the elect Lady; by which some understand a lady named Electa; others, only some lady of dignity and distinction; and others, an elect or chosen Church, metaphorically styled Lady. Whoever she be, the apostle congratulates her, because her children led a Christian life. He cautions her likewise to beware of impostors, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh.

The Third Epistle of St. John is directed to Gaius, or Caius. Whoever he be, (for it is controverted,) the apostle declares to him the joy he conceived, when he heard of his piety and charity.

It is probable St. John wrote his Epistles, as well as his Gospel, from Ephesus, after his return from the isle of Patmos.

JOHN’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament, being a recital of the life, actions, doctrine, death, &c., of our Saviour Jesus Christ, written by St. John the apostle and evangelist. (See the preceding article.)

St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, after his return from the isle of Patmos, at the desire of the Christians and bishops of Asia. St. Jerome says, he would not undertake it, but on condition they should appoint a public fast, to implore the assistance of God; and that, the fast being ended, St. John, filled with the Holy Ghost, broke out into these words; “In the beginning was the Word,” &c. The ancients assign two reasons for this undertaking. The first is, because, in the other three Gospels, there was wanting the history of the beginning of Jesus Christ’s preaching till the imprisonment of John the Baptist; which therefore he applied himself particularly to relate. The second reason was, in order to confound the errors of the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and other heretics, who denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Some critics have thought, that St. John’s Gospel ended at the 20th chapter with these words, “Many other signs truly did Jesus,” &c., and that the following chapter was added, after the death of St. John, by the Church of Ephesus.

Clement of Alexandria calls this Gospel, “the spiritual Gospel;” and St. Jerome says of this evangelist, that he wrote of our Saviour’s Divinity in a very sublime manner, and with a happy temerity. Pagan philosophers have admired the sublimity of St. John’s Gospel. Thus, the Platonist Amelius, having read the beginning of it, and finding it conformable to the doctrine of Plato, cried out, “O Jupiter! this barbarian believes with Plato, that the Word is the beginning.”

Julian the Apostate accuses St. John of introducing novelties into the Christian religion, by making Jesus Christ pass for a God, which neither St. Paul, nor the other evangelists, had dared to do.

It is observable, that the history of the woman taken in adultery, related in the 8th chapter, is not to be found in all the manuscripts of this Gospel. Grotius, and others, believed, that the story was taken from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and inserted afterwards in that of St. John. Others pretend, that the Novatians had razed it out. But St. Augustine thinks, some good orthodox people had expunged it, lest their wives should make use of it, to prevent that chastisement which their disloyalty might deserve.—Broughton.

JONAH. The most ancient of the prophetic books of the Old Testament, which contains also a part of the history of the prophet whose name it bears. Jonah is supposed to have prophesied to the ten tribes towards the close of Jehu’s reign, or in the beginning of Jehoahaz’s reign; but the great subject of the book which bears his name, is the prophecy which he was commissioned to utter against Nineveh, with his refusal to go, his punishment, his second mission, and the repentance of the Ninevites. The continuing of Jonah three days in the belly of the great fish, is declared by our blessed Lord himself to have been a predictive sign of his own burial, and of his resurrection on the third day. This gives great additional importance to the book of Jonah.—Broughton.

JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. The learned are divided in their opinions about the author of the Book of Joshua; the title at the head of the book being supposed, not to denote its author, but the subject matter of it, being the history of the wars and transactions which happened under the administration of Joshua. Some think the 26th verse of the last chapter are an evidence, that Joshua was the author of this book: the words are; “Joshua wrote all these words in the book of the law of the Lord.” But this may only relate to what is said in this chapter concerning the covenant that the people made with God. For Joshua, a little before his death, having assembled the Israelites at Sichem, and laid them under a solemn engagement to serve only the Lord, gave them fresh laws and ordinances, and “wrote all these words in the book of the law of the Lord.” Some allege what is said concerning Joshua in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, (ch. xlvi.,) that “he was the successor of Moses in prophecies,” as a proof that he wrote a sacred book. But this may mean no more, than that he succeeded Moses in the spirit of prophecy. The ancient Talmudists, and many of later date, expressly ascribe this book to Joshua, and the Jews reckon him among the first prophets, as they call them, though the book is merely historical.

Some of the ancients, and many of the moderns, deny, that Joshua was the author of this book. Theodoret affirms, that it was compiled a long time after the death of Joshua, and that it was but an abstract of an ancient commentary, called “The Book of Jasher,” or “just men,” spoken of in the tenth chapter of this book. Others have endeavoured to show, from particular passages of the book, that it could not be Joshua’s; as when it is said, (ch. iv. ver. 9,) that “the twelve stones, that Joshua set up in the midst of Jordan, remain to this day:” and, in another place, “This place is called Gilgal to this day.” But these, and the like passages, might have been afterwards added to the collections of Joshua.

However it be, the Hebrews, as well as the Greeks and Latins, have distinguished this book by the title of Joshua, or Jesus. This great personage was the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim. He was first called Oshea; but Moses changed his name to Jehoshua, or Joshua. These names, which have all the same root, signify a Saviour: and Joshua was appointed by God to be the successor of Moses, and to lead the Israelites in safety, by subduing their enemies, into the promised land; the history of which great event is the subject of the Book of Joshua; which may be divided into three parts. The first is a history of the conquest of the land of Canaan. The second, which begins at the twelfth chapter, is a description of that country, and the division of it among the tribes. The third, comprised in the two last chapters, contains the renewal of the covenant he caused the Israelites to make, and the death of their victorious leader and governor. The whole comprehends a term of seventeen, or, according to others, twenty-seven years.

JUBILATE DEO. (“O be joyful in God.”) One of the psalms appointed to be used after the second lesson in the morning service. It is the same with the 100th Psalm in the Psalter. It was first inserted in the Prayer Book in the Second Book of King Edward VI.

JUBILEE. A solemn season recurring at stated intervals in the Church of Rome, chiefly marked by the indulgences then granted by the pope to all of his communion. Boniface VIII. was the first that instituted it, in 1300, in imitation of that of the Jews, ordering it to be observed every hundredth year. Clement VI. reduced it to fifty, Urban IV. to thirty, and Sixtus IV. to twenty-five, where it hath continued ever since. Besides this, the popes, upon their exaltation to the see of Rome, have frequently celebrated a jubilee, as likewise upon other extraordinary occasions. The ceremony observed at Rome, for the jubilee, at every twenty-five years’ end, which they call the holy year, is this: The pope goes to St. Peter’s church to open the holy gate, (as they call it,) which is walled up, and only opened upon this occasion; and knocking three times at the said gate, with a golden hammer, says these words, Aperite mihi portas justitiæ, &c., “Open to me the gates of righteousness; I will go into them and I will praise the Lord” (Psalm cxviii. 19); whereupon the masons fall to work to break down the wall that stopped the gate; which done, the pope kneels down before it, whilst the penitentiaries of St. Peter wash him with holy water, and then taking up the cross, he begins to sing Te Deum, and enters the church, followed by the clergy. In the mean while, three cardinal legates are sent to open the other three holy gates, with the same ceremonies, which are in the churches of St. John of Lateran, of St. Paul, and St. Mary Major; and the next morning the pope gives his benediction to the people in the jubilee form. When the holy year is expired, they shut up the holy gates again on Christmas eve in this manner. The pope, after he has blessed the stones and mortar, lays the first stone, and leaves there twelve boxes full of gold and silver medals.

The Jewish jubilee was celebrated every fifty years. The word is derived from jovel, which in Hebrew signifies the blast of a trumpet, (Josh. vi. 4, 13); because the year of jubilee was proclaimed with trumpets. This year was a year of general rest and universal liberty, wherein all servants were restored to their freedom, and all sold possessions returned to their first owners. The Jews observed these jubilees very exactly till the Babylonian captivity, but after their return did no longer observe it; for their doctors assure us that there were no jubilees under the second temple. See Lev. xxv. 9, et seq.

JUDGES, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book, of the authenticity of which there is no doubt in the Church, though the author is unknown; some ascribing it to Phinehas, others to Ezra or Hezekiah, though most to Samuel.

JUNE THE TWENTIETH. (See Forms of Prayer.)

“JURE DIVINO.” By Divine right; an expression frequently occurring in controversial writings, especially in relation to the ministry of the Church.

It is evident, and generally confessed, that the right to minister in holy things is not in every man’s power. If it were so, the very idea of the ministry, as a distinct class of men, empowered to act “in Christ’s stead,” would be broken up, and the Church would lose its character as a society; for that implies the existence of officers and of subordination. It is also confessed that in the Christian Church men are not born to the ministry, as they were under the Jewish dispensation. Whence, then, comes that authority with which the ambassador of Christ is invested? Is it human? Can any body of men confer the power to rule and minister in a society, the full control of which is in the hands of the eternal God? Most evidently not. Human power, or a commission derived from human resources, is as void and inadequate in qualifying for the functions of the ministry, as it would be in the attempt to create a world, or to found a new rank in the hierarchy of heaven. We are driven then, at once, to the Divine institution as the foundation of all legitimate power in the Church.

The Head of the Church established a ministry, with the right and ability to execute all its appointed functions. It was not intellectual eminence, or high station, or influence, wealth, courage, or any other human attribute, which brought into being “the glorious company of the apostles;” but it was the sovereign power alone of him “in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” And was this power to be recalled on the demise of those who were every day doomed to stripes, imprisonments, perils, and death in a thousand shapes? No; for either the Church for the future must fail, the sacraments be obliterated, the “watching for souls” be abolished, or the continuation of the sacred ministry must be demanded with all its original spiritual functions. To the apostles, therefore, was given, (jure divino,) and to them alone, the ability to perpetuate or transmit the gift which the Redeemer had bestowed. From them the prerogatives of episcopacy (or apostolate) were communicated to younger men, including the transmissive or ordaining faculty. Under these, the elders and deacons were put in trust with a share of the original grant of ministerial power,—a power they were themselves incapable of delegating; and by an unbroken succession, in the line of bishops, the Divine commission has reached these latter days of the Church.

If then, as we have shown, Divine right is the only foundation on which the ministry can stand, there is no alternative left to any one claiming office in the Church of God, but to vindicate the legality of his mission by miracle, or some other tangible Divine verification, which no man can dispute; or else to bring forth such credentials as Timothy, Titus, and the ministers ordained by them had to show, viz. the simple evidence of the fact that the apostles, or their successors, had imparted to them the authority they claim to possess. This every bishop, priest, and deacon, in the Catholic Church, is prepared to do.

JURISDICTION. The power and authority vested in a bishop, by virtue of the apostolical commission, of governing and administering the laws of the Church within the bounds of his diocese. The same term is used to express the bounds within which a bishop exercises his power, i. e. his diocese.

In the Saxon times, before the Norman Conquest, there was no distinction of jurisdiction; but all matters, as well spiritual as temporal, were determined in the county court, called the Sheriff’s Tourn, where the bishop and earl (or in his absence the sheriff) sat together; or else in the hundred court, which was held in like manner before the lord of the hundred and ecclesiastical judge.

For the ecclesiastical officers took their limits of jurisdiction from a like extent of the civil powers. Most of the old Saxon bishoprics were of equal bounds with the distinct kingdoms. The archdeaconries, when first settled into local districts, were commonly fitted to the respective counties. And rural deaneries, before the Conquest, were correspondent to the political tithings. Their spiritual courts were held, with a like reference to the administration of civil justice. The synods of each province and diocese were held at the discretion of the metropolitan and the bishop, as great councils at the pleasure of the prince. The visitations were first united to the civil inquisitions in each county; and afterwards, when the courts of the earl and bishop were separated, yet still the visitations were held like the sheriff’s tourns, twice a year, and like them too after Easter and Michaelmas, and still, with nearer likeness, the greater of them was at Easter. The rural chapters were also held, like the inferior courts of the hundred, every three weeks; then, and like them too, they were changed into monthly, and at last into quarterly meetings. Nay, and a prime visitation was held commonly, like the prime folemote or sheriff’s tourn, on the very calends of May.

And accordingly Sir Henry Spelman observes, that the bishop and the earl sat together in one court, and heard jointly the causes of Church and commonwealth; as they yet do in parliament. And as the bishop had twice in the year two general synods, wherein all the clergy of his diocese of all sorts were bound to resort for matters concerning the Church; so also there was twice in the year a general assembly of all the shire for matters concerning the commonwealth, wherein, without exception, all kinds of estates were required to be present, dukes, earls, barons, and so downward of the laity; and especially the bishop of that diocese among the clergy. For in those days the temporal lords did often sit in synods with the bishops, and the bishops in like manner in the courts of the temporality, and were therein not only necessary, but the principal judges themselves. Thus by the laws of King Canute, “the shyre-gemot (for so the Saxons called this assembly of the whole shire) shall be kept twice a year, and oftener if need require, wherein the bishop and the alderman of the shire shall be present, the one to teach the laws of God, the other the laws of the land.” And among the laws of King Henry I., it is ordained, “first, let the laws of true Christianity (which we call the ecclesiastical) be fully executed with due satisfaction; then let the pleas concerning the king be dealt with; and, lastly, those between party and party: and whomsoever the Church synod shall find at variance, let them either make accord between them in love, or sequester them by their sentence of excommunication.” And the bishop first gave a solemn charge to the people touching ecclesiastical matters, opening unto them the rights and reverence of the Church, and their duty therein towards God and the king, according to the word of God: then the alderman in like manner related unto them the laws of the land, and their duty towards God, the king, and commonwealth, according to the rule and tenure thereof.

The separation of the ecclesiastical from the temporal courts was made by William the Conqueror: for upon the conquest made by the Normans, the pope took the opportunity to usurp upon the liberties of the crown of England; for the Conqueror came in with the pope’s banner, and under it won the battle. Whereupon the pope sent two legates into England, with whom the Conqueror called a synod, deposed Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, because he had not purchased his pall from Rome, and displaced many bishops and abbots to make room for his Normans. This admission of the pope’s legates first led the way to his usurped jurisdiction in England; yet no decrees passed or were put in execution, touching matters ecclesiastical, without the royal assent; nor would the king submit himself in point of fealty to the pope, as appears by his epistle to Gregory VII. Yet in his next successor’s time, namely, in the time of King William Rufus, the pope, by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, attempted to draw appeals to Rome, but did not prevail. Upon this occasion it was, that the king said to Anselm, that none of his bishops ought to be subject to the pope, but the pope himself ought to be subject to the emperor; and that the king of England had the same absolute liberty in his dominions, as the emperor had in the empire. Yet in the time of the next king, King Henry I., the pope usurped the patronage and donation of bishoprics, and of all other benefices ecclesiastical. At this time, Anselm told the king, that the patronage and investiture of bishops was not his right, because Pope Urban had lately made a decree, that no lay person should give any ecclesiastical benefice. And after this, at a synod held at London, in the year 1107, a decree was made to which the king assented, that from thenceforth no person should be invested in a bishopric by the giving of a ring and pastoral staff (as had been before); nor by any lay hand. Upon which the pope granted that the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being should be for ever legatus natus: and Anselm for the honour of his see obtained, that the archbishop of Canterbury should in all general councils sit at the pope’s foot, as alterius orbis papa, or pope of this part of the world. Yet after Anselm’s death, this same king gave the archbishopric of Canterbury to Rodolph, bishop of London, and invested him with the ring and pastoral staff; and this because the succeeding popes had broken Pope Urban’s promise, touching the not sending of legates into England unless the king should require it. And in the time of the next king, King Stephen, the pope gained appeals to the court of Rome; for in a synod at London, convened by Henry, bishop of Winchester, the pope’s legate, it was decreed, that appeals should be made from provincial councils to the pope: before which time appeals to Rome were not in use. Thus did the pope usurp three main points of jurisdiction, upon three several kings after the Conquest, (for of King William Rufus he could gain nothing,) viz. upon the Conqueror, the sending of the legates or commissioners to hear and determine ecclesiastical causes; upon Henry I., the donation and investiture of bishoprics and other benefices; and upon King Stephen, the appeals to the court of Rome. And in the time of King Henry II., the pope claimed exemption for clerks from the secular power. And finally, in the time of King John, he took the crown from off the king’s head, and compelled him to accept his kingdom from the pope’s donation. Nevertheless all this was not obtained without violent struggle and opposition: and this caused the statutes of provisors to be made, in the reigns of King Edward III. and King Richard II. The limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction were finally settled by the statute of 24 Henry VIII. c. 12. Jurisdiction is also applied to the power vested in certain dignitaries, as dean, chancellor, &c., in some cathedrals; and in many, when each individual prebendary had a peculiar jurisdiction.

JUSTIFICATION. (See Faith and Sanctification.) Justification, in the language of Scripture, signifies our being accounted just or righteous in the sight of God.—Tomline.

A clear understanding of the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome upon this subject is most important, since the difference between the two Churches on this point causes an essential and vital difference through the whole system of their theology. The definition of the Church of England is set forth in her Articles and Homilies: and it is there propounded in a manner so perspicuous, as to preclude, it might well be thought, all possibility of misapprehension.

As contained in the eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth Articles, the definition runs in terms following:

“We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith; and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort: as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification.

“Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that, by them, a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree is discerned by the fruit.

“Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”

The homily referred to in the eleventh Article, under the title of The Homily of Justification, is styled, in the first Book of Homilies itself, “A sermon of the salvation of mankind, by only Christ our Saviour, from sin and death everlasting:” and this homily is described as more largely expressing the doctrine of justification than the necessary brevity of an article admitted. Therefore, obviously, the statement contained in it challenges our especial attention.

“Because all men be sinners and offenders against God, and breakers of his law and commandments; therefore can no man, by his own acts, words, and deeds, (seem they never so good,) be justified and made righteous before God: but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousness of justification, to be received at God’s own hands; that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended. And this justification or righteousness, which we so receive of God’s mercy and Christ’s merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, and allowed, of God, for our perfect and full justification.

“The apostle toucheth specially three things, which must go together in our justification: upon God’s part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly and thoroughly; and, upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours but by God’s working in us. So that, in our justification, there is not only God’s mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the apostle calleth the justice of God: and it consisteth, in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the law. And so the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore St. Paul declareth nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith: which, nevertheless, is the gift of God, and not man’s only work without God. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that, although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether. Neither doth faith shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterwards of duty toward God; for we are most bounden to serve God, in doing good deeds, commanded by him in his Holy Scripture, all the days of our life: but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them. For all the good works that we can do, be imperfect; and, therefore, not able to deserve our justification. But our justification doth come freely, by the mere mercy of God, and of so great and free mercy, that, whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part toward their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of Christ’s body and blood; whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied. So that Christ is now the righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him. He, for them, paid their ransom by his death. He, for them, fulfilled the law in his life. So that now, in him and by him, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the law; forasmuch as that, which their infirmity lacked, Christ’s justice hath supplied.

“That we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, we do read ofttimes in the best and most ancient writers: as, beside Hilary, Basil, and St. Ambrose, we read the same in Origen, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, Prosper, Œcumenius, Photius, Bernardus, Anselm, and many other writers, Greek and Latin. Nevertheless, this sentence, that ‘we be justified by faith only,’ is not so meant of them that the said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, charity, dread, and the fear of God, at any time and season. Nor, when they say, that we should be justified freely, do they mean that we should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward. Neither do they mean so to be justified without good works, that we should do no good works at all. But this saying, that ‘we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works,’ is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at God’s hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man and the goodness of God, the great infirmity of ourselves and the might and power of God, the imperfection of our own works and the most abundant grace of our Saviour Christ; and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto Christ only, and his most precious blood-shedding. This faith the Holy Scripture teacheth us: this is the strong rock and foundation of the Christian religion: this doctrine all old ancient authors of Christ’s Church do approve: this doctrine advanceth and setteth forth the true glory of Christ, and beateth down the vain glory of man: this whosoever denieth, is not to be accounted for a Christian man, nor for a setter-forth of Christ’s glory, but for an adversary to Christ and his gospel, and for a setter-forth of men’s vain glory.”

The doctrine of the Church of Rome must be taken from the Council of Trent. The exposition of the Tridentine fathers, assembled in their sixth session, runs through sixteen chapters; and so extreme is its verboseness, and so perplexing is its incessant alternation, that we might be somewhat puzzled to form a distinct idea of their views in respect to justification, if the last of those chapters had not given us, in the shape of an article or summary, the result of their prolix theologising.

Omitting, then, the discussion upon which their definition is built, we will proceed immediately to the definition itself.

“Since Jesus Christ, as the head into the members and as the vine into the branches, perpetually causes his virtue to flow into the justified; which virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they would in nowise be grateful to God and meritorious; we must believe, that nothing more is wanting to the justified themselves, which need prevent us from thinking, both that they can satisfy the Divine law according to the state of this life, by those works which are performed in God; and that, in their own time, provided they depart in grace, they may truly merit the attainment of eternal life.

“Thus, neither our own proper righteousness is so determined to be our own, as if it were from ourselves; nor is the righteousness of God either unknown or rejected. For that which is called our righteousness, because, through it being inherent in us, we are justified; that same is the righteousness of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ.

“Far, however, be it from a Christian man, that he should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord; whose goodness to all men is so great, that, what are truly his gifts, he willeth to be estimated as their merits.”

This article or summary removes all possibility of misapprehension. Through it, the Church of Rome determines that we are justified, not by any imputation to us of righteousness, or by any imputation to us of faith in the place of righteousness, (though each of these imputations is insisted upon by St. Paul,) but by our own inherent righteousness.

On this, the Romish system, the judicious Hooker remarks: “When they are required to show, what the righteousness is whereby a Christian man is justified, they answer, that it is a Divine spiritual quality: which quality, received into the soul, doth first make it to be one of them who are born of God; and, secondly, endue it with power to bring forth such works as they do that are born of him: even as the soul of man, being joined to his body, doth first make him to be of the number of reasonable creatures; and, secondly, enable him to perform the natural functions which are proper to his kind: that it maketh the soul amiable and gracious in the sight of God, in regard whereof it is termed Grace; that it purgeth, purifieth, and washeth out, all the stains and pollutions of sins; that, by it, through the merit of Christ, we are delivered, as from sin, so from eternal death and condemnation, the reward of sin. This grace they will have to be applied by infusion; to the end that, as the body is warm by the heat which is in the body, so the soul might be made righteous by inherent grace: which grace they make capable of increase; as the body may be more and more warm, so the soul more and more justified according as grace should be augmented; the augmentation whereof is merited by good works, as good works are made meritorious by it. Wherefore, the first receipt of grace, in their divinity, is the first justification: the increase thereof, the second justification. As grace may be increased by the merit of good works, so it may be diminished by the demerit of sins venial; it may be lost by mortal sin. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is needful, in the one case to repair, in the other to recover, the loss which is made, the infusion of grace hath her sundry after-meals; for the which cause they make many ways to apply the infusion of grace. It is applied to infants through baptism, without either faith or works; and, in them, really it taketh away original sin, and the punishment due unto it: it is applied to infidels and wicked men in the first justification, through baptism, without works, yet not without faith: and it taketh away sins both actual and original together, with all whatsoever punishment, eternal or temporal, thereby deserved. Unto such as have attained the first justification, that is to say, the first receipt of grace, it is applied further by good works to the increase of former grace: which is the second justification. If they work more and more, grace doth more increase: and they are more and more justified. To such as diminish it by venial sins, it is applied by holy water, Ave Marias, crossings, papal salutations, and such like: which serve for reparations of grace decayed. To such as have lost it through mortal sin, it is applied by the sacrament (as they term it) of penance: which sacrament hath force to confer grace anew; yet in such sort, that, being so conferred, it hath not altogether so much power as at the first. For it only cleanseth out the stain or guilt of sin committed; and changeth the punishment eternal into a temporal satisfactory punishment—here, if time do serve, if not, hereafter, to be endured; except it be lightened by masses, works of charity, pilgrimages, fasts, and such like; or else shortened by pardon for term, or by plenary pardon quite removed and taken away. This is the mystery of the man of sin. This maze the Church of Rome doth cause her followers to tread, when they ask her the way to justification. Whether they speak of the first or second justification, they make ‘the essence of a Divine quality inherent,’ they make it ‘righteousness which is in us.’ If it be in us, then it is ours: as our souls are ours, though we have them from God, and can hold them no longer than pleaseth him; for, if he withdraw the breath of our nostrils, we fall to dust. But the righteousness, wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is ‘not our own.’ Therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality. The Church of Rome, in teaching justification by inherent grace, doth pervert the truth of Christ: and, by the hands of the apostles, we have received otherwise than she teacheth. Now, concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent: we grant, that, unless we work, we have it not: only we distinguish it, as a thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification. By the one, we are interested in the right of inheriting: by the other, we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss. And so the end of both is ‘everlasting life.’”

The difference between the two systems may be pointed out in a few words. The Romish Church teaches that a man is justified by an inherent righteousness, which, though originally a gift of God, as are his soul and his bodily members, is nevertheless, like his soul, his own.

The Anglican Church, on the contrary, in common with all the other Churches of the Reformation, teaches: “that man is justified by an extrinsic righteousness, which is not his own, but the righteousness of Christ; the faith which instrumentally lays hold of it and appropriates it, and which itself is the gift of God, being forensically imputed to him of God, instead of a righteousness which he himself possesses not; so that he is justified through faith, though not on account of faith; the sole particular, on account of which he is justified, being the merit and perfect righteousness of our Lord and only Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Whichever scheme of doctrine may be preferred as most agreeable to Scripture and to antiquity, it is clear, that the two statements here given are at least incapable of misapprehension. Right or wrong, the two schemes stand flatly and diametrically opposed to each other. The Roman Church asserts: the Anglican Church denies. Conversely, the Roman Church denies: the Anglican Church asserts. The Roman Church asserts the doctrine of justification by an infused and personal inherent righteousness: the Anglican Church strenuously denies that doctrine; admitting, indeed, that the inherent righteousness of sanctification is always consequentially present with the really justified; but refusing to it any, even the least, share in “the procurement of justification.” The Roman Church denies, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone, nothing else being required to obtain the grace of justification: the Anglican Church asserts, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone without works, nothing save faith being required to obtain the grace of justification, inasmuch as the office of works is not the procurement of our justification, and inasmuch as it is a contradictory hysteron-proteron to say that works which “follow after” justification, and are its “effect,” can yet “procure” it and be its “cause.”

It has been customary to speak of the doctrine of forensic justification as if it were a Calvinistic doctrine. That Calvin held it is not to be denied, but all history bears witness that it is not a peculiarity of the Calvinistic system.

Calvin was born in 1509, and he was yet a schoolboy, or a pluralist in the Romish Church, (as he became in his twelfth year,) when Luther was using this doctrine, as the doctrine by which to lay low the whole fabric of Romish superstition.

Again, it was the doctrine of our English reformers, as most clearly stated in our Articles and Homilies; and Archbishop Laurence has triumphantly established the historical fact, that our reformers were not Calvinists.

If we wish for a clear statement of the doctrine of forensic justification, we may indeed refer to Bishop Andrewes; and the theology of Andrewes had certainly no affinity to that of Calvin. Let the reader peruse with attention the following passage from his sermon on justification.

“In the Scripture, then, there is a double righteousness set down, both in the Old and in the New Testament.

“In the Old, and in the very first place that righteousness is named in the Bible: ‘Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.’ A righteousness accounted. And again, in the very next line, it is mentioned, ‘Abraham will teach his house to do righteousness.’ A righteousness done. In the New likewise. The former, in one chapter, even the fourth to the Romans, no fewer than eleven times, Reputatum est illi ad justitiam. A reputed righteousness. The latter in St. John: ‘My beloved, let no man deceive you, he that doeth righteousness is righteous.’ A righteousness done. Which is nothing else but our just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation. Of these, the latter the philosophers themselves conceived and acknowledged; the other is proper to Christians only, and altogether unknown in philosophy. The one is a quality of the party; the other, an act of the judge declaring or pronouncing righteous. The one ours by influence or infusion, the other by account or imputation. That both these there are, there is no question. The question is, whether of these the prophet here principally meaneth in this Name? This shall we best inform ourselves of by looking back to the verse before, and without so looking back we shall never do it to purpose. There the prophet setteth one before us, in his royal judicial power, in the person of a king, and of a king set down to execute judgment; and this he telleth us, before he thinks meet to tell us his name. Before this king, thus set down in his throne, there to do judgment, the righteousness that will stand against the law, our conscience, Satan, sin, the gates of hell, and the power of darkness; and so stand that we may be delivered by it from death, despair, and damnation; and entitled by it to life, salvation, and happiness eternal; that is righteousness indeed, that is it we seek for, if we may find it. And that is not this latter, but the former only; and therefore that is the true interpretation of Jehovah justitia nostra. Look but how St. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers, when they have occasion to mention that place in the Proverbs, Cum Rex justus sederit in solio, quis potest dicere, Mundum est cor meum?—look how they interpret it then, and it will give us light to understand this name; and we shall see, that no name will serve then, but this name. Nor this name neither, but with this interpretation of it. And that the Holy Ghost would have it ever thus understood, and us ever to represent before our eyes this King thus sitting in his judgment-seat, when we speak of this righteousness, it is plain two ways. 1. By way of position. For the tenor of the Scripture touching our justification all along runneth in judicial terms, to admonish us still what to set before us. The usual joining of justice and judgment continually all along the Scriptures, show it is a judicial justice we are to set before us. The terms of, 1. A judge: ‘It is the Lord that judgeth me.’ 2. A prison: Kept and shut up under Moses. 3. A bar: ‘We must all appear before the bar.’ 4. A proclamation: ‘Who will lay anything to the prisoner’s charge?’ 5. An accuser: ‘The accuser of our brethren.’ 6. A witness: ‘Our conscience bearing witness.’ 7. An indictment upon these: ‘Cursed be he that continueth not in all the words of this law to do them;’ and again, ‘He that breaketh one is guilty of all.’ A conviction that all may be ὑπόδικοι, ‘guilty’ or culpable ‘before God.’ Yea, the very delivering of our sins under the name of ‘debts;’ of the law under the name of a ‘handwriting;’ the very terms of ‘an advocate,’ of ‘a surety made under the law;’ of a pardon, or ‘being justified from those things which by the law we could not:’—all these, wherein for the most part this is still expressed, what speak they but that the sense of this name cannot be rightly understood, nor what manner of righteousness is in question, except we still have before our eyes this same coram rege justo judicium faciente.”—Bishop Andrewes’ Sermon on Justification in Christ’s Name. See also Barrow’s Sermon on Justification. Waterland on Justification. Heurtley on Justification. Stanley Faber on Justification.

KEYS, POWER OF THE. The authority existing in the Christian priesthood of administering the discipline of the Church, and communicating or withholding its privileges; so called from the declaration of Christ to St. Peter, (Matt. xvi. 19,) “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” The power here promised was afterwards conferred on St. Peter and the other apostles, when the Saviour breathed on them and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John xx. 23.)

The power of the keys is only a ministerial power. By administering the sacraments, they who have that power do that which conveys grace to certain souls. But whose souls are these? The souls of faithful and repentant men. They who are qualified will receive the outward ordinance which conveys to them the pardon they require: but, to those who are not qualified by repentance and faith, no blessing can be conveyed; the blessing of the minister will return to him again.

The power of the keys must likewise refer to the authority of spiritual rulers to “bind” their people by some ordinances, and to “loose” them from others, when they have been abused, always excepting the two sacraments of the gospel, baptism and the eucharist, which, instituted by our Lord himself, are always binding. When the bishops of a Church bind their people by an ordinance, their act is ratified in heaven: and they who seek grace through that ordinance, receive it. Whereas, if they loose us from an ordinance, as from many ordinances we were loosed at the Reformation, this act again is ratified in heaven, and to observe that ordinance becomes superstition, not religion.

Upon Peter’s confession, that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” 1. He promiseth to build his Church upon the rock of that truth, and the rock confessed in it; 2. He promiseth “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” to Peter only, of all the apostles; meaning thereby, that he should be the man that should first unlock the door of faith and of the gospel unto the Gentiles, which was accomplished in Acts x. And, 3. He giveth him power of “binding and loosing,” and this power the other disciples had in common with him. “Binding and loosing,” in the language and style most familiarly known to the Jewish nation, (and it can be little doubted that Christ speaketh according to the common and most familiar sense of the language,) did refer more properly to things than to persons; therefore he saith, (Matt. xvi. 19,) ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς, not ὃν; and in Matt. xviii. 18, ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε, not ὃσους. The phrase, “to bind and to loose,” in their vulgar speech, meant, to prohibit and to permit; or, to teach what is prohibited or permitted, what lawful, what unlawful; as may appear by these instances—a few produced, whereas thousands may be alleged out of their writings. “Our wise men say that in Judah they did work on the Passover eve till noon, but in Galilee not at all; and as for the night, the school of Shammai bound it, that is, forbade to work on it, or taught that it was unlawful; but the school of Hillel loosed it till sunrising, or taught that it was lawful to work till sunrise.” They are speaking about washing in the baths of Tiberias on the sabbath, and they determine how far this was lawful in these words, “They bound washing to them, but they loosed sweating;” meaning, they taught that it was lawful to go into the bath to sweat, but not to bathe for pleasure. “They send not letters by the hand of a Gentile on the eve of the sabbath, nor on the fifth day of the week. Nay, on the fourth day of the week, the school of Shammai bound it, but the school of Hillel loosed it.” “Women may not look in a looking-glass on the sabbath; but if it were fastened upon a wall, Rabbi loosed the looking into it; but the wise man bound it.” “R. Jochanan went from Tsipporis to Tiberias; he saith, ‘Why brought ye me to this elder? for what I loose, he bindeth; and what I bind, he looseth.’” “The scribes have bound leaven;” that is, they have prohibited it. “They have, upon necessity, loosed salutation on the sabbath;” that is, they have permitted it, or taught that it was lawful.

Thousands of instances of this nature might be produced, by all which it is clear that the Jews’ use of the phrase was of their doctors’ or learned men’s teaching what was lawful and permitted, and what was unlawful and prohibited. Hence is that definition of such men’s office and work: “A wise man that judgeth judgment, and maketh unclean and maketh clean, bindeth and looseth, that is, teacheth what is clean and unclean, what is permitted or prohibited.” And Maimonides, giving the relation of their ordaining of elders, and to what several employments they were ordained, saith thus, “A wise man that is fit to teach all the law, the consistory had power to ordain him to judge, but not to teach bound and loose: or power to teach bound and loose, but not a judge in pecuniary matters; or power to both these, but not to judge in matters of mulct,” &c. So that the ordination of one to that function,—which was more properly ministerial, or to teach the people their duty, as, what was lawful, what not; what they were to do, and what not to do,—was to such a purpose, or to such a tenor as this, “Take thou the power to bind and loose, or to teach what is bound and loose.” By this vulgar and only sense of this phrase in the nation, the meaning of Christ using it thus to his disciples is easily understood, namely, that he first doth instate them in a ministerial capacity to teach what bound and loose, what to be done and what not; and this as ministers: and thus all ministers successively, to the end of the world. But, as they were apostles, of that singular and unparalleled order as the like were never in the Church again, he gives them power to “bind and loose” in a degree above all ministers that were to follow: namely, that whereas some part of Moses’s law was now to stand in practice, and some to be laid aside; some things under the law prohibited, were now to be permitted; and some things, then permitted, to be now prohibited, he promiseth the apostles such assistance of his Spirit, and giveth them such power, that what they allowed to stand in practice should stand, and what to fall, should fall; “what they bound in earth should be bound in heaven,” &c.—Lightfoot.

There is one thing still behind, which we must by no means omit, especially upon this occasion, and that is, the power of governing the Church which our Lord left with his apostles and their successors to the end of the world; but so that he, according to his promise, is always present with them at the execution of it. For this power is granted to them in the very charter to which this promise is annexed; for here our Lord gives them commission not only to baptize, but likewise to teach those who are his disciples, to observe whatsoever he had commanded. Whereby they are empowered both to declare what are those commands of Christ which men ought to observe, and also to use all means to prevail upon men to observe them; such as in correcting or punishing those who violate, rewarding and encouraging those who keep them. But our Saviour’s kingdom being, as himself saith, not of this world, but purely spiritual, he hath authorized his substitutes in the government of it to use rewards and punishments of the same nature; even to admonish delinquents in his name to forsake their sins; and if they continue obstinate, and neglect such admonitions, to excommunicate, or cast them out of his Church; and, upon their repentance, to absolve and receive them in again. This power our Saviour first promised to St. Peter, and in him to the rest of the apostles. But it was not actually conferred upon them till after his resurrection, when, having breathed on them, he said unto them, “Receive the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” As if he should have said, “I, the Son of man, having power upon earth also to forgive sins, do now commit the same to you; so that whose sins soever are remitted or retained by you, are so by me also.” From whence it is plain, both that the apostles received power to remit and retain sins, and that Christ himself concurs with them in the exercise of that power; and how he doth it, even by his Holy Spirit now breathed into them. To explain the full extent and latitude of this power would require more time than can be allowed upon this day, whereon it is to be exercised; and therefore I shall observe only two things concerning it, whereof the first is, that how great soever the power be which our Lord committed to his apostles and their successors for the government of his Church in all ages, it is but ministerial; they act only under him as his ministers and stewards, and must one day give an account to him of all their actions. Yea, whatsoever power they have of this nature, it is still his power in their hands; they derive it continually from him, who is always present with them. And, therefore, as they themselves need to have a care how they exert this power, or neglect the exerting of it, so others had need take care, too, that they neither resist nor despise it.—Beveridge.

Bishop Jeremy Taylor expresses, with great clearness, the primitive doctrine on this subject: “The same promise of binding and loosing (which certainly was all that the keys were given for) was made afterwards to all the apostles, (Matt. xviii.,) and the power of remitting and retaining, which in reason, and according to the style of the Church, is the same thing in other words, was actually given to all the apostles; and unless that was the performing the first and second promise, we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when, or whether yet or no, the promise be performed.” And again: “If the keys were only given and so promised to St. Peter, that the Church hath not the keys, then the Church can neither bind nor loose, remit nor retain, which God forbid: if any man should endeavour to answer this argument, I leave him and St. Austin to contest it.”

The apostles knew nothing of any different power conveyed to one of their number beyond what was common to him with the rest, as we may reasonably conclude, since there is no record of any authority exercised on the one side, or of obedience rendered on the other.

The proposed distinction is, indeed, utterly untenable, and the whole testimony of antiquity is against it; yet it is maintained by some of the chief Roman commentators. Maldonat, for instance, who is one of the best known and most popular, in his exposition of this place, declares the keys to have been given to Peter, that is, the power of binding and loosing, of opening and shutting, in subordination to Christ alone, while the rest of the apostles received only an inferior jurisdiction. For this interpretation he advances no proof at all, except the mention of the keys in the address to Peter, and the omission in what was spoken to the rest, which he pronounces an irrefragable argument; and on the foundation of this alleged separate gift to Peter he builds the right of jurisdiction for his successors, extending to the supreme decision of spiritual causes on earth, and the regulating the condition of souls in purgatory. Cornelius Van den Steen, or à Lapide, as he is usually called, seems to have followed the interpretation of Maldonat, and says, that by the keys is signified the power of order and jurisdiction granted to Peter over the whole Church; and that Christ explains his meaning in the words which follow. He falls into the fallacy of representing the term “rock” as conveying the notion of government; and then, as if this were an unquestionably accurate representation, he goes on to blend figures which have nothing in common, and assumes that in this way the supreme power of the pope is adequately proved. Like his predecessor, he vindicates the most unlimited exercise of it, whether in enforcing obedience, or in granting dispensations, in enacting ecclesiastical laws, pronouncing excommunications and other censures, delivering decisions on questions of faith, with other acts which fall under the head of binding, or those of an opposite character, which belong to the power of loosing. In order to dispose of the difficult fact that Christ is recorded to have given the same power of binding and loosing to others as well, he affirms that Peter was first singled out, to signify that the rest of the apostles were committed to his care as his subjects, and that he was empowered to control, limit, or take away their jurisdictions as he should see fit; though it is clear both that the apostles exercised, in point of fact, the highest Church discipline, and that there is not a word which implies their having done so by delegation. He very characteristically confirms his exposition by a synodical letter, which the great Roman annalist had given up as spurious some years before.

Both these writers were theologians of the highest repute, the one professor at Paris, the other at Louvain. They may be fairly taken to express the judgment of the party at present dominant in the Roman Church. Nothing can be more extravagant than their interpretations, or more feebly supported by proofs; yet they are indispensable to the position of the ultramontanes. This extreme doctrine, revived by the Jesuits, for it was invented a century earlier, has no pretence of confirmation from any of the primitive expositors of Scripture. They declare, with one voice, that the keys were given to the Church in the person of Peter. In the words of Ambrose, “what is said to Peter, is said to the apostles.” Cyprian and Origen, Jerome and Basil, are of one mind on this point. The statement of Augustine, repeated in a multitude of places, is as clear as possible that the Church received the power of the keys, and not an individual apostle. The Fathers were not writing with any view to the present controversy; and many of their expressions, taken separately, would give a very untrue representation of their meaning, by making them maintain opinions which, in their time, had not been even suggested. Thus Cyprian, in his treatise on the unity of the Church, applies the disputed texts to Peter; but then he speaks of him as the type of unity, the representative of a great principle; and to guard his meaning against perversion, he states, in the plainest terms, that the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, and had equal participation of honour and authority. So the Fathers continually speak of him as figuring the oneness of the Church universal. They exalt his chair, but they are careful to explain that they are speaking, not of an individual bishop possessing supreme authority, which was the farthest from their thoughts, but of that one undivided episcopacy, to use Cyprian’s well-known words, of which every bishop possesses a portion.

Dupin affirms that the Fathers are unanimous in assigning ecclesiastical power, either to the Church generally, or to the apostles, and, after them, to bishops; that there is not one to be found who holds it to have been given to Peter and his successors alone; and that they have guarded against any wrong inference which might be drawn from the promise given to Peter, by showing that he was regarded as the representative of the Church. He furnishes some authorities on this subject, not only from the early Fathers, but from popes, great bishops of the Roman Church, scholastic writers, and universities; and he adds, that the number of passages which might be adduced is infinite. The same great writer states strongly the importance of the question: for if, as he says, the power of the keys belongs to the pope alone, there can be no doubt that he has authority over the whole Church; since, upon this hypothesis, neither the Church nor its prelates can have any other power than such as they derive from him.

In the Council of Paris, held in the eighth century, under the emperors Louis and Lothaire, the bishops expressly claimed this power of binding and loosing, without any reference to the successor of St. Peter. The Council of Constance, in its fourth session, declared, in the strongest language, that the Church has its jurisdiction immediately from Christ; and this judgment was embodied in acts of the highest significancy and importance. The Council of Basle, in its first session, passed a decree in exactly the same spirit, and almost in the very same words. Æneas Sylvius, the historian of the council, and afterwards Pius II., expressly vindicates the text in question from the interpretation which favours the pontifical authority. So Cardinal de Cusa, writing at the same period, claims for the other apostles the very same power of binding and loosing which was conveyed to Peter by the words of Christ. And John Gerson refers to this very place, in maintaining the superiority of a council to a pope. Even in the Council of Trent, we find the Cardinal of Lorraine speaking to the same effect; and though he may be worthless as a theologian, he is valuable as a witness. He alleged various passages, from Augustine and others, in proof that bishops derive their jurisdiction immediately from God. And, indeed, the whole argument of the French and Spanish prelates in favour of the divine right of episcopacy was based on the very interpretation of our Lord’s words which the Jesuit school condemns.

The canonists bear the same testimony. Thus Van Espen, and there are few higher authorities, delivers it as the doctrine of the Fathers on this subject, that, while Christ spoke to Peter in the singular, he made conveyance of the powers in question to all the apostles. Duaren speaks to the same effect. He affirms that the power of binding and loosing was given to the Church, and not to an individual.

Some even of the Roman commentators give a similar interpretation. Thus Nicholas de Lyra says that, as the confession of Peter was the confession of the rest, so the power given to him was bestowed on all. D’Espence and many others give the same exposition.

The severe rebuke administered to Peter, following so closely upon his confession, puts another difficulty in the way of those who insist on his great personal prerogatives. Gregory de Valentia proposes, as a rule of interpretation, that some things are to be taken as addressed to Peter in his public, and some in his private, character. Thus he supposes him to have been called the Rock in the former, and Satan in the latter; but this distinction is arbitrary, and obviously invented to serve a purpose. We shall not be more disposed to adopt the opinion of Hilary, who would have us consider the one part of the sentence addressed to Peter, the other to the evil spirit. But while, with the great body of ancient doctors, we admit the sin, we may well believe that God in his wisdom overruled it for good, by making it a warning that we should not think even of this eminent apostle more highly than we ought to think.—S. Robins.

KINDRED. (See Consanguinity.)

KING’S EVIL. This disease is connected with the ecclesiastical history of England by the power to cure it, which was for many centuries attributed to the kings of England, and which was, from the time of Edward the Confessor, held to be exercised as a part of the religion attached to the person of the king. The cure, too, was always accompanied by a religious service.

The kings of France also claimed the gift of healing, (but upon no other occasions than at their coronation,) and the ceremony was used at the coronation of Charles X., at Rheims. George I. made no pretensions to this gift, and it has never been claimed by his successors.

Bishop Bull says, “that divers persons desperately labouring under the king’s evil, have been cured by the mere touch of the royal hands, assisted with the prayers of the priests of our Church attending, is unquestionable, unless the faith of all our ancient writers, and the consentient report of hundreds of most credible persons in our own age, attesting the same, is to be questioned.”—Sermon on St. Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh.

In January, 1683, a proclamation was issued by the privy-council, and was ordered to be published in every parish in the kingdom, enjoining that the time for presenting persons for the “public healings” should be from the feast of All-saints, till a week before Christmas; and after Christmas until the first day of March, and then to cease till Passion week.

The office for the ceremony was called “The Ceremonies,” or “Prayers for the Healing.” The Latin form was used in the time of Henry VII., and was reprinted by the king’s printer in 1686. The English forms were essentially the same, with some modifications. These occur in the Common Prayer Books of the reigns of Charles I., Charles II., James II., and Anne (and, as it appears from Mr. Stephens’s own statement, in that of George I., in 1715). They all vary; and a new one appears to have been drawn up for each sovereign, so late as 1719. (See Pegge’s Curialia Miscellanea, 161; taken from a folio Prayer Book, 1710. Also Kennet’s Register, 731, and Sparrow’s Articles, 165, which latter form seems to have been used in the reign of Charles I.) In Mr. Stephens’s editions of the Common Prayer Book, from which the foregoing article has been abridged, the Latin form is given, (i. 997,) and the English form in 1715 (1002).

The following is the form in Sparrow’s Collections, printed in 1684.

AT THE HEALING.

The Gospel written in the 16th chapter of St. Mark, beginning at the 14th verse.

Jesus appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and cast in their teeth their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen that he was risen again from the dead. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to all creatures: He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these tokens shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall drive away serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. [6]They shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So when the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received into heaven, and is on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with miracles following.

The Gospel written in the 1st chapter of St. John, beginning at the 1st verse.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shined in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. There was sent from God a man whose name was John. The same came as a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of the Light. [7]That Light was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came among his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to be made sons of God, even them that believed on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor yet of the will of man, but of God. And the same Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

THE PRAYERS.

Vers. Lord have mercy upon us.

Resp. Lord have mercy upon us.

Vers. Christ have mercy upon us.

Resp. Christ have mercy upon us.

Vers. Lord have mercy upon us.

Resp. Lord have mercy upon us.

Our Father which art in Heaven. Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

(These Answers are to be made by them that come to be healed.)

Vers. O Lord, save thy servants.

Resp. Which put their trust in thee.

Vers. Send help unto them from above.

Resp. And evermore mightily defend them.

Vers. Help us, O God our Saviour.

Resp. And for the glory of thy Name deliver us; be merciful unto us sinners for thy Name’s sake.

Vers. O Lord, hear our prayer.

Resp. And let our cry come unto thee.

O Almighty God, who art the giver of all health, and the aid of them that seek to Thee for succour, we call upon Thee for thy help and goodness mercifully to be showed unto these thy servants, that they being healed of their infirmity, may give thanks unto thee in thy holy Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore. Amen.

The same form appears at the end of L’Estrange’s Alliance of the Divine Offices, 1699. It seems that in some of Queen Anne’s Prayer Books, (not in 1715, as stated by Mr. Stephens,) the form was altered, by the omission of the second Gospel, and the addition of certain prayers.

There seems to be little doubt that, by the mere force of imagination, a cure was not unfrequently occasioned.

KINGS, BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so called, because they contain the history of the kings of Israel and Judah, from the beginning of the reign of Solomon down to the Babylonish captivity, for the space of near 600 years; taking into the account the two preceding Books of Samuel. In the Greek Bibles, as well as in the Latin, the two Books of Samuel are called the First and Second Books of Kings; so that in these copies of the Bible there are four Books of Kings. Anciently these four were but two in the Hebrew Bibles, the first whereof was called Samuel, and the second Kings, or Kingdoms: but at present, in the Hebrew copies, the first of these books is styled the First and Second Book of Samuel; and the other, the First and Second of Kings, as in our English version of the Bible.

It is probable that the two Books of Kings were composed by Ezra, who extracted them out of the public records which were kept of what passed in that nation.

KIRK OF SCOTLAND. (See Presbyterians.) The Kirk of Scotland acknowledges as its founder the celebrated John Knox, a disciple of Calvin. From its foundation, it adopted the doctrine and ecclesiastical government of the Church of Geneva. In 1581, King James, with his whole family and the whole nation, subscribed a confession of faith, with a solemn league and covenant, obliging themselves to maintain and defend the Protestant religion and Presbyterian government. The title of this confession is, “A General Confession of the true Christian Faith and Religion, according to God’s Word, and Acts of our Parliament, subscribed by the King’s Majestic and his Household; with sundrie others. To the glory of God, and good example of all men. At Edinburgh, the 28th day of Januarie. The year of our Lord 1581. And in the 14th year of his Majestie’s reign.” (See Confessions of Faith.)

KISS OF PEACE. (See Pax.) This form of salutation, as a token of Christian affection, appears to have been an apostolic custom. (Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26; 1 Pet. v. 14.) It was one of the rites of the eucharistic service in the primitive Church. It was omitted on Good Friday in remembrance of the traitorous kiss of Judas Iscariot.—Augusti.

KNEELING. The posture which the Church prescribes in prayer, acts of confession, &c.

The practice of kneeling in confession, in prayer, and in adoration, is of great antiquity; a reference to it being apparently made in Isaac’s blessing on Jacob, (Gen. xxvii. 29,)—compared with his brother’s subsequent conduct, (xlii. 6,) and with the edict of Pharaoh, “Bow the knee” (xli. 43); and again in the second commandment. (Exod. xx. 5.) David says, “Let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the “Lord our Maker.”” (Ps. xcv. 6.) “We will go into his tabernacle, and fall low on our knees before his footstool.” (cxxxii. 7.) Solomon “kneeled on his knees” before the altar of the Lord, with his hands spread up to heaven. (1 Kings viii. 54.) Ezra fell upon his knees, and spread out his hands unto God, and made his confession. (Ezra ix. 5–15.) Daniel “kneeled upon his knees three times a day,” and prayed “as he did aforetime.” (Dan. vi. 10.) The holy martyr Stephen “kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice,” praying for his murderers. (Acts vii. 60.) So Peter “kneeled down, and prayed,” (Acts ix. 40,) and also St. Paul. (Acts xx. 36; xxi. 5.)

That the posture was a customary one may be inferred from the conduct of the man beseeching Christ to heal his son, (Matt. xvii. 14,) and of the rich young man, (Mark x. 17,) as also of the leper (Mark i. 40); but the example of our blessed Lord himself, who, though without sin, yet “kneeled down” when he prayed, (Luke xxii. 41,) cannot but recommend the practice to every devout worshipper. Some of the early Christians so frequently used this posture of humility, as visibly to wear away the floor on which they kneeled; and Eusebius says of St. James the Just, that he had, by the continual exercise of his devotions, contracted a hardness on his knees, like that on the knees of camels. The practice was altogether so common, that prayer itself was termed κλίσις γονάτων—“bending the knees.” It is to be noticed, however, that the primitive Christians, out of a peculiar regard for the Lord’s day, and the joyful season between Easter and Whitsuntide, did (with the exception of the penitents, who were denied this privilege) then perform their whole devotions standing, instead of kneeling: and this custom was confirmed by the Council of Nice, for the sake of uniformity. It was from this circumstance, probably, that the Ethiopic and Muscovitish Churches adopted the attitude of standing, generally, a custom which they continue to this day.

Bingham remarks (book xiii. 8. 4) that though these two postures of prayer were very indifferent in their own nature, yet it was always esteemed an instance of great negligence, or great perverseness, to interchange them unseasonably one for the other, that is, to pray kneeling on the Lord’s day, when the Church required standing; or standing on other days, when the rules and custom of the Church required men to kneel. And therefore, as the Canons of Nice and of the Council in Trullo reflect upon those who were superstitiously bent upon kneeling on the Lord’s day, so others with equal severity complain of the remissness and negligence of such as refused to kneel at other times, when the Church appointed it. It is a very indecent and irregular thing, says Cæsarius of Arles, that when the deacon cries out, “Let us bend the knee,” the people should then stand erect as pillars in the Church. These were but small observations in themselves, but of great consequence, we see, when done perversely, to the scandal and disorder of the Church, whose great rule in all such cases is that of the apostle, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”

In the whole of the primitive religious service there is not any circumstance casual; every particular, every gesture, is instructive. In the presence of God man fell upon his face to the ground; and, by that act, humbly confessed his original: hence bowing to the ground is the formal word for worshipping, which it was high treason to practise toward any idol. And when, from that posture, man raised himself to praise and to bless God, he raised himself no further than the knee, still so far retaining the posture of humility; and from this posture the word to signify blessing is taken. As bowing to the ground is used to signify worshipping, kneeling is used to signify blessing.—Forbes’ Thoughts on Religion.

Posture of body is a thing which, how slight soever it may now be thought to be, yet is not without its moment, if either Scripture, or reason, or the practice of holy men, may be our judges. For if we ought to glorify God in our bodies, as well as in our spirits; if we are forbidden to bow down before a graven image, lest we should thereby be thought by God to impart his honour to it; in fine, if our Saviour refused to fall down, and worship the devil, upon the account of God’s challenging that honour unto himself; then must it be thought to be our duty to make use of such a posture of body towards God, as may bespeak our inward reverence, and particularly in prayer, which is one of the most immediate acts of the glorification of him.—Towerson on the Creed.

St. Augustine says, “I know not how it comes to pass, but so it is, that though these motions of the body be not made without a foregoing motion of the mind, yet, again, by the outward and visible performance of them, that more inward and invisible one, which caused them, is increased; and so the affection of the heart, which was the cause of their being done, is itself improved by the doing of them.”—Aug. de Cura pro Mortuis.

In the morning and evening service, the minister or priest is directed to kneel (with the people) at the Confession, Lord’s Prayer, and two versicles which follow; the versicles after the Creed, (a lesser Litany,) and the Lord’s Prayer following, and at the Collects. No position is enjoined for the Litany; but universal custom prescribes kneeling. In the Communion Service, the priest is to kneel only at the general confession, at the prayer immediately following the Sanctus, and when receiving the holy communion. The directions for the people are not as explicit here as elsewhere; but they are directed to kneel in the part before the sermon, with the following exceptions,—at the reading of the Gospel (for the Epistle no posture is prescribed) and at the Creed. After the sermon they are directed to kneel only at the confession, and the reception of the communion.

KNELL. A bell tolled at funerals.

KORAH, SONGS OR PSALMS OF THE SONS OF. The “sons of Korah” formed one of the three choirs of the temple, all Levites. They are sometimes called Korhites, or Kohathites, being descended from Kohath, the second son of Levi; Kohath’s grandson being Korah. Heman was the director of this choir in the time of King David: but it seems not to have survived the captivity, as the sons of Asaph are alone named by Nehemiah. Twelve psalms are inscribed Psalms or Songs of the Sons of Korah; and are supposed to have been specially performed by that choir, or composed by some of its members. They are the forty-second to the forty-ninth, eighty-fourth, eighty-fifth, eighty-seventh, and eighty-eighth.—Jebb.

KYRIE ELEISON. The Greek of “Lord have mercy” upon us. This earnest and pathetic appeal of the penitent heart has, from the apostolic age, been freely incorporated into the liturgies of the Church. It is perpetually repeated in the Greek liturgies; and in our own it is of frequent occurrence: so frequent, indeed, that exceptions have sometimes been taken to our forms, as tinctured with an overabundant sorrow and self-abasement, for those who are called to be the sons of God. The fault, however, is fortunately on the right side; and, as Bishop Sparrow remarks, on the Kyrie between the commandments, if there be any that think this might have been spared, as being fitter for poor publicans than saints, let them turn to the parable of the publican and Pharisee going up to the temple to pray, (Luke xviii.,) and here they shall receive an answer. It generally precedes the Lord’s Prayer. In the Litany, each of the three clauses is repeated severally by both minister and people. In the First Book of King Edward VI., it was used at the beginning of the Communion Service, and the figure iii. was prefixed to each clause, to signify that each was to be preceded three times. The Kyrie Eleison is generally called “the Lesser Litany.”

KYRIE, “O Lord,” (in Church music,) the vocative of the Greek word signifying Lord, with which word all the musical masses in the Church of Rome commence, that is, the above-mentioned Kyrie Eleison. Hence it has come to be used substantively for the whole piece, as one may say, a beautiful Kyrie, a Kyrie well executed, &c. It is sometimes applied to the responses between the commandments in our Prayer Book.—Jebb.

LABARUM. The celebrated imperial standard used by Constantine the Great. Near the extremity of the shaft of a lance, sheathed in plates of gold, was affixed, in a horizontal position, a small rod, so as to form the exact figure of a cross. From this transverse little bar hung drooping a small purple veil of the finest texture, interwoven with golden threads, and starred with brilliant jewels. Above this rose the sacred monogram of Jesus Christ encircled with a golden crown. Under this banner were his victories gained. It was carried near the emperor, and defended specially by the flower of his army. The etymology of the word is utterly unknown.

LAITY, LAYMAN. The people (λαὸς) as distinguished from the clergy. This distinction was derived from the Jewish Church, and adopted into the Christian by the apostles themselves. Every one knows that the offices of the priests and Levites among the Jews were distinct from those of the people. And so it was among Christians from the first foundation of the Church. Wherever any number of converts were made, as soon as they were capable of being formed into a Church, a bishop or a presbyter, with a deacon, was ordained to minister to them, as Epiphanius delivers from the ancient histories of the Church.

Every true Christian Church is a body of men associated for religious purposes, and composed of two distinct classes,—the clergy and the laity: the clergy especially and divinely set apart for sacred offices; the laity exercising the duties and receiving the privileges of religion, in the midst of temporal occupations and secular affairs. But the clergy are thus set apart, not for their own benefit only, but for the benefit of the Church in general, of their lay brethren among the rest; and the laity also are bound to employ their temporal opportunities not for themselves exclusively, but for the Church in general, and for their clerical brethren among the rest. They who minister at the altar, minister for those who partake of the altar; and they who partake of the altar are bound to support those who minister at the altar; and this is one out of a thousand applications of the general principles of communion, and of the reciprocal rights and privileges on which it is founded.

Compacted by these reciprocal duties and privileges, but still more truly and effectually by ordinances and sacraments, and by a divine and mystical agency which animates all with one spirit, and sanctifies all with one grace, clergy and laity together form but one body. The clergy alone no more constitute the Church, either in a spiritual, in an ecclesiastical, or in a political sense, than do the laity alone; and the Church has no existence, no duties, no rights, no authority, except as it is composed of both clergy and laity. It is because they forget this that we continually hear persons speaking of the Church as it were only an hierarchy. If regulations of any kind are proposed for the prosperity of the Church, they start at the sound as if it meant the aggrandizement of the clergy: if the Church is said to be in danger, they only think of the fall of mitres and the impoverishing of benefices. The real truth is, that the Church’s privilege and authority belong to the whole body, whoever may be their immediate recipients and executors; and whoever maintains them, whether he be lay or clerical, maintains his own rights and his own patrimony.

And the part of the laity in the Church is no more purely political, than the part of the clergy is purely spiritual. Nothing could be less just than to deny to the laity a spiritual character, although they are not appointed to spiritual offices. The sacraments which the ministers distribute, and the laity partake with them, are spiritual; the one (that is, holy baptism) originating, the other (that is, the blessed eucharist) continuing a spiritual character in the recipients. The minister offers up spiritual lauds and prayers for his flock. Even external discipline has a spiritual object, and would be both absurd and unjust, if exercised over those who are not members of the Church spiritual as well as visible. And, finally and principally, the ever blessed fountain and stream of a true spiritual character, without whom no external sacrament or rite can be to any purpose, even the Holy Ghost, is purchased by Christ for his whole Church; and sent from Him and from the Father, not exclusively upon any order of men, but upon all, from the highest order of the clergy to the least and lowest of the laity who maintain their spiritual character. As the precious unguent poured upon Aaron’s head, flowed not only over his own beard, but even to the skirts of his clothing; so does that spiritual stream of a holy character flow from the Head of the Church, not on those only whose office is sacred, but on those also whose character is sanctified; not only upon those whose part it is to govern, but on those also who must obey in spiritual things. And so it is that the mystical temple of Christ “groweth together in Christ, which is the Head; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body.”

And this is, indeed, the right clue to the interpretation of those passages of Scripture in which all Christ’s people are designated as priests, and which have been perverted into an authority for the exercise of clerical functions by the laity. It is the spiritual character, not the spiritual office, of every Christian, of which St. Peter speaks, when he says, “Ye also, as living stones, are built up, a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices unto God by Jesus Christ.” And again, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.” So also when St. John says, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God the Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever:” and when Moses declares of the Israelites, as they typified the Christian Church, “Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation:” they convey an assurance to us, not of the priestly office, but of the spiritual character and privileges of every member of the Church of Christ.

And it is as partaking in this spiritual character with them that the laity share with the clergy in many other things. They have the same privilege of the Christian altar, and for their children the same privilege of the Christian font: the promises of God to them are the same; and spiritual benefits, both present and future, clergy and laity share together: their duties are almost all of them in common, varying principally in the external manner in which they are to be performed: and even where there is the most apparent exclusion of the laity from the ceremonial, they are by no means excluded from the authority which sanctions the ceremonial. It would be most wicked and presumptuous for a layman to take on himself the ordination of another, or the consecration of the eucharist; but it would be nothing short of heresy, though a new heresy, to deny that the bishop and the priest perform these acts with that authority which is vested in the Church, as a society of faithful men, lay as well as clerical. It is in the name, not of the clergy, but of the Church, that the bishop confirms and ordains; that the minister pronounces absolution and a blessing; that discipline is enforced, and penitents are restored: and in all these cases the minister is the representative and instrument, not of the clergy, nor of his individual bishop, but of the Church at large. But it is not only in the authority and privileges of the Church, but in its responsibility also, that the laity are included. If a Church fall into heresy, or error of doctrine or of practice, though the hierarchy may be the chief instigators and movers of such error, yet the laity, still maintaining their communion, are necessarily involved in their sin. And so, on the other hand, if the laity fall into spiritual error, the clergy also are responsible, and involved in the sin. It mattered not whether it were the heresy of the Nicolaitanes, or the religious indifference of the body of a Church which had left its first love: the candlestick was removed, not from the clergy only in the one case, nor from the laity only in the other, but all were swept away together. The laity among the Arians were not excused because they left the Catholic faith in company with their bishops; nor were those of the clergy, who, in latter days, cast off episcopal authority because of the clamours of the people, thus justified. God only can precisely judge of the degree of sin in parties thus situated; but as a point of sound theory in religion and theology, the clergy are concerned in the errors of their flocks; the laity are involved in the heresies and schisms, and other ecclesiastical crimes, of their bishops and pastors.

This mutual responsibility of clergy and laity would result even from the principles of a civil polity, of the nature of which the Church, as a society, necessarily partakes: but they follow still more manifestly among the consequences of her spiritual union; and are plainly stated in the sacred Scriptures, by the rules of which the Church is ever to be judged. Surely nothing can be clearer than the words of St. Paul, “Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it; now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”

Thus we see that, in matters purely spiritual, the laity are very seriously responsible for the proceedings of the Church as carried on, well or ill, by its appointed ministers. How greatly they are interested in the same matters, needs not to be proved at much length; since the validity of the sacraments, the soundness of doctrine, the catholicity of fellowship, certainly concern them quite as nearly as the clergy themselves. But so soon as we take into consideration those matters in which the Church partakes of the nature of a civil polity, we find the interest of the laity in its regulations so much increased, that sometimes they are even more nearly concerned than the clergy themselves. A single line of George Herbert will illustrate these principles; he says,

“The Scriptures bid us fast; the Church says now.”

Here in the Scriptural part, (the propriety and benefit of fasting,) laity and clergy are concerned equally; but so soon as the Church exerts its authority in the way of polity, (to determine the time,) the laity, upon whose secular habits a religious exercise makes a greater incursion, are by far the most concerned. The same thing holds in every rule for the regulation of penance or communion, for the determining of the proper recipients of baptism, the proper candidates for holy orders, and the like. And to go a step farther; there are parts of the ecclesiastical polity which are spiritual only by accident, and indirectly; such as the means used in collecting funds for charitable or religious purposes, and for the carrying on of the government of the Church; and in these the immediate and direct interest of the laity is altogether paramount.

These, which are the true Church principles on the subject of the clergy and the laity, will be sufficient to answer the charge of priestcraft against those of the clergy who enforce sound principles on this subject; and to make those of the laity who wish to act up to the high principles which they profess, feel that as churchmen they possess a sacred character which must not be lightly compromised, and spiritual privileges which they may well think worth contending for, against the low principles of dissenters and quasidissenters.—Poole on the Admission of Lay Members to the Synods of the Church in Scotland.

LAMBETH ARTICLES. Certain articles so called because they were drawn up at Lambeth, in the year 1595, by the then archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London.

It appears that towards the close of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, the errors of Calvinism had spread among the clergy of the Church of England. These errors were opposed by some of the most learned divines of Cambridge. But the opponents of Calvinism were denounced as persons addicted to Popery; and the heads of houses ventured to censure one divine because he denied some points of Calvinistic doctrine, and spoke disrespectfully of Calvin, Peter Martyr, and others. Archbishop Whitgift, and some other bishops, were inclined to take part with the heads of houses at Cambridge, and, adhering to the popular side, to condemn the orthodox divines. They met together at Lambeth palace, and there Archbishop Whitgift, Dr. Vaughan, elect of Bangor, Dr. Fletcher, elect of London, Dr. Tyndall, dean of Ely, and the Calvinistic divines from Cambridge, digested under the nine following heads what are called the Lambeth Articles:

“1. God hath from eternity predestinated certain persons to life, and hath reprobated certain persons unto death. 2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that is in the persons predestinated; but the alone will of God’s good pleasure. 3. The predestinate are a predetermined and certain number, which can neither be lessened nor increased. 4. Such as are not predestinated to salvation shall inevitably be condemned on account of their sins. 5. The true, lively, and justifying faith, and the spirit of God justifying, is not extinguished, doth not utterly fail, doth not vanish away in the elect, either finally or totally. 6. A true believer, that is, one who is endued with justifying faith, is certified by the full assurance of faith that his sins are forgiven, and that he shall be everlastingly saved by Christ. 7. Saving grace is not allowed, is not imparted, is not granted to all men, by which they may be saved if they will. 8. No man is able to come to Christ, unless it be given him, and unless the Father draw him; and all men are not drawn by the Father, that they may come to his Son. 9. It is not in the will or power of every man to be saved.”

These articles, asserting the most offensive of the Calvinistic positions, were not accepted by the Church, and consequently were of no authority, although they were employed at the time to silence those by authority against whom argument could not prevail. The prelates who drew them up acted without authority, for they were not assembled in a synod. A synod is an assembly of bishops and presbyters duly convened. In this instance there was no convention. The meeting was a mere private conference; and the decision was of no more weight than the charge of a bishop delivered without a consultation with his clergy, which is only the expression of a private opinion, it may be that even of an Arian or Sabellian; and which, though heard with respect, is only to be treated as the opinion of an individual, until the clergy have officially received it as orthodox: it was to be received with respect, and examined with reference not to the authority with which it was given, but according to its merits. There can be no greater proof of the absence of Calvinism from the Thirty-nine Articles than the fact, that the very persons who were condemning the orthodox for innovation, were compelled to invent new articles before they could make our Church Calvinistic. The conduct of the archbishop gave much offence to many pious persons, and especially to the queen; and this attempt to introduce Calvinism into our Church entirely failed.

LAMBETH DEGREES. The popular designation given to degrees conferred by the archbishop of Canterbury, who has the power of giving degrees in any of the faculties. This is supposed to be a relic of legislative authority.

LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH. A canonical book of the Old Testament. (See Jeremiah.)

This book is a kind of funeral elegy on the death of the good king Josiah, as appears from what is recorded: “Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, and all the singing men and singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel; and behold they are written in the Lamentations.” This is confirmed by the Jewish historian Josephus.

St. Jerome imagines this prophet laments the loss of Josiah, as the beginning of those calamities which followed: accordingly he prophetically bewails the miserable state of the Jews, and the destruction of Jerusalem; though some are of opinion, the Lamentations were composed after the taking of Jerusalem.

The first two chapters of this book are employed in describing the calamities of the siege of Jerusalem. In the third, the author deplores the persecutions he himself had suffered. The fourth turns upon the desolation of the city and temple, and the misfortune of Zedekiah. The fifth chapter is a kind of form of prayer for the Jews in their dispersion and captivity. At the end of all, he speaks of the cruelty of the Edomites, who had insulted Jerusalem in her misery.

The first four chapters of the Lamentations are in acrostic verse, and abecedary; every verse or couplet beginning with one of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, in their alphabetical order.

There is a preface to the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in the Greek, and in the Vulgar Latin, which is not in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee Paraphrase, nor in the Syriac; and which was manifestly added by way of Argument of the book.

LAMMAS DAY. A festival of the Romish Church, otherwise called St. Peter’s chains, or St. Peter in the fetters, in memory of the imprisonment of that apostle. Two derivations have been given of the name Lammas. 1st, The literal sense, arising from a ludicrous notion of the vulgar, that St. Peter was patron of the lambs, from our Saviour’s words to him, “Feed my lambs.” 2. From a Saxon word, meaning “Loaf-mass,” it having been the custom of the Saxons to offer on this day (August 1) an oblation of loaves made of new wheat, as the first-fruits of their new corn.

LAMPADARY. An officer in the ancient Church of Constantinople; so called, because it was his business to see that the lamps of the church were lighted, and to carry a taper before the emperor, the empress, and the patriarch, when they went to church, or in procession. The taper, borne before the emperor, was encompassed with several golden circles representing crowns: those carried before the empress and patriarch had but one. These tapers were emblematical, and signified that these illustrious personages were to enlighten the rest of the world by the splendour of their virtues.

LANTERN. The central tower of a cross church, when it is open over the cross. This seems always to have been the vernacular term for such a tower. Thus, William de Chambre says of Bishop Skirlaw, “Magnam partem campanilis, vulgo lantern, ministerii Eboracensis construxit.”

LAPSE. When a patron neglects to present a clergyman to a benefice in his gift, within six months after its vacancy, the benefice lapses to the bishop; and if he does not collate within six months, it lapses to the archbishop; and if he neglects to collate within six months, it lapses to the Crown.

LAPSED. Those persons were so called, who in time of persecution denied the faith of Christ; but again, on persecution ceasing, sought reconciliation and Church communion.

The discipline with which such persons were visited included a long absence from the holy eucharist, which however was not denied them in case of extreme illness. And the maternal solicitude of the Church for her sons was so great, that when dangerous sickness was prevalent, or when another persecution seemed to impend, it somewhat relaxed the rule. This is especially shown in the conduct and writings of St. Cyprian; in whose times the case of the lapsed was brought before the Church, by circumstances, more fully, and was also more clearly determined, than it had been before. One of his most celebrated tracts refers especially to their case.

Different circumstances gave to different individuals of the lapsed the names of Sacrificati, Thurificati, and Libellatici. (See these words.) The Traditores were not held wholly free from the crime of the lapsed. (See Traditors.)

Those who absolutely and for ever fell away were classed by the Church as heathens, and had of course no ecclesiastical position, however low.

LATERAN COUNCILS. Under this head, to which reference has been made under the article on Councils, we shall include all the councils of the Romish Church.

Lateran (I.) in the year 1123. It was convened by Pope Calixtus II., who presided in person. It consisted of 300 bishops. It decreed that investiture to ecclesiastical dignities was the exclusive right of the Church; and that the practice of secular princes giving such investiture was an usurpation. The celibacy of the clergy was also decreed.

Lateran (II.) in 1139, composed of nearly 1000 bishops, under the presidency of Pope Innocent II. It decided on the due election of this pope, and condemned the errors of Peter de Bruys and Arnold of Brescia.

Lateran (III.) in 1179. At this council, with Pope Alexander III. at their head, 302 bishops condemned what they were pleased to call the “errors and impieties” of the Waldenses and Albigenses.

Lateran (IV.) in 1215, composed of 412 bishops, under Innocent III., had for its objects the recovery of the Holy Land, reformation of abuses, and the extirpation of heresy.

Lyons (I.) in 1245, consisting of 140 bishops, was convened for the purpose of promoting the Crusades, restoring ecclesiastical discipline, and dethroning Frederick II., emperor of Germany. It was also decreed at this council that cardinals should wear red hats.

Lyons (II.) in 1274. There were 500 bishops and about 1000 inferior clergy present. Its principal object was the reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches.

Vienne in Gaul, 1311, consisting of 300 bishops, who were convoked to suppress the Knights Templars, condemn those who were accused of heresy, and assist the Christians in Palestine.

Constance, in 1414–1418. The German emperor, the pope, 20 princes, 140 counts, more than 20 cardinals, 7 patriarchs, 20 archbishops, 91 bishops, 600 other clerical dignitaries, and about 4000 priests, were present at this celebrated ecclesiastical assembly, which was occasioned by the divisions and contests that had arisen about the affairs of the Church. From 1305–1377, the popes had resided at Avignon; but in 1378, Gregory XI. removed the papal seat back to Rome: after his death, the French and Italian cardinals could not agree upon a successor, and so each party chose its own candidate. This led to a schism, which lasted forty years. Indeed, when the emperor Sigismund ascended the throne, in 1411, there were three popes, each of whom had anathematized the two others. To put an end to these disorders, and to stop the diffusion of the doctrines of Huss, Sigismund went in person to Italy, France, Spain, and England, and (as the emperor Maximilian I. used to say, in jest, performing the part of the beadle of the Roman empire) summoned a general council. The pretended heresies of Wickliff and Huss were here condemned, and the latter, notwithstanding the assurances of safety given him by the emperor, was burnt, July 7, 1415; and his friend and companion, Jerome of Prague, met with the same fate, May 30, 1416. The three popes were formally deposed, and Martin V. was legally chosen to the chair of St. Peter.

Basle, 1431, under the presidency of the cardinal legate Juliano Cæsarini of St. Angelo, after holding not fewer than forty-five sessions, terminated its labours, May 16, 1443. Its objects, which were partly attained, were to extirpate heresies, limit the power of the pope, effect a reformation of the clergy, and consolidate the interests of the Church. Its decrees are not admitted into any of the Roman collections, and are considered of no authority by the Roman lawyers. They are, however, recognised in points of canon law in France and Germany; and though some later concordats have modified the application of them, they have never been formally and entirely annulled.

Florence, 1439–1442. It was composed of 141 bishops, the patriarch of Constantinople, and the legates of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. It effected a renunciation of schism on the part of the Greeks, and an abjuration of heresy on the part of the Armenians.

Lateran (V.) in 1512, convened by Pope Julius II., to oppose another held by nine cardinals of high rank the year before at Pisa, with a view to bridle his wild animosity, turbulence, and contumacy. It declared that council schismatic, abolished the Pragmatic Sanction, and strengthened the power of the Roman see.

Trent, convoked and opened by Paul III. in 1545; continued under Julius III.; and, after numerous interruptions, brought to a close in 1563, under the pontificate of Pius IV. Its object was professedly to reform ecclesiastical abuses, but really to counteract and crush the Reformation. (See Trent.)

LATITUDINARIANS. Certain divines so called from the latitude of their principles. The term is chiefly applied to some divines of the seventeenth century, who were attached to the English establishment, as such, but regarded episcopacy, and forms of public worship, as among the things indifferent. They would not exclude from their communion those who differed from them in those particulars. Many of the latitudinarian divines commenced as Calvinists, and ended as Socinians.

LATTER-DAY SAINTS. (See Mormonists.)

LATRIA. (See Dulia.)

LAUDS. The service which followed next after the nocturn was so designated before the Reformation. It was sometimes called matin lauds. The lauds are now, in the reformed Church of England, merged in the matins. The office of Lauds contains the Benedicite and the Benediction, as that of Matins does the Te Deum. Both have psalmody and hymns.

LAUDS, in Church music, hymns of praise.

LAURA. A name given to a collection of little cells at some distance from each other, in which the hermits of ancient times lived together in a wilderness. These hermits did not live in community, but each monk provided for himself in his distinct cell. The most celebrated Lauras mentioned in ecclesiastical history were in Palestine; as the Laura of St. Euthymius, St. Saba, the Laura of the Towers, &c. The most ancient monasteries in Ireland were Lauras.

LAVACRUM. (See Piscina.)

LAY BAPTISM. (See Baptism.) Baptism administered by persons not in holy orders, i. e. by laymen.

It is a first principle in the Church of God, that no one has a right to execute any function of the ministry, till he has been lawfully invested with the ministerial office. It is also confessed that the administration of baptism is one of the functions of the ministry. It follows, therefore, that none have a right to administer baptism, but those holding ministerial authority. Here, then, there can be no dispute; laymen have no right to baptize. But what if they should baptize in spite of this virtual interdict? Is there any force or validity in an act done in open violation of a fixed principle of the Church? Here is the important question of the controversy—the very “pith of the matter;” and it resolves itself into this simple inquiry:—Suppose that a layman has no right to baptize, has he also no ability? The distinction between these it will be well to keep in view. A man may have ability to do an action without the right to exercise that ability, and so vice versâ. And again, a citizen may be in full possession of intellectual and physical qualifications for a public office; but without either right or ability to perform the authoritative acts of such an office, till these are conferred upon him by the superior power. Whence then does a layman derive any ability to baptize? We do not here mean the ability to perform the physical acts of reciting the form, and pouring the water, (for these are in every one’s power,) but that of standing as God’s agent in effecting “a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness;” in conferring remission of sins, and declaring that “hereby,” in this very act of usurpation, “children of wrath are made the children of grace.” How can any one, not a lawful minister, possess ability to this extent? With all humility we reply, that we know not, unless the sacrament work ex opere operato: and thus the Romish Church is so far consistent in allowing midwives and others to baptize. She does believe that the sacrament works ex opere operato; but is it not a little singular that the extremes of ultra-Protestantism and Romanism should here meet? If a layman should perform the external part of ordination, confirmation, absolution, consecration of the eucharist, &c., we agree in the conclusion, that this is null and void, because he has no power over the internal and spiritual part of such offices. If baptism, therefore, be anything more than an external ceremony, the same conclusion would seem to follow, for anything we can learn from Scripture to the contrary. We have no proof that Christ ever promised to sanction lay baptism; or that he conferred the power of baptizing on any but the clergy; or that the apostles ever imparted it to any other but clergy; or that Christ ever pledged himself to bind or loose in heaven what laymen might bind or loose on earth. To say the least, then, there is very great uncertainty as to the spiritual effect of baptisms administered by those whom neither the Head of the Church, nor his apostles, ever commissioned to baptize. This appears to us a manifest result of the principle from which we started: and, unless that principle be preserved, we see not how the integrity of the Church can be maintained, or how the prerogatives and powers of the ministry can be asserted; or why, except as a mere matter of expediency, there should be any ministry at all. For, if it be granted that though laymen have no right to perform priestly offices, yet, if they choose, they can perform them; i. e. their usurped acts are ratified in heaven, equally with those of an empowered ministry; this is to overturn the very foundations of apostolic order; to deprive the clergy of their Divine commission, or to effectually neutralize it; and, finally, to reduce their office, in the judgment of the world, to the low rank of a mere literary profession, or ecclesiastical employment.

So much, then, for the legitimate consequences of the principle on which the doctrine of the ministry rests. But when we turn to the practice of the Church, we are struck with an apparent contrariety. In very early times, the baptisms of laymen, and of degraded or schismatical priests, were not in all cases repeated, though there were not wanting those who, like St. Cyprian, were resolved to maintain the strictest view of their invalidity. That such baptisms were suffered to pass in the century next after the apostles, it would be difficult to prove; and in the succeeding age the probability is, that they were only tolerated in cases of extreme necessity. Still the fact is undeniable, that for more than a thousand years lay baptisms have occurred in the Church, and in such cases re-baptization was not always thought necessary.

How, then, could the Church vindicate herself in a procedure which seemed subversive of one of her cardinal principles? for, at first sight, the charge of inconsistency appears inevitable; and yet, as every tyro knows, the ancient Church was tenacious of her rights, and exact in her administration, almost to a proverb. To us, the key to the matter seems to have been this. While the Church acknowledged no authority in laymen to baptize, yet if they did go through the regular forms, the external part of the sacrament was actually performed. Hence, in all cases, diligent inquiry was made whether the element of water was applied, and whether this was done in the name of the sacred Trinity. On proof of this, the concession was made that so far baptism had been given. But while the Church allowed that laymen could perform the external part of baptism, she seems to have denied altogether that they could communicate its spiritual graces; and, therefore, if we mistake not, a lay baptism was never esteemed perfect, complete, and without defect, i. e. valid both in its external and internal parts. A person so baptized, on returning to the unity of the Church, or on application for admittance to its higher privileges, was received without the repetition of the external part of the initiatory sacrament, but was endued with remission and the Holy Spirit, by the laying on of the bishop’s hands in confirmation, these spiritual gifts being those which were wanting in the applicant’s lay baptism. Now, if this were so, the Church stands clear of any charge of inconsistency; nay, more, she exhibits her adherence to principle in the strongest light, by treating lay baptism as a mere form of that sacrament, “without the power thereof.” This, we think, was the ordinary practice of the Church. And though confirmation is an ordinance distinct from baptism, yet it always preserved a closer alliance with that sacrament than with the holy eucharist, being anciently given either in immediate connexion with baptism, or at a period very little subsequent to it.

So far as the irregular baptisms of heretics and schismatics were concerned, it is incontestable that the compensating practice just referred to was very generally adopted. And that confirmation was given, in such cases, not only for the conferring of its own proper graces, but also with the direct object of correcting the deficiencies of a previous baptism, is manifest from the language of early writers. Leo, in writing to Nicetius, bishop of Aquileia, remarks, “that such as received baptism from heretics * * * were to be received only by invocation of the Holy Spirit, and imposition of hands, and that because they had before only received the form of baptism, without the sanctifying power of it.” St. Augustine “supposes,” says Bingham, “that they who are thus baptized received the outward visible sacrament, but not the invisible, internal, sanctifying grace of the Spirit.” These graces, “heretics and schismatics were not supposed qualified to give, nor they who desired baptism at their hands qualified to receive, till they returned with repentance and charity to the unity of the Church again; and then the Church, by imposition of hands, and invocation of the Holy Spirit, might obtain for them those blessings and graces which might have been had in baptism, &c. This was the general sense of the Church; for which reason they appointed that imposition of hands should be given to such as returned to the Church, in order to obtain the grace of the Holy Ghost for them by prayer, which they wanted before, as having received baptism from those who had no power to give the Holy Ghost. Innocent says, that ‘their ministrations were defective in this, that they could not give the Holy Ghost; and therefore such as were baptized by them were imperfect, and were to be received with imposition of hands, that they might thereby obtain the grace of the Holy Ghost.’” “This,” adds Bingham, “was the true and only method of supplying the defects of heretical baptism, as is evident from all the passages which speak of the use of the sacred unction, which was joined with imposition of hands and prayer, to implore the grace of remission of sins, and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were wanting before.” Confirmation was therefore regarded as supplying all that was deficient in the unauthorized baptism of heretics and schismatics; and though less is said about the usurped baptism of orthodox laymen, yet analogy would lead us to judge that a resort was had to the same expedient to relieve their imperfection. Thus much we know, that the ancient Church stood firmly on principle, and yet that laymen sometimes baptized, in direct defiance of that principle, and in such cases the external part was frequently not repeated; therefore, by some process, this imperfect baptism was legalized and consummated, and we read of no other such process than that just stated.

In the Church of England there is some diversity both of opinion and practice with respect to lay baptisms. By some persons they are regarded as valid; by others, as imperfect, till ratified by confirmation, or by the use of the hypothetical form; by a third class, as totally invalid. From the time of Augustine, the first archbishop of Canterbury, till that of Archbishop Bancroft, in the reign of James I., lay baptisms were recognised in our Church; but they were baptisms by authorized persons, persons who had received episcopal licence for the act. In the reign of Edward VI., it was ordered in the Office of Private Baptism, that they “that be present shall call upon God for his grace, and say the Lord’s Prayer, if the time will suffer, and then one of them shall name the child, and dip him in water, or pour water upon him, saying,” &c. But the rubric now stands altered thus: “First let the minister of the parish (or in his absence any other lawful minister that can be procured) with them that are present call upon God and say the Lord’s Prayer, and so many of the collects appointed to be said before in the form of Public Baptism, as the time and present exigence will suffer. And then the child being named by some one that is present, the minister shall throw water upon it, saying,” &c. This would seem to show a desire on the part of the Church to prevent laymen from baptizing, though it attaches, of course, such great importance to this holy sacrament, that she permits any lawful minister, i. e. any minister of the Church, to officiate on such an occasion, even though in another man’s parish.

Having now given the reader an abstract of the state of this question, we leave him to judge as well as he can, where lies the preponderance of truth, and the place of greatest safety. That the lawfully ordained ministers of Christ have the power and right of administering true baptism, is incontestable. Whether any others possess the like power, we shall know and acknowledge, when they produce their commission to “go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

LAY-BROTHERS, among the Romanists, are the servants of a convent.

A lay-brother wears a different habit from that of the religious: he never enters into the choir, nor is present at the chapters. He is not in any orders, nor makes any vow, except of constancy and obedience. He is employed in the temporal concerns of the convent, and has the care of the kitchen, gate, &c.

The institution of lay-brothers began in the eleventh century. The persons, on whom this title and office were conferred, were too ignorant to become clerks, and therefore applied themselves wholly to bodily work, in which they expressed that zeal for religion, which could not exert itself in spiritual exercises.

In the nunneries there are also lay-sisters, who are retained in the convents for the service of the nuns, in like manner as the lay-brothers are for that of the monks.

LAY-CLERKS. Clerici Laici. Singing men so called in the Statutes of the Cathedrals, founded or remodeled by King Henry VII. In general, their number was commensurate with that of the Minor Canons. Lay-Vicars are sometimes incorrectly so styled.

LAY-VICARS. (See Vicars Choral.)

LAY-ELDERS. After Calvin had settled the presbyterian form of government at Geneva, and that model was followed elsewhere, laymen were admitted into a share or part of the administration of the Church, under the denomination of lay-elders. This sort of officers was utterly unknown in the Church before the sixteenth century, and is now admitted only where the presbyterian government obtains.

LAYING ON OF HANDS. (See Imposition of Hands.)

LEAGUE, SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT. (See Confessions of Faith and Covenant.) This was a compact established in 1643, to form a bond of union between the Scottish and English Presbyterians. Those who took it pledged themselves, without respect of persons, to endeavour the “extirpation of Popery and prelacy, (i. e. church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy,) superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness.” It was opposed by the parliament and assembly at Westminster, and ratified by the General Assembly of the Scottish Kirk, in 1645. In 1650, Charles II., under compulsion and hypocritically, declared his approbation of it. The league was ratified by parliament in 1651, and subscription required of every member. At the Restoration it was voted illegal by parliament.

The following is the document which is still bound up with the Westminster Confession, as one of the formularies of the Scottish Establishment, though the ministers are no longer obliged to sign it:—

The solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and Defence of Religion, the Honour and Happiness of the King, and the Peace and Safety of the Three Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland; agreed upon by Commissioners from the Parliament and Assembly of Divines in England, with Commissioners of the Convention of Estates, and General Assembly in Scotland; approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and by both Houses of Parliament and Assembly of Divines in England, and taken and subscribed by them, Anno 1643; and thereafter, by the said authority, taken and subscribed by all Ranks in Scotland and England the same Year; and ratified by Act of the Parliament of Scotland, Anno 1644: And again renewed in Scotland, with an Acknowledgment of Sins, and Engagement to Duties, by all Ranks, Anno 1648, and by Parliament 1649; and taken and subscribed by King Charles II. at Spey, June 23, 1650; and at Scoon, January 1, 1651.

We Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Burgesses, Ministers of the Gospel, and Commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, by the providence of GOD, living under one King, and being of one reformed religion, having before our eyes the glory of GOD, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the King’s Majesty and his posterity, and the true publick liberty, safety, and peace of the kingdoms, wherein every one’s private condition is included: And calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, conspiracies, attempts, and practices of the enemies of GOD, against the true religion and professors thereof in all places, especially in these three kingdoms, ever since the reformation of religion; and how much their rage, power, and presumption are of late, and at this time, increased and exercised, whereof the deplorable state of the church and kingdom of Ireland, the distressed estate of the church and kingdom of England, and the dangerous estate of the church and kingdom of Scotland, are present and public testimonies; we have now at last, (after other means of supplication, remonstrance, protestation, and sufferings,) for the preservation of ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and destruction, according to the commendable practice of these kingdoms in former times, and the example of GOD’S people in other nations, after mature deliberation, resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and solemn League and Covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the most High GOD, do swear,

I. That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavour, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church-government, directory for worship and catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.

II. That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that is, church-government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical Officers depending on that hierarchy,) superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, lest we partake in other men’s sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the three kingdoms.

III. We shall, with the same sincerity, reality, and constancy, in our several vocations, endeavour, with our estates and lives, mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms; and to preserve and defend the King’s Majesty’s person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion, and liberties of the kingdoms; that the world may bear witness with our conscience of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesty’s just power and greatness.

IV. We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the king from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties amongst the people, contrary to this League and Covenant; that they may be brought to public trial, and receive condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively, or others having power from them for that effect, shall judge convenient.

V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, is, by the good providence of GOD, granted unto us, and hath been lately concluded and settled by both Parliaments; we shall each one of us, according to our place and interest, endeavour that they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity; and that justice may be done upon the wilful opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent article.

VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in this common cause of religion, liberty, and peace of the kingdoms, assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof; and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be divided and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether to make defection to the contrary part, or to give ourselves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause which so much concerneth the glory of GOD, the good of the kingdom, and honour of the King; but shall, all the days of our lives, zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition, and promote the same, according to our power, against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and, what we are not able ourselves to suppress or overcome, we shall reveal and make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed: All which we shall do as in the sight of God.

And, because these kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against GOD, and his Son Jesus Christ, as is too manifest by our present distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof; we profess and declare before GOD and the world, our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms: especially, that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable benefit of the gospel; that we have not laboured for the purity and power thereof; and that we have not endeavoured to receive Christ in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of him in our lives; which are the causes of other sins and transgressions so much abounding amongst us: and our true and unfeigned purpose, desire, and endeavour for ourselves, and all others under our power and charge, both in publick and in private, in all duties we owe to GOD and man, to amend our lives, and each one to go before another in the example of a real reformation; that the Lord may turn away his wrath and heavy indignation, and establish these churches and kingdoms in truth and peace. And this Covenant we make in the presence of ALMIGHTY GOD, the Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as we shall answer at that great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed; most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by his Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success as may be deliverance and safety to his people, and encouragement to other Christian churches, groaning under, or in danger of, the yoke of antichristian tyranny, to join in the same or like association and covenant, to the glory of GOD, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquillity of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths.

LECTURER. Long prior to the Reformation persons were appointed to read lectures, chiefly on the schoolmen, before the universities. Hence they were called lecturers. From the universities they passed into monasteries, and eventually into parishes: either upon the settlement of a stipend to support them, or upon voluntary contribution of the inhabitants under the licence of the bishop. The lecture in parish churches was nothing more than a sermon, extra ordinem, as being no part of the duty of the incumbent, and therefore delivered at such times as not to interfere with his ministrations. Although lecturers were continued after the Reformation, and we read of Travers being evening lecturer at the Temple in the reign of Elizabeth, the first injunction respecting them is in the canons of James I. In the year 1604 directions for their conduct were issued by Archbishop Bancroft; and in 1622 the Primate Abbot enjoined that no lecturer “should preach upon Sundays and holy-days in the afternoon, but upon some part of the catechism, or some text taken out of the creed, Lord’s Prayer, or ten commandments.” At this period they do not appear to have been numerous; but, about the year 1626, their numbers were much increased by twelve persons having been legally empowered to purchase impropriations belonging to laymen, with the proceeds of which they were allowed to provide parishes, where the clergy were not qualified to preach, with preaching ministers, or lecturers. The power thus granted to the feoffees of the impropriations, ostensibly for the good of the Church, was soon abused, and made a handle of by Puritanism in the appointment of unorthodox preachers. Dr. Heylyn, in an act sermon, preached at Oxford, first pointed out the evil of this new society. Accordingly, in 1633, Archbishop Laud procured a bill to be exhibited by the attorney-general in the Court of Exchequer against the feoffees, wherein they were charged with diverting the charity wherewith they were intrusted to other uses, by appointing a morning lecturer, a most violent Puritan, as Clarendon also witnesses, to St. Antholin’s church, London, where no preacher was required; and generally nominating nonconformists to their lectureships. These charges having been established, the court condemned their proceedings, as dangerous to the Church and State, at the same time pronouncing the gifts and feoffments made to such uses illegal; and so dissolved the same, confiscating the money to the king’s use. But this judgment does not appear to have had the desired effect; since we find the bishop of Norwich, three years afterwards, (1636,) certifying that lecturers were very frequent in Suffolk, and many of them set up by private gentlemen, without either consulting the ordinary, or observing the canons and discipline of the Church. The lecturers in the country were also said to run riot, and live wide of discipline. In 1637, therefore, Laud proceeded with increased rigour against them, and obtained the king’s instructions for prohibiting all lecturers preaching, who refused to say the Common Prayer in hood and surplice—a vestment which, being considered by them as a rag of Popery, they refused to wear. So there seems every reason to coincide with the bishop of London in his charge of 1842, wherein he assigns the origin of the disuse of the surplice in preaching to these lecturers. They also introduced the afternoon sermon, and thus, according to Archbishop Wake, were the first to bring into disrepute the venerable custom of catechising. When in 1641 the revenues of archbishops and bishops, deans and chapters, were confiscated, the advowsons and impropriations belonging to them were employed in providing lecturers, who, under the garb of superior sanctity, “turned religion into rebellion, and faith into faction.” For these, their innovations, their avarice, and their faction, lecturers have been somewhat roughly handled by Selden in his Table Talk.

After the Restoration their evil influence was sufficiently guarded against by the Act of Uniformity, which enacts that no person shall be allowed or received as a lecturer, unless he declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer, and to the use of all the rites, ceremonies, forms, and orders therein contained. It is further enacted, that prayers shall always be said before a lecture is delivered. Archbishop Sheldon (1665) issued the last orders concerning lectures and lecturers. The incumbent may at any time prevent a lecturer preaching by occupying the pulpit himself. Lecturers of parishes are now generally elected by the vestry or principal inhabitants, and are usually afternoon preachers. There are also lecturers in some cathedral churches, as the divinity lectureship at St. Paul’s, now a sinecure, (see Prælector,) and several lectureships have been founded by private individuals, such as Lady Moyer’s, Mr. Boyle’s, the Bampton at Oxford, and the Hulsean at Cambridge. The act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 59, intituled “An act for better regulating the offices of lecturers and parish clerks,” authorizes the bishop, with the consent of the incumbent, to require a lecturer or preacher to perform such clerical or ministerial duties, as assistant curate, or otherwise, within the parish, &c., as the bishop, with the assent of the incumbent, shall think proper. The following papers are to be sent to the bishop by a clergyman to be licensed.

1. A certificate of his having been duly elected to the office, or an appointment under the hand and seal of the person or persons having power to appoint; on the face of which instrument it should be shown by whom and in what manner the office had been vacated.

2. A certificate signed by the incumbent of the church, of his consent to the election or appointment.

3. Letters of orders, deacon, and priest.

4. Letters testimonial, by three beneficed clergymen. (See form No. 3, for Stipendiary Curates, adding “and moreover we believe him in our consciences to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy to be licensed to the said lectureship.”)

Before the licence is granted, the same subscriptions, declarations, and oaths are to be made and taken, as in the case of a licence to a stipendiary curacy, and the lecturer is to read the Thirty-nine Articles.

Within three months after he is licensed, he is to read, in the church where he is appointed lecturer, the declaration appointed by the Act of Uniformity, and also the certificate of his having subscribed it before.

LECTURES. (See Bampton, Boyle, Donnellan, Hulsean, Moyer, and Warburton.)

LECTURN, or LECTERN. The reading desk in the choir of ancient churches and chapels. The earliest examples remaining are of wood, many of them beautifully carved. At a later period it was commonly of brass, often formed of the figure of an eagle with out-spread wings. (See Reading Desk and Eagle.)

The lectern in English cathedrals generally stands in the midst of the choir facing westwards. They were formerly more common in collegiate churches and chapels than now, as ancient ground-plans and engravings show. In many places the fine old eagles or carved desks are thrown into a corner and neglected.

When the capitular members read the lessons, they usually do so from the stalls. The regularity of this custom may be doubted; its impropriety is evident. It appears from Dugd. Mon. viii. 1257, ed. 1830, that in Lichfield cathedral, all, whether canons or vicars, anciently read the collects and lessons, not from their own stalls, but from the proper place: the dean alone being permitted to read from his stall. At Canterbury the canons now use the lectern.

LEGATE. A person sent or deputed by another to act in his stead, but now confined to those who are deputed by the pope. Of these there are three kinds.

1. Legati a latere, cardinals sent from the side or immediate presence, and invested with most of the functions of the Roman pontiff himself. They can absolve the excommunicated, call synods, grant dispensations in cases reserved to the pope, fill up vacant dignities or benefices, and hear ordinary appeals. Otho and Othobon, sent into England by Gregory IX. and Clement IV. in the reign of Henry III., were of this order. The legatine constitutions, or ecclesiastical laws enacted in national synods convened by these cardinals, may be seen in Johnson’s collections. Cardinal Wolsey was also a legate a latere, and the bulls of Leo X. and Adrian VI., investing him with that high function, are printed by Rymer, from which we learn that he was empowered to visit the monasteries and the whole clergy of England, as well as to dispense with the laws of the Church for a year. Cardinal Pole was also legatus a latere.

2. Legati nati are such as hold the legatine commission ex officio, by virtue of office, and till the latter part of the tenth century they were the legates usually employed by the papal power. Before the Reformation, the archbishop of Canterbury was the legatus natus of England. It is a relic of the legatine authority which enables the primate of all England to confer degrees independently of the universities.

3. Legati dati, legates given, or special legates, hold authority from the pope by special commission, and are, pro tempore, superior to the other two orders. They began to be employed after the tenth century, and displayed unbounded arrogance. They held councils, promulgated canons, deposed bishops, and issued interdicts at their discretion. Simple deacons are frequently invested with this office, which at once places them above bishops.

It may be added, that the functions of a legate do not commence till he is forty miles distant from Rome. The first legate sent into England was John, precentor of St. Paul’s, and abbot of the monastery of St. Martin. He was deputed by Agutho, bishop of Rome, to Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, in 679. The first legate in Ireland was Gille, or Gillebert, bishop of Limerick early in the twelfth century. The Roman chants were introduced by him into Britain.

It was one of the ecclesiastical privileges of England, from the Norman Conquest, that no foreign legate should be obtruded upon the English, unless the king should desire it, upon some extraordinary emergency, as when a case was too difficult for the English prelates to determine. Hence, in the reign of Henry II., when Cardinal Vivian, who was sent legate into Scotland, Ireland, and Norway, arrived in England on his journey thither, the king sent the bishops of Winchester and Ely to ask him by whose authority he ventured into the kingdom without his leave: nor was he suffered to proceed till he had given an oath not to stretch his commission beyond his Highness’s pleasure in any particular.

LEGENDS. (Legenda.) By this word we are to understand those idle and ridiculous stories which the Romanists tell concerning their saints, and other persons, in order to support the credit of their religion.

The Legend was, originally, a book used in the old Romish churches, containing the lessons that were to be read at Divine service. Hence the lives of saints and martyrs came to be called legends, because chapters were to be read out of them at matins, and in the refectories of the religious houses. The Golden Legend is a collection of the lives of the saints, composed by James de Varase, better known by his Latin name of John de Voragine, or Varagnie, vicar-general of the Dominicans, and afterwards archbishop of Genoa, who died in 1298. It was received in the Church of Rome with great applause, which it maintained for 200 years; but, in truth, it is so full of ridiculous and romantic stories, that the Romanists themselves are ashamed of them.

The Romish Breviaries are full of legendary stories, which are appointed to be read on the saints’ days; which, being almost as numerous as the days in the year, there is hardly a day free from having idle tales mixed in its service. However, there have been considerable reformations made in this matter, several legends having been from time to time retrenched, insomuch that the service of the Church of Rome is much freer from these fooleries than formerly.

But, besides these written legends, there are others which may be called traditionary; by which we mean those idle stories which are delivered by word of mouth, and with which every traveller is entertained in his passage through Popish countries. We will just give the reader a specimen of these legends from Skippon.

At Mentz, in Germany, they relate that a drunken fellow swearing he would kill the first man he met, a crucifix coming by him, he struck at it with his sword, which drew blood from the crucifix, and the fellow immediately sunk up to the knees in the ground, where he stood till the magistrates apprehended him.

At Landsberg, in Bavaria, the Franciscans show a crucifix in their church over the altar, which, they pretend, a fellow spewed upon, and immediately the devil carried him away through the south wall, a round window being made where the hole was.

At Aix-la-Chapelle, in Germany, is a church of our Lady, on the south side of which is a great pair of brass gates, one of which has a crack in the brass, occasioned, as the legend says, thus:—When Charlemagne began the building of this church, the devil came and asked him what he intended; the emperor told him he designed a gaming-house, which the devil being very well satisfied with, went away. The emperor having set up some altar-tables, the devil came again, and inquired what these meant; Charlemagne replied, they were only for gamesters to play on, which encouraged the devil to give his assistance toward the building. Accordingly, he brought a great pair of brass gates on his shoulders; but, seeing a crucifix, he took to his heels, letting the gates fall, one of which in the fall received the crack, which is still shown.

At Milan, they tell you that St. Ambrose, who was bishop of that city, after a fight between the Catholics and the Arians, prayed that it might be revealed how to distinguish the bodies of one party from the other. His request was granted, and he found all the Catholics with their faces upwards, and the Arians with their faces downward.

At St. Agatha, a city of Calabria, is a chapel, in which they show a piece of a pillar, kept in a glass case, which they say shined when St. Paul preached there. It was broken by the Turks, when they took this place, and this piece was kept at Messina till they brought it hither. The Jesuits would have carried it to their college, but several men, they pretend, could not stir it; nevertheless, when it was resolved to place it in this chapel, one man’s strength was sufficient.

We will add but one legend more. At Malta they tell this story. Three Maltese knights were taken prisoners by the Turks, and carried before the Grand Seignior, who endeavoured, by sending priests to them, to convert them from the Christian religion; but they continued stedfast. The Grand Seignior’s daughter observing them, fell in love with them, and told her father she would endeavour their conversion. After this, she discovered to them her affection; but they informed her of their obligation to live chastely, and discoursed about the Christian religion, and their order, and promised to show her the true representation of the Virgin Mary. Accordingly, they undertook to carve a piece of wood; but none of them being skilful in that art, they prayed for assistance, and suddenly appeared the image of the Virgin shaped exactly like her. Upon the sight of this, the princess turned Christian, and procuring the means of their escape, went away with them, and placed herself in a nunnery.—Broughton.

LEGION, THUNDERING. In the wars of the Romans, under the emperor Marcus Antoninus, with the Marcomanni, the Roman troops being surrounded by the enemy, and in great distress from intense thirst, in the midst of a burning desert, a legion of Christians, who served in the army, imploring the merciful interposition of Christ, suddenly a storm with thunder and lightning came on, which refreshed the fainting Romans with its seasonable rain, while the lightning fell among the enemy, and destroyed many of them. The Christian legion to whose prayers this miraculous interposition was granted, was (according to the common account) thenceforth called The Thundering Legion.

LEIRE. (Probably a corruption of the old French lieure, for livre, a book.) A Service Book. “Two great leires, garnished with stones, and two lesser leires, garnished with stones and pearls,” are mentioned among the furniture of the communion table of the Royal Chapel, 1565, in Leland’s Collectania, vol. ii. pp. 691, 692, 1770.—Jebb.

LENT. (A Teutonic word: in German, Lenz, the “Spring.”) The holy seasons appointed by the Church will generally be found to date their rise from some circumstance in the life of our Lord, some event in Scripture history, or a desire to keep in remembrance the virtues and piety of the saints who adorned the early Church. But the origin of the season of Lent is not so obvious, though it is usually supposed that Lent is observed in commemoration of our Saviour’s temptation and fasting of forty days in the wilderness. It is most probable that the Christian Lent originated from a regard to those words of the Redeemer, “the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.” We learn from the history of the Church that the primitive Christians considered, that in this passage Christ has alluded to the institution of a particular season of fasting and prayer in his future Church. Accordingly they, in the first instance, began this solemn period on the afternoon of the day on which they commemorated the crucifixion, and continued it until the morning of that of the resurrection. The whole interval would thus be only about forty hours. But by degrees this institution suffered a considerable change, different however at different times and places. From the forty hours, or the two days, originally observed, it was extended to other additional days, but with great variety in their number, according to the judgment of the various Churches. Some fasted three days in the week before Easter, some four, and others six. A little after, some extended the fast to three weeks, and others to six, and other Churches appointed certain portions of seven weeks in succession. The result of all this was the eventual fixing of the time at forty days, commencing on the Wednesday in the seventh week before Easter, and excluding the intermediate Sundays. It is not, however, to be supposed that the Church remained long in uncertainty on this point, for it appears that the Lent of forty days can be traced to a period very near that of the apostles. That its term of forty days was settled at a very early period, is evident from the writings of the bishops of those times, who refer us, in vindication of it, to the example of Moses, Elias, and our Lord, all of whom fasted forty days. From all this, then, we arrive at the conclusion, that though fasting is frequently alluded to in the Scriptures as a Christian duty, yet the set times for it are to be referred solely to the authority of the Church. It may here be remarked, that the name we apply to this season is derived from the time of the year when it occurs. The term Lent, in the Saxon language, signifies Spring; and, as we use it, indicates merely the spring fast, preparatory to the rising of Christ from the grave.

The Lenten fast does not embrace all the days included between Ash Wednesday and Easter, for the Sundays are so many days above the number of forty. They are excluded, because the Lord’s day is always held as a festival, and never as a fast. These six Sundays are, therefore, called Sundays in Lent, not Sundays of Lent. They are in the midst of it, but do not form part of it. On them we continue, without interruption, to celebrate our Saviour’s resurrection.

The principal days of Lent are, the first day, Passion Week, and particularly the Thursday and Friday in that week. The first day of Lent was formerly called the head of the fast, and also by the name which the Church retains—Ash Wednesday. In the Church of England there is a solemn service appointed for Ash Wednesday, under the title of a “Commination, or denouncing of God’s Anger and Judgments against Sinners.” This was designed to occupy, as far as could be, the place of the ancient penitential discipline, as is sufficiently declared in the beginning of the office in the English Prayer Book. The last week of Lent, called Passion Week, has always been considered as its most solemn season. It is called the Great Week, from the important transactions which are then commemorated; and Holy Week, from the increase of devotional exercises among believers. The Thursday in Passion Week is that on which we celebrate the institution of the Lord’s supper. The Epistle for the day has been selected by the Church with a view to this fact. On the following day we commemorate the sufferings, and particularly the death, of our Saviour Christ. And, from the mighty and blessed effects of these, in the redemption of man, the day is appropriately called Good Friday. As this day has been kept holy by the Church from the earliest times, so has it also been made a time of the strictest devotion and humiliation.

The general design of this institution is thus set forth by St. Chrysostom: “Why do we fast these forty days? Many heretofore were used to come to the communion indevoutly, and inconsiderately, especially at this time, when Christ first gave it to his disciples. Therefore our forefathers, considering the mischiefs arising from such careless approaches, meeting together, appointed forty days for fasting and prayer, and hearing of sermons, and for holy assemblies; that all men in these days being carefully purified by prayer and alms-deeds, and fasting, and watching, and tears, and confession of sins, and other the like exercises, might come, according to their capacity, with a pure conscience, to the holy table.”

But if we inquire more particularly into the reasons of instituting the Lent fast, we shall find them to be these following: First, the apostles’ sorrow for the loss of their Master. For this reason, the ancients observed these two days in which our Saviour lay in the grave, with the greatest strictness. Secondly, the declension of Christian piety from its first and primitive fervour. Thirdly, that the catechumens might prepare themselves for baptism, and the penitents for absolution; Easter being one of the settled times of baptizing the catechumens, and absolving the penitents.

This solemn season of fasting was universally observed by all Christians, though with a great liberty, and a just allowance for men’s infirmities; and this was in a great measure left to their own discretion. If men were in health, and able to bear it, the rule and custom was for them to observe it. On the other hand, bodily infirmity and weakness were always admitted as a just apology for their non-observance of it.

The manner of observing Lent, among those who were piously disposed to observe it, was to abstain from all food till evening. Whence it is natural to conclude, that the pretence of keeping Lent only by a change of diet from flesh to fish, is but a mock fast, and an innovation utterly unknown to the ancients, whose Lent fast was a strict and rigorous abstinence from all food till the evening. Their refreshment was only a supper, and then it was indifferent whether it was flesh, or any other food, provided it was used with sobriety and moderation. But there was no general rule about this matter, as appears from the story which Sozomen tells of Spiridion, bishop of Trimithus in Cyprus: that a stranger once happening to call upon him in Lent, he, having nothing in his house but a piece of pork, ordered that to be dressed and set before him: but the stranger refusing to eat flesh, saying he was a Christian; Spiridion replied, For that very reason thou oughtest not to refuse it; for the word of God has pronounced all things clean to them that are clean.

Lent was thought the proper season for exercising more abundantly all sorts of charity. Thus what they spared from their own bodies, by abridging them of a meal, was usually given to the poor. They likewise employed their vacant hours in visiting the sick and imprisoned, in entertaining strangers, and reconciling differences. The imperial laws forbade all prosecution of men in criminal actions, which might bring them to corporal punishment and torture, during this whole season. Lent was a time of more than ordinary strictness and devotion; and therefore, in many of the great churches, they had religious assemblies for prayer and preaching every day. They had also frequent communions at this time, at least on every sabbath and Lord’s day. All public games and stage-plays were prohibited at this season; as also the celebration of all festivals, birthdays, and marriages, as unsuitable to the present occasion.

These were the common rules observed in keeping the Lent fast, when it was come to the length of forty days. But there was one week, called the Hebdomas magna, or the Great Week before Easter, which they observed with a greater strictness and solemnity than all the rest. This is usually called the Passion Week, because it was the week in which our Saviour suffered. (See Passion Week.)

The Christians of the Greek Church observe four Lents. The first commences on the fifteenth of November, or forty days before Christmas. The second is our Lent, which immediately precedes Easter. The third begins the week after Whitsunday, and continues till the festival of St. Peter and St. Paul. The number of days therefore comprised in the Lent is not settled and determined, but they are more or less, according as Whitsunday falls sooner or later. Their fourth Lent commences the first of August, and lasts no longer than till the fifteenth. These Lents are observed with great strictness and austerity. On Saturdays and Sundays they indulge themselves in drinking wine and using oil, which are prohibited on other days.

Lent was first commanded to be observed, in England, by Ercombert, seventh king of Kent (A. D. 640–660). No meat was, formerly, to be eaten in Lent, but by licence, under certain penalties. And butchers were not to kill flesh in Lent, except for victualling of ships, &c.—Compiled from various authorities.

LESSONS, among ecclesiastical writers, are portions of the Holy Scriptures read in churches at the time of Divine service. In the ancient Church, reading the Scriptures was one part of the service of the catechumens, at which all persons were allowed to be present in order to obtain instruction.

The lessons in the unreformed offices are in general very short. Nine lessons are appointed to be read at matins on Sundays, and three on every week-day, besides a chapter, or capitular, at each of the six daily services. But of the nine Sunday lessons, only three are from Scripture, the six others being extracts from homilies or martyrologies. At matins only is there anything like a continuous lesson read. The capitula or lectioner verses at the other services, are each nothing more than one verse (very rarely two short verses) from Scripture, and these are seldom varied. As to the matin lessons, they do not on an average consist of more than three verses each: for though the three lessons are generally in sequence, the sense is interrupted by the interposition between each lesson of a responsory, versicles, and the Gloria Patri, so that edification is hereby effectually hindered, as is remarked in the Preface to our Common Prayer, “Concerning the Service of the Church.”—Jebb.

The Church of England in the appointment of lessons observes two different courses; one for ordinary days, and another for holy-days. On ordinary days she begins the course of her first lessons with the book of Genesis, in the beginning of her civil year, January; and proceeds regularly through the greatest part of the Bible. Isaiah alone is not read in the order in which it stands; our Church reserving the evangelical prophet, in conformity to primitive usage, to be read in the season of Advent. Before Isaiah, and after the other canonical Scriptures, the Church substitutes some apocryphal lessons in the room of the canonical Scripture that has been omitted.

But though the most part of the Bible is read through every year once, yet some chapters of particular books, and three whole books, are left unread for reasons that sufficiently appear.

Of Genesis, (containing 50 chapters,) 10, 11, and 36 are not read; 10 and 36, evidently, because they contain little else than genealogies. The first nine verses of chapter 11, giving an account of a most extraordinary display of the Divine power, the confusion of tongues at Babel, is received into the table of lessons for holy days, viz. Monday in Whitsun week. Of Exodus, (40 chapters,) the first 24 chapters are read, excepting some repetitions and genealogies in the latter part of chapter 6. From chapter 25 to the end of the book, there is little that does not relate to the ark, and other local and temporary particulars, except chapters 32, 33, 34, which are accordingly read. Chapters 35 and 40 are retained in the Scottish calendar. Of Leviticus, (27 chapters,) as it treats chiefly of Jewish sacrifices, and ceremonial observances of clean and unclean beasts and birds, lepers, &c., only 4 chapters are read, viz. the 18, 19, 20, and 26. In the Scottish calendar the 9, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 27 are retained. Of Numbers, (36 chapters,) the first 10 chapters are omitted, which relate to the men of war, the Levites, their services and offerings. Chapters 15, 18, 19, 26, 28, 29, 33, and 34 are also omitted, as containing similar subjects; the Scottish liturgy retains chapters 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 15. All Deuteronomy (34 chapters) is read, except chapter 23, which the Scottish calendar retains, while it rejects chapter 14. In Joshua, (24 chapters,) the history contained from chapter 11 to 22, treating of the destruction of several kings, and the division of the land of Canaan, is not read; but chapters 14, 20, and 22 are retained in the Scottish calendar. The whole of the book of Judges is read, (21 chapters,) and also that of Ruth (4 chapters). So are also the two books of Samuel (the first, “otherwise called the First Book of the Kings,” containing 31 chapters; and the second, “otherwise called the Second Book of the Kings,” containing 24 chapters). Also the two Books of Kings (the first, “commonly called the Third Book of the Kings,” containing 22 chapters, and the second, “commonly called the Fourth Book of the Kings,” containing 25 chapters). Both the Books of Chronicles (the first containing 29 chapters, and the second 36 chapters) are entirely omitted, probably because they consist of the details of facts which are related in the preceding historical books. In the Scottish calendar, 1 Chronicles, chap. 10, is to be read instead of the apocryphal lessons, at morning prayer on November 23; and then from 13 to 22, with 28, 29, and 30. Of 2 Chronicles, 1, 2, 5, 6, &c. to 36, are read, extending to evening prayer, on December 16. Of Ezra, (10 chapters,) chapter 2, being a catalogue of names, is omitted, as are also chapters 8 and 10, partly for the same reason. In the Scottish calendar, chapter 7 is omitted, and 8 and 10 retained. Of Nehemiah, (13 chapters,) 3, 7, 11, and 12, consisting of the names of the builders of the wall, genealogies, &c., are omitted. Of Esther, (10 chapters,) the 10th, containing only three verses, is omitted, probably on that account. In the Scottish calendar chapters 9 and 10 make one lesson; a rare occurrence in that calendar, but frequent in ours. The whole of the Book of Job (consisting of 42 chapters) is read. The Book of Psalms (150) is passed over as being otherwise used. Of Proverbs, (31 chapters,) chapter 30, the Prayer of Agur, &c., is alone omitted; but the Scottish calendar retains it. The book of Ecclesiastes (12 chapters) is read throughout; but the whole of the Song of Solomon (8 chapters) is omitted; as containing mystical descriptions not likely to edify. The Jews did not permit this book to be read by any one under thirty years of age. The whole Book of Isaiah is read, (66 chapters,) but not in its regular place, as before remarked; the 1st chapter being read on the 23rd of November, and the 66th concluding the year. In the Scottish calendar it retains its proper place. The whole of Jeremiah (52 chapters) with the Lamentations of Jeremiah (5 chapters) are read throughout. Of Ezekiel (48 chapters) only 9 are read, viz. 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 18, 33, and 34. For the omission of so large a portion may be assigned the reason given for the omission of almost the whole of the Revelation. It consists in a great degree of visions, many of which are very obscure even to the most learned. The Scottish liturgy retains nearly the whole book. The remainder of the Old Testament is read through regularly, viz. Daniel, 12 chapters; Hosea, 14 chapters; Joel, 3 chapters; Amos, 9 chapters; Obadiah, 1 chapter; Jonah, 4 chapters; Micah, 7 chapters; Nahum, 3 chapters; Habakkuk, 3 chapters; Zephaniah, 3 chapters; Haggai, 2 chapters; Zechariah, 14 chapters; Malachi, 4 chapters.

See more fully, as to the subjects of the omitted chapters, Bennet’s Paraphrase, Common Prayer, Appendix; and Shepherd, Common Prayer.

Of the apocryphal lessons, (from ἀπὸ τῆς κρύπτης, removed from the place, or chest where the sacred books were kept; or from ἀποκρυπτω, to conceal or hide; i. e. either as being kept from the people, or as not being canonical; and see fully Hey’s Lectures, and Bingham’s Antiquities, book xiv. ch. 3, sec. 15, 16,) those read and those omitted are as follows:—The whole of Esdras (2 books, of 9 and 16 chapters) is omitted. The whole book of Tobit (14 chapters) is read, except chapter 5. The whole of Judith (16 chapters) is read. The remainder of the Book of Esther (6½ chapters) is passed over. The Wisdom of Solomon (19 chapters) is read throughout. And the whole of the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, (51 chapters,) except the 26, and part of the 25, 30, and 46. The whole of Baruch is read (6 chapters). But the Song of the Three Children, (1 chapter,) a continuation of Daniel iii. 23, is omitted; principally, perhaps, as the greater part of it is the “Benedicite,” &c. The History of Susannah (1 chapter) and that of Bel and the Dragon (1 chapter) are both read. The two Books of Maccabees (16 chapters and 15 chapters) are omitted.

We fix articles of faith, and things necessary to salvation, upon the Scriptures; we do not allow any part of the apocrypha a casting voice in the establishment of any doctrine.—Boys on the Thirty-Nine Articles.

The New Testament is read through three times in the year, for the second lessons; i. e. the Four Gospels and the Acts, for the second lessons in the morning service; and the Epistles (the Revelation of St. John being omitted) for the second lesson in the evening service. The Gospel of St. Matthew, and the Epistle to the Romans, beginning respectively on the 1st day of January—the 3rd and 2nd of May—and the 31st of August—the 1st chapter of St. Luke being, on the first and third reading, divided into two portions, and the 7th chapter of Acts on the third reading. Of the Epistles, the 2nd and 3rd chapters of 1 Timothy and of Titus, are read together; as are also the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of St. John, on the first and second reading, but not on the third. This order is broken into only on four Sundays in the year, i. e. the sixth Sunday in Lent, (or Sunday before Easter,) Easter day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday, but more frequently in holy-days; for all which days proper lessons are appointed.

The Book of the Revelation of St. John is wholly omitted, except on his own peculiar day, when the 1st and 22nd chapters (the first and the last) are read; and on All-saints day, when part of the 19th chapter is read.

When a Sunday and a saint’s day coincide, we appear to be left in some degree of uncertainty, whether the first lesson together with the service for the holy-day, or that for the Sunday, is to be read. The consequence is, says Archdeacon Sharp, (Visit. ch. 3, Disc. iv.,) that the clergy differ in their practice, and use the service appropriated to that festival, to which, in their private opinion, they give the preference. Some choose to intermix them, using the collects appointed to each, and preferring the first lesson for the Sunday, taken out of a canonical book, to that for the holy-day, if it happens to be appointed in the Apocrypha. Uniformity of practice was certainly intended by the Church, and what now may seem to require the direction of a rubric, or at least the decision of the diocesan, our forefathers, in all probability, thought sufficiently plain. They knew that, prior to the Reformation, (admitting that the practice of England corresponded with that of the Roman and Gallican Churches,) the service for all the holy-days now retained being “Doubles,” generally took place of that appointed for ordinary Sundays, excepting those of Advent and Lent, with Easter day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday. They would, therefore, naturally read the service for the saint’s day, and omit that for the Sunday in general. This continues to be the practice of the Roman Church, and it was the practice of the Gallican Church for more than a century after the æra of our Reformation. In some parts of the late Gallican Church a change took place about the beginning of the present century, and the service for the Sunday was appointed to supersede that for the saint’s day. But in our Church no such alterations have been made by lawful authority. Hence it would appear that the service for the saint’s day, and not that for the Sunday, should be used. And notwithstanding there exists some diversity of opinion on this subject, yet the most general practice seems to be to read the collect, Epistle, and Gospel for the saint’s day; and it is most consonant to that practice to read also the first lesson appropriated to that day. This remark I have heard made by the lord bishop of London.—Shepherd.

When the feast day falls upon a Sunday, it was ordered in the service of Sarum, that the Sunday service should give way to the proper service ordained for the festival, except some peculiar Sunday only, and then the one or the other was transferred to some day of the week following.—Bp. Cosin.

LETTERS OF ORDERS. (See Orders.) The bishop’s certificate of his having ordained a clergyman, either priest or deacon. Churchwardens have the power to demand a sight of the letters of orders of any one offering to assist in the church of which they are the guardians.

LEVITICUS, a canonical book of Scripture, being the third book of the Pentateuch of Moses; thus called because it contains principally the laws and regulations relating to the priests, the Levites, and sacrifices; for which reason the Hebrews call it the priests’ law, because it includes many ordinances concerning sacrifices. The Jews term it likewise Vajicra, because in Hebrew it begins with this word, which signifies, “and he called.”

All the world agree, that Leviticus is a canonical book, and of Divine authority. It, as well as the rest of the Pentateuch, is generally held to be the work of Moses. It contains the history of what passed during the eight days of Aaron’s and his sons’ consecration, which was performed in the year of the world 2514. The laws which were prescribed in it upon other subjects, besides sacrifices, have no other chronological mark, whereby we may be directed to judge at what time they were given. Only four chapters of Leviticus are read in our Church, as remarked in the article on Lessons.

LIBELLATICI. A designation of one kind of the lapsed from Christianity in times of persecution. They are first mentioned in the Decian persecution, and the origin of the name seems to have been this. It is probable that the emperor had decreed that every one who was accused or suspected of being a Christian, should be permitted to purge himself before a magistrate, on which occasion a libellus or certificate was given him, that he had never been a Christian, or that he had abjured the name of Christ. Some Christians, who were not so abandoned as to forsake the true faith utterly, were yet weak and dishonest enough to procure those libelli, or certificates, by fraudulent compromise with the magistrate: thus avoiding, as they might hope, the sin of apostasy, and at the same time escaping the sufferings and penalties of convicted Christians. The Church, however, refused to sanction their deceit and cowardice, and they were classed among the lapsed, though not considered quite so culpable as the Sacrificati and Thurificati.

LIBERTINES. A sect of Christian heretics, whose ringleaders were Quintin, a tailor of Picardy, and one Copin, who about 1525 divulged their errors in Holland and Brabant: they maintained that whatsoever was done by men, was done by the Spirit of God; and from thence concluded there was no sin, but to those that thought it so, because all came from God: they added, that to live without any doubt or scruple, was to return to the state of innocency, and allowed their followers to call themselves either Catholics or Lutherans, according as the company they lighted amongst, were.

LIGHTS ON THE ALTAR. Among the ornaments of the Church enjoined by the laws, and sanctioned by the usage of the Church of England, are two lights upon the altar, to be a symbol to the people that Christ, in his two-fold nature, is the very true Light of the world.

The laws of the Church, to which we refer, are as follows:

The rubric immediately preceding “the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer daily throughout the Year” stands thus:—

“And here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof at all times of their ministration shall be retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of Edward VI.”

But the rubrics are a part of the laws of the Church, framed by convocation, and ratified by parliament; so that, if it appear that in the second year of King Edward VI. lights were used, as in this rubric is mentioned, no authority short of a convocation for the Church, and for the State an act of parliament, can reverse the authority on which lights are still used upon the altar.

Now, in the injunctions of King Edward VI., set forth in 1547, it is expressly ordered, “that all deans, archdeacons, parsons, vicars, and other ecclesiastical persons, shall suffer, from henceforth, no torches nor candles, tapers, or images of wax, to be set before any image or picture. But only two lights upon the high altar, before the sacrament, which, for the signification that Christ is the very true light of the world, they shall suffer to remain still.”

Some persons who are ignorant of the history of those times, object that this injunction is not to the purpose, because we have no high altar: the truth is, that it is the high altar alone which is left in our churches, all the rest being removed by authority, on account of the idolatrous and corrupt practices which were connected with them.

It is also objected by some, who would be above falling into so great and unhappy a mistake as to suppose that the high altar is removed from our churches, that “the sacrament” before which, on the altar, the lights were to remain, is taken away; for by this term, say they, was meant the consecrated wafer, suspended in a pyx on the altar. If, then, this is taken away, so also must the lights be taken away which were to burn before it. But even allowing that the sacrament, in this sense, is removed, yet the injunction gives another reason for lights, and may surely be allowed to speak its meaning better than those who must, to serve their turn, give to it an idolatrous meaning. The injunction does not say that the lights are to remain before the sacrament as an additional kind of adoration of the host, but for the signification that Christ is the very true light of the world. It would be very illiberal to suppose that those who quarrel with the lights deny the truth which they are thus made by authority to symbolize; but it is really strange that they will overlook this sound reason given by the injunction, in order to set forth a questionable reason not given, by way of getting rid of the obnoxious lights.

But the injunction not only thus explains itself, but is interpreted by the custom of the Church to enjoin the use of lights for the signification that Christ is the very true light of the world, after the pyx had been removed; for, from the time of Edward, there seems never to have been a time when the lights were not retained in cathedral churches, and wherever we might look for an authoritative interpretation of the law. And to the present day the candles are to be seen on the altar of almost all the cathedrals. In collegiate churches, also, they are usually found; and so also in the chapels royal, and in the chapels of the several colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. The use of these ornaments in Oxford and Cambridge is a matter of special importance, for it serves to give a singular character to the objection which some, even of the clergy, make to the candles on the ground of novelty. Almost every clergyman must again and again have seen on the altar of his college chapel these appropriate and symbolical ornaments; and yet some clergymen, when they wish to condemn them elsewhere, so far forget what they have seen as to call them a novelty.

In how many parochial churches, or chapels of ancient chapelries, or private chapels, in this kingdom, candles on the altar have been retained since the times of the Puritans, we know not; in some they certainly have been: but surely the rule of the Church being express for their use, the custom of those whose ritual and furniture is most carefully maintained under the eye of persons best qualified to judge in such matters, and the guardians of the Church’s constitution, is sufficient, at the very least, to serve as a witness to the rule, and to make it clear that it is still the rule, the acknowledged rule, of the Church of England.

Thus, then, the custom of the Church is with those who use, and not with those who omit the use of, lights, although custom is an argument brought confidently against them. And here also we may note that all the commentators on the Prayer Book, whose judgment we would look to with respect, agree in declaring that it is the law and the custom of the Church of England to retain the two lights on the altar.

That their use has been, however, too much neglected, cannot be denied; but, in fact, the disuse of lights, where they have been disused, when it is traced to its real cause, tells almost as much in their favour as the continued use of them where they are retained. It was not our reformers who removed them from the altar; we have already proved that they deliberately commanded their use: it was the Puritans, who took their origin in the days of Queen Elizabeth, from the refugees in Holland and Geneva during the persecutions of the bloody Queen Mary. There they learned a less Scriptural ritual, which, working on the saturnine dispositions of some, led eventually to the greatest extremes of fanaticism, impiety, and crime. As some controversy has arisen on this subject, as stated in former editions of this work, the following observations are added on a point of very minor importance, but still one on which correct information is interesting.

The ancient Church appears to have used lights, not only at those services which were performed at late hours, after sunset, or, as some have supposed, when the Christians assembled in caves of the earth, and in the catacombs at Rome, during the times of public persecution; but in token of public rejoicing, at festivals and other solemn occasions, during the day-time. St. Gregory Nazianzen speaks of lights as being carried at the funerals of pious Christians, probably of higher rank, as it occurs in his mention of the honours which were paid after death to the emperor Constantius.—Orat. iv. p. 118, ed. Morell. He also speaks of them as used at baptisms.—Orat. xl. p. 672. At the baptism of Theodosius the Younger, a little later than this, an early writer says that the crowd of noble persons bearing tapers made the earth appear as if spangled with stars.—Marc. Diacon. Vit. Porphyr. c. 7. It seems also to have been a practice at Church festivals, and solemn days kept in memory of saints and martyrs.—S. Paulin. Nol. Carm. vi. 35–37. Greg. Nazianzen. Orat. xxxix. and xlii.

Theodoret speaks of “the burning of incense and lights” as accompanying “the mystical sacrifice of the holy table.”—Quæst. in Exod. xxv.–xxviii. Opp. vol. i. p. 164, ed. Schulze. And St. Jerome, more distinctly, “In all the churches of the East, when the Gospel is about to be read, lights are kindled, though the sun may be shining bright, not to put the darkness to flight, but to show a sign of rejoicing.”—Contr. Vigilantium, tom. i. p. 394, ed. Vallars. It seems not at all improbable that Archbishop Theodore, coming as he did from Tarsus, may have introduced this custom of the Eastern Church among the Anglo-Saxons.

The mention of lamps and candlesticks among church furniture occurs in very early times. The passage referred to in a former edition of this work, may be found in Baluze, Miscell. tom. i. p. 22. The date of the acts there recited is said to be the year in which Diocletian was consul for the eighth time, and Maximian for the seventh, i. e. probably A. D. 296, a few years before the breaking out of the tenth persecution. The church furniture there said to be taken from the Christians of Cirta is set down as follows: “Two golden chalices, six silver chalices, six silver flagons or ewers, a silver round vessel, (cucumellum,) seven silver lamps, two candlestands, (cereofala,) seven short candlesticks with their lights, eleven brazen lamps with the chains on which they were hung,” and a quantity of male and female articles of clothing, which appear to have been kept in the church-stores for distribution to the poor. It seems not improbable that the two tall candlestands here mentioned, and the seven short candlesticks, each contained lights used at the reading of the Gospel; the former would be placed on the ground at a little distance in front of the holy table, the latter on the table itself. It was done, as Theodoret seems to show, in imitation of the solemnities in the temple service. The lamps would be for lighting the church after sunset.

Many records are found of the use of candlesticks and lamps in our national Church from the time of Bede to the Norman Conquest, particularly a remarkable list of church books and furniture, which is to be found in the will of Leofric, bishop of Exeter, in the time of Edward the Confessor.—For authorities see Bishop Cosin, Wheatly, Bishop Mant.

Though it might admit of a question, whether the very ancient and (at one time) universal custom of burning lights during the Communion Office, was ever abrogated by the permanent laws of our Church, still that custom, now plainly obsolete, is very different from retaining candlesticks on the altar, with tapers to be lighted when they are required. Queen Elizabeth, though opposed to superstition, yet had a crucifix, and “two candlesticks, and two tapers burning on the altar” of her chapel.—Strype, Annals Ref. 1559, p. 175; 1560, p. 200, fol. ed. And though objections were made both by the archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop Cox, still it would appear that these were rather directed to the use of the crucifix; and nothing is said of the illegality of candles. For their use on the holy table, we have the continuous sanction of cathedrals, royal chapels, and colleges, down to the time of the Rebellion; and it could be, and has been, very amply shown that the replacing these articles of ecclesiastical furniture at the Restoration was very frequent. As an instance out of many, Parry, bishop of Ossory, in 1677, left by will a pair of large silver candlesticks gilt to Christ Church, Dublin. Bishop Cosin, speaking of the manner in which the communion (not ought to be, but) “is celebrated in our churches,” says it “is after this manner: first of all, it is enjoined, that the table or altar should be spread over with a clean linen cloth, or other decent covering; upon which the Holy Bible, the Common Prayer Book, the plate and chalice, are to be placed; two wax candles are to be set upon it.”—Nicholls on the Common Prayer, Add. Notes, p. 34. It is difficult to believe that, had this been unlawful, the practice should have been so largely sanctioned by the heads of the Church, especially by those who revised the Prayer Book.

After all, are candlesticks and lights mere ornaments? They are something more; though ornamental in themselves, and in the position they occupy, they are for use, and are properly church furniture; and therefore no more within the contemplation of the rubric respecting ornaments, than the stalls, desks, eagle, communion rails, organ, or any other part of the moveable or permanent furniture of the church. There appears no sound reason, why, when the church must of necessity be lit, the ancient custom of lighting the chancel by means of two candlesticks on the holy table, should not be kept up according to ancient and unbroken usage. But if no part of the ecclesiastical furniture is to stand in the church, except when actually in use, this rule would lead to moveable pulpits, organs, &c. And, indeed, would be in a great measure impracticable.—Stephens’s Common Prayer Book.

In Christ Church cathedral in Dublin, within memory, two silver gilt candlesticks with large wax candles in them always stood on the holy table on Sundays and holy-days, and were lit when required at the evening service, then celebrated at a late hour.—Jebb.

In the Hiereugia Anglicana there are a great many detailed proofs adduced of the use of lights and candlesticks on the holy table in the English Church, from the Reformation downwards. The authorities are all given.

LINCOLN. (See Use.)

LITANY. The term “Litany” is used by ancient writers in many different senses. At first it seems to have been applied as a general appellation for all prayers and supplications, whether public or private. In the fourth century it was given more especially to those solemn offices which were formed with processions of the clergy and people. Public supplications and prayers to God, on occasions of especial urgency, were certainly prevalent in the Church during the fourth and fifth centuries. (See Rogation Days.) These supplications were called Litanies in the Eastern Church, from whence the name passed to the West. Here they were known as Rogations or supplications, until the name of Litany became more prevalent than any other. The Church of England appears to have received the stated Rogation or Litany days of the Gallican Church at an early period; and, from that time to the present, she has reckoned them among her days of fasting. Formerly, in this Church, there were processions on all these days.

The Litany of the Church of England is not an exact transcript of any ancient form, though composed of materials of very ancient date. It differs essentially from the Romish Litanies by containing no invocations to angels and departed saints. Our invocations are made to the three persons of the sacred Trinity, and to them alone, while the office of Mediator and Intercessor is throughout ascribed only to our Lord Jesus Christ.

In the original arrangement, the Litany formed a distinct service, not used at the time of the other services. But by later usage it has been united with the morning prayer, though still retaining its separate place in the Prayer Book. Formerly there was a rubric, requiring that, “after morning prayer, the people being called together by the ringing of a bell, and assembled in the church, the English Litany shall be said after the accustomed manner;” and it was also required by the 15th canon, that “every householder dwelling within half a mile of the church should come or send some one at the least of his household, fit to join with the minister in prayers.” The ordinary arrangement was to hold morning prayer at eight o’clock, the Litany and the Communion at ten. This practice is still observed in some of the English churches; and Bishop White, in his “Memoirs of the American Church,” remarks that when he was in England, being on a visit to the archbishop of Canterbury, he observed that on Wednesdays he, with the other bishops, retired to the chapel before dinner; and on accompanying them he found that their object was to use the Litany, in compliance with the original custom.

The Litany is usually considered as embracing four main divisions, viz. the Invocations, Deprecations, Intercessions, and Supplications.—See Nicholls on the Common Prayer.

The word Litany is used by the most ancient Greek writers for “an earnest supplication to the gods, made in time of adverse fortune:” and in the same sense it is used in the Christian Church for “a supplication and common intercession to God, when his wrath lies upon us.” Such a kind of supplication was the fifty-first Psalm, which begins with “Have mercy upon me,” &c., and may be called David’s Litany. Such was that Litany of God’s appointing (Joel ii. 17); where, in a general assembly, the priests were to say with tears, “Spare thy people, O Lord,” &c. And such was that Litany of our Saviour, (Luke xxii. 42,) which kneeling he often repeated with strong crying and tears (Heb. v. 7); and St. Paul reckons up “supplications” among the kinds of Christian offices, which he enjoins shall be daily used (1 Tim. ii. 1); which supplications are generally expounded Litanies for removal of some great evil. As for the form in which they are now made, namely, in short requests by the priests, to which the people all answer, St. Chrysostom saith it is derived from the primitive age. And not only the Western, but the Eastern Church also, have ever since retained this way of praying. This was the form of the Christians’ prayers in Tertullian’s time, on the days of their stations, Wednesdays and Fridays, by which he tells us they removed drought. Thus, in St. Cyprian’s time, they requested God for deliverance from enemies, for obtaining rain, and for removing or moderating his judgments. And St. Ambrose hath left a form of Litany, which bears his name, agreeing in many things with this of ours. For when miraculous gifts ceased, they began to write down divers of those primitive forms, which were the original of our modern office: and about the year 400 these Litanies began to be used in procession, the people walking barefoot, and saying them with great devotion. And Mamertus, bishop of Vienna, did collect a Litany to be so used, by which his country was delivered from dreadful calamities, in the year 460. And soon after, Sidonius, bishop of Arverne, [Clermont in Auvergne,] upon the Gothic invasion, made use of the same office; and about the year 500, [511,] the Council of Orleans enjoined they should be used at one certain time of the year, in this public way of procession; and in the next century, Gregory the Great did, out of all the Litanies extant, compose that famous sevenfold Litany, by which Rome was delivered from a grievous mortality, which hath been a pattern to all Western Churches ever since; and ours comes nearer to it than that in the present Roman missal, wherein later popes had put in the invocation of saints, which our reformers have justly expunged. But by the way we may note, that the use of Litanies in procession about the fields, came up but in the time of Theodosius in the East, and in the days of Mamertus of Vienna, and Honoratus of Marseilles, namely, in the year 460, in the West; and it was later councils which did enjoin the use of it in Rogation Week; but the forms of earnest supplications were far more ancient and truly primitive. As for our own Litany, it is now enjoined on Wednesdays and Fridays, the two ancient fasting days of the Christians, in which they had of old more solemn prayers; and on Sundays, when there is the fullest assembly: and no Church in the world hath so complete a form, as the curious and comprehensive method of it will declare.—Dean Comber.

Epiphanius referreth this order to the apostles. The Jews in their synagogues observed for their special days of assembling together those that dwelt in villages, Mondays and Thursdays besides the sabbath. The precedent of the Jews directed the Church not to do less than they did. They made choice of Mondays and Thursdays, in regard of some great calamities that befell their nation upon those days; and that they might not be three days together without doing some public service to God. The Church had the like reason of Wednesdays and Fridays, whereon our Saviour was betrayed and crucified; the moral reason of once in three days, with a convenient distance from Sunday, concurring. The observance of these days for public assemblies was universal, and the practice of the oldest times.—Bp. Cosin.

Next to the Morning and Evening Service in our Prayer Book stands the Litany, or more earnest supplication for averting God’s judgments, and procuring his mercy. This earnestness, it was thought, would be best excited and expressed by the people’s interposing frequently to repeat with their own mouths the solemn form of “beseeching” God to “deliver” and to “hear” them: in which however the minister is understood to join equally; as the congregation are in every particular specified by him. Such Litanies have been used in the Church at least 1400 years. And they were appointed first for Wednesdays and Fridays, these being appropriated to penitence and humiliation, and for other fasts; but not long after for Sundays also, there being then the largest congregation, and most solemn worship: and our Litany is further directed to be used at such other times as the ordinary shall think proper. Originally it was intended for a distinct service, to come after the Morning Prayer, as the rubric of our liturgy still directs, and before the office for the Communion, at a proper distance of time from each: of which custom a few churches preserve still, or did lately, some remains. But, in the rest, convenience or inclination hath prevailed to join them all three together, excepting that in some places there is a psalm or anthem between the first and second; and between the second and third, almost everywhere: besides that the latter part of the Morning Prayer is, most of it, ordered to be omitted, when the Litany is said with it. But still by this close conjunction many things may appear improper repetitions, which, if the offices were separate, would not. However, as it is, they who use extempore prayers in public have small right to reproach us on this head. For doth it not frequently happen that, during one assembly of theirs, different ministers praying successively, or the same minister in several prayers, or perhaps in one only, shall fall into as many repetitions, as are in the different parts of our liturgy, or more? But, be that as it will, to these last all persons would easily be reconciled, if an interval were placed, in their minds at least, between the services; and they would consider each, when it begins, as a new and independent one, just as if it were a fresh time of meeting together.

The Litany of our Church is not quite the same with any other, but differs very little from those of the Lutherans in Germany and Denmark. It is larger than the Greek, but shorter than the Roman, which is half filled up with the names of saints invoked; whereas we invoke, first, the three persons of the holy Trinity, separately and jointly; then, in a more particular manner, our Redeemer and Mediator, “to whom all power is given in heaven and earth.” (Matt. xxviii. 18.)—Abp. Secker..

The posture in which the minister is to repeat the Litany, is not prescribed in any present rubric, except that, as it is now a part of the Morning Service for the days above mentioned, it is included in the rubric at the end of the suffrages after the second Lord’s Prayer, which orders “all to kneel” in that place, after which there is no direction for “standing.” And the injunctions of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth both appoint, that “the priests, with others of the choir, shall kneel in the midst of the church, and sing or say plainly and distinctly the Litany, which is set forth in English, with all the suffrages following, to the intent the people may hear and answer,” &c. As to the posture of the people, nothing needs to be said in relation to that, because, whenever the priest kneels, they are always to do the same.—Wheatly.

If the Litany be, as certainly it is, our most fervent address to God, fit is it that it should be made in the most significant, that is, in the lowest, posture of supplication.—L’Estrange.

The Litany hath been lately brought into that absolute perfection, both for matter and form, as not any Church besides can show the like, so complete and full;... so that needs must they be upbraided, either with error, or somewhat worse, whom in all parts this principal and excellent prayer doth not fully satisfy.—Bishop Cosin.

The Litanies in the Roman and the English unreformed Church were said on Easter eve, St. Mark’s day, the three Rogation days, and Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. The Litany of the Church of England is used on Wednesdays and Fridays, as was the Lenten practice of the West, and its Sunday use is in conformity to the prayers resembling it, which are found at the beginning of the directed communion offices.

In many choirs now, formerly in all, (as would appear from direct notice,) the Litany was sung, since the Reformation, by two ministers, (sometimes deacons,) at other times by laymen, at the faldstool in the centre of the choir. The singing by two laymen is a manifest abuse, reprehended by most of our ritualists; and seems to have arisen from a misconstruction of the ancient rules, which directed it to be sung by two of the choir: but the choir included priests and deacons, and clergy in orders, though of the second form.

As to the latter part of the Litany however, the rubric, added at the last review, is confirmatory of the ancient practice of the Church, which assigned the performance of this part to the priest, or superior minister. This is observed in many choirs. And at Oxford and Cambridge, on those days when the Litany is performed before the university, the vice-chancellor, if in orders, reads the Lord’s Prayer, and the remaining part.—Jebb.

The Latin Litany is performed on certain days before the university at Oxford and Cambridge. Its musical arrangement, as retained at Oxford, contains the most solemn harmonies known to the Church.

LITERÆ FORMATÆ. According to the rules and practice of the ancient Church, no Christian could travel without taking letters of credence with him from his own bishop, if he meant to communicate with the Church in a foreign country. These letters were of several kinds, according to the different occasions, or quality of the person who carried them. They are generally reduced to three kinds, commendatory, communicatory, and dimissory. The first were such as were granted only to persons of quality, or to persons whose reputation had been called in question, or to the clergy who had occasion to travel in foreign countries. The second sort were granted to all who were in peace and communion of the Church, whence they were also called pacifical and ecclesiastical, and sometimes canonical. The third sort were given only to the clergy, when they were removing from one church to settle in another, and they were to testify that the bearer had the bishop’s leave to depart, whence they were called dimissory. All these went under the general name of formed letters, because they were written in a particular form, with particular marks and characters, whereby they might be distinguished from counterfeits.—Bingham.

LITURGIUM. (Gr.) The name of a book, in the Greek Church, containing the three liturgies of St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and that of the Presanctified, said to be composed by Pope Gregory, called Dialogus.

In celebrating these three liturgies, the Greeks observe the following order. The liturgy of St. Basil, as appears by the introduction, is sung over ten times in the year; namely, on the eve of Christmas day, on the feast of St. Basil, on the eve of the feast of Lights, on the Sundays of Lent, excepting Palm Sunday, on the festival of the Virgin, and on the Great Sabbath. The liturgy of the Presanctified is repeated every day in Lent, the forementioned days excepted. The rest of the year is appropriated to the liturgy of St. Chrysostom. (See Liturgy.)

LITURGY. (See Common Prayer, Formulary, and Public Worship.) From the Greek word λειτουργία, a public act or duty. This term was originally used to denote the service or form employed in the celebration of the eucharist. In the Eastern Churches, that service was frequently called the “Divine” or “mystical” liturgy; while in the West, though the term “liturgy” was used, yet the name of “missa” was more common. At the present day, the word is employed to designate the ordinary prescribed service of the Church, either with or without the Communion Office. (See article on Formularies, where the general question of forms of prayer is treated.) The history of liturgies may thus be briefly stated.

When the Christians were no longer in fear of the violence and persecutions of the heathens, and in that age when the Church came to be settled, (that is, from the time of Constantine to that of St. Augustine,) we find there was a liturgy in the Eastern Church.

The first Cyril of Jerusalem mentions some parts of an ancient liturgy used in that place, both in respect to the form of baptism, and the celebration of the eucharist.

St. Basil composed a liturgy himself, which is to be seen in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and in his book De Spiritu Sancto; and he tells us how the service of the Church was directed by rules and rubrics.

In St. Chrysostom’s time, Omnes unam eandemque precem concipiēbant, and this was not only a public prayer, but a public form; for in that collection of his works set forth by Sir Henry Saville, we find a liturgy of his own making, which was translated out of the Syriac by Masius, and used generally throughout all the Greek churches.

Now, if it should be granted that premeditated prayers are not required by God in our private addresses to him, yet it is plain from those instances already mentioned, such prayers were always held necessary in the public services of the Church; and this further appears by the form prescribed by our Saviour himself, who, when we pray, commanded us to say, “Our Father,” &c.; and St. Matthew tells us, that he went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

The Apostolical Canons mention some set forms of prayer, both before and after the communion; and St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, before mentioned, not only composed set forms themselves, but they describe set liturgies as having been composed by St. Mark and St. James; and the adversaries to such forms have no other plausible pretence to deny these authorities than by alleging these liturgies to be supposititious, which is an answer that may serve upon any occasion to evade an argument, which cannot otherwise be answered.

St. Ambrose and Prosper tell us, there were set forms of prayers used in the Church in their time; and they give the reason for it, ne in diversum intellectum nostro evagemur arbitrio: and St. Hilary hath this expression on the 66th Psalm, viz. Let those without the Church hear the voice of the people praying within. Now the word praying of the people must signify something more than the bare suffrage Amen; it must import their joint concurrence in the actual performance of the whole duty, which cannot be done but where the prayers are in a set form.

And these are the prayers which Isidore tells us were used in the ancient congregations of the Christians; and it is most certain that such were in use in that great apostate Julian’s time; for Nazianzen informs us, that he endeavoured to establish the heathen ceremonies in imitation of the Christian services, by appointing, not only certain times, but set forms of prayer.

It is true, that many of the ancient liturgies were destroyed by the persecuting heathens, yet some fragments of them still remain in the writings of the Fathers, and are such as are used in our Church at this day; as the words before and after the consecration of the sacrament are to be found in St. Ambrose: the question demanded of the godfathers in the sacrament of baptism, viz. “Whether they do, in the name of the infant, renounce the devil and all his works, and the pomps and vanities of this wicked world,” are to be found in the same St. Ambrose, and in Tertullian; the Gloria Patri, of which more hereafter, is in Sozomen; and the supplement to that doxology, viz. “As it was in the beginning,” &c., is to be found in Irenæus.

In the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, the words pronounced by the priest, viz. “Lift up your hearts,” and the answer, “We lift them up; it is meet and right for us so to do,” are to be found in St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom; and so are these words, viz. “The Lord be with you, And with thy spirit;” and, lastly, Isidore mentions the usual conclusion of all our collects, viz. “Through Jesus Christ our Lord,” &c.

In the Western Church, St. Cyprian tells us there was a liturgy, viz. in the Church of Africa, which is usually accounted amongst the Churches of the West; and we find some pieces of such liturgies in St. Augustine; and not only approved by him, but by all the Fathers of that Church assembled in a synod, as it appears by the canons which they made, and which are mentioned both by Balsamon and Zonaras, viz. that prayers be performed by all, and not any to be said in public, but only such as have been composed by wise and understanding men, lest anything should be vented against the faith, either through ignorance or want of meditation.

Tertullian mentions a liturgy used in Rome, which was probably begun by St. Peter, for it bears his name; and Platina tells us, that several additions were made to it by St. Basil in his time; and in some things this author is very particular, as that Celestine added the Introitus, Gregory added the Kyrie Eleison, Telesphorus the Gloria in Excelsis, Sixtus the First added “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts,” which is called the Trisagion; Gelasius the Collects, St. Jerome the Epistles and Gospels.

The Gloria Patri, which has been mentioned before, was not only appointed by the Council of Nice to encounter the Arian heresy, but it was used long before that council, even by the apostles themselves, who were commanded by their Master to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This is found in the writings of all those ancient fathers who lived near the time of the apostles, as in Clemens, who was their scholar, and in Dionysius of Alexandria; but the following words, which make up the whole form of the doxology, viz. “As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end,” were not brought into the Church till the Arian heresy began to spread, and this was about the time of the Council of Nice.

It is true this began first in the Eastern Church, and from thence it came to the West, where Pope Damasus [A. D. 366–384] was the first who appointed it to be used at the end of the psalms, which made up the greatest part of the public liturgy of that Church. The Churches of France, Spain, and England had the like liturgies, though not exactly the same.

Although we have no certain account what rites or forms were used here among the Britons, yet Bede, in his ecclesiastical history, tells us, that as soon as the gospel was planted here, there was a liturgy formed out of the rituals of the most flourishing Churches then in the world. For Pope Gregory advised St. Augustine not to follow the Roman office strictly, but to take what he should approve in any Church, and prescribe the same to the English, which he did; and this liturgy of St. Augustine continued for some ages, till Osmond, bishop of Sarum, [A. D. 1078,] finding that new prayers and offices abounded everywhere, reduced them all to one form, and from thence it was called secundum usum Sarum.

The liturgy of the Irish Church, according to Mr. Palmer, was, during the first ages, probably the same as that of Britain. The ancient Irish liturgy still extant differs considerably from the Roman. It seems, he adds, that in later times there were great varieties in the mode of celebrating Divine worship in Ireland, which were mentioned by Gillebert, bishop of Limerick, A. D. 1090. And which appear to have been removed by the Synod of Arles, A. D. 1152, when the Roman rites were established.

By the seventh statute of the Synod, or rather Council, of Cashel, 1172, the regulations of the Irish Church were assimilated to those of England. The use of Sarum was adopted; though it has been supposed that the Irish use lingered for a considerable time in parts of the more distant provinces.

As to the liturgy now used amongst us, it was reformed at the time of the Reformation: for the offices of the Church before that time consisting in missals, breviaries, psalteries, graduals, and pontificals, and every religious order having peculiar rites observed among themselves, it was thought proper that the worship of God should be brought under a set form; and moreover, that nothing should be changed merely out of an affectation of novelty, or because it had been used in times of Popery, so as it had been practised in the primitive times. (See next article.)

LITURGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. (See Common Prayer and Formulary.) This book is entitled The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland.

Before the Reformation, our liturgy was only in Latin, being a collection of prayers, made up partly of some ancient forms used in the primitive Church, and partly of some others of later original. But when the nation, in King Henry VIII.’s time, was disposed to a reformation, it was thought necessary both to have the service in the English or vulgar tongue, and to correct and amend the liturgy, by purging it of those gross corruptions which had gradually crept into it.

And, first, the convocation appointed a committee, A. D. 1537, to compose a book, which was entitled “The godly and pious Institution of a Christian Man, containing a declaration of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ave Maria, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Seven Sacraments, &c.” This book was again published in 1539, with corrections and alterations. In 1543 appeared another Primer, in substance the same as the former, under the title of “A necessary doctrine and Erudition for any Chrysten Man.” In the same year, a committee of bishops and other divines was appointed by King Henry VIII., to reform the rituals and offices of the Church; and the next year the king and clergy ordered the prayers for processions and litanies to be put into English, and to be publicly used. The English Litany accordingly, not much differing from that now in use, was publicly adopted in 1544. Afterwards, in 1545, came out the King’s Primer, containing the whole Morning and Evening Prayer in English, not very different from what is in our present Common Prayer. Thus far the reformation of our liturgy was carried in the reign of Henry VIII.

In the year 1547, the first of King Edward VI., the convocation unanimously declared, that the communion ought to be administered in both kinds; whereupon an act of parliament was made, ordering it to be administered. Then a committee of bishops and other learned divines was appointed, to compose An uniform order of communion, according to the rules of Scripture, and the use of the primitive Church. The committee accordingly met in Windsor Castle, and drew up such a form. This order of the communion was appointed for general use, by royal proclamation, in 1548. This made way for a new commission, empowering the same persons to finish the whole liturgy, by drawing up public offices for Sundays and holy-days, for baptism, confirmation, matrimony, burial, and other special occasions.

The committee appointed to compose this liturgy were—

1. Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury.

2. Thomas Goodrich, bishop of Ely.

3. Henry Holbech, bishop of Lincoln.

4. George Day, bishop of Chichester.

5. John Skip, bishop of Hereford.

6. Thomas Thirlby, bishop of Westminster.

7. Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, and afterwards of London.

8. Dr. William May, dean of St. Paul’s.

9. Dr. John Taylor, dean, afterwards bishop, of Lincoln.

10. Dr. Simon Haynes, dean of Exeter, and master of Queen’s College, Cambridge.

11. Dr. John Redman, prebendary of Westminster, and master of Trinity College, Cambridge.

12. Dr. Richard Cox, dean of Christ Church, Oxon., and Westminster; afterwards bishop of Ely.

13. Mr. Thomas Robertson, archdeacon of Leicester; afterwards dean of Durham.

Our excellent liturgy, thus compiled, was revised and approved by the archbishops, bishops, and clergy of both provinces of Canterbury and York, and then confirmed by the king and three estates in parliament, A. D. 1548, second and third of Edward VI. ch. 1. In 1549, an act passed for appointing six bishops and six other learned men, to draw up a form for consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons. Heylin conjectures that these were the same as those above mentioned, with the exception of Bishop Day, who had refused to subscribe the liturgy.

But, about the end of the year 1550, exceptions were taken against some parts of this book, and Archbishop Cranmer proposed a new review. The principal alterations occasioned by this second review were the addition of the Sentences, Exhortation, Confession, and Absolution, at the beginning of the morning and evening services, which in the first Common Prayer Book began with the Lord’s Prayer; the addition of the Commandments at the beginning of the Communion Office; the removing of some rites and ceremonies retained in the former book, such as the use of oil in confirmation, the unction of the sick, prayers for departed souls, the invocation of the Holy Ghost at the consecration of the eucharist, and the prayer of oblation that used to follow it; the omitting the rubric that ordered water to be mixed with the wine, with several other less material variations, The habits, likewise, which were prescribed in the former book were in this laid aside; and, lastly, a rubric was added at the end of the Communion Office, to explain the reason of kneeling at the sacrament. The liturgy, thus revised and altered, was again confirmed by parliament, A. D. 1551, with this declaration, that the alterations made in it proceeded from curiosity rather that any worthy cause. But both this and the former act in 1548 were repealed in the first year of Queen Mary.

Upon the accession of Queen Elizabeth, the act of repeal was set aside, and several learned divines appointed to take another review of King Edward’s liturgies. These (according to Camden and Strype) were—

1. Dr. Matthew Parker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury.

2. Dr. Richard Cox, afterwards bishop of Ely; one of the original compilers.

3. Dr. William May; one of the original compilers.

4. Dr. William Bill, afterwards dean of Westminster.

5. Dr. James Pilkington, afterwards bishop of Durham.

6. Sir Thomas Smith.

7. Mr. David Whitehead.

8. Mr. Edmund Grindal, afterwards bishop of London, and archbishop of York and Canterbury.

To these were afterwards added,

9. Dr. Edwyn Sandys, afterwards bishop of Worcester.

10. Mr. Edmund Guest, afterwards bishop of Rochester and Salisbury.

It was debated, at first, which of the two books of King Edward should be received. At length the second was pitched upon, and confirmed by parliament, which commanded it to be used, with one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants, and none other or otherwise.

The alteration in the Litany here mentioned was the leaving out the deprecation, “from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities,” and adding these words to the petition for the sovereign, “strengthen in the true worshipping of thee, in righteousness and holiness of life.” The two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament, were, “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ,” &c., and “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,” &c., which were taken out of King Edward’s First Book; whereas, in the Second Book, these sentences were left out, and in the room of them were used, “Take, eat, or drink, this,” with what follows; but now, in Queen Elizabeth’s book, both these forms were united.

There are some other variations in this book from the Second of King Edward. The first rubric, concerning the situation of the chancel, and the proper place of reading Divine service, was altered; the habits, enjoined by the First Book of King Edward, and forbidden by the Second, were now restored; at the end of the Litany was added a prayer for the sovereign, and another for the clergy. Lastly, the rubric, that was added at the end of the Communion Office, in King Edward’s Second Book, against our Saviour’s corporeal presence in the sacrament, was left out in this. This was done, that the aforesaid notion might remain as a speculative opinion, not determined; it being the queen’s design to unite the nation, as near as possible, in one faith.

In this state the liturgy continued, without further alteration, till the first year of King James I.; when a conference was held at Hampton Court between that prince, with Archbishop Whitgift and other bishops and divines, on the one side, and Dr. Reynolds, with some other Puritans, on the other: the result of which was, the adding some forms of thanksgiving at the end of the Litany, and an addition to the catechism in relation to the sacraments. Likewise, in the rubric at the beginning of the Office for Private Baptism, the words “lawful minister” were inserted to prevent midwives and laymen from presuming to baptize, with one or two more small alterations.

But, immediately after the Restoration, King Charles II., at the request of several of the Presbyterian ministers, issued out a commission for a new review of the liturgy, empowering twelve of the bishops and twelve Presbyterian divines to make such reasonable and necessary alterations as they should jointly agree upon. Nine coadjutors were added on each side, to supply the place of any of the twelve principal who should happen to be absent. Their names are these:

On the Episcopalian side.

Principals.

1.

Dr. Frewen, archbishop of York.

2.

Dr. Sheldon, bishop of London.

3.

Dr. Cosin, bishop of Durham.

4.

Dr. Warner, bishop of Rochester.

5.

Dr. King, bishop of Chichester.

6.

Dr. Henchman, bishop of Salisbury.

7.

Dr. Morley, bishop of Worcester.

8.

Dr. Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln.

9.

Dr. Laney, bishop of Peterborough.

10.

Dr. Walton, bishop of Chester.

11.

Dr. Stern, bishop of Carlisle.

12.

Dr. Gauden, bishop of Exeter.

Coadjutors.

1.

Dr. John Erle, dean of Westminster, afterwards bishop of Worcester.

2.

Dr. Peter Heylyn, prebendary of Westminster.

3.

Dr. John Hackett, archdeacon of Bedford, afterwards bishop of Lichfield.

4.

Dr. John Barwick, successively dean of Durham and St. Paul’s.

5.

Dr. Peter Gunning, successively master of Corpus and St. John’s, Cambridge, afterwards bishop of Chichester.

6.

Dr. John Pearson, successively master of Jesus and Trinity College, Cambridge, afterwards bishop of Chester.

7.

Dr. Pierce.

8.

Dr. Anthony Sparrow, archdeacon of Sudbury, afterwards bishop of Norwich.

9.

Mr. Hubert Thorndike, prebendary of Westminster.

On the Presbyterian side.

Principals.

1.

Dr. Reynolds.

2.

Dr. Tuckney.

3.

Dr. Conant.

4.

Dr. Spurstow.

5.

Dr. Wallis.

6.

Dr. Manton.

7.

Dr. Calamy.

8.

Mr. Baxter.

9.

Mr. Jackson.

10.

Mr. Case.

11.

Mr. Clark.

12.

Mr. Newcomen.

Coadjutors.

1.

Dr. Horton.

2.

Dr. Jacob.

3.

Mr. Bates.

4.

Mr. Rawlinson.

5.

Mr. Cooper.

6.

Dr. Lightfoot.

7.

Dr. Collins.

8.

Dr. Woodbridge.

9.

Mr. Drake.

These commissioners had several meetings at the Savoy, but to very little purpose; the Presbyterians reviving all the old scruples of the Puritans against the liturgy, and adding several new ones of their own. Baxter had the assurance to affirm, that our liturgy was too bad to be mended, and confidently proposed to compose a new one, which he had the insolence to offer to the bishops. Upon this the conference broke up, without anything being done, except that some particular alterations were proposed by the episcopal divines; which, the May following, were considered and agreed to by the whole clergy in convocation. The principal of these alterations were, that several lessons in the calendar were changed for others more proper for the days; the prayers for particular occasions were disjoined from the Litany, and the two prayers to be used in the Ember weeks, the prayer for the parliament, that for all conditions of men, and the general thanksgiving, were added. Several of the collects were altered; the Epistles and Gospels were taken out of the last translation of the Bible, being read before according to the old translation. The Office for Baptism of those of Riper Years, and the Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea, were added. In a word, the whole liturgy was then brought to the state in which it now stands, and was unanimously subscribed by both houses of convocation of both provinces, on Friday, Dec. 20, 1661. And being brought to the House of Lords the March following, both Houses very readily passed an act for its establishment; and the Earl of Clarendon, then lord chancellor, was ordered to return the thanks of the lords to the bishops and clergy, for their care and industry shown in the review of it.

The English liturgy was adopted in Ireland shortly after the Reformation in England. In 1551, Edward VI. issued an injunction to Sir Anthony St. Leger, the lord deputy there, to have the English Common Prayer Book read in the Irish churches. The lord deputy accordingly summoned the whole clergy, and after opposition from the primate and some of the bishops, a proclamation was issued, and the English Prayer Book publicly used in Christ Church, on Easter Sunday that year: having been printed in Dublin, with these words on the title page, After the use of the Church of England. No order is extant for the adoption of King Edward’s Second Book; nor does it appear that any act was passed in Queen Mary’s reign prohibiting the use of the First. In 1560, an Act of Uniformity, copied from the English act, was passed, enjoining the Book of Common Prayer as then revised in England: this act was passed with the consent of seventeen out of nineteen prelates, that is, of the spiritual estate, as the Irish Church was then constituted. In 1662 the English revised liturgy was referred for consideration to the Irish bishops; on their approval it was passed by convocation; and nearly four years after, the Act of Uniformity was enacted by parliament.—See Stephens’s Introduction to the Irish Book of Common Prayer.

The peculiar excellencies of our Church of England service are to be traced to a variety of causes. One prominent cause is obvious and important; namely, that our reformers most closely adhered to the model of primitive devotion.... To approach, as near as possible, to the Church of the apostles, and to that of the old Catholic bishops and fathers, so long as they deemed it pure and unadulterated, was the paramount direction of their tastes, their judgments, and their hearts.... In the formation of our liturgy, it has been happily, and doubtless providentially, guarded alike from excess and deficiency. It possesses a peculiar temperament, equally remote from all extremes, and harmoniously blending all excellencies: it is not superstitious, it is not fanatical, it is not cold and formal, it is not rapturous and violent; but it unites, perhaps beyond any other human composition, sublime truth and pure spirit; the calmest wisdom and the most energetic devotion. Under various trying circumstances it has been so signally and repeatedly preserved, that we cannot doubt it is continued to us for some greater purpose than it has hitherto effected. While the very memory of many contending parties, that threatened its destruction, has nearly passed away, it remains uninjured and unaltered; giving us to conjecture, that it is reserved for still nobler, more extended, and more enduring triumphs.—Bishop Jebb.

As for the English liturgy’s symbolizing with the Popish Missal, as some have odiously and falsely calumniated, it doth no more than our communion, or Lord’s supper celebrated in England, doth with the mass at Rome; or our doctrine about the eucharist doth with theirs about transubstantiation; or our humble veneration of our God and Saviour in that mystery doth with their strange gesticulations and superstitions. In all which particulars, how much the Church of England differed both in doctrine and devotion from that of Rome, no man that is intelligent and honest can either deny or dissemble.—Gauden’s Tears of the Church of England.

The Nonconformists say, the liturgy is in great part picked and culled out of the mass-book; but it followeth not thence, that either it is, or was esteemed by them, a devised or false worship; for many things contained in the mass-book itself are good and holy. A pearl may be found upon a dunghill. We cannot more credit the man of sin than to say, that everything in the mass-book is devilish and antichristian, for then it would be antichristian to pray unto God in the mediation of Jesus Christ—to read the Scriptures—to profess many fundamental truths necessary to salvation. Our service might be picked and culled out of the mass-book, and yet be free from all fault and tincture, from all show and appearance of evil; though the mass-book itself was fraught with all manner of abominations. It is more proper to say the mass was added to our Common Prayer, than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the mass-book; for most things in our Common Prayer were to be found in the liturgies of the Church long before the mass was heard of in the world.”—Stillingfleet on Separation.

A man would wonder how it is possible for those, who understand wherein the iniquity of Popery consists, to make this objection against the Book of Common Prayer.

The Papists have corrupted Christianity by adding many unwarrantable particulars; whereas the Protestants have rejected those unwarrantable particulars, and retained pure Christianity. Wherefore, as the Protestant religion is very good, although it is in some sense the same with that of the Papists; so also may an English reformed Prayer Book be very good, although it be in some sense the same with the Popish liturgies. Upon supposition that the matter of fact were never so certainly true, and that the Book of Common Prayer were taken word for word out of the Popish liturgies, yet this is no just objection against it. For as the Popish religion is a mixture of things good and bad; so their liturgies are of the same kind. They contain many excellent prayers addressed to the true and only God; which every good Christian cannot but heartily approve of; though at the same time there are other prayers addressed to angels and saints, and containing unsound matter. So that it is possible for us to make a choice of admirable devotions out of the Popish liturgies, if we take care to separate the good from the bad; if we reject their superstitions, and retain what is truly Christian.—Bennet’s Paraph. Com. Prayer, Appendix I.

If it may be concluded that our liturgy is not good because it is comprehended in the mass-book, or in the breviary, we must, by the same reason, infer, that our doctrine is unsound, because it is all to be found in the councils, and in the writings of the doctors of the Romish Church. But so the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, and many sentences of Scripture which are used in that missal, or in that breviary, as also the doctrine of the Trinity, of the incarnation, passion, &c., which are comprehended in the councils, would all of them be but superstitions and heresies. Again, to say that our liturgy is naught, because it hath been extracted out of the mass-book or breviary, if that were true, yet it is just such an argument, as if men had hit Luther and Calvin in the teeth with this, that they were superstitious, Popish heretics, because they came the one out of a convent from among friars, and the other out of a cathedral from the midst of prebendaries, who were all infected with Popish heresies and superstitions. And would they not have had great cause to complain, if upon this pretence they had been always suspected, rejected, or condemned? Therefore, as they were reputed sound and orthodox in that respect, after their doctrine had been examined, and nothing was found therein of the leaven of Rome, although they came out of her communion, let our liturgy have but the same right done unto it; let it be examined, and that, if they please, with exactness and the greatest rigour; but in consequence let it be also declared innocent, if no harm be found therein, though that should prove true, that it had been wholly taken out of the mass-book, or breviary, which will never be found to be so. For I dare say that among one hundred of them who so confidently affirm it, there is not one that ever saw the missal or the breviary, or but knows so much as what the books are. And if we should put those books into their hands, that they might produce some proofs of this rash affirmation, which is so frequent in their mouths, they would be infinitely puzzled. They would not find, either in the missal, or in the breviary, that wise economy which our liturgy useth in the reading of the Holy Scriptures, nor those excellent passages which set before our eyes the greatness of our guilt towards God, and of his mercy in pardoning the same unto us; which passages are placed in the very beginning of it. They would not find there that godly exhortation to repentance, and to the confession of our sins in the presence of God, which followeth immediately the reading of those passages. Nor yet the confession of sins, nor the absolution which followeth the same, for there is not one line of all this in the mass-book. The ten commandments are not to be found there, nor that prayer which is made at the end of every commandment which the minister hath pronounced; nor the Commination, nor several prayers of the Litany, or of the other forms. But in it they will meet with the Lord’s Prayer, the Creeds, the songs of Zachary, Simeon, of the Blessed Virgin, and of some others, which are word for word in the Scripture, or are extracted out of it, and are grounded upon the same, and were in use in the primitive Christian Church before ever the mass was hatched. Therefore it is manifest that to say that our liturgy is either the mass, or taken out of it, is a mere slander, proceeding from malice, or ignorance, or both.—Durel’s Government of the Reformed Churches—Sermon on the English Liturgy.

LOGOS. The Word; from the Greek ὁ Λόγος. A title given to our blessed Lord and Saviour; so designated not only because the Father first created and still governs all things by him, but because, as men discover their sentiments and designs to one another, by the intervention of words, speech, or discourse, so God by his Son discovers his gracious designs to men. All the various manifestations of himself, whether in the works of creation, providence, or redemption, all the revelations he has been pleased to give of his will, are conveyed to us through him; and therefore he is, by way of eminence, called the Word of God.—Tomline.

The word appears to be used as an abstract for the concrete, as St. John employs Light for enlightener, Life for giver of life; so that the expression means speaker, or interpreter. So, (John i. 18,) “No man hath seen God at any time; the Only Begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” In the first verse he is described as the Word which “was with God in the beginning, and was God.” (See Jesus and Lord.)

As to the reason of this name or title of the Word, given by the evangelist to our blessed Saviour; he seems to have done it in compliance with the common way of speaking among the Jews, who frequently call the Messias by the name of the Word of the Lord; of which I might give many instances; but there is one very remarkable, in the Targum of Jonathan, which renders the words of the psalmist, which the Jews acknowledged to be spoken of the Messias, viz. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, &c., thus, “The Lord said unto his Word,” &c. And so likewise Philo the Jew calls him “by whom God made the world, the Word of God, and the Son of God:” and Plato probably had the same notion from the Jews, which made Amelius, the Platonist, when he read the beginning of St. John’s Gospel, to say, “This barbarian agrees with Plato, ranking the Word in the order of principles;” meaning, that he made the Word the principle or efficient cause of the world, as Plato also hath done. And this title of the Word was so famously known to be given to the Messias, that even the enemies of Christianity took notice of it. Julian the apostate calls Christ by this name: and Mahomet in his Alcoran gives this name to Jesus the Son of Mary. But St. John had probably no reference to Plato, any otherwise than as the Gnostics, against whom he wrote, made use of several of Philo’s words and notions. So that in all probability St. John gives our blessed Saviour this title with regard to the Jews more especially, who anciently called Messias by this name.—Archbishop Tillotson.

See the very learned article on the word Λόγος (under its 16th head) in Rose’s edition of Parkhurst’s Greek Lexicon.

LOLLARDS. A religious sect, which arose in Germany about the beginning of the fourteenth century; so called, as many writers have imagined, from Walter Lollard, who began to dogmatize in 1315, and was burnt at Cologne; though others think that Lollard was no surname, but merely a term of reproach applied to all heretics, who concealed the poison of error under the appearance of piety. In England, the followers of Wickliff were called, by way of reproach, Lollards, from the supposition that there was some affinity between some of their tenets: though others are of opinion that the English Lollards came from Germany. (See Wickliffites.)

LOMBARDICKS. Flat tombstones, generally of granite or alabaster, coffin-shaped, with a slightly raised cross in the centre, and a legend running round it.

LORD, OUR LORD. The Lord Jesus Christ is such to us, as He is,

1. Our Saviour.

I will place salvation in Zion. (Isa. xlvi. 13.) Behold thy salvation cometh. (Isa. lxii. 11.) I speak in righteousness, mighty to save. (Isa. lxiii. 1.) Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matt. i. 21.) The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. (1 John iv. 14.) To be a Prince and a Saviour. (Acts v. 31.) The author of eternal salvation. (Heb. v. 9.) God our Saviour. (Tit. ii. 10.) The great God, and even our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Tit. ii. 13.) God hath not appointed us to wrath; but to obtain salvation by our Lord Christ Jesus. (1 Thess. v. 9.) That the world through him might be saved. (John iii. 17.) This is a faithful saying, &c., that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. (1 Tim. i. 15.) Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts iv. 12. See also Matt. i. 21; xviii. 11; Luke ii. 11; John iii. 17; iv. 42; xii. 47; Acts xv. 11; Rom. v. 9; x. 9; Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20; 1 Thess. i. 10; Heb. ii. 3; vii. 25; Tit. iii. 5, 6.)

2. Our Sacrifice for sin.

The Spirit—testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ. (1 Pet. i. 11.) Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away (beareth) the sin of the world. (John i. 29.) The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev. xiii. 8.) Christ our passover is sacrificed (slain) for us. (1 Cor. v. 7.) Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. xv. 3.) His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree. (1 Pet. ii. 24.) And hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God. (Eph. v. 2.) An offering for sin. (Isa. liii. 10.) Once offered to bear the sins of many. (Heb. ix. 28.) Thus it behoved Christ to suffer. (Luke xxiv. 46.) The just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. (1 Pet. iii. 18.) Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us. (1 John iii. 16. See also Isa. liii. 6–12; Dan. ix. 26; Luke xxiv. 26; John iii. 14, 15; xv. 13; Acts iii. 18; xxvi. 23; Rom. iv. 25; 2 Cor. v. 21; Heb. ix. 26; x. 5; 1 John i. 7; ii. 2.)

3. Our Redeemer.

I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. (Job xix. 25.) The redeemer shall come to Zion. (Isa. lix. 20.) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. (Gal. iii. 13.) Redeemed with the precious blood of Christ. (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) Having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb. ix. 12. See also Job xxxiii. 23, 24; Matt. xxvi. 28; Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7; Rev. v. 9.)

4. Our Mediator.

There is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Tim. ii. 5.) He is the Mediator of a new—a better—covenant. (Heb. viii. 6; xii. 24.) The Mediator of the New Testament. (Heb. ix. 15.) No man cometh to the Father but by me. (John xiv. 6. See also Job ix. 2; John xvi. 23; Heb. vii. 25; xi. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 5.)

5. Our Advocate.

We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John ii. 1. See also Heb. ix. 24.)

6. Our Intercessor.

He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no Intercessor; therefore his arm brought salvation. (Isa. lix. 16.) He made intercession for the transgressors. (Isa. liii. 12.) He ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb. vii. 25. See also Rom. viii. 34.)

7. Our Propitiation.

He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John ii. 2.) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood. (Rom. iii. 25.)

8. Our Ransom.

He is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom. (Job xxxiii. 24.) The Son of man came—to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt. xx. 28.) A ransom for all to be testified in due time. (1 Tim. ii. 6.)

9. Our Righteousness.

Their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord. (Isa. liv. 17.) The righteousness of God which is in faith by Jesus Christ to all. (Rom. iii. 22.) The Lord our righteousness. (Jer. xxiii. 6. See also Isa. lxi. 10; Dan. ix. 24; 1 John ii. 1, 29.)

10. Our Wisdom.

Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom. (1 Cor. i. 17, 30. See also Isa. ix. 6; Eph. i. 17; iii. 4.)

11. Our Sanctification.

Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. (Heb. xiii. 12.) We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ. (Heb. x. 10. See also Mal. iii. 3; Matt. iii. 12; John xvii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 2; vi. 11; Eph. v. 25, 26; Heb. x. 14; 1 John i. 7.)

(Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, 1 Cor. i. 30.)

12. Our Lord and our God.

John xx. 28.

II. As He is,

1. The Messiah.

Messiah the prince. (Dan. ix. 25, 26.) We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ (the anointed). (John i. 41.) Anointed—to preach good tidings unto the meek. (Isa. lxi. 1.) To preach the gospel to the poor, &c. (Luke iv. 18.)

2. The Head of the Church.

Christ is the Head of the Church. (Eph. v. 23.) God—gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his body. (Eph. i. 22, 23. See also Ps. cxviii. 22; Matt. ii. 6; xxi. 42; John x. 14; Acts iv. 11; Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 15; xii. 27; Eph. ii. 20; iv. 12–15; v. 29; Col. i. 18, 24; Heb. iii. 1; xiii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 6, 25.)

3. The Power of God.

Unto them which are called—Christ the power of God. (1 Cor. i. 24.) Declared to be the Son of God with power. (Rom. i. 4.) The brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power. (Heb. i. 3.) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Col. ii. 9. See also Matt. ix. 6; xi. 27; xxviii. 18; Luke iv. 32; Acts xx. 32; Eph. i. 20, 21; Col. ii. 10; 2 Tim. i. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 22; Rev. xi. 15.)

4. The Truth.

I am the truth. (John xiv. 6.) Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,—the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John i. 17, 14.) The Amen, the faithful and true witness. (Rev. iii. 14. See also Isa. xlii. 3; John viii. 14, 32; xviii. 37; 2 Cor. xi. 10; Eph. iv. 21; 1 John v. 20; Rev. xix. 11; xxii. 6.)

5. The King of kings, and Lord of lords.

Rev. xvii. 14; xix. 16. And see also Ps. lxxxix. 27; Dan. vii. 14, 27; Zech. xiv. 9; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Rev. i. 5; xi. 15.

6. The Lord of Glory.

1 Cor. ii. 8; Jas. ii. 1.

7. The Lord of All.

Jesus Christ, he is Lord of all. (Acts x. 36.) To this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. (Rom. xiv. 9.) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. (Phil. ii. 11. See also Josh. v. 14; Micah v. 2; John xiii. 13; xvi. 15; Acts ii. 36; Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. viii. 6; xii. 5; xv. 47; 2 Thess. i. 7; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Col. iii. 24; Heb. i. 2; ii. 8; xiii. 20; Rev. i. 8; v. 5.)

III. Through Him we have,

1. Grace. (John i. 16; Acts xv. 11; Rom. i. 5; iii. 24; v. 2, 15–21; xvi. 20, and similar passages. 1 Cor. i. 4; xv. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 9; xii. 9; Eph. i. 7; ii. 7; iv. 7; vi. 24; 1 Tim. i. 2, 14; 2 Tim. i. 9; 2 Pet. iii. 18.)

2. Power. (1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 9; Eph. vi. 8; Phil. iv. 13; Col. i. 29; 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. i. 9, 12; Heb. ii. 14, 18; xiii. 21.)

3. Faith. (Matt. ix. 2; John vi. 45; Acts xxvi. 18; iii. 16; Rom. iii. 22, 25; v. 2; 1 Cor. iii. 5; Gal. ii. 20; iii. 22; Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 29; iii. 9; Col. ii. 5, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 13; iv. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 6; 1 John v. 14.)

4. Forgiveness of sins. (Zech. xiii. 1; Matt. ix. 6; Luke xxiv. 47; John i. 29; Acts ii. 38; v. 31; x. 43; xiii. 38; Rom. viii. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 10; Eph. i. 7; iv. 32; Heb. ix. 26; 1 John ii. 12; Rev. i. 5.)

5. Justification. (Isa. liii. 11; Acts xiii. 39; Rom. iii. 24, 26; iv. 25; v. 1, 9, 16, 18; viii. 1; x. 4; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Gal. ii. 16, 21; iii. 8, 11, 24; Phil. iii. 9; Tit. iii. 7.)

6. Patience. (Ps. xxxvii. 7, with 2 Thess. iii. 5; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 24; Heb. vi. 12; x. 36; xii. 1; James v. 7, 8; Rev. i. 9; ii. 2, 3, 19; iii. 10; xiv. 12.)

7. Light. (Isa. xlix. 6; Luke ii. 32; John i. 9; iii. 19; viii. 12; ix. 5; xii. 35, 36, 46; 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6; Eph. v. 14; 1 John ii. 8; Rev. xxi. 23.)

8. Life. (John i. 4; iii. 36; v. 21, 24; vi. 27, 33, 40; x. 10, 28; xi. 25; xiv. 6; xx. 31; Acts iii. 15; Rom. v. 15–21; vi. 8, 11, 23; viii. 2; xiv. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Cor. iv. 10; Phil. i. 21; Col. iii. 4; 1 Thess. v. 10; 2 Tim. i. 1, 10; 1 John i. 1; ii. 25; iv. 9; v. 11, 12, 20; Jude, ver. 21.)

9. Peace. (Isa. ix. 6; Ezek. xxxiv. 25; Zech. ix. 10; Luke i. 79; ii. 14; xix. 38; John xiv. 27; xvi. 33; Acts x. 36; Rom. i. 7, and the similar passages, and v. 1; x. 15; Eph. ii. 14–17; vi. 15; Phil. iv. 7; Col. i. 20; 1 Pet. v. 14.)

10. Blessing. (Gal. iii. 14; Eph. i. 3; 2 Tim. iv. 22.)

11. All we need. (Ps. xxiii. 1; John xv. 7, 16; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Phil. iv. 19.)

12. Joy and consolation. (Luke ii. 25; John xvi. 20; Rom. v. 11; xv. 13; 2 Cor. i. 5; Phil. ii. 1; iii. 1; iv. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 16.)

13. Victory. (Rom. viii. 37; 1 Cor. xv. 57; 2 Cor. ii. 14; 1 John iv. 4; v. 4, 5; Rev. xii. 11.)

14. The kingdom of heaven. (Luke xxii. 28, 29; John xiv. 3; Eph. ii. 6; v. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12; iv. 8; 2 Pet. i. 11; Rev. iii. 21; xxi. 22.)

IV. Through Him we are,

1. Reconciled to God. (Dan. ix. 24; John xi. 52; Rom. v. 1, 10; xi. 15; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19; Eph. i. 10; ii. 13, 16; iii. 6; Col. i. 20, 21; Heb. ii. 17; 1 John iv. 10.)

2. Made sons of God. (Isa. lvi. 5; Luke xii. 32; John i. 12; Gal. iii. 26; iv. 5–7; Eph. i. 5; 1 John iii. 1.)

V. Through Him we must,

1. Offer thanks. (Rom. i. 8; vii. 25; Eph. i. 6; v. 20; Col. iii. 17; 1 Thess. v. 18; Heb. xiii. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 5.)

2. Give glory to God. (John xiv. 13; Rom. xvi. 27; 2 Cor. viii. 23; Eph. iii. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 11.)

3. Be accepted. (Eph. i. 6.)

VI. In Him we must,

1. Have faith. (Isa. xxviii. 16; John i. 12; iii. 16; vi. 29, 47; xx. 31; Acts xvi. 31; xviii. 8; xx. 21; xxiv. 24; Rom. ix. 33; x. 9; Gal. ii. 16; Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 29; 2 Tim. i. 13; 1 John ii. 22; iii. 23; v. 1, 10.)

2. Hope. (Acts xxviii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 19; Col. i. 27; 1 Tim. i. 1.)

3. Trust. (2 Cor. i. 20; iii. 4; xi. 10; Eph. i. 12.)

4. Die. (Rom. vii. 4; viii. 10, 36; 1 Cor. iv. 9; ix. 15; xv. 31; 2 Cor. i. 5; iv. 10, 11; vi. 9; Phil. ii. 30.)

5. Become new creatures. (2 Cor. iv. 16; v. 17; Gal. vi. 15.)

6. Have our conversation. (John xv. 16, 22; Rom. vi. 4; viii. 9; xiii. 14; 1 Cor. iii. 23; 2 Cor. iv. 10; xiii. 5; Gal. i. 10; ii. 17; v. 24; Eph. iii. 19; iv. 15; vi. 6; Phil. i. 10, 11, 27; ii. 5, 21; iii. 18; Col. i. 10; ii. 6; iii. 1, 16; 1 Thess. ii. 11, 12; iv. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 1–3, 19; Tit. ii. 10; Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 16; Rev. vii. 14.)

VII. In His name,

1. We are exhorted. (1 Cor. i. 10; iii. 1; v. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2; 1 Tim. v. 21; vi. 13; 2 Tim. iv. 1.)

2. We must speak. (Rom. ix. 1, 2; 2 Cor. ii. 17; xii. 19; 1 Tim. ii. 7.)

3. We must ask. (Matt. xviii. 19, 20; John xiv. 13; xv. 7; xvi. 23, 24; 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9; 1 John v. 14, 15.)

VIII. We must,

1. Acknowledge His power. (Isa. lxiii. 1–6; John v. 23; Rom. xiv. 11; Phil. ii. 10, 11; Rev. v. 13.)

2. Confess His name. (Matt. x. 32; Luke xii. 8, 9; Acts viii. 37; Phil. ii. 11; 1 John iv. 15; 2 John, ver. 7; Rev. ii. 13; iii. 8.)

3. And in His name do all things. (Eph. vi. 7; Col. iii. 17, 23.)

IX. In Him we are united.

Rom. viii. 17, 39; xii. 5; xvi. 7, 9–13; 1 Cor. i. 13; iii. 1; vi. 15; vii. 22; x. 17; xii. 13, 20, 27; 2 Cor. xii. 2; Gal. i. 22; iii. 27, 28; Eph. i. 10, 22, 23; ii. 14, 16, 21; iii. 6; iv. 12, 16, 20, 25; v. 30; Col. i. 18, 24; 1 Thess. iv. 16; Heb. iii. 14; 1 John i. 3; v. 20.

X. For Him we must suffer.

Matt. v. 11, 12; xvi. 24; Acts xiv. 22; Rom. v. 3; viii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 9; 2 Cor. i. 5; iv. 10; vi. 10; vii. 4; xii. 10; Gal. ii. 20; Phil. i. 12; iii. 8; Col i. 24; 1 Thess. iii. 3; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12; iii. 12; Heb. x. 34; xi. 26; xiii. 13; James i. 2; 1 Pet. i. 6; ii. 21; iv. 13, 14, 16; Rev. i. 9; ii. 3.

XI. He judgeth all things.

John v. 22; Acts xvii. 31; Rom. ii. 16; xiv. 10; 1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 5; Jude, ver. 14, 15; Rev. xx. 12.

LORD’S DAY. The first day of the week is so designated in the Christian Church;—it is the κυριακὴ ἡμέρα of St. John and Ignatius (see Schleusner in voc.);—and as Friday is appointed as the weekly fast, in commemoration of our Lord’s crucifixion, so is Sunday the weekly feast, in commemoration of his resurrection.

God has commanded us to dedicate at least a seventh portion of our time to him. We read in Genesis, (ii. 3,) that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. Here we are told that the seventh day, or as we shall presently show, one day in seven, was not only blessed, but sanctified by God. Now, by sanctifying a thing or person, we understand their being separated or set apart for a religious purpose. When therefore the Almighty is said to sanctify a portion of time, it cannot be in reference to himself, to whom all days, times, and seasons are alike—equally pure, equally holy,—but in reference to man; and the sanctifying a day must, consequently, imply a command to man to keep it holy. That one day in seven was from the beginning dedicated to the service of the Almighty, will receive confirmation by reference to the chapter which immediately follows that from which the quotation just made is taken. For there we are told that Cain and his brother Abel made a sacrifice,—not “in the process of time” merely,—but, as it is given in the margin of our Bibles, “at the end of the days.” The latter reading we prefer, because, while the former conveys but an indistinct idea to the mind, the latter is confirmed by one of the oldest versions of Scripture, called the Septuagint. But if to this expression,—“at the end of the days,” we attach any meaning at all, it must surely signify at the end of the six days of labour, that is, on the seventh day, previously sanctified by the Almighty. When, in addition to this, we take into consideration the evil character of Cain, it seems less probable that he should have come voluntarily forward, with a grateful heart, to worship his Maker, than that he carelessly complied with a custom to which he had been habituated from his childhood: he came to sacrifice, as some come now to Church, after each interval of six days, from habit rather than piety.

We have also another corroborating evidence in favour of this interpretation of our text. Holy Job is generally supposed to have lived before the time of Moses; and in the Book of Job we find mention made of “the day on which the sons of God came to present themselves unto the Lord,” which we may fairly conclude alludes to the sabbath. It is remarkable, also, that we find some traces of this institution among the heathen, for two of their oldest poets, Homer and Hesiod, speak of the seventh as being a sacred day. It is probable that in the same manner in which they obtained the notion of a Deity, namely, by tradition from father to son of a revelation made to Adam and Noah, they arrived at a knowledge which gradually died away, of this sacredness of the seventh day.

But when we remember that this rule was given to Adam, and was, in consequence, binding, not upon a chosen few, but upon all his descendants, it does not appear likely that any one particular day was designated, but merely that a general rule was laid down that one day in seven should be dedicated to direct offices of religious duties; for it would have been impossible for men, scattered, as they were soon to be, over all the face of the earth, to observe, all of them, the same day, since the beginning of every day, and of course of the seventh, must have been eighteen hours later in some parts of the world than in Eden or Palestine, or wherever we suppose the sabbath to have been first established. A law for a single nation may be particular; a law for all mankind must be general: the principle must be laid down and enforced; the particulars must depend upon circumstances. Besides, although it is easy to demonstrate that the Israelites ought to have set apart for their religious duties one day in seven, previously to the ceremonial institution of the sabbath on Mount Sinai, yet it is equally clear that they did not keep the same day before the delivery of the law, as they did afterwards. For although in the 16th chapter of Exodus, previously to the delivery of the law, the sabbath is spoken of as an institution well known to the Israelites, yet as to the particular day on which it was kept there is no mention made. It was not till AFTERWARDS that one certain particular day was appointed, (namely, that on which they came out of Egypt,) for the two-fold purpose, that as men they might commemorate the creation, and as Israelites celebrate their deliverance. Now we may reasonably infer that they would not have set out from Egypt on the sabbath day, and that consequently their sabbath was not observed at the same time before, as it was after, its re-institution on Mount Sinai.

That we, then, together with every human being, are bound to dedicate one day in seven to religious duties, is evident, because the commandment was given, not to Moses, but to Adam; not to the Israelites, but to all the descendants of Eve. But the observance of that one particular day sanctified to the Jews, not only to celebrate the universal love of God in the creation of the world, but his special loving-kindness to their individual nation, is not any longer obligatory upon us, because it formed part of the ceremonial law. It remains, therefore, now to inquire on what authority it is that we observe the first day of the week in preference to any other, or, in other words, by whom the festival of the Lord’s day was instituted.

That we in the present age keep the first day of the week as a holy-day dedicated to the service of our Maker and Redeemer is certain; the question is, whether this was an arbitrary innovation, introduced when our Church was corrupted by Popery, and retained at its reformation as a useful institution, or whether it has higher claims to our respect. It is not a Popish innovation or novelty, because we find it mentioned by our great divines in those primitive and purer ages of our Church, before Popery or any of its doctrines were invented or dreamt of. For, in examining such writers as lived in the age of the apostles, or those immediately succeeding, we find them alluding to the fact, (and their testimony is confirmed by contemporary and infidel historians,) that Christians were always accustomed to meet on the first day of the week for the performance of their religious exercises. If we examine them more minutely, we find that, as the Jewish sabbath was fixed to a certain day, on account of their deliverance from Pharaoh, so the Christians kept this festival in grateful acknowledgment of the mercies of the Redeemer, who, as on this day, accomplished the victory over the grave, by rising from the dead. If we attend them yet further, we find those who, too honest to deceive, lived too near the apostolic age to be deceived, asserting that this festival was instituted by the apostles; and if by the apostles, who acted under the immediate direction and influence of the Holy Ghost, then of course we may conclude that the institution was Divine.

Having thus far shown what the tradition is, let us now consult our Bibles, to ascertain whether it be confirmed or contradicted, for without this it will be of no avail. Now, that the gospel does not expressly command the religious observance of the first day in the week must be conceded. The apostles and Jewish Christians do not appear to have neglected the Jewish sabbath. As long as the temple continued standing, they kept the last day of the week as a fast; the first, as a festival. That the apostles did keep the first day of the week as a festival, is quite clear. St. Paul, we are told, preached at Troas, “on the first day of the week.” When all the disciples had, as they were in the habit of doing, “come together to break bread,” that is, to receive the holy eucharist, which ought always to form a part of the public service, he gave orders also to the Corinthians to make a collection for the saints at Jerusalem, when, according to their custom, they assembled together on the first day of the week, which day is expressly called by St. John the Lord’s day. (Rev. i. 10.) But if the testimony of man is great, the testimony of God is greater. Their observance of this festival was sanctioned by our Lord himself, by his repeated appearance among his apostles on that day; after his resurrection it is sanctioned by the Holy Ghost, by the miraculous effusion of the Spirit upon the apostles when they were together on the day of Pentecost, which must, that year, have fallen upon the first day of the week. Now, take these facts of Scripture (and others may be found) and compare them with the universal tradition to which we have alluded, and surely we must agree with one of the most celebrated divines who have appeared in modern times, when speaking of the most important doctrine of our religion, that of the Trinity, “if what appears probably to be taught in Scripture appears certainly to have been taught in the primitive and Catholic Church, such probability, so strengthened, carries with it the force of demonstration.”

We may perceive from this, that our practice of keeping holy the first day of the week is sanctioned by the apostles. What is our authority, if we except the high authority of the Church, for not observing the last day of the week also, it were hard to say. But if the authority of the Church is to be received, we must remember that what she teaches is, that we are to dedicate at least a seventh portion of our time to God. But this we do not do, unless every moment of the Sunday is so devoted. And yet who can do this? Therefore the Church also requires of us a portion of Friday, and a portion of the saints’ days.

LORD’S PRAYER. The prayer which our blessed Lord himself hath taught us. It is to be used as a model for all our devotions, our blessed Lord saying, (Matt. vi. 9,) “After this manner pray ye;” and it is to be used in express words whenever we pray, our Lord commanding us, (Luke xi. 2,) “When ye pray, say, Our Father,” &c. Therefore the Church of Christ hath used from the first to begin and end her services with the Lord’s Prayer. This being the foundation upon which all other prayers should be built, therefore, saith Tertullian, we begin with it, that so, the right foundation being laid, we may justly proceed to our ensuing requests. And it being the perfection of all prayer, therefore, saith St. Augustine, we conclude our prayers with it. Let no man, therefore, quarrel with the Church’s frequent use of the Lord’s Prayer, for the Catholic Church ever did the same. Besides, as St. Cyprian observes, if we would hope to have our prayers accepted of the Father only for his Son’s sake, why should we not hope to have them most speedily accepted when they are offered up in his Son’s own words?

It is objected by some persons in the present day, (for the objection was unknown to the primitive Church,) that our Saviour did not give this as an express form of prayer, but only as a pattern, or direction. In support of this they quote the passage, Matt. vi. 9, &c., in which it is introduced, “After this manner pray ye;” not laying so much stress on the similar passage, Luke xi. 2, &c., where our Saviour expressly says, “When ye pray, say.” On this it may be remarked, that where there are two texts on any particular doctrine, or practice, the one worded ambiguously, as in that of St. Matthew, “After this manner,” &c., (or as the translation would more properly be, “Pray thus,” and the ambiguity would then almost vanish,) and the other clearly expressed; as in that of St. Luke, “When ye pray, say,” it is a settled and a natural rule of interpretation, that the doubtful words should be explained by those which are clear. Now he who uses these very words as a form, acts in evident obedience to both the letter and the spirit of the one precept, and yet not in contradiction to the other. But he who rejects this as a form, though he may act in obedience to the spirit of the one, certainly acts in disobedience to the letter, if not to the spirit of the other, “When ye pray, say,” &c.

Had not our Lord given this as a settled form of prayer, he would have been very likely to have dilated somewhat on the various subjects it embraces—of adoration, prayer, and praise: and perhaps have introduced illustrations according to his custom; and would not improbably have said, “When ye pray, address yourselves in the first place to God who is your heavenly Father, but forget not his sovereignty, and ask him to give you,” &c. But instead of this he dictates, in both cases, a few comprehensive sentences, convenient for all persons, and under all circumstances, and of which the eloquent Tertullian thus rapturously exclaims, “In this compendium of few words, how many declarations of prophets, evangelists, and apostles are contained! How many discourses, parables, examples, precepts of our Lord! How many duties towards God are briefly expressed! Honour to the Father, faith, profession in his name, offering of obedience in his will, expression of hope in his kingdom; petition for the necessaries of life in the bread, confession of sins in the supplication, solicitation against temptations in the asking of protection. What wonder! God alone could teach how he chose to be prayed to.” St. Cyprian says, that “it is so copious in spiritual virtue, that there is nothing omitted in all our prayers and petitions which is not comprehended in this epitome of heavenly doctrine.”

It is necessary to be understood that the transactions mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Luke were not one and the same, but occurred at different times, and on different occasions. Our Lord first introduced this form of prayer uncalled for, in the sermon on the mount, at the commencement of his commission, comprehending a doxology, or concluding tribute of glory and praise. But he gave it for the second time, after an interval of about two years and a half, as is clear from the various events that occurred, and that are enumerated in the chapters (Luke vii.–xi.) which form the greater part of the acts of his ministry.

It is not impossible that the disciples themselves did, on the first occasion, regard it as conveying a general idea only in what terms God should be addressed, and therefore not having used it as a common prayer, the circumstance of our Lord’s “praying in a certain place” induced one of his disciples, “when he ceased,” to say, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples;” alluding to a well-known custom of the Hebrew masters, which it thus appears John had adopted, of teaching their scholars a particular form of words in their addresses to God, varying, no doubt, according to their particular sentiments. Our Lord’s disciples here, therefore, ask of him a precise form, and that form he gives them in compliance with their wishes, not only for their use, but for the use of all who should embrace the profession of Christianity—“When ye pray, say,” &c.

It is supposed by some, and there seems much reason for the idea, that the disciple who thus asked was a new convert, and not present at the delivery of the sermon on the mount, and that our Lord repeated the form which he had then before given. Indeed, if that which was first given had not been considered as a settled form, or a groundwork for it, it would appear extraordinary that it should be repeated in so nearly the same words, and precisely in the same order of sentences. Grotius remarks on this subject, that so averse was our Lord, the Lord of the Church, (tam longe abfuit ipse Dominus ecclesiæ,) to unnecessary innovation, and an affectation of novelty, that he “who had not the Spirit by measure,” but “in whom were all the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” selected the words and phrases in a great degree from forms of prayer then well known among the Jew; as in his doctrines he also made use of proverbs and sayings well understood in that age.

The difference between the form given in the sermon on the mount and on that second occasion is, that to the latter he does not affix the doxology, which many indeed suppose to be an interpolation; leaving this perhaps to be added according to the occasion and to the zeal of the worshipper. It cannot be imagined that either the disciples of our Lord, or of John, had hitherto neglected the duty of prayer, or that they performed it in an uncertain or disorderly manner, as they had set forms and hours of prayer, which all the devout Jews observed; it seems therefore obvious that a particular form is alluded to in the case of both, and the request to our Lord was made in pursuance of his encouraging direction, “Ask, and ye shall have,” and was gratified by him in compliance with the reasonable and well-known existing custom. “Thus,” as the learned Mede says on this subject, (see his discourse on Matt. vi. 9,) “their inadvertency” (in not understanding it the first time as a form) “becomes our confirmation. For, as Joseph said to Pharaoh, ‘the dream is doubled unto Pharaoh, because the thing is established by God,’ (Gen. xli. 32,) so may we say here, the delivery of this prayer was doubled unto the disciples, that they and we might thereby know the more certainly that our Saviour, intended and commended it unto his Church for a set form of prayer.”

Our blessed Lord appears afterwards to refer to the custom now adopted by his disciples, and the well-known forms used, when he says, “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses” (Mark xi. 25); thus pointedly referring to two of its principal features, couched too in the same words. The apostle St. Peter seems to make the same allusion when he says, “If ye call on the Father,” &c. (1 Pet. i. 17.)

Some have argued that this prayer is to be considered as temporary only, and not of perpetual obligation, because we do not in it ask in the name of Christ, according to his direction; but a transaction may be opposed to this, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, (iv. 24,) in which it is seen, unless the apostles and disciples had so quickly forgotten the direction of their Lord, that prayers may be considered as offered up in the name of Christ, though addressed to God; for there the disciples, on the liberation of Peter and John by the Jewish council, lift up their voice and say, “Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is;” and they mention Christ as his holy child Jesus. In our addresses to God, our heavenly Father, we cannot forget him through whom we have access as to a father, being “joint-heirs with him.”

Another objection is made, that it does not appear in Scripture that the apostles used this prayer; but to this it may be remarked, that neither does it appear they used any other form, and yet some form of words must have been generally known and used by them, or how could “they lift up their voice with one accord.” (Acts iv. 24; i. 14.)

Bishop Jeremy Taylor justly says, “That the apostles did use the prayer their Lord taught them, I think need not much to be questioned; they could have no other end of their desire; and it had been a strange boldness to ask for a form which they intended not to use, or a strange levity not to do what they intended.”

The learned Bingham observes, that if there were no other argument to prove the lawfulness of set forms of prayer in the judgment of the ancients, the opinion which they had of the Lord’s Prayer, and their practice pursuant to this opinion, would sufficiently do it; and he remarks that they unequivocally looked upon it as a settled form: for Tertullian says expressly that “our Lord prescribed a new form of prayer for the new disciples of the New Testament, and that though John had taught his disciples a form, yet that he did this only as a forerunner of Christ, so that when Christ was increased, (‘he must increase, but I must decrease,’) then the work of the servant passed over to the Lord. Thus the prayer of John is lost, while that of our Lord remains, that earthly things may give way to heavenly.”

In similar terms speaks Irenæus, (who had himself heard Polycarp, the disciple of St. John,) Origen, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Cyril, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. The last says expressly, that as the Church always used this prayer, she did it at the commandment of Christ. “He said to his disciples—he said to his apostles and to us, pray thus.” St. Chrysostom refers continually to the Lord’s Prayer, as in common use among them by the express commandment of Christ, and observes, “that the Father well knows the words and meaning of his Son.” St. Cyprian says, “Let the Father recognise in your prayers the words of the Son;” and he considers it as a peculiar instance of mercy, “that he who made us taught us how to pray; that whilst we speak unto the Father in that prayer and address which the Son taught us, we may the more easily be heard.” He adds, “Since we have an Advocate with the Father for our sins, we should, whenever we pray for pardon, allege unto God the very words which our Advocate has taught us. We have his promise, that whatever we shall ask in his name we shall receive: and must we not more readily obtain our desires, when we not only use his name in asking, but in his very words, present our request unto God. Our Advocate in heaven has taught us to say this prayer upon earth, that between his intercession and our supplications the most perfect harmony may subsist.” The judicious Hooker observes, that “should men speak with the tongues of angels, yet words so pleasing to the ears of God, as those which the Son of God himself has composed, it were not possible for man to frame.”

There was, indeed, hardly any office in the primitive Church in which the celebration of this prayer did not make a solemn part; so that at length it was called the Oratio quotidiana, the daily, the common prayer; the Oratio legitima the established prayer, or the prayer of the Christian law; the “epitome of the gospel:” and St. Augustine even terms it, “the daily baptism,” and a “daily purification,” “for,” says he, “we are absolved once by baptism, but by this prayer daily.” When in succeeding ages some of the clergy in Spain occasionally omitted it in the daily service, they were censured by a council, as “proud contemners of the Lord’s injunction; and it was enacted, that every clergyman omitting it either in private or public prayer should be degraded from the dignity of his office.” It is worthy of remark, that the heathen writer Lucian, nearly contemporary with the apostles, makes a Christian, in one of his dialogues, speak of the prayer which began, “Our Father.”

The early Fathers were even of opinion, that the making use of this prayer was of vast efficacy to incline God to pardon sins of infirmity, especially those committed through want of fervour and sufficient attention in our other prayers. “As for our daily and slight sins,” says St. Augustine, “without which no one can live, the daily prayer will be accepted by God for pardon of them;” and the fourth Council of Toledo enjoins it for this among other reasons. This doctrine the Papists afterwards perverted, by their distinction of sins into venial and mortal, and by the pure opus operatum of repeating the Lord’s Prayer. Of this abuse there is happily no shadow in the present service of our Church, our reformers having wholly rejected and abolished the technical repetition of it (the Paternoster) with chaplets and rosaries, to which truly “vain repetitions” the Church of Rome had annexed indulgences.

In conclusion, in whatever else the various liturgies differ, they all agree in the constant and frequent use of this prayer. Dr. Featly says, “the reformed Churches generally conclude their prayers before sermon with the Lord’s Prayer, partly in opposition to the Papists, who close up their devotions with an Ave Maria, partly to supply all the defects and imperfections of their own.” And the learned Bingham pointedly declares, “I dare undertake to prove, that for 1500 years together, none ever disliked the use of the Lord’s Prayer, but only the Pelagians; and they did not wholly reject the use of it neither, nor dislike it because it was a form, but for another reason, because it contradicted one of their principal tenets, which was, that some men were so perfect in this world, that they needed not to pray to God for the forgiveness of their own sins, but only for those of others.”

For these reasons we cannot but protest against the conclusion of the following paragraph taken from the works of Mr. Boston, a man of exemplary piety, but, as it would seem, of strong prejudices: “From the whole, I think it is evident, that a prayer formed upon the model of this excellent pattern, having the substance of the several petitions interspersed through it, though expressed in other words, is a true Scriptural prayer” (granted, it must be so); “and that there is no necessity to conclude with the Lord’s Prayer” (this is less certain). “And, therefore, I cannot but think that Papists, and many Protestants who conclude their prayers with the very words of the Lord’s Prayer, make a very superstitious use of it, causing people to imagine that the bare recital of the words of the Lord’s Prayer sanctifies their other prayers; and that no prayer can be accepted of God where this, I cannot but call it vain, repetition is omitted.” It is confidently hoped that, if what is collected in the present article be perused with attention, the members of the Church of England will be led to exclaim, “We ‘have not so learned Christ.’”

The Lord’s Prayer is to be said with an audible voice.—It was an ancient custom for the priest to say some parts of the liturgy internally, (secreto, ἐν ἑαυτῷ, or μυστικῶς,) in an unintelligible whisper; and in some instances the people joined in this manner, as was the case with respect to the Lord’s Prayer and the creed. This unreasonable practice was put an end to at the Reformation, and the Lord’s Prayer in particular was directed to be said “with an audible voice,” “with a loud voice;” probably that the people might sooner learn this most essential prayer; a practice from which the ignorant may even now find benefit.

The flaming ardency of the seven spirits, and of all the heavenly choir, appears in the intenseness and loudness of their songs, “To him all angels cry aloud!” They do not breathe out faint or forced hallelujahs; their songs resemble, as St. John describes them, “the voice of many waters,” and “the voice of mighty thunderings.” (Rev. xix. 6.) But where are the least tokens of this seraphic ardency in our worship here on earth? The sacrifice of this our public service, like Elijah’s, is put in excellent order, but we ourselves “put no fire under!” On the contrary, a voluntary coldness runs through all the parts and offices of it, like the water poured on by Elijah, which “ran round the altar and filled all the trenches.” And it is next to a miracle if God accepts such cold offerings, or answers us from heaven, unless with the fire, not of acceptance, but of vengeance.—Bisse on the Lord’s Prayer.

The people are to repeat it with the priest.—When the Lord’s Prayer was directed to be said with an audible voice, it was, in the Romish Church, said by the priest alone; but in the Greek and ancient Gallican Churches, by the priest and people together—a custom which the Church of England has adopted in preference to the Roman. Until the review of 1661, the minister began the prayer, and went through it alone to the conclusion of the last petition, “but deliver us from evil,” which the people said; in order, as Bishop Sparrow remarks, that they might not be interrupted from bearing a part in so divine a prayer. In a rubric in the Communion Service, near the conclusion, the manner in which the Lord’s Prayer should be used is clearly laid down. “Then shall the priest say the Lord’s Prayer, the people repeating after him every petition.”

In none of the successive editions of the Prayer Book till the last review, was there any direction for the people prefixed to the first occurrence of the Lord’s Prayer. In King Edward’s First Book at its second recurrence, after the creed, the latter clause, “but deliver us from evil,” was inserted. This was altered in the Second Book of King Edward; and the direction, “Then the minister, clerks, and people,” &c., inserted, as we have it now. In the Litany, the two last clauses were marked as verse and response, till the last review. In the Communion no direction was given for the people;—at its second occurrence, the verse and response were marked, as in the Litany: but in the Second Book, the people were directed to repeat after him every petition, as now. The Scotch Prayer Book (temp. K. Chas. I.) first inserted the doxology, at both its occurrence in Morning and Evening Prayer, and at its last in the Communion. At the last review the doxology was inserted at its first occurrence in the Morning and Evening Prayer, and at the end of the Communion; and the versicular arrangement in the Litany was altered. The notation of the verse and response, with their proper cadences, is retained in the old choral manuals.

Wheatly remarks that “the doxology was appointed by the last review to be used in this place, partly, he supposes, because many copies of St. Matthew have it, and the Greek Fathers expound it; and partly because the office here is a matter of praise, it being used immediately after the absolution.” And again, in the Post Communion, “the doxology is here annexed, because all these devotions are designed for an act of praise, for the benefits received in the holy sacrament.” And in the Churching of Women, “the doxology was added to the Lord’s Prayer at the last review, by reason of its being an office of thanksgiving.”

In the Romish service, except in the Mass, the priest speaks the words, “Et ne nos,” &c., “Lead us not into temptation,” in a peculiar tone of voice, by which the people are apprized of its being the time for them to answer, “But deliver us from evil.” This also is a custom at the end of every prayer, that the people may know when to say “Amen.” In the Mosarabic liturgy the priest says the prayer by himself, and the people answer “Amen” to each petition.

The catechumens and the energumens, or those possessed with evil spirits, were not suffered in the primitive Church to join in the tremendous cry sent up by the people, but only bowed their heads in token of assent.

It may be observed that the several paragraphs of the Lord’s Prayer are made to begin, in our Church Prayer Book, with a capital letter, in order, most probably, to mark accurately the places where the people should take up their parts; and this method is adopted in the confession in the daily service, in the creeds, the Gloria in excelsis, in the Communion Service, and in the confession and deprecation in the Commination Service on Ash Wednesday.

But it must likewise be observed, that this method does not seem to be so closely followed in the Cambridge as in the Oxford books, the former combining the fourth and fifth paragraphs, the seventh and eighth, and the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth in the Lord’s Prayer; and yet in these copies the word “and” is retained before “the power,” &c., but dropped in the latter.

To make this matter clear, however, we subjoin the prayer as printed and pointed in the sealed books, at the beginning of Morning and Evening Prayer.

Our Father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in Earth, As it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them, that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; But deliver us from evil: For thine is the Kingdom, the Power, And the Glory, For ever and ever. Amen.

Here and before the Power is, in all the collated copies of sealed books, crossed out with a pen, both in the Morning and Evening Prayer.

In the Post Communion Service, there is some difference of punctuation and of type: e.g.

Our Father which art in heaven; Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation: But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, The power and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen.

Here and was never inserted before The power.

After the Creed, the punctuation is as in the first specimen, except a colon after temptation, and a full stop with “Amen” after evil. Heaven and Earth do not begin with capitals. The same in the Litany, except there is a semicolon after temptation. At its first occurrence in the Communion, the punctuation, &c. is the same as in the Post Communion, except that there is a comma after temptation. A full stop and “Amen” after evil.

Demosthenes said, when he was reproved for studying his orations, that it argued his reverence for the people of Athens. So doth our study, in making exact forms, declare our esteem for Almighty God.—Comber. And we have this sacred form from the Wonderful Counsellor, who came out of the bosom of his Father, and knew his treasures, as well as our wants; he best could inform us what was fit for us to ask, and what most likely for him to grant: he was to go to heaven to be our advocate there, and he hath taught us to use this here, that there may be a harmony between our requests and his. For which cause it ought to be united to all our offices to make up their defects, and recommend them to “Our heavenly Father,” who cannot deny us when we speak the very same words which his dear Son hath put in our mouths, if we use them with understanding and devotion.—Ibid.

LORD’S SUPPER. An ancient name for the sacrament of the holy eucharist. The name occurs in 1 Cor. xi. 20; but in that passage it is generally supposed by the most learned divines, that reference is made to the love-feast, kept in imitation of our Lord’s last supper, which was previous to the original eucharist. Thus much, however, says Dr. Waterland, is certain, that in the apostolical times the love-feast and the eucharist, though distinct, went together, and were nearly allied to each other, and were both of them celebrated at one meeting. (See Eucharist, Agapæ, and Communion.)

As by the sacrament of baptism we enter into the Christian covenant, so by that of the Lord’s supper we profess our thankful continuance in it: and therefore the first answer of our catechism concerning this ordinance tells us, that it was appointed “for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.”—Abp. Secker.

It is called the Lord’s supper because it was both instituted by our Lord at supper, and was designed to succeed into the place of the paschal supper of the Jews. (Matt. xxvi. 26, &c.; Mark xiv. 22; 1 Cor. xi. 23–25, &c.)—Abp. Wake.

LORD’S TABLE. One of the names given to the altar in Christian churches. (See Altar.)

LOUD VOICE. A term in our liturgy which may be considered technical; as not merely meaning audible, (though this expression is also used,) but as being a contradistinction to the secretò of the unreformed service, and the mystic voice (μυστικῶς) of the Greek Church: certain prayers and part of the service having been repeated in an inaudible whisper. (See Secretò, and Mystic Voice, also Lord’s Prayer.)

LOVE-FEASTS. (See Agapæ.) Feasts held in the apostolic age before the celebration of the eucharist, and discontinued on account of the abuse of them.

LOVE, THE FAMILY OF. A sect of enthusiasts, which arose in Holland, and being propagated across the Channel, appeared in England about the year 1580.

These sectaries pretended to a more than ordinary sanctity, which gained upon the affections of the common people. They affirmed, that none were of the number of the elect, but such as were admitted into their family, and that all the rest were reprobate, and consigned over to eternal damnation. They held, likewise, that it was lawful for them to swear to an untruth before a magistrate, for their own convenience, or before any person, who was not of their society. In order to propagate their opinions, they dispersed books, translated out of Dutch into English, entitled, The Gospel of the Kingdom. Documental Sentences. The Prophecy of the Spirit of Love. The Publishing of Peace upon Earth, &c.

These Familists could by no means be prevailed upon to discover their author: nevertheless it was afterwards found to be Henry Nicholas of Leyden, who blasphemously pretended that he partook of the Divinity of God, and God of his humanity. Queen Elizabeth issued a proclamation against these impious sectaries, and ordered their books to be publicly burnt.

LOW SUNDAY. Upon the octave of the first Sunday after Easter day, it was the custom of the ancients to repeat some part of the solemnity which was used upon Easter day; whence this Sunday took the name of Low Sunday, being celebrated as a feast, though of a lower degree than Easter day itself.

It was also called Dominica in albis, [or rather, post albas depositas, according to some ritualists, as Wheatly remarks,] because it was the day on which those who had been baptized on Easter eve put off their white garments.

LUCIFERIANS, in ecclesiastical antiquity, is the name of those Christians who persisted in the schism of Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, the capital of Sardinia.

Lucifer lived in the fourth century, and was famous for his extraordinary virtues and abilities. He was deputed by the pope to the emperor Constantius, and procured the calling of a council at Milan in the year 355, by which he himself, and the rest of the orthodox prelates, who defended Athanasius, were condemned to banishment. He was recalled from his exile by the emperor Julian, in 361, when, coming to Antioch, where the church was extremely divided between the followers of Euzoius the Arian, and of Meletius and Eustathius, orthodox bishops, he, to put an end to the schism, ordained Paulinus bishop, whom neither of the orthodox parties approved. Eusebius of Vercelli, whom the Council of Alexandria had sent to heal the divisions, extremely disapproved this ordination; whereupon Lucifer, who was of an inflexible spirit, broke off communion with him and the other prelates, and retired to Sardinia, where to his death he persisted in his separation, and, by this means, gave birth to a schism, which caused a great deal of mischief to the Church. It continued to the end of the reign of Theodosius the Great, after which time authors make little or no mention of it.

LUKE, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the 18th of October.

St. Luke was born at Antioch, and professed physic. It is not agreed whether he was, by birth, a Jew, or a heathen. Epiphanius, who makes him to be one of the seventy disciples, and consequently a Jew, thinks he was one of those who left Jesus Christ upon hearing these words, “He who eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, is not worthy of me;” but that he returned to the faith upon hearing St. Paul’s sermons at Antioch. Some authors suppose he was Cleopas’s companion, and went with him to Emmaus, when Jesus Christ joined them.

St. Luke accompanied St. Paul in his several journeys; but at what time they first came together is uncertain. Some think he met St. Paul at Antioch, and from that time never forsook him. Others believe they met at Troas, because St. Luke himself says, “immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, from Troas.”

Some think he survived St. Paul many years, and that he died at eighty-four years of age: but where, authors are not agreed. Achaia, Thebes in Bœotia, Elea in the Peloponnesus, Ephesus, and Bithynia, are severally named as the place of his death. Nor are authors better agreed as to the manner of it. Some believe he suffered martyrdom; and the modern Greeks affirm he was crucified on an olive-tree. Others, on the contrary, and among them many of the moderns, think he died a natural death.

LUKE’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament. Some think it was properly St. Paul’s Gospel, and that when St. Paul speaks of his Gospel, he means what is called St. Luke’s Gospel. Irenæus says only, that St. Luke digested into writing what St. Paul preached to the Gentiles; and Gregory Nazianzen tells us, that St. Luke wrote with the assistance of St. Paul.

This evangelist addresses his Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles, to one Theophilus, of whom we have no knowledge; many of the ancients have taken this name, in an appellative sense, for any one who loves God.

LUTHERANS. Those Christians who follow the opinions of Martin Luther.

This sect took its rise from the just offence which was taken at the indulgences (see Indulgences) which, in 1517, were granted by Pope Leo X., to those who contributed towards the finishing St. Peter’s church, at Rome. It is said, the pope at first gave the princess Cibo, his sister, that branch of the revenue of indulgences which were collected in Saxony; that afterwards these indulgences were farmed out to those who would give most for them; and that these purchasers, to make the most of their bargain, pitched upon such preachers, receivers, and collectors of indulgences, as they thought proper for their purpose, who managed their business in a scandalous manner. The pope had sent these indulgences to Prince Albert, archbishop of Mentz, and brother to the Elector of Brandenburg, to publish them in Germany. This prelate put his commission into the hands of John Tetzel, a Dominican, and an inquisitor, who employed several of his own order to preach up and recommend these indulgences to the people. These Dominicans managed the matter so well, that the people eagerly bought up all the indulgences. And the farmers, finding money come in very plentifully, spent it publicly in a luxurious and libertine manner.

John Staupitz, vicar-general of the Augustines in Germany, was the first who took occasion to declare against these abuses; for which purpose he made use of Martin Luther, the most learned of all the Augustines. He was a native of Eisleben, a town of the county of Mansfeld, in Saxony; and he taught divinity at the university of Wittemberg. This learned Augustine mounted the pulpit, and declaimed vehemently against the abuse of indulgences. Nor did he stop here; he fixed ninety-five propositions upon the church doors of Wittemberg, not as dogmatical points which he himself held, but in order to be considered and examined in a public conference. John Tetzel, the Dominican, immediately published 106 propositions against them, at Frankfort upon the Oder; and, by virtue of the office of inquisitor, ordered those of Luther to be burnt; whose adherents, to revenge the affront offered to Luther, publicly burnt those of Tetzel at Wittemberg. Thus war was declared between the Dominicans and Augustines, and soon after between the Roman Catholics and the Lutheran party, which from that time began to appear openly against the Western Church.

In the year 1518, Eckius, professor of divinity at Ingolstadt, and Silvester Prierius, a Dominican, and master of the sacred palace, wrote against Luther’s Theses, who answered them in a tract, which he sent to the pope and the bishop of Brandenburg, his diocesan, offering to submit to the Holy See in the points contested. But Prierius having published a discourse full of extravagant amplifications of the pope’s power, Luther took occasion from thence to make the papal authority appear odious to the Germans. In the mean time, the process against Luther going on at Rome, the pope summoned him to appear there within sixty days: but, at the instance of the duke of Saxony, his Holiness consented that the cause should be examined in Germany, and delegated his legate, Cardinal Cajetan, to try it. This cardinal gave Luther a peremptory order to recant, and not to appear any more before him unless he complied; upon which Luther, in the night-time, posted up an appeal to the pope, and retired to Wittemberg. Afterwards, fearing he should be condemned at Rome, he published a protestation in form of law, and appealed to a general council.

In the beginning of the next year, 1519, the emperor Maximilian dying, and the Elector of Saxony, who protected Luther, being vicar of the empire during the interregnum, that reformer’s interest and character were greatly raised, and he was generally looked upon as a man sent from God to correct the abuses which had crept into the Roman Church. In June, the same year, there was a famous conference between Luther, Eckius, and Carolostadius, at Leipsic; in which they agreed to refer themselves to the universities of Erfurt and Paris. The points debated upon were, free-will, purgatory, indulgences, penance, and the pope’s supremacy.

In 1520, Luther sent his book De Libertate Christianâ to the pope; in which he grounds justification upon faith alone, without the assistance of good works; and asserts, that Christian liberty rescues us from the bondage of human traditions, and particularly the slavery of papal impositions. Afterwards, in a remonstrance written in High Dutch, he proceeded to deny the authority of the Church of Rome.

In June the same year, the pope resolved to apply the last remedies which the Church makes use of against her enemies, and began with condemning in writing forty-one propositions extracted from Luther’s writings, giving him sixty days to recant: but Luther refusing to comply, the pope declared him excommunicated, and sent the bull by Eckius to the Elector of Saxony and the university of Wittemberg, who agreed to defer the publication of it. In the mean time Luther wrote against the bull with great warmth and freedom, and appealed once more from the pope to a general council. Besides which, he caused a large bonfire to be made without the walls of Wittemberg, and threw into it with his own hands the pope’s bull, together with the decretals, extravagants, and Clementines. This example was followed by his disciples in several other towns.

The emperor Charles V. declared against Luther, and ordered his books to be burnt. Upon the opening of the Diet of Worms, in 1521, Luther, with the emperor’s permission, appeared there, and made a speech in defence of himself and his opinions. But, when the diet found that he would neither stand to the decisions of councils nor the decrees of popes, the emperor gave him twenty days to retire to a place of security, and, a month after, published his imperial edict, by which Luther was put under the ban of the empire, as an heretic and schismatic. But the duke of Saxony gave private orders to convey Luther to the castle of Wartburg, where he was concealed three quarters of a year. He worked hard in this retirement, which he called his Isle of Patmos, and kept up the spirit of his party by writing new books; among which were his “Tracts” against auricular confession, private masses, monastic vows, and the celibacy of the clergy. About this time the university of Paris, to which he had appealed, condemned a hundred propositions extracted out of his books; and King Henry VIII. of England wrote against him in defence of the seven sacraments. Luther replied both to the Sorbonne and to the king of England, but in a very rude and unmannerly way.

Soon after he broke out of his retirement, and was so hardy as to publish a bull against the pope’s bull In cœna Domini, calling it the Bull and Reformation of Doctor Luther. About this time he published part of his translation of the Bible, in which he departed from the Vulgate, so long authorized and received by the Church.

The Elector of Saxony, who all along favoured and protected Luther, now gave him leave to reform the churches of Wirtemberg as he thought fit. The reformer proposed likewise a regulation concerning the patrimony of the Church; which was, that the bishops, abbots, and monks should be expelled, and all the lands and revenues of the bishoprics, abbeys, and monasteries, should escheat to the respective princes; and that all the convents of Mendicant friars should be turned into public schools or hospitals. This project pleased the princes and magistrates, who began to relish Luther’s doctrine extremely; insomuch that, at the Diet of Wirtemberg in 1523, when Pope Adrian VI. insisted upon the bull of Leo X. and the Edict of Worms against Luther, he could not prevail with the princes to put them in execution, but was answered, that a general council ought to be called, and that there ought to be a reformation of the ecclesiastics, and especially of the court of Rome. This year, Luther had the satisfaction to see a league contracted between Gustavus, king of Sweden, and Frederick, king of Denmark, who both agreed to establish Lutheranism in their dominions. And now Luther’s persuasion, which, from the Upper Saxony, had spread itself into the northern provinces, began to be perfectly settled in the duchies of Lunenburg, Brunswick, Mecklenburg, and Pomerania; and in the archbishoprics of Magdeburg and Bremen; and in the towns of Hamburg, Wismar, Rostock; and all along the Baltic, as far as Livonia and Prussia.

About this time Luther left off the habit of a monk, and dressed himself like a doctor, refusing to be saluted with the title of reverend father. Erasmus having written a book concerning free-will, (De Libero Arbitrio,) Luther answered it in another, entitled De Servo Arbitrio. In 1525, Thomas Münzer and Nicholas Storc, taking their leave of Luther, put themselves at the head of the Anabaptists and Fanatics. About this time Luther married a nun, called Catharine Boren, exhorting all the ecclesiastics and monks to follow his example. In 1526, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, turned Lutheran, who gave great life and spirit to that party.

In March, 1529, the Diet of Spire decreed that the Catholics should not have the liberty to change their religion; that the Lutherans should be tolerated till the meeting of a council, but not allowed to molest the Catholics; and that the preachers should deliver nothing in their sermons contrary to the received doctrines of the Church. The Lutheran princes entered a solemn protestation against this decree, from whence came the name of Protestants, taken up first by the Lutherans, and afterwards received among the Calvinists.

The beginning of October, this year, was held at Marburg the conference between Luther and Zwinglius, in relation to the eucharist; the latter affirming that there is nothing more than bread and wine in the Lord’s supper, which elements are the figure and representation of his body and blood; and Luther asserting that his body and blood are really present, but under the substance of bread and wine, and that only in the act of receiving the sacrament; after which he did not acknowledge the continuance of this presence. This conference broke up without coming to any accommodation.

In 1530, the Lutherans or Protestants drew up a Confession of Faith, which they presented to the Diet of Augsburg. (See Augsburg, Confession of.)

The year after, the Protestant princes made the famous league of Smalcalde, which obliged the emperor to grant the Lutherans a toleration, till the differences in religion were settled by a council, which he engaged himself to call in six months.

The Lutheran party gaining strength every day, and having refused the bull for convening a council at Mantua, the emperor summoned a general diet at Ratisbon, where a scheme of religion for reconciling the two parties was examined: but, after they had examined and disputed for a month together, the divines could agree upon no more than five or six articles, concerning justification, free-will, original sin, baptism, good works, and episcopacy; for, when they came to other points, and especially the eucharist, the Lutherans would by no means yield to the other party. The diet ended with a decree of the emperor, strictly forbidding the Lutherans to tamper with any person to make them quit their old religion, and at the same time suspending all the edicts published against them.

Martin Luther lived to see the opening of the famous Council of Trent, for accommodating the differences in religion; which put him upon acting with more vigour and warmth against the Church of Rome, as foreseeing that his opinions would be condemned there. In short, he left no stone unturned to engage the Protestant princes to act against the council; which measures he continued to pursue until his death, which happened in February, 1546.

Maurice, the Elector of Saxony, having taken the field against the emperor, and concluded a peace with him at Passaw, in 1552, it was stipulated that the exercise of Lutheranism, as stated by the Confession of Augsburg, should be tolerated all over the empire; which toleration was to last for ever, in case the differences in religion could not be accommodated within six months. And thus Lutheranism was perfectly settled in Germany.

The Lutherans are generally divided into the moderate and the rigid. The moderate Lutherans are those who submitted to the Interim, published by the emperor Charles V. Melancthon was the head of this party. (See Interim.)

The rigid Lutherans are those who would not endure any alteration in any of Luther’s opinions. The head of this party was Matthias Flacius, famous for writing the Centuries of Magdeburg, in which he had three other Lutheran ministers for his assistants.

To these are added another division, called Luthero-Zwinglians, because they held some of Luther’s tenets and some of Zwinglius, yielding something to each side, to prevent the ill consequence of disunion in the Reformation.

The Lutherans retain the use of the altar for the celebration of the holy communion, some of the ancient vestments, and the mitre and pastoral staff for their bishops, at least in Sweden. They likewise make use of lighted tapers in their churches, of incense, and a crucifix on the altar, of the sign of the cross, and of images, &c. Several of their doctors acknowledge that such materials add a lustre and majesty to Divine worship, and fix at the same time the attention of the people.

The Lutherans retain the observance of several solemn festivals after their reformation. They keep three solemn days of festivity at Christmas. In some Lutheran countries, the people go to church on the night of the nativity of our blessed Saviour with lighted candles or wax tapers in their hands; and the faithful, who meet in the church, spend the whole night there in singing and saying their prayers by the light of them. Sometimes they burn such a large quantity of incense, that the smoke of it ascends like a whirlwind, and their devotees may properly enough be said to be wrapped up in it. It is customary, likewise, in Germany, to give entertainments at such times to friends and relations, and to send presents to each other, especially to the young people, whom they amuse with very idle and romantic stories, telling them that our blessed Saviour descends from heaven on the night of his nativity, and brings with him all kinds of playthings.

They have three holidays at Easter, and three at Whitsuntide, as well as those before mentioned at Christmas. These festivals have nothing peculiar in them with respect to the ceremonies observed at those times; but with regard to some particular superstitions, they are remarkable enough; as, for instance, that of the paschal water, which is looked on as a sovereign remedy for sore eyes, and very serviceable in uniting broken limbs. This paschal water is nothing more than common river water, taken up on Easter Day, before the rising of the sun. They have another superstitious notion with respect to their horses: they imagine that the swimming them in the river on Easter Day, before the sun rises, preserves them from lameness.

The other festivals observed by the Lutherans are, New Year’s Day, or the Circumcision, a festival not near so ancient as the four above mentioned; the festival of the Three Kings, or, otherwise, the Epiphany; the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, or Candlemas; and Lady Day, or the Annunciation. There is no public work nor service devoted to the Blessed Virgin, nor are there any processions, or other ceremonies, which are observed by the Roman Catholics on the two latter festivals. The festival of the Sacred Trinity is solemnized on the Sunday after Whitsunday; that of St. John Baptist, on the 24th of June; and that of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin, on the 2nd of July, as it is by the Roman Catholics. To conclude, the festival of St. Michael the Archangel, or rather the ceremonies observed by the Lutherans on that day, are the remains only of an ancient custom, which has been preserved amongst them, although somewhat extraordinary, as the members of their communion retain no manner of veneration for angels.

In 1523, Luther drew up a formulary of the mass and communion for the particular service of the church of Wittemberg. Without attempting to particularize the various parts of it, it may be observed that all the churches where Lutheranism prevailed were obliged entirely to conform to it. However, those orders were never punctually obeyed. Some Lutheran countries have one ritual, and some another. There is a difference, likewise, in their liturgies, though, as to the fundamental articles, they all agree.—Broughton.

LYCH-GATE, or CORPSE-GATE. From leich, “a dead body”—(hence Leitchfield). A gate at the entrance of the churchyard, where the body was placed before burial. These are of frequent occurrence in ancient churchyards.

LYCHNOSCOPE. A narrow window near the ground, very frequently found at the south-west end of a chancel, not infrequently at the north-west, and sometimes, though seldom, in other parts of the church. The name was given on the assumption, (which is now, perhaps, universally abandoned,) that its use was to watch the pasch-light from without the church. The theory now commonly adopted, and at least in part proved, is, that lychnoscopes were confessionals. The last and fullest exposition and examination of the various theories of the use of these windows may be found in a paper by Mr. Lowe, in the first volume of the “Transactions of the Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, and other Architectural Societies.” In this paper their use as ventilators is suggested.

MACCABEES. There are two books of this name in the Apocrypha, both of an uncertain order. They are called Maccabees, because they relate the patriotic and gallant exploits of Judas Maccabeus and his brethren. The first book, which is a most valuable and authentic history, contains the history of the Jews from the beginning of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Simon, a period of about thirty-four years. The second book, which is far less valuable, and less to be depended upon, and which is in some places at variance with canonical Scripture, contains the history of about fifteen years, A. M. 3828 to 3843, from the commission of Heliodorus to pillage the temple, to the victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor. These two books are accounted canonical by the Roman Catholics; but there are besides two other books, called the third and fourth books of Maccabees, of very little authority, and which were never admitted into the canon by any Church. The Books of Maccabees are not read in the service of the Church of England.

MACEDONIANS. So called from Macedonius, a bishop of Constantinople, deposed from his see by a council of 360, and also Pneumatomachians, from πνεῦμα, (Spiritus,) and μάχομαι, (pugno,) from their distinctive error: a sect of heretics who arose in the fourth century, who denied the separate personality of the Holy Ghost. They were condemned by the second general council, (of Constantinople,) anno 381, and against their errors the expansion of the latter portion of the Nicene Creed was directed: “I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.”

MAGDEBURG CENTURIES. (See Centuries.)

MAGISTRAL. An officer in cathedral and collegiate churches and royal chapels in Spain, generally a canon, whose duty it was to preach a certain course of sermons. He was so called, as it was necessary for him to be a master (or, as we should call it, bachelor) in theology. This was a prebenda de oppositione, that is, it was conferred upon the successful candidate in a public disputation so called.

MAGNIFICAT. The song of the blessed Virgin Mary, which is appointed to be said or sung in English after the first lesson at Evening Prayer, unless the 90th Psalm, called Cantate Domino, is used.

MALACHI, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament.

The author of the Lives of the Prophets, and the Alexandrian Chronicle, say, that Malachi was of the tribe of Zebulun, and a native of Sapha, and that the name of Malachi was given him because of his angelical mildness; which made Origen and Tertullian believe, that he was an “angel incarnate.” He is called an “angel” by most of the Fathers, and in the version of the Septuagint. Some think that Malachi is no other than Ezra, or Esdras, and this is the opinion of the ancient Hebrews, of the Chaldee Paraphrast, and of St. Jerome.

Malachi is the last of the twelve lesser prophets. He prophesied about three hundred years before Christ, reproving the Jews for their wickedness after their return from Babylon, charging them with rebellion, sacrilege, adultery, profaneness, and infidelity, and condemning the priests for being careless and scandalous in their ministry. At the same time, he forgets not to encourage the “pious remnant,” who, in that corrupt age, “feared the Lord, and thought upon his name.”

This prophet distinctly points at the Messiah, who was “suddenly to come to his temple,” and to be introduced by Elijah the prophet, that is, by John the Baptist, who came “in the spirit and power of Elias,” or Elijah.

The Jews pretend that, in the time of Darius, son of Hystaspis, there was held a general assembly of the heads of their nation, to settle the canon of their Scriptures; that Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi presided in this council, and that Esdras was their secretary. But it is certain Daniel did not live at that time. They add, that in the last year of Darius, died the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and with them ceased the spirit of prophecy among the Israelites; and that this was the sealing up of vision and prophecy, spoken of by Daniel.

The death of the prophet Malachi is placed, in the Roman martyrology, on the 14th of January.

MANASSES, PRAYER OF. One of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, which is rejected as spurious even by the Church of Rome; and though in the list of the apocryphal books contained in the sixth Article, is not read in the service of the Church of England. It cannot be traced to a higher source than the Vulgate version; and is evidently not the prayer of King Munasseh, mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18, 19, as it never was extant in the Hebrew.—Horne’s Introd.

MANICHEANS. Christian heretics, who took their name from one Manes. The ancients do not well agree as to the time of this heretic’s first appearance. But Spanheim says, it was in the time of Probus, a little before Diocletian, and that his heresy was a compound of the Pythagorean, Gnostic, and Marcionite opinions. According to the accounts given by the Greeks, (from whom, however, the Oriental writers differ considerably,) one Terebinthus, disciple to Scythianus, a magician, finding that in Persia, whither he was forced to retire out of Palestine, the priests and learned men of the country did strongly oppose his errors and designs, retired into a widow’s house, where (it is said) he was killed, either by angels or by demons, as he was engaged in incantations. This woman, being heiress to the money and books of Terebinthus, bought a slave named Cubricus, whom she afterwards adopted, and caused to be instructed in all the sciences of Persia. This man, after the woman’s death, changed his name, to obliterate the memory of his first condition, and assumed that of Manes. He pretended to be the apostle of Christ, and that he was the Comforter our Saviour promised to send. He promised the king of Persia that he would cure his son; whereupon the father sent away all the physicians, and the patient died soon after: whereupon Manes was imprisoned, but made his escape; but being soon apprehended again, was flayed alive, and his carcass thrown to the wild beasts.

Manes held that there were two principles, the one good, from whence proceeded the good soul of man, and the other bad, from whence proceeded the evil soul, and likewise the body with all corporeal creatures. He taught his disciples to profess a great severity of life, notwithstanding which they were able to wallow in all impurity, and he forbade to give alms to any that were not of his own sect. He attributed the motions of concupiscence to the evil soul; he gave out that the souls of his followers went through the elements to the moon, and afterwards to the sun, to be purified, and then to God, in whom they did rejoin; and those of other men, he alleged, went to hell, to be sent into other bodies. He alleged, that Christ had his residence in the sun; the Holy Ghost in the air; wisdom in the moon; and the Father in the abyss of light: he denied the resurrection, and condemned marriage; he held Pythagoras’s transmigration of souls; that Christ had no real body; that he was neither dead nor risen, and that he was the Serpent that tempted Eve. He forbade the use of eggs, cheese, milk, and wine, as creatures proceeding from a bad principle; he used a form of baptism different from that of the Church. He taught that magistrates were not to be obeyed, and condemned the most lawful wars. It were next to impossible to recount all the impious and damnable tenets of this heresiarch, insomuch that Leo the Great said of him, that the devil reigned in all other heresies, but he had built a fortress and raised his throne in that of the Manicheans, who embraced all the errors and impieties that the spirit of man was capable of; for whatever profanation was in Paganism, carnal blindness in Judaism, unlawful curiosity in magic, or sacrilegious in other heresies, did all centre in that of the Manicheans.

The Manicheans were divided into hearers and the elect: of the elect, twelve were called masters, in imitation of the twelve apostles; and there was a thirteenth, who was a kind of pope amongst them. Authors charge them with ascribing a body to God, and alleging that he was substantially in everything, though never so base as mire, dirt, &c., but was separated from them by the coming of Christ, and by the Manicheans eating the fruits of the earth. They likewise maintained, that there had been a great combat between the princes of darkness and light, wherein they who held for God were taken prisoners, and that he laboured still for their redemption. Moreover, he held that the sun and the moon were ships, that the soul of a man and of a tree were of the same substance, and both of them a part of God; that sin was a substance, and not a quality or affection, and therefore natural, and that acquired by the fall; he likewise held a fatality, and denied free-will. The emperors, in the fourth century, made laws against these heretics, who renewed their opinions in Africa, Gaul, and Rome, where a council was held against them.—But Manicheism continued to exist among the heretics of the middle ages.—See Burton. Augusti.

MANIPLE, or MANUPLE. Originally a narrow strip of linen suspended from the left arm of the priest, and used to wipe away the perspiration from the face: gradually it received embellishments, it was bordered by a fringe, and decorated with needle-work. It is not improbable that its use might be to clean the sacred vessels, as has been supposed by some, for in the eleventh century it was given to the subdeacons as the badge of their order. It is distinguished from the epigonaton by being worn on the left side. The maniple is not retained among the ecclesiastical vestments of the Church of England.

MANSE. Mansio. The ancient name (as appears from old records) for an ecclesiastical residence, whether parochial or collegiate. In Scotland it was peculiarly appropriated to parsonage houses; and now designates the residences of the ministers of the Presbyterian establishment. It was anciently applied also to the prebendal houses there.—See M’Ure’s History of Glasgow.

MANSIONARIES. The permanently resident canons in some Italian cathedrals: in others of the same country the term was applied to certain of the inferior clergy.

MANUDUCTOR, (Lat.,) in the ancient Christian Church, was an officer, who, from the middle of the choir, where he was placed, gave the signal to the choristers to sing, marked the measure, beat the time, and regulated the music. He was so called, because he led or guided the choir by the motions and gesture of the hand.

The Greeks called the same kind of officer Mesochoros, because he was seated in the middle of the choir.

MARANATHA. On this word, which is added by St. Paul to the word Anathema, in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, Bingham, who has collected the authorities of the Fathers, tells us that St. Chrysostom says it is a Hebrew word, signifying The Lord is come: and he particularly applies it to the confusion of those who still abused the privileges of the gospel, notwithstanding that the Lord was come among them. “This word,” says he, “speaks terror to those who make their members the members of an harlot, who offend their brethren by eating things offered to idols, who name themselves by the names of men, who deny the resurrection. The Lord of all is come down among us; and yet ye continue the same men ye were before, and persevere in your sins.” St. Jerome says, it was more a Syriac than a Hebrew word, though it had something in it of both languages, signifying Our Lord is come. But he applies it against the perverseness of the Jews, and others who denied the coming of Christ: making this the sense of the apostle, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, the Lord is come; wherefore it is superfluous for any to contend with pertinacious hatred against him, of the truth of whose coming there is such apparent demonstration.” The same sense is given by Theodoret, by Hilary the deacon, and Pelagius, whose writings have passed under the names of St. Ambrose and St. Jerome respectively. And it is received by Estius and Dr. Lightfoot as the truest interpretation. So that, according to this sense, Maranatha could not be any part of the form of excommunication, but only a reason for pronouncing Anathema against those who expressed their hatred against Christ, by denying his coming; either in words, as the Jews did, who blasphemed Christ, and called Jesus Anathema or accursed; or else by wicked works, as those who lived profanely under the name of Christian. But Parkhurst is rather inclined to derive it from the Hebrew, miharem atha, signifying cursed art thou; the m being changed into n, as was frequent among Hellenizing Jews.

MARCIONITES. Heretics of the second century, so called from Marcion. He was born at Sinope, in Paphlagonia or Helenopontus, on the coast of the Pontus Euxinus, or Black Sea, and for that reason is sometimes called Ponticus. He studied the Stoic philosophy in his younger years, and was a lover of solitude and poverty; but being convicted of uncleanness with a virgin, he was, by his father, who was a bishop, expelled from the Church. After this he went to Rome, where being not admitted into Church communion, because his father had not consented to it, he in spite embraced Cerdon’s heresy, and became the author of new heresies, about A. D. 134. He held with Cerdon two gods, the one good, the other bad: the latter, he said, was the author of the world, and of the law; but the good, he said, was the author of the gospel and redeemer of the world. He said that Christ was sent on purpose to abolish the law, as being bad. Origen affirms, that he supposed there was a God of the Jews, a God of the Christians, and a God of the Gentiles. Tertullian wrote against him, and, more curiously than anybody else, observes the rest of his opinions, as that he denied the resurrection of the body, condemned marriage, excluding married people from salvation, whom he would not baptize, though he allowed of three sorts, and that the living were sometimes baptized for the dead. In his sect, the women commonly administered the sacraments. Rhodon, a Greek author, quoted by Eusebius, says, the disciples of this heresiarch added many other errors to his tenets; that the heresiarch meeting Polycarp in the streets of Rome, asked him whether he knew him. “Very well,” answered the good bishop, “I know you very well to be the first-born of Satan.” Constantine the Great published an edict against the Marcionites and the other heretics, in 366; and Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, converted 10,000 of them in 420.

MARIOLATRY. (See Angels, Idolatry, Popery, Virgin Mary, Mother of God.) The worship of the Virgin Mary: one of the sins of the Church of Rome, for defending which her theologians are guilty of heresy. The fact of the Romanists praying to the Virgin Mary is not denied. Their manner of doing so, not merely seeking her intercession, but actually addressing her in terms which sound very like blasphemy to those whose religion is catholic and Scriptural, may be seen from the following extracts made from the Psalter of Bonaventure.

Extract from the “Crown of the Blessed Virgin:”[8]

“O thou, our governor, and most benignant Lady, in right of being his mother, command your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, that he deign to raise our minds from longing after earthly things to the contemplation of heavenly things.”

Extract from a serious parody on the To Deum, by the same writer:

“We praise thee, Mother of God; we acknowledge thee to be a virgin. All the earth doth worship thee, the spouse of the eternal Father. All the angels and archangels, all thrones and powers, do faithfully serve thee. To thee all angels cry aloud, with a never-ceasing voice. Holy, holy, holy, Mary, mother of God.... The whole court of heaven doth honour thee as queen. The holy Church throughout all the world doth invoke and praise thee, the mother of Divine majesty.... Thou sittest with thy Son on the right hand of the Father.... In thee, sweet Mary, is our hope; defend us for evermore. Praise becometh thee; empire becometh thee; virtue and glory be unto thee for ever and ever.”

Extract from a parody on the Athanasian Creed, by the same writer:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the right faith concerning Mary; which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.... He (Jesus Christ) sent the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, and upon his mother, and at last took her up into heaven, where she sitteth on the right hand of her Son, and never ceaseth to make intercession with him for us.

“This is the faith concerning the Virgin Mary, which, except every one do believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Extract from a work by Alphonso Liguori, called “The Glories of Mary:”[9]

“During the pontificate of Gregory the Great, the people of Rome experienced in a most striking manner the protection of the Blessed Virgin. A frightful pestilence raged in the city to such an extent, that thousands were carried off, and so suddenly, that they had not time to make the least preparation. It could not be arrested by the vows and prayers which the holy pope caused to be offered in all quarters, until he resolved on having recourse to the Mother of God. Having commanded the clergy and people to go in procession to the church of our lady, called St. Mary Major, carrying the picture of the holy Virgin, painted by St. Luke, the miraculous effects of her intercession were soon experienced: in every street as they passed the plague ceased, and before the end of the procession an angel in human form was seen on the tower of Adrian, named ever since the castle of St. Angelo, sheathing a bloody sabre. At the same moment the angels were heard singing the anthem, ‘Regina Cœli,’ ‘Triumph, O Queen,’ Hallelujah. The holy pope added, ‘Ora pro nobis Deum,’ ‘Pray for us,’ &c. The Church has since used this anthem to salute the Blessed Virgin in Easter time.”—True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, p. 21.

Extract from the Encyclical Letter of Pope Gregory XVI.:

“Having at length taken possession of our see in the Lateran Basilica, according to the custom and institution of our predecessors, we turn to you without delay, venerable brethren; and in testimony of our feeling towards you, we select for the date of our letter this most joyful day, on which we celebrate the solemn festival of the most Blessed Virgin’s triumphant assumption into heaven; that she, who has been through every great calamity our patroness and protectress, may watch over us writing to you, and lead our mind by her heavenly influence to those counsels which may prove most salutary to Christ’s flock.... But that all may have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys heresies, who is our greatest hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope.”

For other quotations to the same purpose, see the very useful and learned volume “On Roman Fallacies and Catholic Truths,” by the Rev. H. T. Powell.

The adoration of the Virgin was first introduced in the fourth century, and was regarded as a heresy by the Catholic Church. It commenced in Arabia, about the year 373, and seems to have given rise to the opposite heresy, that of the Antidicomarians, who spoke irreverently of the Blessed Virgin. We learn that the simple and misguided persons who adopted this new worship, made offerings of cakes to the Virgin, from which they were called Collyridians (a word which signified the nature of the offering). There is no evidence that they separated from the Church or its worship, or refused to worship God, or regarded the Virgin as equal with God. They, however, offered external worship to the Virgin, and were, therefore, regarded as heretics. In the following century, a reaction against the Nestorian refusal of the title Theotokos (Mother of God) to the Blessed Virgin, tended greatly to pave the way for the Mariolatry of later times. (See Nestorians, Mother of God.) Our great Bishop Bull observes, “We abominate the impious imposture of those who have translated the most humble and holy Virgin into an idol of pride and vanity, and represented her as a vain-glorious and aspiring creature; like Lucifer, (I tremble at the comparison,) thirsting after Divine worship and honour, and seeking out superstitious men and women, whom she may oblige to her more especial service, and make them her perpetual votaries. For what greater affront than this could they have offered to her humility and sanctity? How fulsome, yea, how perfectly loathsome to us, are the tales of those that have had the assurance to tell us of the amorous addresses of the Blessed Virgin to certain persons, her devout worshippers; choosing them for her husbands, bestowing her kisses liberally on them, giving them her breasts to suck, and presenting them with bracelets and rings of her hair as lovetokens! The fables of the Jewish Talmudists, yea, of Mahomet, may seem grave, serious, and sober histories, compared to these and other such like impudent fictions. Insomuch that wise men have thought that the authors of these romances in religion were no better than the tools and instruments of Satan, used by him to expose the Christian religion, and render it ridiculous, and thereby to introduce atheism. And indeed we are sure, that the wits of Italy, where these abominable deceits have been and are chiefly countenanced, were the first broachers and patrons of infidelity and atheism in Europe, since the time that Christianity obtained in it.”

In a word, such is the worship given to the Blessed Virgin by many in the Church of Rome, that they deserve to be called Mariani, rather than Christiani, &c.

MARK, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the 25th of April.

St. Mark was, by birth, a Jew, and descended of the tribe of Levi. He was converted by some of the apostles, probably by St. Peter, to whom he was a constant companion in all his travels, supplying the place of an amanuensis and interpreter. He was by St. Peter sent into Egypt, fixing his chief residence at Alexandria, and the places thereabout: where he was so successful in his ministry, that he converted multitudes both of men and women. He afterwards removed westward, toward the parts of Libya, going through the countries of Marmorica, Pentapolis, and others thereabouts; where, notwithstanding the barbarity and idolatry of the inhabitants, he planted the gospel. Upon his return to Alexandria, he ordered the affairs of that Church, and there suffered martyrdom in the following manner. About Easter, at the time the solemnities of Serapis were celebrated, the idolatrous people, being excited to vindicate the honour of their deity, broke in upon St. Mark, while he was performing Divine service, and, binding him with cords, dragged him through the streets, and thrust him into prison, where in the night he had the comfort of a Divine vision. Next day, the enraged multitude used him in the same manner, till, his spirits failing, he expired under their hands. Some add, that they burnt his body, and that the Christians decently interred his bones and ashes near the place where he used to preach. This happened in the year of Christ 68.

MARK’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament. (See the preceding article.)

This evangelist wrote his Gospel at Rome, whither he accompanied St. Peter in the year of Christ 44. Tertullian, and others, pretend, that St. Mark was no more than an amanuensis to St. Peter, who dictated this Gospel to him. Others affirm that he wrote it after St. Peter’s death.

MARONITES. Certain Eastern Christians, so called, who inhabit near Mount Lebanon, in Syria. The name is derived either from a town in the country called Maronia, or from St. Maron, who built a monastery there in the fifth century.

The Maronites hold communion with the Romish Church. Pope Gregory XIII. founded a college at Rome, where their youth are educated by the Jesuits, and then sent to their own country. They formerly followed the errors of the Jacobites, Nestorians, and Monothelites; but these they renounced for the errors of the Roman Church in the time of Gregory XIII. and Clement VIII. The patriarch of the Maronites was present in the fourth Lateran Council, under Innocent III., in 1215.

The Maronites have their patriarch, archbishops, bishops, and about 150 inferior clergy, who are so oppressed by the Turks, that they are reduced to work for their living. They keep Lent according to the ancient rigour, eating but one meal a day, and that after mass, which is said at four o’clock in the afternoon. Their priests are distinguished by a blue scarf, which they wear about their caps. Married men may become priests, but none may marry after he is in orders. They wear no surplices, observe particular fasts and feasts, and differ in many other things from the Church of Rome.

The patriarch of the Maronites is a monk of St. Anthony, claims the title of patriarch of Antioch, and is always called Peter. He has about nine bishops under him, and resides at Edem Canobin, a monastery built on a rock. They read their service both in the vulgar language and in Latin, and, while they perform it, turn their heads sometimes on one side, and sometimes on the other, pronouncing the word Num or Eynam softly, which signifies yes or yes verily, by which they express their assent to what they read. They have so great a veneration for their bishops, that they often prostrate themselves before them.

As to the particular tenets of the Maronites, before their adhesion to the Church of Rome, it is said, they denied the procession of the Holy Ghost, observed Saturday as well as the Lord’s day, condemned fourth marriages as unlawful; held that all souls were created together, and that those of good men do not enter into heaven till after the resurrection; that they administered the eucharist to children, and communicated in both kinds.

In 1180, the Maronites were above 40,000 in number, and very valiant. They did the kings of Jerusalem great service against the Saracens.

Besides several convents of Maronite monks, there is one of nuns, who are highly esteemed for their sanctity. This edifice is no more than a church, in which the nuns are shut up close, like pigeons in their holes, in little corners or cells, which are so low, that few of them can stand upright, or turn themselves round in them.

MARRIAGE. (See Matrimony.)

MARTINMAS. A festival formerly kept on the 11th of November, in honour of St. Martin, bishop of Tours, in France, who, after distinguishing himself by destroying the heathen altars and images remaining in his day, died in the year 400, having been bishop about twenty-six years.

MARTYR. One who lays down his life, or suffers death, for the sake of religion. The word is Greek, and properly signifies a “witness.” It is applied, by way of eminence, to those who suffer in witness of the truth of the gospel.

The Christian Church has abounded with martyrs, and history is filled with surprising accounts of their singular constancy and fortitude under the most cruel torments human nature was capable of suffering. The primitive Christians were falsely accused by their enemies of paying a sort of Divine worship to martyrs. Of this we have an instance in the answer of the Church of Smyrna to the suggestion of the Jews, who, at the martyrdom of Polycarp, desired the heathen judge not to suffer the Christians to carry off his body, lest they should leave their crucified master, and worship him in his stead. To which they answered, “We can neither forsake Christ, nor worship any other: for we worship him as the Son of God, but love the martyrs as the disciples and followers of the Lord, for the great affection they have shown to their King and Master.” A like answer was given at the martyrdom of Fructuosus, in Spain; for when the judge asked Eulogius, his deacon, whether he would not worship Fructuosus, as thinking that, though he refused to worship heathen idols, he might yet be inclined to worship a Christian martyr, Eulogius replied, “I do not worship Fructuosus, but him whom Fructuosus worships.”

The first martyr in the Christian Church was St. Stephen. His memory is celebrated on the day which bears his name. In the collect for that day, he is expressly named the “first Martyr St. Stephen,” and we are there taught to pray God, that we may “learn to love and bless our persecutors, by following this blessed martyr’s example.” The Church loves to dwell on the memory of those who have yielded up even their lives in a faithful attachment to their Redeemer, and who, from the midst of the fires, could rejoice in God, and trust in his grace. In that beautiful hymn, the Te Deum, their memory is celebrated in the words,—“The noble army of martyrs praise thee.” And well may they be counted “an army,” whether we consider their numbers or their valour; and a “noble army,” because, as true soldiers of Christ, these have fought against sin with their lives in their hands, and, in the apostolic phrase, “have resisted unto blood.”

The Church of England can boast of the only royal martyr. Our glorious martyr, King Charles I., having been dethroned by the Presbyterians, was murdered by the Independents.—Broughton.

MARTYRDOM. The death of a martyr.

The same name is sometimes given to a church erected over the spot where a martyr has suffered.

MARTYROLOGY, in the Church of Rome, is a catalogue or list of martyrs, including the history of their lives and sufferings for the sake of religion.

The Martyrologies draw their materials from the calendars of particular churches, in which the several festivals, dedicated to them, are marked. They seem to be derived from the practice of the ancient Romans, who inserted the names of heroes and great men in their Fasti, or public registers.

The Martyrologies are very numerous. Those ascribed to Eusebius and St. Jerome are reckoned spurious. Bede is the first who, in the eighth century, composed two Martyrologies, one in prose, and the other in verse. Florus, the deacon of Lyons, in the ninth century, enlarged Bede’s “Martyrology,” and put it almost in the condition it is at present. Valdelbertus, a monk of the diocese of Treves, in the same century, wrote a martyrology in verse, extracted from Bede and Florus, and now extant in Ducherius’s Spicilegium. About the same time, Rabanus Maurus, archbishop of Mentz, drew up a martyrology, published by Canisius, in his Antiquæ Lectiones. After these, Ado, archbishop of Vienne, compiled a new Martyrology, while he was travelling in Italy, where, in a journey from Rome to Ravenna, A. D. 857, he saw a manuscript of an ancient martyrology, which had been brought thither from Aquileia.

In the year 870, Usuardus, a monk of St. Germain des Près, drew up a much larger and more correct martyrology than those above mentioned. This performance was well received, and began to be made use of in the offices of the Western Church. About the beginning of the next century, Notkerus, a monk of Switzerland, drew up another martyrology from Ado’s materials. This martyrology, published by Canisius, had not the same success with that of Usuardus. The churches and monasteries, which used this last, made a great many additions and alterations in it. This gave rise to a vast number of different martyrologies during the six following centuries.

The moderns, at last, desirous to rectify the errors and defects of the old martyrologies, compiled new ones. Augustinus Belinus, of Padua, began this reform in the fifteenth century. After him, Francis Maruli or Maurolycus, abbot of Messina, in Sicily, drew up a martyrology, in which he has entirely changed Usuardus’s text. John Vander Meulen, known by the name of Molanus, a doctor of Louvain, restored it, with alterations and very learned notes. About the same time, Galesinus, apostolic prothonotary, drew up a martyrology, and dedicated it to Gregory XIII.; but this was not approved at Rome. Baronius’s “Martyrology,” written some time after, with notes, was better received, being approved by Pope Sixtus Quintus, and has since passed for the modern martyrology of the Roman Church. It has been several times corrected, and was translated into French by the Abbot Chatlain, canon of Notre Dame at Paris, with notes, in the year 1709.

There are very ridiculous and even contradictory narratives, in these several martyrologies; which is easily accounted for, if we consider how many forged and spurious accounts of the lives of saints and martyrs, from whence the martyrologies were compiled, appeared in the first ages of the Church; and which the legendary writers of those times adopted without examining into the truth of them. Those of later ages, who have written the lives of saints and martyrs, either through prepossession, or want of courage to contradict received opinions, have made use of a great part of this fabulous stuff, and passed it off for genuine history. However, some good critics of late years have gone a great way towards clearing the lives of the saints and martyrs from the monstrous heap of fiction they laboured under. Of this number are M. de Launoy, of Paris, M. Baillot, in his “Lives of the Saints,” M. le Nain de Tillemont, and others.—Broughton.

MARY. (See Virgin Mary and Mariolatry.)

MASORA. A term in Jewish theology, signifying tradition. It includes notes of all the variations of words, letters, and points which occur in the Hebrew Scriptures; an enumeration of all the letters, &c.; in short, the minutest points of verbal criticism, and pretends to an immaculate accuracy. The authors of it are unknown. Some attribute it to Moses; others to Ezra; others to the Masorites of Tiberias. The probability is, according to Bishop Walton, that the Masora was begun about the time of the Maccabees, and was continued for many ages.—See Bishop Walton’s Prolegomena to his Polyglott Bible.

MASORITES. A society of learned Jews, who had a school or college at Tiberias. They paid great attention to the critical study of the Hebrew Scriptures; and to them by many able scholars, as Walton, Capellus, &c., is attributed the invention of the vowel points now used for the guidance of the pronunciation in reading Hebrew.

MASS. In Latin, Missa. This word at first imported nothing more than the dismissal of a Church assembly. By degrees it came to be used for an assembly and for Church service; and from signifying Church service in general, it came at length to denote the Communion Service in particular, and so that most emphatically came to be called Mass. Since the Reformation, the word has been generally confined to express the form of celebrating the holy communion in the Romish Church. But in the First Book of King Edward VI., the Communion Service is thus headed: “The Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass.”

Formerly there was the missa catechumenorum and the missa fidelium, not because they had two kinds of communion, but because the primitive Christians dismissed their congregations at different times, first sending away the heathens and heretics, then the catechumens and public penitents, after having prayed; the faithful alone being suffered to remain during the celebration of the holy communion. The practice of the modern Romish Church contrasts strikingly with this: they not only allow catechumens to be present at their missa fidelium, but also heretics and unbelievers, and make a profit by the exhibition: in this again the English Church more nearly resembles the primitive Church, retaining her sensitive seclusion during the solemn service.

The mass, almost universally adopted in the churches of the Roman obedience, is contained in the Roman Missal, and a description of this will be now presented to the reader. Unless in very particular circumstances, such as times of persecution, &c., mass is not said anywhere but in a church, or place set aside for public worship. It can be said only from morning dawn till mid-day, at least in ordinary cases, as at Christmas, &c. The priest who says it must be fasting from the midnight before, “out of respect for the victim of which he is to partake;” and, in general, no priest can say more than one mass on one day. When the priest officiates, he is attired in sacred vestments, which are understood “to represent those with which Christ was clothed in the course of his bitter passion;” and also to be the emblems of those virtues with which the soul of a priest ought to be adorned. These garments are intended to hide the littleness of man; to make him forget himself while clothed in the robes of a superior character; to gain the respect of the people, who no longer consider on that occasion what he is, as a man, but lose sight of the individual, who is lost in the character of Jesus Christ, which he represents. Mass is never said except on an altar, fixed or portable, set aside for that particular purpose by the solemn prayer and benediction of a bishop. The altar is always covered with linen cloths, and generally contains relics of saints. As the mass is commemorative of our Saviour’s passion and death upon the cross; to put the priest and people in mind of these, there is always an image of Christ crucified upon the altar. There are also two or more lighted candles, as tokens of joy, “and to denote the light of faith.” In solemn masses incense is used, as an emblem of prayer ascending to God, as the smoke ascends from the censer. Incense is also used as a token of honour to the thing incensed. Masses are divided into solemn or high mass, and plain or low mass; mass sung, or said; public mass, or private mass. A solemn mass, is mass offered up with all the due solemnities, by the bishop or priest, attended by a deacon, subdeacon, and other ministers, each officiating in his part. Such a mass is always sung; and hence a choir of singers accompanies it, with an organ, if possible; and, at times, other instrumental music. Mass, when divested of all these solemnities, and in which only the priest officiates, is a plain or low mass. The priest, however, may either sing the mass, attended by the choir, or say it. Hence the difference between mass sung and said. Mass may be attended by a crowd of people, or it may be said with few or none present, except the clerk, to attend the officiating priest. When the mass is numerously attended, all, or many, of those present may partake of the sacrifice, by communion, or none may communicate with the priest. These differences make the mass public or private, and it is admitted that private masses have become more common in latter ages. The priest who is to celebrate, after some time previously spent in prayer and meditation, by way of preparation for the solemn mystery, as well to recollect his thoughts, as to specify the intention with which he offers up the mass, whether it be for any individual, living or dead, for the whole Church, for himself, or for the necessities of the congregation present, proceeds, with the deacon, subdeacon, and other ministers, to put on the sacred vestment. He then goes in procession with them from the vestry to the altar, the acolytes carrying incense and lights, while the choir sing the anthem and psalm, which, for this reason, is called the introit. The priest, being come before the altar, stops at the foot of it, bows, confesses generally to the Almighty God, and to all the saints, that he has sinned most grievously, and that in every way, both by thoughts, words, and deeds, and through his own most grievous fault. This being the case, he begs all the saints of heaven, whom he has called as the witnesses of his sins, to be also intercessors for his pardon, and to pray to the Lord our God for him. The minister and assistants then, in like manner, on behalf of the people, repeat the same confession after the priest, acknowledging that they are altogether an assembly of sinners, who have come to implore the Divine mercy, because they stand in need of it. This confession is to beg of God pardon for daily and unknown faults, that the awful mystery may be celebrated with all imaginable purity. For the same reason Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, are several times repeated; being addressed three times to God the Father, as our creator, as our protector, and as our parent: thrice to God the Son, as our high priest, as our victim of atonement, and as our brother; and, lastly, to the Holy Ghost, as the author of grace, the inspirer of prayer, and the sanctifier of our souls. This being finished, the priest, without moving from his place, begins the Gloria in excelsis, which is called the Hymn of the Angels, because the first words of it were sung by the angels at our Saviour’s birth. As this is a canticle of joy and gladness, the Church, when in mourning, in Lent, in Advent, and in masses for the dead, forbids the use of this hymn, even in the time of mass, because the minds of the congregation should then be wholly occupied with affections of grief, melancholy, or sorrow, for our Saviour’s passion, for our own sins, or the sufferings of the souls for whom she is praying. The Gloria being ended, the priest, kissing the altar, and turning towards the people with extended arms, salutes them in these words: “Dominus vobiscum,” “The Lord be with you.” The people answer, by applying the same earnest wish to him, saying, “And with thy spirit.” The arms are extended, and then closed, to express, by that gesture, the affection with which he embraces his flock. The priest then goes up to the altar; bows down in the posture of humiliation; kisses it with respect; makes mention of the saint whose relics are there; incenses it; and having saluted the people, immediately turns to the book, and reads the prayer of the day. On great festivals there is only one prayer, which has always reference to the solemnity then celebrating. Thus, at Easter, allusion is made to the resurrection of our Saviour; at Christmas, to his nativity; in masses for the dead, mention is made of the souls prayed for; and on the feasts of saints, we commemorate the particular virtues for which they were each distinguished. In Lent, and penitentiary times, there are other prayers beside that of the day, still bearing some allusion to the circumstances of the times. The subdeacon then sings (or, in low masses, the priest himself reads) a lesson of the Old or New Testament, called the Epistle, because commonly taken from the Epistles of St. Paul, or of the other apostles. This is followed by the singing of Alleluias, or some verses of the Psalms, called the Gradual or Tract.

In Lent, and penitential times, instead of these expressions of joy, strains of the deepest compunction and regret only are used. These being concluded, the book is removed to the other side of the altar, when all the people rise up, to show, by their postures of standing, their eagerness to hear the gospel; the priest also, as he passes from one side of the altar to the other, bows down in the middle, and the deacon prays on his knees that God would make him worthy to announce the gospel; and, after having received the priest’s blessing, proceeds to the place appointed for the solemn recitation of it accompanied by the acolytes, with lights and incense. As soon as the book of the Gospel appears, all rise up, and continue standing while it is read, to show their readiness to perform what is there taught. In naming the evangelist from which the Gospel is taken, the reader signs the cross upon his forehead, his mouth, and his breast. On his forehead, to show that he is not ashamed of Christ’s doctrine; on his mouth, to show his readiness to proclaim it to others; and on his breast, to show that he entertains a sincere affection for it in his heart. When the Gospel is finished, the book is conveyed to the priest, who kisses it as a token of respect. After the Gospel, follows the Nicene Creed, which is immediately recited at the altar, while it is sung by the choir; it is omitted on some days, particularly in masses for the dead. In low masses, the priest himself reads the Gospel. At this part of the mass, in parish churches, and sometimes in other places, a discourse, or exhortation, drawn from the Gospel, is delivered to the people. Here ends the first part of the mass.

The second part commences by the priest, from the altar, again saluting the people, and then making an oblation to God, of bread and wine, which are the matters of the sacrifice. The wine is first mixed with a little water, to represent the water which flowed, with blood, from the side of Christ,—to signify the union of the Divine and human nature in him, and of the faithful with Jesus Christ. Being now about to bless these offerings, the priest bows down his head, in a spirit of humility, then lifts up his hands to heaven, whence every blessing must come, and makes the sign of the cross upon the offerings, and says, “Come, thou Sanctifier, and bless this sacrifice, which is prepared for thy holy name.” The priest, in high masses, then incenses the oblation. After this he proceeds to receive the offerings of the people, where the custom of receiving offerings from them prevails: the priest then proceeds to wash his hands, begging of God the necessary purity. In this ceremony, the priest only washes the tips of his fingers, not his whole hands, to signify, that the purity with which he ought to approach the altar should be not only from larger and mortal sins, but even from the most trivial offences or affections to sin, which are properly enough represented by the extremities of the fingers; then, turning about, the priest recommends himself to the prayers of the people. This is the last time that the priest turns to the people, till the sacrifice is accomplished, and the communion received. The reason of this is, that he is now entering upon the most solemn part of the mass, which requires his utmost attention, which must not, henceforward, be distracted by turning away from the object; nor does the priest turn his back towards the altar, during the presence of the sacrament upon it, lest he might appear to act irreverently. After this follows the Secret, being one or more prayers, always said in silence, corresponding to the collect of the day, and which immediately precedes the preface, by which the second part of the mass ends, and the third begins. At this time is also rung a little bell, to give notice to all the people, that the priest is now reciting the Holy Canticle. It is usual also for the people, at this part of the mass, to bow down their heads and their breasts. With hearts thus prepared, and minds raised above earthly things, the priest, the ministers, and people, proceed to attend to the most awful part of the mass, in the Canon or rule for consecrating the eucharist, which is never materially changed, whatever be the office. It is said by the priest in a low voice, to express the silence of Christ in his passion, and that all may be impressed with reverence and awe for the sacred mysteries. It consists of five prayers. In the first, the priest prays for all the Church; and by name, for the pope, and the bishop of the diocese; for those whom he desires particularly to recommend, for all the assistants, their families, &c. He makes mention of the Blessed Virgin, the apostles, and some martyrs, in order to express the union between the Church militant and triumphant, and to obtain the assistance of their prayers. Then he stretches his hands over the oblation, begging that it may become acceptable to God, by becoming the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The third prayer contains the history of the institution and the consecration of the elements, by the priest’s pronouncing the words of Jesus Christ himself. We have already seen that the essence of the sacrifice is contained in the consecration. As soon as the words of the consecration are pronounced, the priest kneels down to adore Jesus Christ present; and immediately elevates first the host, and then the chalice, in memory of Christ’s being raised upon the cross, and that the people also may adore him. Having laid these down on the altar, the priest kneels again, and bows his head in a second act of adoration. During this ceremony, the server tinkles a little bell, to awaken the attention of the congregation. In the mean time, the people also bow down their heads, being already upon their knees, and strike their breasts. He then continues the third prayer, making a commemoration of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, and beseeching God that he would vouchsafe to receive the sacrifice favourably, as he did those of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech, which were figures of it; and that those who partake of it may be replenished with every heavenly blessing. The attitude of the priest is changed when he comes to this part. Hitherto he has recited the prayers of the canon in an erect posture, with his hands mostly lifted up to heaven; but now he joins his hands before his breast, and bows down his head to the lowest degree that the altar will admit. In this posture of prostrate humility, he recites the prayer, till, towards the conclusion, he kisses the altar, and resumes his former upright posture. In the fourth prayer, the priest recommends to God the faithful departed in general, and those in particular for whom he intends to pray. “Be mindful, O Lord, of thy servants, men and women, who are gone before us in the sign of faith, and have rested in the sleep of peace.” Having said these words, the priest, joining his hands before his breast, prays a few moments for them, and mentions any names of persons for whom he particularly wishes to pray, or offer up the mass. Then, extending his hands again, he concludes his prayer in these words: “To these, O Lord, and to all the rest in Christ, grant, we beseech thee, a place of refreshment, light, and peace.” In the fifth, he mentions several saints, and beating his breast, begs that we sinners may have some part of their glory, through the mercy of God. In fine, he lifts the host over the chalice, honouring the Blessed Trinity, acknowledging the Divine goodness to us through Jesus Christ, and, through him, offering it all honour and glory. During the elevation, all the ministers kneel in profound adoration, and either themselves hold tapers, or others are introduced bearing lighted torches. Thus finishes the third part of the mass.

The fourth part begins by the priest’s breaking the long silence he has observed since the preface, by chanting, or reciting aloud, the Lord’s Prayer, which is followed up by a prayer for deliverance from evil, and for peace in our days. At the conclusion of this prayer, the priest kneels down to adore the Blessed Sacrament; he then breaks the host into three pieces, to imitate that done by Jesus Christ himself, at the last supper, and in remembrance of his body being broken on the cross: one of the parts he drops into the chalice, to signify that the body and blood of Christ are but one sacrament: he then once more begs for peace, concord, and charity, in order to approach the spotless Lamb. For a token of this peace, in solemn masses, the clergy embrace each other. After this follow three prayers, by way of preparation for receiving Jesus Christ. The priest, after striking his breast, and declaring himself unworthy, proceeds to communicate himself, in both kinds, in order to consume the sacrifice, and then administers the communion, in the species of bread, to such of the assistants as may be disposed to partake of the sacrifice. The prayer used by the priest is repeated three times, and at each repetition the little bell tinkles, to excite the attention of the congregation; and as a signal to the laity, who intend to communicate, to approach the sacred table. Having made the sign of the cross, the priest immediately receives the communion, and, with his hands joined before him, stands for a little while in deep but silent meditation upon what he has done. The priest then proceeds, by an ablution, first of wine, and then of water, to remove from the chalice and his own fingers all remains of the consecrated elements. The mass concludes with a versical thanksgiving out of the Scriptures, and some prayers for the same purpose, some of them bearing a reference to the office of the day, and analogous to the collect; after which the priest, or deacon in high masses, gives the people leave to depart. The priest gives them his blessing previous to their departure, and reads the first part of St. John’s Gospel, which bears such ample testimony to the Divinity and incarnation of the Son of God, as well as his goodness in regard to man. This constitutes the chief part, if not the whole, of the morning service of the Church: and, in all this, the congregation in general appear to be little interested or concerned; for though they are “taught to assist at mass, with the same disposition that a good Christian would have cherished at the foot of the cross,” they are left at liberty to accompany the priest through the different parts, according to the directions contained in their manuals, or “to exercise their souls in other corresponding prayers;” and the consequence is, that many, it is too apparent, do neither the one nor the other. And though the mass is thus celebrated, at least every Lord’s day, the present discipline of the Church requires her members to communicate only once a year; and while comparatively few receive much oftener, many, it is feared, are not even annual communicants. They are, indeed, instructed, “when they do not communicate in reality, to do so in spirit, by fervent desires of being made worthy to partake of the sacred mysteries, acknowledging their own unworthiness, and begging of God a share of those graces, which the sacrifice and sacrament so plentifully contain.”

In Picart’s “Religious Ceremonies” we have the following explanation of the mass, and its attendant mystical ceremonies, which is offered to the reader as an example of the awful departure of the apostate Church from the spirituality and simplicity of the Christian faith and worship.

1. The priest goes to the altar in reference to our Lord’s retreat with his apostles to the garden of Olives. 2. Before he begins mass, he says a preparatory prayer; he is there to look upon himself as one abandoned of God, and driven out of paradise for the sin of Adam. 3. The priest makes confession for himself and for the people, in which it is required that he be free from mortal and venial sin. 4. The priest kisses the altar, as a token of our reconciliation with God, and our Lord’s being betrayed with a kiss. 5. The priest goes to the opposite side of the altar, and thurifies or perfumes it with incense. Jesus Christ is now supposed to be taken and bound! 6. The introit is said or sung, applicable to the circumstances of our Lord’s being taken before Caiaphas. 7. The priest says the “Kyrie eleison,” (“Lord, have mercy upon us,”) in allusion to Peter’s denying our Lord thrice. 8. The priest, turning towards the altar, says, “Dominus vobiscum,” the people returning the salutation by “Et cum spiritu tuo,” and this means, Christ looking at Peter. 9. The priest reads the Epistle relative to Jesus being accused before Pilate. 10. The priest, bowing before the altar, says “Munda cor,” and the devotion is directed to our Saviour’s being brought before Pilate, and making no reply. 11. The priest reads the Gospel in which Jesus Christ is sent from Herod to Pilate; the Gospel is carried from the right of the altar to the left, to denote the tender of the gospel to the Gentiles, after the refusal of the Jews. 12. The priest uncovers the chalice, and this means the stripping of our Lord in order to be scourged. 13. The oblation of the host; the priest then kisses the altar and offers up the host, to represent the scourging of Christ. 14. The priest elevates the chalice and then covers; this means the crowning with thorns. 15. The priest washes his fingers, as Pilate washed his hands; declares Jesus innocent, blesses the bread and wine, blesses the frankincense, and perfumes the bread and wine.

Can it be necessary to go further into this singular detail to say, “that the priest, spreading out his arms on the altar, is the representation of the cross; that he lifts the host, to express the lifting of our Lord; that he adores (for such is the word, and the inconceivable fact) the wafer that he holds in his fingers as the very God; that he then mingles another adoration with this, and prays to the Virgin Mary and the saints for their mediation; that he breaks the wafer, to represent Christ’s giving up the ghost; that a fragment of this wafer put into the chalice figures our Lord’s descent into hell;” till the series of these representations, amounting in the whole to thirty-five, is closed by a benediction representing the blessings of the descent of the Holy Ghost.—O’Donoghue.

MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE. The following is the Romish doctrine on the subject: “I profess likewise, that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead: and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood; which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also confess, that, under either kind alone, Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.”—Pius’s Creed. “Whosoever shall say, that, in the holy sacrament of the eucharist, the substance of bread and wine remains together with the substance of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine still remaining, which change the Catholic Church very fitly calls transubstantiation, let him be accursed.”—Con. Trid. Sess. XIII. Can. 2.

It is, moreover, decreed, “that, after the consecration of the bread and wine, the true God and man is truly, really, and substantially contained under the appearance of the sensible elements.”—Id. c. 1. So that “the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, after consecration, not only the sacrament, but also the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and are, sensually, not only in sacrament, but in truth, handled and broken by the hands of the priests, and bruised by the teeth of the faithful.”—Con. Rom. apud Pop. Nichol. I. And the Fathers of the second Nicene Council pronounced, “that the eucharist is not the mere image of Christ’s body and blood, but that it is Christ’s body and blood, their own literal and proper physical selves.”—Labbe, Con. vol. vii. p. 448. “Nor in this is there any repugnance; that Christ, according to his natural manner of existence, should always remain in heaven, at the right hand of his Father; and that, at the same time, he should be present with us, in many places, really but sacramentally.”—Con. Trid. XIII. c. 1. And “if any one says, that a true and proper sacrifice is not offered up to God at the mass, or that to be offered is anything else than Jesus Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema.”—Id. Sess. XXII. Can. 1. “And if any one says, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare memorial of the sacrifice which was completed upon the cross, and that it is not propitiatory, nor profitable to any but him that receives it, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and for the dead, for their sins, their punishments, their satisfactions, and their other necessities, let him be accursed.” “For the holy synod teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and that by it the sins we commit, however enormous they be, are remitted.”—Id. Can. 3. It was decreed by the Council of Constance, “that, whereas in several parts of the world, some have presumed rashly to assert, that all Christians ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under both species of bread and wine, and that, also, after supper, or not fasting, contrary to the laudable custom of the Church, justly approved of, which they damnably endeavour to reprobate as sacrilegious. Hence it is, that this holy general Council of Constance, assembled by the Holy Ghost to provide for the salvation of the faithful against this error, declares, decrees, and defines, that although Christ did after supper institute this holy sacrament, and administered it to his disciples in both kinds of bread and wine; yet this, notwithstanding the laudable authority of the sacred canons, and the approved custom of the Church, has fixed, and doth fix, that this sacrament ought not to be consecrated after supper, nor received by the faithful, except fasting. And as this custom, for the purpose of avoiding certain dangers and scandals, has been rationally introduced, and that although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the primitive Church, it was afterwards received under both kinds by the officiating priest only, and by the people under the species of bread only, it being believed most certainly, and nothing doubted, that the entire body and blood of Christ are really contained as well under the species of bread as of wine: this, therefore, being approved, is now made a law. Likewise this holy synod decrees and declares, as to this matter, to the reverend fathers in Christ, patriarchs, lords, &c., that they must effectually punish all such as shall transgress this decree, or shall exhort the people to communicate in both kinds.”—Conc. Gen. XII. 100.

“The holy synod (of Trent) following the judgment of the Church, (as pronounced at Constance,) and its usage, declares and teaches, that neither laity nor unofficiating clergy are bound, by any Divine command, to receive the sacrament of the eucharist under both species; and that it cannot be doubted, without a breach of faith, that communion in either kind suffices for them. For though Christ, at his last supper, instituted this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, and then delivered it to his apostles, yet that institution, and that delivering, do not show that all the faithful, by the command of Christ, are bound to receive both kinds.”—Sess. XXI. c. 1. “And though, in the earlier ages, the use of both kinds was not unfrequent, yet the practice, in process of time, being widely changed, the Church, for weighty and just reasons, approved the change, and pronounced it to be a law, which no one, without the authority of that Church, is allowed to reject or alter.”—Id. c. 2. “It must be acknowledged, that the whole and entire Christ, and the true sacrament, are taken under either kind; and therefore, as to the fruit, that they who thus receive are deprived of no necessary grace.”—Id. c. 3. “And if any one shall say, that all Christians ought, by God’s command, or for the sake of salvation, to receive the most holy sacrament of the eucharist in both kinds, let him be accursed.”—Id.

By the 5th Canon, c. 8, Sess. XXII., of the Council of Trent, it is expressly declared, that “we are to offer up to the honour of saints and angels the sacrifice of the mass, in order to obtain their patronage and intercession with God.”

“If any one shall deny that the body and blood of Christ is really and substantially contained, together with his very soul and Divinity, in the sacrament of the eucharist, let him be accursed.”—Conc. Trid. Sess. XIII. Can. 1. Or, “If he shall say that there yet remains any substance of the bread and wine in conjunction with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the conversion is not real and total, let him be accursed.”—Id. Can. 2. “If any man shall deny that Christ is entirely contained under either species, and in every individual portion of that species,” (Id. Can. 3,) or “that Christ is only spiritually eaten, and not really and substantially, let him be accursed.”—Id. Can. 9.

Bishop Hall’s remarks on this doctrine are as follows:—It sounds not more prodigiously that a priest should every day make his God, than that he should sacrifice him.

Antiquity would have as much abhorred the sense, as it hath allowed the word. Nothing is more ordinary with the Fathers than to call God’s table an altar; the holy elements, an oblation; the act of celebration, an immolation; the actor, a priest.

St. Chrysostom reckons ten kinds of sacrifice; and at last, as having forgotten it, adds the eleventh: all which we well allow. And, indeed, many sacrifices are offered to God in this one: but “a true, proper, propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead,” which the Tridentine Fathers would force upon our belief, would have seemed no less strange a solecism to the ears of the ancients, than it doth to ours.

St. Augustine calls it a designation of Christ’s offering upon the cross; St. Chrysostom, and Theophylact after him, a remembrance of his sacrifice; Emissenus, a daily celebration in mystery of that which was once offered in payment; and Lombard himself, a memorial and representation of the true sacrifice upon the cross.

That which Cassander cites from St. Ambrose or Chrysostom may be instead of all. “In Christ, is the sacrifice once offered, able to give salvation. What do we, therefore? Do we not offer every day? Surely, if we offer daily, it is done for a recordation of his death.”

This is the language and meaning of antiquity; the very same which the Tridentine Synod condemneth in us: “If any man shall say that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered upon the cross, let him be accursed.”

How plain is the Scripture, while it tells us that our High Priest “needeth not daily, as those high priests” under the law, “to offer up sacrifice; first, for his own sins, then for the people: for this he did once, when he offered up himself!”—Heb. vii. 27.

The contradiction of the Trent Fathers is here very remarkable. “Christ,” say they, “who, on the altar of the cross, offered himself in a bloody sacrifice, is now this true propitiatory sacrifice in the mass, made by himself. He is one and the same sacrifice; and one and the same offerer of that sacrifice, by the ministry of his priests, who then offered himself on the cross.” So then they say, that Christ offered up that sacrifice then, and this now; St. Paul says he offered up that sacrifice, and no more. St. Paul says our High Priest needs not to offer daily sacrifice; they say these daily sacrifices must be offered by him. St. Paul says, that he offered himself but once for the sins of the people; they say he offers himself daily for the sins of quick and dead. And if the apostle, in the spirit of prophecy, foresaw this error, and would purposely forestall it, he could not speak more directly than when he saith, “We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all. And every high priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies are made his footstool. For, by one offering, he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”—Heb. x. 10–14.

Now let the vain heads of men seek subtle evasions in the different manner of this offering; bloody then, unbloody now. The Holy Ghost speaks punctually of the very substance of the act, and tells us absolutely there is but one sacrifice once offered by him, in any kind; else the opposition that is there made betwixt the legal priesthood and his should not hold, if, as they, so he, had often properly and truly sacrificed.

That we may not say they build herein what they destroy, for an unbloody sacrifice, in this sense, can be no other than figurative and commemorative, is it really propitiatory? “Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” (Heb. ix. 22.) If, therefore, sins be remitted by this sacrifice, it must be in relation to that blood, which was shed in his true personal sacrifice upon the cross: and what relation can be betwixt this and that but of representation and remembrance? in which their moderate Cassander fully resteth.

In reason there must be in every sacrifice, as Cardinal Bellarmine grants, a destruction of the thing offered: and shall we say that they make their Saviour to crucify him again? No; but to eat him: for, “consumptio seu manducatio, quæ fit à sacerdote,” &c.; “The consumption or manducation, which is done of the priest, is an essential part of this sacrifice,” saith the same author; “for, in the whole action of the mass, there is,” saith he, “no other real destruction but this.”

Suppose we, then, the true human flesh, blood, and bone of Christ, God and man, really and corporally made such by this transubstantiation, whether is more horrible, to crucify or to eat it?

By this rule, it is the priest’s teeth, and not his tongue, that makes Christ’s body a sacrifice.

By this rule it shall be hostia, “a host,” when it is not a sacrifice; and a reserved host is no sacrifice, howsoever consecrated. And what if a mouse, or other vermin, should eat the host, (it is a case put by themselves,) who then sacrificeth?

To stop all mouths, laics eat as well as the priest: there is no difference in their manducation: but laics sacrifice not. And, as Salmeron urges, the Scripture distinguisheth betwixt the sacrifice and the participation of it: “Are not they, which eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?” (1 Cor. x. 18.) And, in the very canon of the mass, “Ut quotquot,” &c., the prayer is, “That all we, which, in the participation of the altar, have taken the sacred body and blood of thy Son,” &c. “Wherein it is plain,” saith he, “that there is a distinction betwixt the host and the eating of the host.”

Lastly, sacrificing is an act done to God: if, then, eating be sacrificing, the priest eats his God to his God: “Quorum Deus venter.”

While they, in vain, study to reconcile this new-made sacrifice of Christ already in heaven, with “Jube hæc perferri,” &c. “Command these to be carried by the hands of thy holy angels to thy high altar in heaven, in the sight of thy Divine Majesty,” we conclude that this proper and propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, as a new, unholy, unreasonable sacrifice, is justly abhorred by us; and we, for abhorring it, unjustly ejected.—Bp. Hall.

MASTER. The designation of all the heads of colleges at Cambridge, with the exception of two, and of some at Oxford. The heads of some ancient hospitals, as Sherburn, are so called. It is recognised by the 42nd and 43rd Canons, &c., as one of the names of governors of cathedral and collegiate churches.

MASTER OF ARTS. The highest degree in arts, signifying one who is competent to teach, answering to that of Doctor in other faculties; conferred in all universities, though in a few modern instances superseded by that of Doctor of Philosophy. In England, the Masters of Arts form the privileged body of the ancient universities there; and there are many offices in the Church to which none are eligible but those who have at least taken that degree. By Canon 128, surrogates must be M. A. at least; and by Canon 74, M. A., being beneficed, are enjoined to wear hoods or tippets of silk or sarcenet, and square caps.

MASTER OF THE CEREMONIES. An officer in many foreign cathedrals, whose business it is to see that all the ceremonies, vestments, &c., peculiar to each season and festival, are observed in the choir.—Jebb.

MASTER OF THE FACULTIES. The principal officer of the Court of Faculties. (See Faculties.)

MASTERS OF THE SCHOOLS. Three Masters of Arts, in the university of Oxford, annually elected, who preside over certain exercises of under-graduates. Before the ancient disputations and determinations were abolished, their office was much more onerous than at present.

MASTER OF THE SENTENCES. The name commonly given to the celebrated Peter Lombard, bishop of Paris, one of the founders of scholastic divinity; so called from his great work of the Sentences, divided into four books, illustrative of doctrines of the Churches, in sentences, or passages taken from the Fathers.—Dupin.

MASTER OF THE SONG. A name for the instructor of the choristers, or choir-master.

MASTER OF THE TEMPLE. The principal minister in the Temple Church, in London, styled also the Custos; who, since the time of Henry VIII., has been appointed by royal letters patent, without institution or induction. This is a post of great eminence, and has been held by many able divines, as Hooker, Bishop Sherlock, &c.

MATINS. The ancient name for early morning prayers, which usually began about day-break.

The hours of prayer in the Church of England, before the Reformation, were seven in number, viz. matins, the first or prime, the third, sixth, and ninth hours, vespers, and compline. The office of matins, or morning prayer, according to the Church of England, is a judicious abridgment of her ancient services for matins, lauds, and prime.

The office of matins, or morning prayer, according to the English ritual, may be divided into three principal parts. First, the introduction, which extends from the beginning of the office to the end of the Lord’s Prayer: secondly, the psalmody and reading, which extends to the end of the Apostles’ Creed: and, thirdly, the prayers and collects, which occupy the remainder of the service.—Palmer.

MATRIMONY. The nuptial state.

The State in England has declared that marriage may be henceforth regarded merely as a civil contract; and, so far as the effects of the law are concerned, they who contract marriage by a merely civil ceremony, will undergo no disabilities, their children will not be illegitimate, and they will themselves be regarded, to all intents and purposes, as man and wife. Yet, although this be the case, the Church, (in this respect opposed to the State, or rather the State having placed itself in opposition to the Church,) at the very commencement of the Marriage Service, declares that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s word doth allow, are not joined together by God, neither is their matrimony lawful: it is not lawful, that is to say, in the eyes of God,—for its legality in the eyes of the State cannot be questioned. The case is actually this: the State says, if you choose to consider matrimony to be a civil contract, the law of the land will permit you to enter into the marriage state by a civil ceremony: but the Church has not as yet been silenced, and she affirms, that though the State may permit this, the word of God instructs us otherwise, and marriage is a religious contract; therefore do not avail yourselves of the permission given by the State.

That such is the doctrine of the Church now, must at once be admitted; and equally admitted it will be, that it was so at the Reformation of the Church of England, and before the Reformation. But the question is, was it one of those dogmas introduced in the Middle Ages, such as transubstantiation, praying to the saints, worshipping images, and certain other superstitions which distinguish the Church of Rome from the Church of England? And we may answer at once in the negative, because we find allusion to the sacred nature of the marriage contract in the writings of the very earliest Christian authors. For instance, St. Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, (who was afterwards bishop of Ephesus, and died a blessed martyr,) waiting to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, says expressly: “It becomes those who marry, and those that are given in marriage, to take this yoke upon them with the consent or direction of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to the will of God, and not their own lusts.” Another early Father (Tertullian) exclaims, “How shall I sufficiently set forth the happiness of the marriage which the Church brings about by her procurement, which the eucharist confirms, which angels report when done, and the Father ratifies!”

In those days the members of the Church were in much the same situation as that in which we are ourselves now placed. The law of the land regarded marriage as a civil contract, and the Church did not annul or disallow the legality of such marriages, or solemnize them again, on the parties becoming converts: it admitted the validity of the act when done, though it declared it to be done unlawfully, according to God’s law, and severely censured the members of the Church whenever they were married without the sacerdotal benediction. The practice for Christians to be married in the Church appears at first to have been universal, except when a Christian was unequally yoked with an unbeliever; he was then obliged to have recourse to the civil authorities, because the Church, censuring the alliance, absolutely refused to solemnize the marriage.

When the Church, in the time of Constantine, became allied with the State, and religion began to cool, (the laws of the empire still remaining the same,) some Christians began to fall off from the primitive practice, some for one reason and some for another, and to contract marriages according to the civil form. To correct which abuse Charles the Great enacted in the eighth century for the Western empire, and Leo Sapiens in the tenth century for the Eastern empire, that marriages should be celebrated in no other way, except with the sacerdotal blessing and prayers, to be succeeded by the reception of the eucharist or Lord’s supper. And this continued to be the practice in our own country until the usurpation of Cromwell, when marriage was declared to be a merely civil contract. At the Restoration of Charles II. marriage was again regarded as a religious ordinance, though the Church no longer insisted that the parties married should receive the communion, (a regulation which had in practice been much disregarded,) but contented herself with remarking in the rubric succeeding the ordinance, that “it is expedient that the new-married couple should receive the holy communion at the time of their marriage, or at the first opportunity after their marriage,” declaring the duty, but not absolutely compelling its observance; and thus things continued till the present time. Of course, all churchmen must now adhere to their principle, that marriage is a religious contract, and that those marriages only are lawful in the sight of God which are contracted in his name and by his ordinance.

And for thus acting we have the highest authority which earth and heaven can afford, that of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ himself. When he was in the flesh, marriage was regarded by Jews and Gentiles as a mere civil contract, and that of no very binding nature. He did not on this account declare the offspring of such marriages to be illegitimate; and yet, when appealed to, he assumed the fact as one which the Scriptures plainly declared, that marriage was of Divine institution. (Matt. xix. 4–9.) The Pharisees came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Now, this was a very natural question for those to ask who considered marriage as a mere civil contract. Wherever such is the case, one of two things in process of time is found to follow—polygamy, or the allowance of frequent divorce. Men soon came to reason thus: If marriage be merely a bargain between two parties for mutual convenience, why should not the bargain be dissolved when the convenience no longer exists? and why, if a man wishes for more wives than one, should he be prevented from having them, provided the parties making the contract agree that the first wife shall have the pre-eminence, and her children be the heirs of the family property? It is all a matter of mere civil convenience and expediency. The Jews thus arguing had permitted polygamy; they did possess many wives, and now they entertained the question, whether these wives might not be dismissed for almost any cause whatever. The subject being much under discussion, they appealed to our Lord, and how did he meet them? By arguments against the expediency of polygamy, or frequent divorce? No; but by assuming at once, that, according to Scripture, marriage is not a mere civil, but a religious contract. “Have ye not read,” he says, thus referring to Scripture, “that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together let no man put asunder.” The permission of divorce is out of the jurisdiction of man, because the ordinance is of God. If the contract were merely a civil contract, man might legislate with respect to it; but man may not legislate for it, because it is an ordinance of God—a religious, and not a mere civil, contract.

And all this is the more remarkable, because our Lord, in his reply to the Herodians, carefully distinguishes between the things of Cæsar and the things of God, and on several occasions disclaims all intention to interfere with those things which had reference merely to the civil authority; yet, observe, when the Pharisees appeal to him on a doubtful disputation, growing out of their allowance of divorce, he does not, as on another occasion, put the question aside by asking who made him a judge in such matters, but he instantly exercises his judicial authority without reservation; thereby, in that very fact, declaring that God, not Cæsar, or the State, is the supreme authority, to whose tribunal the decision with respect to matrimony belongs. He pronounces the vital principle of marriage to be the making twain one flesh, and expressly declares that it is by God’s joining them together that this blending of their nature takes effect, and that the contract, once made, is on this account inviolable; nay, he declares it to be an exempt jurisdiction reserved by God exclusively to himself, and not to be modified, or in any respect invaded, by human authority. Man’s law indeed may couple male and female together; but as the Church declares, on the authority of our Lord, it is their being joined together by God, and as God’s law doth allow, that in his sight makes their matrimony lawful.

Indeed, the Scriptures from first to last envelope this union with a sacred and mysterious solemnity. The first marriage, that of Adam and Eve, God himself solemnized, even God, who, by that very act, instituted the ordinance, and stamped it as Divine, and not a mere human contract. The whole proceeding, with respect to the marriage of Adam and Eve, is related under circumstances calculated to awaken the most solemn attention. As to the other creatures of his hand, they were produced by a fiat of the Almighty will, (male and female of every species,) a corporeal and instinctive adaptation to herd together being the bounds of their perfection. But in the case of the human species, a very different course was observed. Man is first formed, a splendidly gifted creature, who soon is made to feel his social wants, (by a survey of all God’s creatures mated except himself,) and to express, by a plaintive reference to his own comparative destitution, how desolate he was even in Paradise, being alone in the garden of delights; and how hopeless was the search for a helpmeet for him throughout the whole compass of hitherto animated nature. Then it is that God puts his last finish to the visible universe by his own wonderful counsel for supplying the deficiency. He takes from man’s own substance the material from which his second self is to be formed; as the term employed by Moses imports, he works upon it with the skill of a profound artificer; and having framed and modelled out of it, after man’s own image, softened and refined, but still retaining its Divine similitude, the grace of social life, he himself brings her to him to be his bosom counsellor and partner of his joys, (for cares and sorrows he, as yet, had none,) knitting them together, and pouring on them the most precious benedictions. Thus was the marriage first solemnized by the great God himself. And even so do his ambassadors now; they, as an ancient writer observes, they, as the representatives of God, come forth to the persons who are to be joined together, to confirm this their sacred covenant by the offering up of holy prayers.

By Canon 62, it is enjoined that no minister shall join persons in marriage in any private place, but either in the churches or chapels where one of them dwelleth, and likewise in time of Divine service. (See Banns.)

An uniformity of principle prevails throughout the sacred Scriptures, and to the sacredness of the marriage contract frequent allusions are made. Thus Israel is said to have been married to the Lord; and idolatry (that is, the following of the gods of the heathens) is represented as adultery, a breach of the covenant between God and Israel. God’s reproofs to them for their infidelity are sharpened by the recollection of their marriage relation with him. The state of believers in this world is compared by the apostle Paul to the time that used to elapse between the betrothing and the actual marriage among the Jews; nay, St. Paul goes further, he alludes to this sacred contract as a type or representation of the mysterious love of Jesus to his Church. For our Lord forsook his heavenly Father, and did cleave unto our nature, becoming one flesh with us, giving to the Church his Spirit for a dowry, and heaven for a jointure, feeding her at his table, adorning her by his grace, and protecting her by his power; and from this love of Christ to his spouse, the Church, are many converts begotten unto God through the gospel, and (born again of water and the Holy Ghost) they become heirs of glory. Thus honoured is the marriage contract, by being made an emblem of so Divine and mysterious a mercy. It was indeed to hallow the rite by this application that St. Paul wrote, since in the passage referred to he was arguing against certain seducers who would have disfigured Christianity by imputing to it the forbidding of its disciples to marry. He shows, on the contrary, that marriage, so far from having any discredit cast upon it by the gospel, is advanced in honour. He describes, indeed, the ministerial office to consist in espousing the Church to Christ; and St. John, in the Apocalypse, depicts the consummation of all things as the marriage of the Lamb and his wife, the beatific union between Christ and his redeemed ones, between God and the Church, when the Church has been cleansed and sanctified, and become a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.

MATTHEW, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the 21st of September.

St. Matthew, the son of Alpheus, was also called Levi. He was of Jewish original, as both his names discover, and probably a Galilean. Before his call to the apostolate, he was a publican or tollgatherer to the Romans; an office of bad repute among the Jews, on account of the covetousness and exaction of those who managed it. St. Matthew’s office particularly consisted in gathering the customs of all merchandise that came by the sea of Galilee, and the tribute that passengers were to pay who went by water. And here it was that Matthew sat at the “receipt of custom,” when our Saviour called him to be a disciple. It is probable, that, living at Capernaum, the place of Christ’s usual residence, he might have some knowledge of him before he was called.

Matthew immediately expressed his satisfaction, in being called to this high dignity, by entertaining our Saviour and his disciples at a great dinner at his own house, whither he invited all his friends, especially those of his own profession, hoping, probably, that they might be influenced by the company and conversation of Christ.

St. Matthew continued with the rest of the apostles till after our Lord’s ascension. For the first eight years afterwards he preached in Judea. Then he betook himself to propagating the gospel among the Gentiles, and chose Ethiopia as the scene of his apostolical ministry; where it is said he suffered martyrdom, but by what kind of death is altogether uncertain. It is pretended, but without any foundation, that Hyrtacus, king of Ethiopia, desiring to marry Iphigenia, the daughter of his brother and predecessor Æglippus, and the apostle having represented to him that he could not lawfully do it, the enraged prince ordered his head immediately to be cut off.

MATTHEW’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament. (See the preceding article.)

St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Judea, at the request of those he had converted. It is thought he began this work about the year 41, eight years after our Saviour’s resurrection. Irenæus thinks he wrote it whilst St. Peter and St. Paul were preaching at Rome. It was written (according to the testimony of all the ancients) in the Hebrew or Syriac language, which was then common in Judea.

The true Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew is no longer in being anywhere, as far as can be discovered. Those printed by Sebastian Munster, and du Tillet, are modern, and translated into Hebrew from the Latin or Greek.

The Greek version of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and which at this day passes for the original, is as old as the apostolical times. The author is unknown. Some ascribe it to St. Matthew himself; others, to St. James the less, bishop of Jerusalem; others, to St. John the evangelist, or to St. Paul, or to St. Luke, or to St. Barnabas.

MATTHIAS’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the 24th of February.

St. Matthias was an apostle of Jesus Christ, but not of the number of the twelve, chosen by Christ himself. He obtained this high honour upon a vacancy, made in the college of the apostles by the treason and death of Judas Iscariot. The choice fell on Matthias by lot; his competitor being Joseph called Barsabas, and surnamed Justus.

Matthias was qualified for the apostleship, by having been a constant attendant upon our Saviour all the time of his ministry. He was, probably, one of the seventy disciples. After our Lord’s resurrection, he preached the gospel first in Judea. Afterwards it is probable he travelled eastward, his residence being principally near the irruption of the river Apsarus and the haven Hyssus. The barbarous people treated him with great rudeness and inhumanity; and, after many labours and sufferings in converting great numbers to Christianity, he obtained the crown of martyrdom; but by what kind of death is uncertain.

The observance of this festival among us has been attended with some confusion. The Common Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth directs, that, in Leap-years, an intercalary or additional day shall be added between the 23rd and 24th days of February. Hence St. Matthias’s day, which, in common years, was observed on the 24th of February, was, in Leap-years, observed on the 25th. But, in the review of our liturgy, it was thought more proper to add a 29th day to February. So that now, there being no variation of the days, this festival must always keep to the 24th day. But, notwithstanding the case is so clear, some almanack-makers continued to follow the old custom, which occasioned the day to be variously observed. Archbishop Sancroft decided the matter by an injunction, Feb. 5, 1683, requiring “all vicars and curates to take notice, that the feast of St. Matthias is to be celebrated, not upon the 25th of February, (as the common almanack-makers boldly and erroneously set it,) but upon the 24th of February for ever, whether it be Leap-year or not, as the calendar in the liturgy, confirmed by act of uniformity, appoints and enjoins.”

MAUNDY THURSDAY. The Thursday before Easter, being the day on which our Lord instituted the holy sacrament of his body and blood. The name of Maundy, Maunday, or Mandate, (Dies Mandati,) is said to have allusion to the mandate or new commandment which, on this day, Christ gave to his disciples, that they should love one another, as he had loved them. It has also been supposed by others, that the name arose from the maunds, or baskets of gifts, which, at this time, it was an ancient custom for Christians to present one to another, in token of that mutual affection which our Lord so tenderly urged, at this period of his sufferings, and as a remembrancer of that “inestimable gift” of Christ, to be our spiritual food in the sacrament of his body and blood. Says a writer of the age of Wickliff, “Christ made his maundy and said, Take, eat,” &c.

On this day it was customary for bishops, sovereigns, and nobles, to wash the feet of the poor, a ceremony still observed in many places abroad. In the Hierurgice Anglicana (p. 282, 283) is given an account of the ceremonial observed by Queen Elizabeth. King James II. is said to have been the last of our sovereigns who performed it. It is still the custom on Maundy Thursday for the Lord Almoner to distribute certain royal donations to the poor in the Royal Chapel at Whitehall. This service consists of appropriate psalms, lessons, anthems, and special prayers. It is performed with great solemnity. For the full particulars see Stephens’s edition of the Common Prayer Book.

MAY, TWENTY-NINTH OF. (See Forms of Prayer.)

MEANS OF GRACE. (See Ordinances and Sacraments.) The sacraments and other ordinances of the Church, through which grace is conveyed to souls prepared by faith and penitence to receive it.

MEDIATOR. (See Jesus, Lord, Christ, Messiah.) A person who intervenes between two parties at variance. Thus our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the Mediator between God and man.

This appears from 1 Tim. ii. 5, “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” When we call him a Mediator, we call him so, not only as he is our Redeemer, but also as he is our Intercessor. “For, if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” (1 John ii. 1.)—Archdeacon Welchman. It is to be remembered, however, that by a mediator here the Church means, not barely an intercessor or transactor of business between two parties, in which sense Moses was a mediator between God and the Israelites with respect to the ceremonial law; but such a mediator, intercessor, and transactor, as can plead the merit of his own blood, offered up in man’s stead, to reconcile an offended God to sinful man. In this sense Christ is the only mediator between God and man, being both God and man.—Dr. Bennet.

It has been already proved that Christ partook both of the Divine and human nature: and St. Paul expressly says, “There is one mediator,” &c. Christ is represented, both in the Old and New Testament, as the only redeemer of mankind, as the only sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. His merits will extend to all who lived before and after the promulgation of the gospel. “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. xv. 22.) “He is the Lamb which was slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. xiii. 8.)—Bp. Tomline.

MELCHITES. The name which is given to the Syriac, Egyptian, and other Christians of the Levant; who, though not Greeks, follow the doctrines and ceremonies of the Greek Church, and submit to the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. The term Melchites is borrowed from the Hebrew or Syriac word Melec, which signifies king. So that Melchites is as much as to say Royalists, and is a term of reproach, given to the orthodox by the Eutychians, or Jacobites, on account of their implicit submission to the edicts of the emperors, for the publication and reception of the above-mentioned council.

The Melchites, excepting some few points of little or no importance, which relate only to their ceremonies and ecclesiastical discipline, are in every respect professed Greeks. They have translations, in the Arabian language, of the Greek rituals; but their versions are for the most part very incorrect. In general, the Christians of the Levant are so far from being just and correct in their translations of the Greek authors, that they imagine they have a right to make them speak according to their own sentiments. This is evident in the Arabic canons of the Council of Nice, in which the Melchites find sufficient arguments to justify their notions against those of the Jacobites; and the Jacobites, on the other hand, by the very same canons, vindicate their tenets against those of the Melchites.

The Melchites are governed by a particular patriarch, who resides at Damascus, and assumes the title of Patriarch of Antioch. The great difficulty they meet with in finding such ministers as can read Greek, is said to be the true reason why they celebrate mass in the Arabian language: and even those who are acquainted with the Greek tongue, yet read the Epistle and Gospel in Arabic.

The monks among the Melchites follow the rule of St. Basil, the common rule of all the Greek monks. They have four fine convents, distant about a day’s journey from Damascus. They never go out of the cloister.

MELETIANS. There were in the fourth century two schisms called Meletian.

1. The Meletians of Egypt had their name from Meletius, a bishop of Lycopolis, the second of the Egyptian sees in dignity. It has been most commonly supposed that Meletius sacrificed to the heathen gods in a persecution about the year 301, or perhaps in the last general persecution a few years later. But there seems to be reason for supposing that the occasion of his schism was of an opposite kind—that he objected to the lenity with which Peter, bishop of Alexandria, treated those who had lapsed in the persecution; and this explanation agrees better with the character of the sect, who rejected all from their communion, who in time of persecution fell from Christ, though they afterwards repented. Meletius proceeded to ordain bishops, and at one time had nearly thirty of these in his communion. He was prohibited for ever to ordain by the Council of Nice, but his followers were admitted to communion without re-ordination. He submitted to this at first, but afterwards resumed his practice of schismatical ordinations. The Arians attempted to draw the Meletians into a connexion with them, on the ground of their common enmity to the orthodox bishops of Alexandria; and thus the schismatics whose original difference with the Church had been limited to questions of discipline, became infected with heresy.

2. The Meletians of Antioch were so called from Meletius, who in 360 was appointed to the bishopric of that city. Although he owed his appointment to the Arians, he soon showed that he was orthodox; whereupon he was deposed and banished. He afterwards recovered his see, but the adherents of Eustathius, who had been deposed by the Arians many years before, refused to communicate with him; and Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, by ordaining Paulinus in opposition to him, contributed to exasperate the differences of the orthodox. The schism of Antioch was not finally healed until the year 415.

MENAION. The name which the Greeks give to the twelve volumes of their Church Service. These volumes answer to the twelve months in the year, each volume taking in a month. In this book is contained the offices for the saints of every day, methodically digested.

From the Menaion is drawn the Menologium, (Menology,) or Greek calendar, in which the lives of the saints in short, or their names only, are cited. The Menaion, therefore, of the Greek answers to the Breviary of the Latins, and the Menology to the Martyrology. (See Breviary and Martyrology.)

MENDICANTS, or BEGGING FRIARS. There are several orders of monks or friars, in Popish countries, who, having no income or revenues, are supported by the charitable contributions of others. These, from their manner of life, are called Mendicants.

This sort of friars began in the thirteenth century, when Dominic de Guzman, with nine more of his companions, founded the order of Preaching Friars, called from their founder Dominicans. The other three Mendicant orders are, the Franciscans, Augustines, and Carmelites.

These monks gave great disturbance to the secular clergy, by pretending to a right of taking confessions and granting absolution, without asking leave of the parochial priests, or even the bishops themselves. Pope Innocent IV. restrained this licence, and prohibited the Mendicants to confess the faithful without leave of the curé. Alexander IV. restored this privilege to them. And Martin IV., to accommodate the dispute, granted them a permission to receive confessions, upon condition that the penitents, who applied to them, should confess once a year to their proper pastor. However, this expedient falling short of full satisfaction, Boniface VIII. ordered that the superiors of religious houses should make application to the bishops, for their permission to such friars as should be commissioned by their respective abbots to administer the sacrament of penance. And upon the foot of this constitution the matter now rests.

MENGRELIANS. Christians of the Greek religion, converted by Cyrillus and Methodius. They baptize not their children till the eighth year, and enter not into the Church (the men especially) till the sixtieth (others say the fortieth) year, but hear Divine service standing without the temple.

MENNONITES. A sect of Anabaptists in Holland, so denominated from one Mennon Simonis of Frisia, who lived in the sixteenth century. The Protestants, as well as the Romanists, confuted them. Mr. Stoupp explains their doctrine thus: Mennon is not the first of the Anabaptists; but having rejected the enthusiasms and revelations of the first Anabaptists and their opinions, concerning the new kingdom of Jesus Christ, he set up other tenets, which his followers hold to this time. They believe that the New Testament is the only rule of our faith; that the terms Person and Trinity are not to be used in speaking of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that the first men were not created just; that there is no original sin; that Jesus Christ had not his flesh from the substance of his mother Mary, but from the essence of his Father; that it is not lawful for Christians to swear, or exercise any office of magistracy, nor use the sword to punish evil-doers, nor to wage war upon any terms; that a Christian may attain to the height of perfection in this life; that the ministers of the gospel ought not to receive any salary; that children are not to be baptized; that the souls of men after death rest in an unknown place.

In the mean time these Mennonites broke into several divisions, for very inconsiderable reasons; many among them embraced the opinions of the Socinians, or rather of the Arians, touching the Deity of Christ; and they were all for moderation in religion, not thinking that they might lawfully debar from their assemblies any man leading a pious life, and that owned the Scriptures for the word of God. These were called Galenites, and borrowed their name from a physician of Amsterdam, called Galen. Some of them in Holland are called Collegiates, because they meet privately, and every one in their assembly hath the liberty to speak, to expound the Scriptures, to pray, and to sing: they that are truly Collegiates are Trinitarians: they never receive the communion in their college, but they meet twice a year, from all parts of Holland, at Rhinsburg, a village about two leagues from Leyden; there they receive the sacrament. The first that sits at table may distribute it to the rest; and all sects are admitted, even the Roman Catholics, if they would come.

MESSALIANS, or MASSALIANS. So called from a Chaldee word, which signifies to pray, as does the Greek εὐχομαι, from which these sectaries had also the name of Euchites, because they prayed continually, and held nothing necessary to salvation but prayer: they rejected preaching and the sacraments: they held that the supreme God was visible; and that Satan was to be worshipped that he might do no hurt: they pretended to cast out devils; and rejected almsgiving. This heresy prevailed under Valentinian and Valens, about A. D. 370.

MESSIAH signifies the anointed. (See Christ, Jesus, and Lord.) It is the title given by way of eminence to our blessed Saviour, meaning in Hebrew the same as Christ in Greek, and it alludes to the authority he possesses to assume the characters of prophet, priest, and king, and so of the Saviour of the world.

Christ the Messiah (“anointed”) was promised by God, (Gen. iii. 15; xxi. 12,) and foretold by the prophets, (Gen. xlix. 10; 1 Sam. ii. 10 and 35; Ps. ii. 2; xlv. 7; Micah v. 2, with John vii. 42; Mal. iii. 1,) as the “redeemer” of Israel, (Job xix. 25; Isa. lix. 20; Luke xxiv. 21,) and “the desire of all nations” (Haggai ii. 7). He who was born in the days of Herod, of a pure virgin, and called “Jesus,” according to prophecy, (Luke i. 31,) is that “Messiah,” “the Christ,” (John i. 41; Acts ii. 36,) as he declares himself to be, (John x. 24, 25,) whose coming was then expected (Matt. ii. 1, 2; John iv. 25, 29, 42). Who was “anointed,” not with any material and typifying “oil,” as were those who preceded him—his types—but with “the Spirit of God,” (Matt. iii. 16; John i. 32, 33,) “the Spirit of the Lord,” as promised, (Isa. xi. 2; xlii. 1; Matt. xii. 18,) a spiritual unction—“the oil of gladness, above his fellows” (Ps. xlv. 7); and thus was he consecrated to the three offices, divided in others, being the great Prophet predicted, (Deut. xviii. 15, 18,) and acknowledged, (John vi. 14; vii. 40,) the eternal High Priest, (Ps. cx. 4; Heb. viii. 1; x. 12, 14,) and universal King (Gen. xlix. 10; Num. xxiv. 17; Ps. ii. 6; Dan. vii. 14; Zech. xiv. 9; Matt. xxv. 34; Rev. xi. 15). And this Spirit he received as the head, (Heb. i. 9,) and conveys to the members of his body (2 Cor. i. 21; 1 John ii. 20).

MESSIANIC. A term invented by modern critics, to signify those Psalms or other portions of Scripture which specially relate to or personify the Messiah.

METHODISTS, POPISH. Polemical doctors, who arose in France about the middle of the seventeenth century, in opposition to the Huguenots, or French Protestants.

METHODISTS. This is the distinctive appellation of the followers of the late Mr. John Wesley, who was born in 1703, and died in 1791.

Under the general term of “Methodists” are comprehended two principal and several subordinate sections, having totally distinct ecclesiastical organizations. The two grand sections differ from each other upon points of doctrine; one professing Arminian, and the other Calvinistic, sentiments. The former are the followers of John Wesley, and from him are called “Wesleyan Methodists;”—the latter were originated by the labours of George Whitfield, but their founder’s name is not perpetuated in their title, which is generally that of “Calvinistic Methodists.” Each of the two grand sections is divided into several smaller sections, differing from each other upon points of Church government and discipline: the Wesleyan Methodists comprise the “Original Connexion,” the “New Connexion,” the “Primitive Methodists,” and the “Wesleyan Association”—the Calvinistic Methodists comprise the body bearing that specific name, and also the churches belonging to what is known as “The Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion.”

THE ORIGINAL CONNEXION.

As at present settled, the form of Church government somewhat resembles that of the Scottish Presbyterian Churches in the order of the courts, in the relation they bear to each other, and in their respective constitutions and functions. The difference is in the greater degree of authority in spiritual matters exercised by the Wesleyan ministers, who preside in their courts not as mere chairmen or moderators, but as pastors. This is said by them to secure an equitable balance of power between the two parties, lay and clerical, in these courts, and thus to provide against abuse on either side. How far this is the case will be more clearly seen by a description of these various courts, tracing them upwards from the lowest to the highest,—from the Class to the Conference.

The Classes were the very first of the arrangements introduced by Mr. Wesley. They consist, in general, of about 12 persons; each class having its appointed “leader,” (an experienced Christian layman, nominated by the superintendent of a circuit, and appointed by a leaders’ meeting,) whose duty is to meet his class once every week—converse with each class member, hear from him a statement of his spiritual condition, and give appropriate counsel. Every member of a class, except in cases of extreme poverty, is expected to contribute at least a penny per week towards the funds of the society. Out of the proceeds of this contribution, assisted by other funds, the stipends of the ministers are paid. The system of class meetings is justly considered the very life of Methodism.

The public worship of these societies is conducted in each circuit by two descriptions of preachers, one clerical, the other lay. The clerics are separated entirely to the work of the ministry—are members of, or in connexion with, or received as probationers by, the Conference—and are supported by funds raised for that purpose in the classes and congregations. From one to four of these, called “itinerant preachers,” are appointed annually for not exceeding three years in immediate succession to the same circuit. Their ministry is not confined to any particular chapel in the circuit, but they act interchangeably from place to place, seldom preaching in the same place more than one Sunday without a change, which is effected according to a plan generally re-made every quarter. Of itinerant preachers there are at present about 915 in Great Britain. The lay, or “local” preachers, as they are denominated, follow secular callings, like other of their fellow subjects, and preach on the sabbaths at the places appointed for them in the above-mentioned plan; as great an interval being observed between their appointments to the same place as can be conveniently arranged.

The public services of Methodists present a combination of the forms of the Church of England with the usual practice of Dissenting Churches. In the larger chapels, the Church Liturgy is used; and, in all, the sacrament is administered according to the Church of England rubric. Independently of sabbath worship, love feasts are occasionally celebrated; and a midnight meeting, on the last day of each year, is held as a solemn “watch night,” for the purpose of impressing on the mind a sense of the brevity and rapid flight of time.

At present there are 428 circuits in Great Britain. Besides preaching in the various chapels in their respective circuits, the itinerant preachers administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper. One or other of them, according to an arrangement amongst themselves, meets every class in his circuit once in every quarter, personally converses with every member, and distributes to all such as have throughout the past three months walked orderly a ticket, which authenticates their membership. One of the ministers in every circuit is called the “superintendent,” whose duties, in addition to his ordinary labours as a travelling preacher, are, to see that the Methodist discipline is properly maintained,—to admit candidates into membership, (subject to a veto by a leaders’ meeting,)—and to expel from the society any member whom a leaders’ meeting shall pronounce guilty of any particular offence. Appeal, however, lies from his decision to a District meeting, and ultimately to the Conference. There is also a “circuit steward,” whose duty is to receive from the society stewards the contributions of class members, and to superintend their application for the purposes of the circuit.

The Conference, the highest Wesleyan court, is composed exclusively of ministers. It derives its authority from a deed of declaration, executed by Mr. Wesley in 1784, by which it was provided that, after the decease of himself and his brother Charles, 100 persons, named in the deed, “being preachers and expounders of God’s holy word, under the care and in connexion with the said John Wesley,” should exercise the authority which Wesley himself possessed, to appoint preachers to the various chapels. Vacancies in the “hundred” were to be filled up by the remainder at an annual Conference. In pursuance of this deed, a Conference of 100 ministers meets yearly in July, with the addition of the representatives selected by the district meetings, and such other ministers as are appointed or permitted to attend by the district committees. The custom is, for all these ministers to share in the proceedings and to vote; though all the decisions thus arrived at must be sanctioned by the legal “hundred,” ere they can have binding force. The Conference must sit for at least five days, but not beyond three weeks. Its principal transactions are, to examine the moral and ministerial character of every preacher—to receive candidates on trial—to admit ministers into the connexion—and to appoint ministers to particular circuits or stations. Independently of its functions under this deed poll, the Conference exercises a general superintendence over the various institutions of the body; including the appointment of various committees, as, (1.) The Committee of Privileges for guarding the interests of the Wesleyan Connexion; (2.) The Committee for the management of Missions; (3.) The Committee for the management of Schools for educating the children of Wesleyan ministers; (4.) The General Book Committee (for superintending the publication and sale of Wesleyan works); (5.) The Chapel Building Committee (without whose previous consent in writing no chapel, whether large or small, is to be erected, purchased, or enlarged); (6.) The Chapel Relief Committee; (7.) The Contingent Fund Committee; (8.) The Committee of the Auxiliary Fund for worn-out ministers and ministers’ widows; and the committees for the various schools, theological institutions, &c.

The Conference has also assumed to itself the power of making new laws for the government of the Connexion: provided that, if any circuit meeting disapprove such law, it is not to be enforced in that circuit for the space of one year. Any circuit has the power of memorializing Conference on behalf of any change considered desirable, provided the June quarterly meeting should so determine.

The doctrines held by the Wesleyans are substantially accordant with the Articles of the Established Church, interpreted in their Arminian sense. In this they follow Mr. Wesley rather than Arminius; for although the writings of the latter are received with high respect, the first four volumes of Wesley’s Sermons, and his Notes on the New Testament, (which they hold to be “neither Calvinistic on the one hand nor Pelagian on the other,”) are referred to as the standard of their orthodoxy. The continued influence of their founder is manifested by the general adherence of the body to his opinions on the subject of attainment to Christian perfection in the present life—on the possibility of final ruin after the reception of Divine grace—and on the experience by every convert of a clear assurance of his acceptance with God through faith in Jesus Christ.

The Census Accounts show 6579 chapels in England and Wales, belonging to this Connexion in March 1851; containing (allowance being made for defective returns) accommodation for 1,447,580 persons. The number of attendants on the Census Sunday was: Morning, 492,714; Afternoon, 383,964; Evening, 667,850: including an estimate for 133 chapels, for which the number of attendants was not stated.

The following table shows the principal societies and institutions for religious objects supported by the Wesleyan Original Connexion. Others, in part supported by Wesleyans, are mentioned in the General List at page cxvii. of the Report.

Name of Society or Institution. | Date of Foundation. | Annual Income.
| A.D. | £
Contingent Fund | 1756 | 10,065
Auxiliary Fund | 1813 | 7,163
The Children’s Fund | 1818 | 3,280
Wesleyan Theological Institution | 1834 | 4,688
General Chapel Fund | 1818 | 3,984
Wesleyan Seamen’s Mission | 1843 | 160
Wesleyan Missionary Society | 1817 | 105,370

Kingswood and Woodhouse Grove School

1748
1811

8,048

Education Fund | 1837 | 2,800

In 1839 was celebrated the Centenary of the existence of Wesleyan Methodism; and the gratitude of the people towards the system under which they had derived so much advantage was displayed by contributions to the large amount of £216,000, which sum was appropriated to the establishment of theological institutions in Yorkshire and at Richmond—the purchase of the “Centenary Hall and Mission House” in Bishopsgate Street—the provision of a missionary ship—the discharge of chapel debts—and the augmentation of the incomes of the Methodist religious societies.

Of late years a considerable agitation (to be more particularly mentioned when describing “Wesleyan Reformers”) has diminished to a great extent the number of the members in connexion. It is stated that by this division the Original Connexion has sustained a loss of 100,000 members.

THE METHODIST NEW CONNEXION.

For some time after Mr. Wesley’s death in 1791, considerable agitation was observable throughout the numerous societies which, under his control, had rapidly sprung up in every part of England. The more immediate subjects of dispute had reference to, (1.) “the right of the people to hold their public religious worship at such hours as were most convenient, without being restricted to the mere intervals of the hours appointed for service in the Established Church;” and, (2.) “the right of the people to receive the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s supper from the hands of their own ministers, and in their own places of worship;” but the principal and fundamental question in dispute concerned the right of the laity to participate in the spiritual and secular government of the body. Wesley himself had, in his lifetime, always exercised an absolute authority; and after his decease the travelling preachers claimed the same extent of power. A vigorous opposition was, however, soon originated, which continued during several years; the Conference attempting various unsuccessful measures for restoring harmony. A “Plan of Pacification” was adopted by the Conference in 1795, and was received with general satisfaction so far as the ordinances were concerned; but the question of lay influence remained untouched till 1797, when the Conference conceded that the leaders’ meetings should have the right to exercise an absolute veto upon the admission of new members to the Society, and that no member should be expelled for immorality, “until such immorality had been proved at a leaders’ meeting.” Certain lesser rights were at the same time conceded to the quarterly meetings, in which the laity were represented by the presence of their stewards and class leaders. But this was the extent of the concessions made by the preachers; and all propositions for lay delegation to the Conference and the district meetings were conclusively rejected.

Foremost amongst many who remained unsatisfied by these concessions was the Rev. Alexander Kilham, who, singularly enough, was born at Epworth in Lincolnshire, the birth-place of the Wesleys. Mr. Kilham, first acquiring prominence as an assertor of the right of Methodists to meet for worship in church hours, and to receive the sacraments from their own ministers, was gradually led to take an active part in advocacy of the principle of lay participation in the government of the Connexion.

Originated by a movement for a certain and specific alteration in the constitution of Wesleyan Methodism, the New Connexion differs from the parent body only with respect to those ecclesiastical arrangements which were then the subjects of dispute. In doctrines, and in all the essential and distinctive features of Wesleyan Methodism, there is no divergence: the Arminian tenets are as firmly held by the New as by the Old Connexion; and the outline of ecclesiastical machinery—comprising classes, circuits, districts, and the Conference—is in both the same. The grand distinction rests upon the different degrees of power allowed in each communion to the laity. It has been shown that, in the “Original Connexion,” all authority is virtually vested in the preachers: they alone compose the Conference—their influence is paramount in the inferior courts—and even when, as in financial matters, laymen are appointed to committees, such appointments are entirely in the hands of Conference. The “New Connexion,” on the contrary, admits, in all its courts, the principle of lay participation in Church government: candidates for membership must be admitted by the voice of the existing members, not by the minister alone; offending members cannot be expelled but with the concurrence of a leaders’ meeting; officers of the body, whether leaders, ministers, or stewards, are elected by the Church and ministers conjointly; and in district meetings and the annual Conference lay delegates (as many in number as the ministers) are present, freely chosen by the members of the Churches.

The progress of the New Connexion since its origin has been as follows, in the aggregate, comprising England, Ireland, and the colonies:

Year. | Members.
1797 | 5,000
1803 | 5,280
1813 | 8,067
1823 | 10,794
1833 | 14,784
1840 | 21,836
1846 | 20,002
1853 | 21,384

At present (1853) the state of the Connexion, In England and Wales, is reported to be as follows:

Chapels | 301
Societies | 298
Circuit preachers | 95
Local preachers | 814
Members | 16,070
Sabbath schools | 273
Sabbath-school teachers | 7,335
Sabbath-school scholars | 44,337

Returns have been received at the Census Office from 297 chapels and stations (mostly in the northern counties) belonging to this Connexion, containing accommodation, after an estimate for 16 defective returns, for 96,964 persons. The number of attendants on the Census Sunday was: Morning, 36,801; Afternoon, 22,620; Evening, 39,624: including an estimate for three chapels, the attendance in which was not stated.

In 1847 the Jubilee of the Connexion was celebrated, and it was resolved to raise a fund of £20,000, to be appropriated to the relief of distressed chapels, to the erection of a theological institution, the extension of home and foreign missions, and the provision for aged and retired ministers.

PRIMITIVE METHODISTS.

About the commencement of the present century, certain among the “Wesleyans (and conspicuously Hugh Bourne and William Clowes) began to put in practice a revival of those modes of operation, which had by that time been abandoned by the then consolidated body. The Conference of 1807 affirmed a resolution adverse to such unprescribed expedients; and the consequence of this disapprobation was the birth of the Primitive Methodist Connexion,—the first class being formed at Standley in Staffordshire in 1810. The following table, furnished by the Conference itself, will show the progress made by the Connexion since that period.

Period. | Chapels. | Preachers. | Class Leaders. | Members. | Sabbath Schools.
Connexional. | Rented Rooms, &c. | Travelling. | Local. | Schools. | Teachers. | Scholars.
1810 | | | | | | 10 | | |
1811 | | | 2 | | | 260 | | |
1820 | | | 202 | 1,435 | | 7,842 | | |
1830 | 421 | | 240 | 2,719 | | 35,733 | | |
1840 | 1,149 | | 487 | 6,550 | | 73,990 | | 11,968 | 60,508
1850 | 1,555 | 3,515 | 519 | 8,524 | 6,162 | 104,762 | 1,278 | 20,114 | 103,310
1853 | 1,789 | 3,565 | 568 | 9,594 | 6,767 | 108,926 | 1,535 | 22,792 | 121,394

These statistics refer as well to the foreign stations of the Connexion as to England and Wales; but the deduction to be made upon this account will not exceed two or three per cent. of the above figures. The number of chapels, &c. returned by the Census officers was only 2871, so that many of the above must probably be small rooms, which thus escaped the notice of the enumerators. The number of connexional circuits and missions is, altogether, 313, of which, 13 are in Canada, 2 in South Australia, 1 in New South Wales, 1 in Victoria, and 3 in New Zealand. The “Missions,” whether abroad or at home, are localities in which the labours of the preachers are remunerated not from local sources, but from the circuit contributions, or from the general funds of the Connexion appropriated to missions.

The doctrines held by the Primitive Methodists are precisely similar to those maintained by the Original Connexion, and the outline of their ecclesiastical polity is also similar, the chief distinction being the admission, by the former body, of lay representatives to the Conference, and the generally greater influence allowed, in all the various courts, to laymen.

Camp meetings, though occasionally held, are much less frequent now than formerly: the people, it is thought, are more accessible than 50 years ago to other agencies.

BIBLE CHRISTIANS.

The “Bible Christians” (sometimes called Bryanites) are included here among the Methodist communities, more from a reference to their sentiments and polity than to their origin. The body, indeed, was not the result of a secession from the Methodist Connexion, but was rather the origination of a new community, which, as it grew, adopted the essential principles of Methodism.

The founder of the body was Mr. William O’Bryan, a Wesleyan local preacher in Cornwall, who, in 1815, separated from the Wesleyans, and began himself to form societies upon the Methodist plan. In a very few years considerable advance was made, and throughout Devonshire and Cornwall many societies were established; so that, in 1819, there were nearly 30 itinerant preachers. In that year, the first Conference was held, when the Connexion was divided into 12 circuits. Mr. O’Bryan withdrew from the body in 1829.

In doctrinal profession there is no distinction between “Bible Christians” and the various bodies of Arminian Methodists.

The forms of public worship, too, are of the same simple character; but, in the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, “it is usual to receive the elements in a sitting posture, as it is believed that that practice is more conformable to the posture of body in which it was at first received by Christ’s apostles, than kneeling; but persons are at liberty to kneel, if it be more suitable to their views and feelings to do so.”

According to the Census returns, the number of chapels belonging to the body in England and Wales in 1851 was 482; by far the greater number being situated in the south-western counties of England. The number of sittings, (after adding an estimate for 42 imperfect returns,) was 66,834. The attendance on the Census Sunday was: Morning, 14,902; Afternoon, 24,345; Evening, 34,612; an estimate being made for eight chapels the number of attendants at which was not stated in the returns. The Minutes of Conference for 1852 present the following view:—

| In Circuits. | In Home Missionary Stations. | Total.
Chapels | 293 | 110 | 403
Itinerant Ministers | 61 | 52 | 113
Local Preachers | 741 | 345 | 1,059
Members | 10,146 | 3,716 | 13,862

THE WESLEYAN METHODIST ASSOCIATION.

In 1834 a controversy was originated as to the propriety of the proposed establishment of a Wesleyan Theological Institution; and a minister who disapproved of such a measure, and prepared and published some remarks against it, was expelled from the Connexion. Sympathizers with him were in similar manner expelled.

The “Association” differs from the “Old Connexion” only with regard to the specific subjects of dispute which caused the rupture. The only variations, therefore, are in constitutional arrangements, and the principal of these are as follows:—

The Annual Assembly (answering to the Old Wesleyan Conference) is distinguished by the introduction of the laity as representatives. It consists of such of the itinerant and local preachers, and other official or private members, as the circuits, societies, or churches in union with the Association (and contributing £50 to the support of the ministry) elect. The number of representatives is regulated by the number of constituents. Circuits with less than 500 members send one; those with more than 500 and less than 1,000 send two; and such as have more than 1,000 send three. The Annual Assembly admits persons on trial as preachers, examines them, receives them into full connexion, appoints them to their circuits, and excludes or censures them when necessary. It also directs the application of all General or Connexional Funds, and appoints a committee to represent it till the next Assembly. But it does not interfere with strictly local matters, for “each circuit has the right and power to govern itself by its local courts, without any interference as to the management of its internal affairs.”

As was to be expected from the reason of its origin, the Association gives more influence to the laity in matters of Church discipline than is permitted by the Old Connexion. Therefore it is provided, that “no member shall be expelled from the Association except by the direction of a majority of a leaders’ society or circuit quarterly meeting.”

According to the Minutes of the 17th Annual Assembly, the following was the state of the Association in England and Wales in 1852, no allowance having, however, been made for several incomplete returns:—

Itinerant preachers and missionaries | 90
Local preachers | 1,016
Class leaders | 1,353
Members in society | 19,411
Chapels | 329
Preaching places, rooms, &c. | 171
Sunday schools | 322
Sunday-school teachers | 6,842
Sunday-school scholars | 43,389

The Census Returns make mention of 419 chapels and preaching rooms, containing (after an estimate for the sittings in 34 cases of deficient information) accommodation for 98,813 persons. The attendance on the Census Sunday (making an allowance for five chapels, the returns from which are silent on this point) was: Morning, 32,308; Afternoon, 21,140; Evening, 40,655.

WESLEYAN METHODIST REFORMERS.

In 1840, another of the constantly recurring agitations with respect to ministerial authority in matters of Church discipline arose, and still continues. Some parties having circulated through the Connexion certain anonymous pamphlets called “Fly Sheets,” in which some points of Methodist procedure were attacked in a manner offensive to the Conference, that body, with a view to ascertain the secret authors, (suspected to be ministers,) adopted the expedient of tendering to every minister in the Connexion a “Declaration,” reprobating the obnoxious circulars, and repudiating all connexion with the authorship. Several ministers refused submission to this test, as being an unfair attempt to make the offending parties criminate themselves, and partaking of the nature of an Inquisition. The Conference, however, held that such a method of examination was both Scripturally proper, and accordant with the usages of Methodism; and the ministers persisting in their opposition were expelled. This stringent measure caused a great sensation through the various societies, and meetings were convened to sympathize with the excluded ministers. The Conference, however, steadily pursued its policy—considered all such meetings violations of Wesleyan order—and, acting through the superintendent ministers in all the circuits, punished by expulsion every member who attended them. In consequence of this proceeding, the important question was again, and with increased anxiety, debated,—whether the admission and excision of Church members is exclusively the duty of the minister, or whether, in the exercise of such momentous discipline, the other members of the Church have not a right to share.

The agitation on these questions (and on some collateral ones suggested naturally by these) is still prevailing, and has grown extremely formidable. It is calculated that the loss of the Old Connexion, by expulsions and withdrawals, now amounts to 100,000 members. The Reformers have not yet ostensibly seceded, and can therefore not be said to form a separate Connexion. They regard themselves as still Wesleyan Methodists, illegally expelled, and they demand the restoration of all preachers, officers, and members who have been excluded. In the mean time, they have set in operation a distinct machinery of Methodism, framed according to the plan which they consider ought to be adopted by the parent body. In their own returns it is represented that they had in 1852, 2000 chapels or preaching places, and 2800 preachers.

At the time of the Census, in March 1852, the movement was but in its infancy; so that the returns received, though possibly an accurate account of the then condition of the body, will fail to give an adequate idea of its present state. From these returns it seems there were at that time 339 chapels in connexion with the movement; having accommodation (after estimates for 51 defective schedules) for 67,814 persons. The attendance on the Census Sunday (making an allowance for five cases where the numbers were not given) was as follows: Morning, 30,470; Afternoon, 16,080; Evening, 44,953.

CALVINISTIC METHODISTS.

George Whitfield, born in 1714, the son of an innkeeper at Gloucester, where he acted as a common drawer, was admitted as a servitor in Pembroke College, Oxford, in 1732. Being then the subject of religious impressions, to which the evil character of his early youth lent force and poignancy, he naturally was attracted to those meetings for religious exercises which the brothers Wesley had a year or two before originated. After a long period of mental anguish, and the practice, for some time, of physical austerities, he ultimately found relief and comfort; and, resolving to devote himself to the labours of the ministry, was admitted into holy orders by the bishop of Gloucester. Preaching in various churches previous to his embarkation for Georgia, whither he had determined to follow Mr. Wesley, his uncommon force of oratory was at once discerned, and scenes of extraordinary popular commotion were displayed wherever he appeared. In 1737 he left for Georgia, just as Wesley had returned. He ministered with much success among the settlers for three months, and then came back to England, for the purpose of procuring aid towards the foundation of an orphan house for the colony. The same astonishing sensation was created by his preaching as before; the churches overflowed with eager auditors, and crowds would sometimes stand outside. Perceiving that no edifice was large enough to hold the numbers who desired and pressed to hear him, he began to entertain the thought of preaching in the open air; and when, on visiting Bristol shortly after, all the pulpits were denied to him. he carried his idea into practice, and commenced his great experiment by preaching to the colliers at Kingswood. His first audience numbered about 200; the second, 2000; the third, 4000; and so from ten to fourteen and to twenty thousand. Such success encouraged similar attempts in London; and accordingly, when the churchwardens of Islington forbade his entrance into the pulpit, which the vicar had offered him, he preached in the churchyard; and, deriving more and more encouragement from his success, he made Moorfields and Kennington Common the scenes of his impassioned eloquence, and there controlled, persuaded, and subdued assemblages of thirty and forty thousand of the rudest auditors. He again departed for Georgia in 1748, founded there the orphan house, and, requiring funds for its support, again returned to England in 1751.

Up to this period, Wesley and Whitfield had harmoniously laboured in conjunction; but there now arose a difference of sentiment between them on the doctrine of election, which resulted in their separation. Whitfield held the Calvinistic tenets, Wesley the Arminian; and their difference proving, after some discussion, to be quite irreconcilable, they thenceforth each pursued a different path. Mr. Wesley steadily and skilfully constructing the elaborate machinery of Wesleyan Methodism; and Whitfield following his plan of field itinerancy, with a constant and amazing popularity, but making no endeavour to originate a sect. He died in New England in 1769, at the age of 55.

His followers, however, and those of other eminent evangelicals who sympathized with his proceedings, gradually settled into separate religious bodies, principally under two distinctive appellations; one, the “Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion,” and the other, the “Welsh Calvinistic Methodists.” These, in fact, are now the only sections which survive as individual communities; for most of Whitfield’s congregations, not adopting any connexional bond, but existing as independent churches, gradually became absorbed into the Congregational body.

THE COUNTESS OF HUNTINGDON’S CONNEXION.

Selina, daughter of the Earl of Ferrers, and widow of the Earl of Huntingdon, was one of those on whom the preaching of Whitfield made considerable impression. In 1748 he became her chaplain; and by his advice she assumed a kind of leadership over his followers, erected chapels, engaged ministers or laymen to officiate in them, and founded a college at Trevecca in South Wales, for the education of Calvinistic preachers. After her death, this college was, in 1792, transferred to Cheshunt, (Herts,) and there it still exists.

The doctrines of the Connexion are almost identical with those of the Church of England, and the form of worship does not materially vary; for the liturgy is generally employed, though extemporary prayer is frequent.

Although the name “Connexion” is still used, there is no combined or federal ecclesiastical government prevailing. The Congregational polity is practically adopted; and of late years, several of the congregations have become, in name as well as virtually, Congregational churches.

The number of chapels mentioned in the Census as belonging to this Connexion, or described as “English Calvinistic Methodists,” was 109, containing (after an allowance for the sittings in five chapels, the returns for which are defective) accommodation for 38,727 persons. The attendants on the Census Sunday (making an estimated addition for seven chapels, the returns from which were silent on the point) were: Morning, 21,103; Afternoon, 4380; Evening, 19,159.

WELSH CALVINISTIC METHODISTS.

The great revival of religion commenced in England by Wesley and Whitfield had been preceded by a similar event in Wales. The principal agent of its introduction there was Howel Harris, a gentleman of Trevecca, in Brecknockshire, who, with a view to holy orders, had begun to study at Oxford, but, offended at the immorality there prevalent, had quitted college, and returned to Wales. He shortly afterwards began a missionary labour in that country, going from house to house, and preaching in the open air. A great excitement was produced; and multitudes attended his discourses. To sustain the religious feeling thus awakened, Mr. Harris, about the year 1736, instituted “Private Societies,” similar to those which Wesley was, about the same time, though without communication, forming in England. By 1739 he had established about 300 such societies in South Wales. At first, he encountered much hostility from magistrates and mobs; but after a time his work was taken up by several ministers of the Church of England; one of whom, the Reverend Daniel Rowlands, of Llangeitho, Cardigan, had such a reputation, that “persons have been known to come 100 miles to hear him preach on the sabbaths of his administering the Lord’s supper;” and he had no less than 2000 communicants in his church. In 1742, 10 clergymen were assisting in the movement, and 40 or 50 lay preachers. The first chapel was erected in 1747, at Builth in Brecknockshire.

In the mean time, North Wales began to be in similar manner roused; and, in spite of considerable persecution, many members were enrolled, and several chapels built. The Rev. Thomas Charles, of Bala, one of the founders of the British and Foreign Bible Society, was, towards the termination of the century, a prominent instrument in effecting this result.

The growth of the movement, both in North and South Wales, was extremely rapid; but the process of formation into a separate body was more gradual and slow. At first, as several of the most conspicuous labourers were clergymen of the Established Church, the sacraments were administered exclusively by them; but, as converts multiplied, the number of evangelical clergymen was found inadequate to the occasion: many members were obliged to seek communion with the various dissenting bodies; till, at last, in 1811, 12 among the Methodist preachers were ordained, at a considerable Conference, and from that time forth the sacraments were regularly administered by them in their own chapels, and the body assumed distinctly the appearance of a separate Connexion.

A county in Wales corresponds with a Wesleyan “Circuit,” or to a Scottish Presbytery. All the Church officers within a county, whether preachers or leaders of private societies, are members of the “Monthly Meeting” of the county. The province of this meeting is to superintend both the spiritual and secular condition of the societies within the county.

The “Quarterly Association” performs all the functions of the Wesleyan “Conference,” or of the “Synod” amongst Presbyterians. There are two meetings held every quarter; one in North Wales, and the other in South Wales. The Association consists of all the preachers and leaders of private societies in the Connexion. “At every Association, the whole Connexion is supposed to be present through its representatives, and the decisions of this meeting are deemed sufficient authority on every subject relating to the body through all its branches. It has the prerogative to superintend the cause of Christ among the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists through Wales and England, to inquire into the affairs of all the private and monthly societies, and to direct any changes or alterations which it may think requisite.” It is at this meeting that the ministers are selected who are to administer the sacraments.

The ministers, among the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists, are itinerant. They are selected by the private societies, and reported to the monthly meetings, which examine into their qualifications, and permit them to commence on trial. A certain number only, who must previously have been preachers for at least five years, are ordained to administer the sacraments, and this ordination takes place at the Quarterly Associations. The preachers are appointed each to a particular county; but generally once in the course of a year they undertake a missionary tour to distant parts of Wales, when they preach twice every day, on each occasion at a different chapel. Their remuneration is derived from the monthly pence contributed by the members of each congregation; out of which fund a trifling sum is given to them after every sermon. In 1837, a college for the education of ministers was established at Bala, and in 1842 another was established at Trevecca.

The doctrines of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists may be inferred from the appellation of the body, and be said to be substantially accordant with the Articles of the Established Church, interpreted according to their Calvinistic sense.

The number of chapels returned at the Census as pertaining to the body was 828; containing (after an estimate for 53 chapels which made no return of sittings) accommodation for 211,951 persons. The attendance on the Census Sunday was: Morning, 79,728; Afternoon, 59,140; Evening, 125,244. It is computed that the body have expended in the erection and repairs of their chapels, between the year 1747 and the present time, a sum amounting to nearly a million sterling. From the “Dyddiadwr Methodistaidd” for 1853 we learn that the number of ministers was 207, and of preachers 234. The number of communicants was stated on the same authority at 58,577.

The principal societies supported by the Connexion are those connected with Home and Foreign Missions; the contributions to which amount to about £3000 a year. The operations of the Home Mission are carried on among the English population inhabiting the borders between England and Wales. The Foreign Mission has a station in Brittany (north-west of France)—the language of that country being a sister dialect of the Welsh—and stations at Cassay and Sylhet in India, the presidency of Bengal.

METROPOLITAN. (See Archbishop, Bishop.) The bishop who presides over the other bishops of a province. The writers of the Latin Church use promiscuously the words archbishop and metropolitan, making either name denote a bishop, who, by virtue of his see, presides over or governs several other bishops. Thus in England the archbishops of Canterbury and York, and in Ireland the archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, are metropolitans. But the Greeks use the name only to denote him whose see is really a civil metropolis. There are some bishops in our Church who are metropolitans without the title of archbishop, viz. the bishops of Calcutta and Sydney.

MICHAEL, ST., AND ALL ANGELS. A festival of the Christian Church observed on the 29th of September.

The Scripture account of Michael is; that he was an archangel, who presided over the Jewish nation, as other angels did over the Gentile world, as is evident of the kingdoms of Persia and Greece; that he had an army of angels under his command; that he fought with the dragon, or Satan and his angels; and that, contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses.

As to the combat between Michael and the dragon, some authors understand it literally, and think it means the expulsion of certain rebellious angels, with their head or leader, from the presence of God. Others take it in a figurative sense, and refer it, either to the contest that happened at Rome between St. Peter and Simon Magus, in which the apostle prevailed over the magician; or to those violent persecutions, under which the Church laboured for three hundred years, and which happily ceased when the powers of the world became Christian.

The contest about the body of Moses is, likewise, taken both literally and figuratively. Those who understand it literally are of opinion, that Michael, by the order of God, hid the body of Moses after his death, and that the devil endeavoured to discover it, as a fit means to entice the people to idolatry by a superstitious worship of his relics. But this dispute is figuratively understood to be a controversy about rebuilding the temple, and restoring the service of God among the Jews at Jerusalem, the Jewish Church being fitly enough styled “the body of Moses.” It is thought by some that this story of the contest between Michael and the devil was taken by St. Jude out of an apocryphal book, called “The Assumption of Moses.”—Broughton.

MILITANT. (From militans, “fighting.”) A term applied to the Church on earth, as engaged in a warfare with the world, sin, and the devil; in distinction from the Church triumphant in heaven. It is used in the prefatory sentence of the prayer after the Offertory in our Communion Service, and was first inserted in the Second Book of King Edward VI.

MILLENARIANS and MILLENNIUM. A name which is given to those who believe that Christ will reign personally for a thousand years upon earth, their designation being derived from the Latin words, mille, “a thousand,” and annus, “a year.” In the words of Greswell, we may define their doctrine and expectation, generally, as the belief of a second personal advent or return of our Lord Jesus Christ, some time before the end of the present state of things on the earth; a resurrection of a part of the dead in the body, concurrently with that return; the establishment of a kingdom, for a certain length of time, upon earth, of which Jesus Christ will be the sovereign head, and good and holy men who lived under the Mosaic dispensation before the gospel æra, or have lived under the Christian, since, whether previously raised to life, or found alive in the flesh at the time of the return, will be the subjects, and in some manner or other admitted to a share of its privileges.

This is what is meant by the doctrine of the Millennium in general: the fact of a return of Jesus Christ in person before the end of the world; of a first or particular resurrection of the dead; of a reign of Christ, with all saints, on the earth; and all this before the present state of things is at an end, and before time and sense, whose proper period of being is commensurate with the duration of the present state of things, have given place to spirit and eternity in heaven.

The Millenarian, says the same learned writer, Mr. Greswell, expects the following events, and as far as he can infer their connexion, in the following order, though that is not, in every instance, a point of paramount importance, or absolute certainty, on which room for the possibility of a different succession of particulars may not be allowed to exist.

First, a personal reappearance of the prophet Elijah, before any second advent of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, a second advent of Jesus Christ in person, before his coming to judgment at the end of the world.

Thirdly, a conversion of the Jews to Christianity, collectively, and as a nation.

Fourthly, a resurrection of part of the dead, such as is called, by way of distinction, “the resurrection of the just.”

Fifthly, the restitution of the kingdom to Israel, including the appearance and manifestation of the Messiah to the Jews, in the character of a temporal monarch.

Sixthly, a conformation of this kingdom to a state or condition of society of which Christ will be the head, and faithful believers, both Jews and Gentiles, will be the members.

A distribution of rewards and dignities in it, proportioned to the respective merits or good deserts of the receivers.

A resulting state of things, which though transacted upon earth, and adapted to the nature and conditions of a human society as such, leaves nothing to be desired for its perfection and happiness.

Bishop Newton, in his “Dissertations on the Prophecies,” says, with reference to the millennium, when these great events shall come to pass, of which we collect from the prophecies, this is to be the proper order: the Protestant witnesses shall be greatly exalted, and the 1260 years of their prophesying in sackcloth, and of the tyranny of the beast, shall end together; the conversion and restoration of the Jews succeed; then follows the ruin of the Ottoman empire; and then the total destruction of Rome and of antichrist. When these great events, I say, shall come to pass, then shall the kingdom of Christ commence, or the reign of the saints upon earth. So Daniel expressly informs us that the kingdom of Christ and the saints will be raised upon the ruins of the kingdom of antichrist (vii. 26, 27). “But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end; and the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” So likewise St. John saith, that, upon the final destruction of the beast and the false prophet, (Rev. xx.,) “Satan is bound for a thousand years: and I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus Christ and for the word of God, which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands: and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.” It is, I conceive, to these great events, the fall of antichrist, the re-establishment of the Jews, and the beginning of the glorious millennium, that the three different dates in Daniel of 1260 years, 1290 years, and 1335 years, are to be referred. And as Daniel saith, (xii. 12,) “Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the 1335 years;” so St. John saith, (Rev. xx. 6,) “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection.” Blessed and happy indeed will be this period: and it is very observable that the martyrs and confessors of Jesus, in Papist as well as Pagan times, will be raised to partake of this felicity. Then shall all those gracious promises in the Old Testament be fulfilled, of the amplitude and extent, of the peace and prosperity, of the glory and happiness of the Church in the latter days. “Then,” in the full sense of the words, (Rev. xi. 15,) “shall the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever.” According to tradition, these thousand years of the reign of Christ and the saints will be the seventh millenary of the world; for as God created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh, so the world, it is argued, will continue six thousand years, and the seventh thousand will be the great Sabbatism, or holy rest of the people of God; “One day (2 Pet. iii. 8) being with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” According to tradition, too, these thousand years of the reign of Christ and the saints are the great “day of judgment,” in the morning or beginning whereof shall be the coming of Christ in flaming fire, and the particular judgment of antichrist and the first resurrection; and in the evening or conclusion whereof shall be the general resurrection of the dead, “small and great; and they shall be judged, every man, according to their works!”

MINIMS. A religious order, in the Church of Rome, whose founder was St. Francis de Paulu, so called from the place in Calabria, where he was born in 1416.

He composed his rule in 1493, and it was approved by Pope Alexander VI., at the recommendation of the king of France. This pontiff changed the name of Hermits of St. Francis, which these monks bore, into that of Minims, (the Least,) because they called themselves in humility Minimi Fratres Eremitæ, and gave them all the privileges of the religious mendicant or begging friars. In 1507, the holy founder of this order died, at the age of ninety-one years, and was canonized by Pope Leo X., in 1519. His body was preserved in the church of the convent of Plessis, until the Huguenots, in 1562, dragged it out of its tomb, and burnt it with the wood of a crucifix belonging to the church. His bones, however, were saved out of the fire by some zealous Catholics who mixed with the Calvinist soldiers, and were distributed afterwards among several churches.

This order is divided into thirty-one provinces, of which twelve are in Italy, eleven in France and Flanders, seven in Spain, and one in Germany. It has, at present, about 450 convents. The Minims have passed even into the Indies, where there are some convents which do not compose provinces, but depend immediately on the general.

What more particularly distinguishes these monks from all others, is the observation of what they call the quadragesimal life, that is, a total abstinence from flesh, and everything which has its origin from flesh, as eggs, butter, cheese, excepting in case of great sickness. By this means they make the year one continued Lent fast. Their habit is coarse black woollen stuff, with a woollen girdle of the same colour, tied in five knots. They are not permitted to quit their habit and girdle night nor day. Formerly they went barefooted, but for these last hundred years they have been allowed the use of shoes.

MINOR CANONS. Priests in collegiate churches, next in rank to the canons and prebendaries, but not of the chapter, who are responsible for the performance of the daily service. In cathedrals of the old foundation, they are not often found, their duties being generally performed there by priest-vicars. There are minor canons at St. Patrick’s, Hereford, and Chichester, and formerly were at Salisbury; and at all those places there are priest-vicars also: twelve minor canons at St. Paul’s, and seven at Windsor, where there are only lay-vicars besides. It appears from the original statutes of St. Patrick’s and St. Paul’s, that the minor canons held a middle place between the canons and vicars; and that besides their attendance on the daily service, they were required to take the place of the major canons when required. At Hereford, they are responsible for the reading of the daily prayers, the vicars choral for the Litany and lessons; which seems to mark this office as being more presbyteral than that of the vicars.

As the number of minor canons is generally but four or five, (at St. Patrick’s statutably six, though there never have been more than four,) it would appear as if these offices were originally instituted to supply the place of the four junior canons, whose proper duty it was to perform the daily service of the choir. Thus, in the Causes Celebres, viii. 345, on remarking on the constitution of the cathedral of Verdun, it is stated that, “par le service de chœur, on entend l’obligation des quatre chanonies qui sont dans les ordres sacrés, de porter la chappe, et de faire chœur tous les jours de l’année à leur tour. Cette fonction pénible a déja été retranchée; elle a été exercée par des chapelains, gagés par les nouveaux chanonies,” &c. Chaplain and minor canon are convertible terms in many churches abroad, as at St. Peter’s at Rome, where there are fifty minor canons or chaplains. (Eustace’s Classical Tour.) At Rouen there were eight Moindees Chanonies. They were elsewhere called semi (or demi) prebendaries.

The minor canons of St. Paul and of St. Patrick form corporate bodies, and had their common hall and collegiate buildings in ancient times. There is also a college of vicars-choral at St. Patrick’s. At Hereford the minor canonries are held by priest-vicars; but they have separate estates, as minor canons, with designation, like prebendaries, for their individual stalls.

In the cathedrals of the new foundation there are no priest-vicars, but all the inferior clerical members are minor canons. They ought to be all priests, and skilled in church music, according to the statutes, a qualification required by the laws of all cathedrals. Formerly the minor canons were more numerous than now, being commensurate to the number of the prebendaries: e. g. twelve at Canterbury, twelve at Durham, ten at Worcester: a number by no means too great for the due and solemn performance of the service. They were in fact, but not in name, the vicars of the prebendaries.—Jebb.

MINISTER. This is the Latin term to designate that officer who is styled deacon in Greek. The term was applied generally to the clergy about the time of the great rebellion, since which time it has been used to denote the preacher of any religion. Joseph Mede protested against our calling presbyters ministers of the Church, or of such or such a parish: we should call them, he observes, ministers of God, or ministers of Christ, not ministers of men, because they are only God’s ministers, who sends them, but the people’s pastors, to teach, instruct, and oversee them. Were it not absurd to call the shepherd the sheep’s minister? The word has, however, obtained such general currency, that it would be pedantic to refuse to use it. The word seems generally to imply an assistant, whether presbyteral or diaconal, in Divine service. Thus in the statutes of the cathedrals of the new foundation, the minor canons and other members of the choir are called minister. These represent the deacons, readers, chanters, &c. of the ancient Church.

Some trace of the division of the service between the superior and inferior clergy, (the priest and the deacon,) is perhaps still visible in our liturgy. The word minister is prefixed, in the order both for Morning and Evening Prayer, to those parts of the service only where there is exhortation, or in which the people audibly join, or which are said kneeling, such as the General Confession, Lord’s Prayer, Apostles’ Creed, and Lesser Litany. Minister also occurs in one of the rubrics respecting the reading of the lessons, which the custom of the Church, both Eastern and Western, has always permitted to the inferior ministers. The word priest is prefixed to the absolution, and to all those prayers which the clergyman performs standing; such as the versicles before the psalms, beginning at the Gloria Patri, and those before the collects. To the collects themselves no direction is prefixed. There are a few exceptions which may be accounted for.

MINORESS. A nun under the rule of St. Clair.

MIRACLE. An effect that does not follow from any of the regular laws of nature, or which is inconsistent with some law of it, or contrary to the settled constitution and course of things: accordingly, all miracles pre-suppose an established system of nature, within the limits of which they operate, and with the order of which they disagree.

The following statement is true beyond controversy:—Man cannot, in the present constitution of his mind, believe that religion has a Divine origin, unless it be accompanied with miracles. The necessary inference of the mind is, that if an Infinite Being act, his acts will be superhuman in their character; because the effect, reason dictates, will be characterized by the nature of its cause. Man has the same reason to expect that God will perform acts above human power and knowledge, that he has to suppose the inferior orders of animals will, in their actions, sink below the power and wisdom which characterize human nature. For, as it is natural for man to perform acts superior to the power and knowledge of the animals beneath him, so reason affirms that it is natural for God to develope his power by means and in ways above the skill and ability of mortals. Hence, if God manifest himself at all—unless, in accommodation to the capacities of men, he should constrain his manifestations within the compass of human ability—every act of God’s immediate power would, to human capacity, be a miracle. But, if God were to constrain all his acts within the limits of human means and agencies, it would be impossible for man to discriminate between the acts of the Godhead and the acts of the manhood. And man, if he considered acts to be of a Divine origin which were plainly within the compass of human ability, would violate his own reason.

Suppose, for illustration, that God desired to reveal a religion to men, and wished them to recognise his character and his benevolence in giving that revelation. Suppose, further, that God should give such a revelation, and that every appearance and every act connected with its introduction were characterized by nothing superior to human power; could any rational mind on earth believe that such a system of religion came from God? Impossible! A man could as easily be made to believe that his own child, who possessed his own lineaments, and his own nature, belonged to some other world, and some other order of the creation. It would not be possible for God to convince men that a religion was from heaven, unless it was accompanied with the marks of Divine power.

Suppose, again, that some individual were to appear either in the heathen or Christian world—that he claimed to be a teacher sent from God, yet aspired to the performance of no miracles—that he assumed to do nothing superior to the wisdom and ability of other men. Such an individual, although he might succeed in gaining proselytes to some particular view of a religion already believed, yet he could never make men believe that he had a special commission from God to establish a new religion, for the simple reason that he had no grounds more than his fellows, to support his claims as an agent of the Almighty. But if he could convince a single individual that he had wrought a miracle, or that he had power to do so, that moment his claims would be established in that mind as a commissioned agent from Heaven. So certainly and so intuitively do the minds of men revere and expect miracles as the credentials of the Divine presence.

This demand of the mind for miracles, as testimony of the Divine presence and power, is intuitive with all men; and those very individuals who have doubted the existence or necessity of miracles, should they examine their own convictions on this subject, would see that, by an absolute necessity, if they desired to give the world a system of religion, whether truth or imposture, in order to make men receive it as of Divine authority, they must work miracles to attest its truth, or make men believe that they did so. Men can produce doubt of a revelation in no way until they have destroyed the evidence of its miracles; nor can faith be produced in the Divine origin of a religion until the evidence of miracles is supplied.

The conviction that miracles are the true attestation of immediate Divine agency, is so constitutional (allow the expression) with the reason, that so soon as men persuade themselves they are the special agents of God in propagating some particular truth in the world, they adopt likewise the belief that they have ability to work miracles. There have been many sincere enthusiasts, who believed that they were special agents of Heaven; and, in such cases, the conviction of their own miraculous powers arises as a necessary concomitant of the other opinion. Among such, in modern times, may be instanced Emanuel Swedenborg, and Irving, the Scotch preacher. Impostors also, perceiving that miracles were necessary in order that the human mind should receive a religion as Divine, have invariably claimed miraculous powers. Such instances recur constantly from the days of Elymas down to the Mormon, Joseph Smith.

All the multitude of false religions that have been believed since the world began, have been introduced by the power of this principle. Miracles believed, lie at the foundation of all religions which men have ever received as of Divine origin. No matter how degrading or repulsive to reason in other respects, the fact of its establishment and propagation grows out of the belief of men that miraculous agency lies at the bottom. This belief will give currency to any system, however absurd; and, without it, no system can be established in the minds of men, however high and holy may be its origin and its design.

Such, then, is the constitution which the Maker has given to the mind. Whether the conviction be an intuition or an induction of the reason, God is the primary cause of its existence; and its existence puts it out of the power of man to receive a revelation from God himself, unless accompanied with miraculous manifestations. If, therefore, God ever gave a revelation to man, it was necessarily accompanied with miracles, and with miracles of such a nature, as would clearly distinguish the Divine character and the Divine authority of the dispensation.—Plan of the Philosophy of Salvation.

MIRACLES, or MIRACLE-PLAYS. (See Moralities.)

MISCHNA, or MISNA. A part of the Jewish Talmud. From a word which signifies repetition: i. e. a secondary law. It is believed by the Jews to be the tradition delivered, unwritten, to Moses by God; and preserved only by the doctors of the synagogue till the time of Rabbi Judas the Holy, who committed it to writing about A. D. 180. It is in fact the canon and civil law of the Jews; treating of tithes, festivals, matrimonial laws, mercantile laws, idolatry, oaths, sacrifices, and purifications. The heads of the synagogue who are said to have preserved the Mischna, were thought to have had the privilege of hearing the Bath-Col, or oracular voice of God. (See Bath-Col.) The Mischna contains the text; and the Gemara, which is the second part of the Talmud, contains the commentaries; so that the Gemara is, as it were, a glossary to the Mischna.

MISERERE. The seat of a stall, so contrived as to turn up and down, according as it is wanted as a support in long standing, or as a seat. Misereres are almost always carved, and often very richly; more often, too, than any other part of the wood-work, with grotesques.

MISSAL. (See Mass.) In the Romish Church, a book containing the services of the mass for the various days of the year. In the ancient Church, the several parts of Divine service were arranged in distinct books. Thus the collects and the invariable portion of the Communion Office formed the book called the Sacramentary. The lessons from the Old and New Testaments constituted the Lectionary, and the Gospels made another volume, with the title of Evangelistarium. The Antiphonary consisted of anthems, &c. designed for chanting.

About the eleventh or twelfth century it was found convenient, generally, to unite these books, and the volume obtained the name of the Complete or Plenary Missal, or Book of Missæ. Of this description were almost all the liturgical books of the Western Churches, and the arrangement is still preserved in our own.—Palmer’s Origines Liturgicæ.

MISSION. A power or commission to preach the gospel. Thus our blessed Lord gave his disciples and their successors the bishops their mission, when he said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”

It certainly is essential that the true ministers of God should be able to prove that they have not only the power, but the right, of performing sacred offices. There is an evident difference between these things, as may be seen by the following cases. If a regularly ordained priest should celebrate the eucharist in the church of another, contrary to the will of that person and of the bishop, he would have the power of consecrating the eucharist, it actually would be consecrated; but he would not have the right of consecrating; or, in other words, he would not have mission for that act. If a bishop should enter the diocese of another bishop, and, contrary to his will, ordain one of his deacons to the priesthood, the intruding bishop would have the power, but not the right, of ordaining; he would have no mission for such an act.

In fact, mission fails in all schismatical, heretical, and uncanonical acts, because God cannot have given any man a right to act in opposition to those laws which he himself has enacted, or to those which the apostles and their successors have instituted, for the orderly and peaceable regulation of the Church: he “is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (1 Cor. xiv. 33); and yet, were he to commission his ministers to exercise their offices in whatever places and circumstances they pleased, confusion and division without end must be the inevitable result.

Mission can only be given for acts in accordance with the Divine and ecclesiastical laws, the latter of which derive their authority from the former; and it is conferred by valid ordination. It would be easy to prove this in several ways; but it is enough at present to say, that no other method can be pointed out by which mission is given. Should the ordination be valid, and yet uncanonical, mission does not take effect until the suspension imposed by the canons on the person ordained is in some lawful manner removed.

Mr. Palmer, from whom the above remarks are taken, shows, in his Origines Liturgicæ, that the English bishops and clergy alone have mission in England.

MISSIONARY. A clergyman, whether bishop, priest, or deacon, deputed or sent out by ecclesiastical authority, to preach the gospel, and exercise his other functions, in places where the Church has hitherto been unknown, or is in the infancy of its establishment.

MITRE. The episcopal coronet. From Eusebius it seems that St. John wore an ornament which many have considered to be a mitre (φέταλον).

The most ancient mitres were very low and simple, being not more than from three to six inches in elevation, and they thus continued till the end of the thirteenth century. In the fourteenth century they gradually increased in height to a foot or more, and became more superbly enriched; their contours also presented a degree of convexity by which they were distinguished from the older mitres. The two horns of the mitre are generally taken to be an allusion to the cloven tongues as of fire, which rested on each of the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

Mitres, although worn in some of the Lutheran Churches, (as in Sweden,) have fallen into utter desuetude in England, even at coronations. They were worn however at the coronations of Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth. See Hiereugia Anglicana, p. 81, et seq. In which work, however, at p. 89, there is an assertion of Dr. Milner’s, which is incorrect, viz. that they were worn at the coronation of George III. In the detailed accounts of that ceremony (see e. g. the Annual Register for 1761) the bishops are described as carrying their square caps, and putting them on when the lay peers assumed their coronets. The mitre is now merely an heraldic decoration, and, as such, occasionally carried at funerals.

MODUS DECIMANDI. This is when lands, or a yearly pension, or some money or other thing, is given to a parson in lieu of his tithes.

MONASTERIES. Convents or houses built for those who profess the monastic life, whether abbeys, priories, or nunneries. (For the origin of monasteries, see Abbey and Monk.)

In their first institution, and in their subsequent uses, there can be no doubt that monasteries were amongst the most remarkable instances of Christian munificence, and they certainly were in the dark ages among the beneficial adaptations of the talents of Christians to pious and charitable ends. They were schools of education and learning, where the children of the great received their education; and they were hospitals for the poor: they afforded also a retirement for the worn-out servants of the rich and noble; they protected the calmer spirits, who, in an age of universal warfare, shrunk from conflict, and desired to lead a contemplative life. But the evils which grew out of those societies seem quite to have counterbalanced the good. Being often exempted from the authority of the bishop, they became hotbeds of ecclesiastical insubordination; and were little else but parties of privileged sectaries within the Church. The temptations arising out of a state of celibacy, too often in the first instance enforced by improper means, and always bound upon the members of these societies by a religious vow, were the occasion of great scandal. And the enormous wealth with which some of them were endowed, brought with it a greater degree of pride, and ostentation, and luxury, than was becoming in Christians; and still more in those who had vowed a life of religion and asceticism.

The dissolution of houses of this kind began so early as the year 1312, when the Templars were suppressed; and, in 1323, their lands, churches, advowsons, and liberties, here in England, were given by 17 Edward II. stat. iii. to the prior and brethren of the hospital of St. John of Jerusalem. In the years 1390, 1437, 1441, 1459, 1497, 1505, 1508, and 1515, several other houses were dissolved, and their revenues settled on different colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. Soon after the last period, Cardinal Wolsey, by licence of the king and pope, obtained a dissolution of above thirty religious houses for the founding and endowing his colleges at Oxford and Ipswich. About the same time a bull was granted by the same pope to Cardinal Wolsey to suppress monasteries, where there were not above six monks, to the value of eight thousand ducats a year, for endowing Windsor and King’s College in Cambridge; and two other bulls were granted to Cardinals Wolsey and Campeius, where there were less than twelve monks, to annex them to the greater monasteries; and another bull to the same cardinals to inquire about abbeys to be suppressed in order to be made cathedrals. Although nothing appears to have been done in consequence of these bulls, the motive which induced Wolsey and many others to suppress these houses, was the desire of promoting learning; and Archbishop Cranmer engaged in such suppression with a view of carrying on the reformation. There were other causes that concurred to bring on their ruin: many of the monks were loose and vicious; they were generally thought to be in their hearts attached to the pope’s supremacy; their revenues were not employed according to the intent of the donors; many cheats in images, feigned miracles, and counterfeit relics, had been discovered, which brought the monks into disgrace; the Observant friars had opposed the king’s divorce from Queen Catharine; and these circumstances operated, in concurrence with the king’s want of a supply, and the people’s desire to save their money, to forward a motion in parliament, that, in order to support the king’s state, and supply his wants, all the religious houses which were not able to spend above £200 a year, might be conferred upon the Crown; and an act was passed for that purpose, 27 Henry VIII. c. 28. By this act about 380 houses were dissolved, and a revenue of £30,000 or £32,000 a year came to the Crown; besides about £200,000 in plate and jewels. The suppression of these houses occasioned discontent, and at length an open rebellion: when this was appeased, the king resolved to suppress the rest of the monasteries, and appointed a new visitation, which caused the greater abbeys to be surrendered apace; and it was enacted by 31 Henry VIII. c. 13, that all monasteries which had been surrendered since the 4th of February, in the twenty-seventh year of his Majesty’s reign, and which thereafter should be surrendered, should be vested in the king. The knights of St. John of Jerusalem were also suppressed by the 32nd Henry VIII. c. 24. The suppression of these greater houses by these two acts produced a revenue to the king of above £100,000 a year, besides a large sum in plate and jewels. The last act of dissolution in this king’s reign was the act of 37 Henry VIII. c. 4, for dissolving colleges, free chapels, chantries, &c., which act was further enforced by 1 Edward VI. c. 14. By this act were suppressed 90 colleges, 110 hospitals, and 2374 chantries and free chapels.

Whatever were the offences of the race of men then inhabiting them, this destruction of the monasteries was nothing less than sacrilege, and can on no ground be justified. They were the property of the Church; and if, while the Church cast off divers errors in doctrine which she had too long endured, she had been permitted to purge these institutions of some practical errors, and of certain flagrant vices, they might have been exceedingly serviceable to the cause of religion. Cranmer felt this very forcibly, and begged earnestly of Henry VIII. that he would save some of the monasteries for holy and religious uses; but in vain. Ridley also was equally anxious for their preservation. It is a mistake to suppose that the monasteries were erected and endowed by Papists. Many of them were endowed before most of the errors of the Papists were thought of: and the founders of abbeys afterwards built and endowed them, not as Papists, but as churchmen; and when the Church became pure, she did not lose any portion of her right to such endowments as were always made in supposition of her purity. (See Num. xviii. 32; Lev. xxv. 23, 24; Ezek. xlviii. 14.)

Although much of the confiscated property was profligately squandered and consumed by the Russells, the Cavendishes, &c., still, out of the receipts, Henry VIII. founded six new bishoprics, viz. those of Westminster, (which was changed by Queen Elizabeth into a deanery, with twelve prebends and a school,) Peterborough, Chester, Gloucester, Bristol, and Oxford. And in eight other sees he founded deaneries and chapters, by converting the priors and monks into deans and prebendaries, viz. Canterbury, Winchester, Durham, Worcester, Rochester, Norwich, Ely, and Carlisle. He founded also the colleges of Christ Church in Oxford, and Trinity in Cambridge, and finished King’s College there. He likewise founded professorships of divinity, law, physic, and of the Hebrew and Greek tongues in both the said universities. He gave the house of Greyfriars and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital to the city of London, and a perpetual pension to the poor knights of Windsor, and laid out great sums in building and fortifying many ports in the Channel. It is observable that the dissolution of these houses was an act, not of the Church, but of the State, in the period preceding the Reformation, by a king and parliament of the Roman Catholic communion in all points except the king’s supremacy; to which the pope himself, by his bulls and licences, had led the way.

Of the monasteries which had been attached to cathedrals before the Reformation, the heads were called Priors, (which answered to dean,) never Abbots; as the bishop was considered as virtually the abbot. The bishop of Ely actually occupied, as he still does, the abbot’s place in the choir, (i. e. the stall usually assigned by the dean,) as he did since the Reformation at Carlisle, though in the latter place he had a throne also. Christ Church monastery in Dublin, which had always been a cathedral chapter, was also secularized at the Reformation.

MONASTERY. In architectural arrangement, monastic establishments, whether abbeys, priories, or other convents, followed nearly the same plan.

The great enclosure, (varying, of course, in extent with the wealth and importance of the monastery,) and generally with a stream running beside it, was surrounded by a wall, the principal entrance being through a gateway to the west or north-west. This gateway was a considerable building, and often contained a chapel, with its altar, besides the necessary accommodation for the porter. The almery, or place where alms were distributed, stood not far within the great gate, and generally a little to the right hand: there, too, was often a chapel with its altar. Proceeding onwards the west entrance of the church appeared. The church itself was always, where it received its due development, in the form of a Latin cross; a cross, i.e. of which the transepts are short in proportion to the nave. Moreover, in Norman churches, the eastern limb never approached the nave or western limb in length. Whether or no the reason of this preference of the Latin cross is found in the domestic arrangements of the monastic buildings, it was certainly best adapted to it; for the nave of the church with one of the transepts formed the whole of one side and part of another side of a quadrangle; and any other than a long nave would have involved a small quadrangle, while a long transept would leave too little of another side, or none at all, for other buildings. How the internal arrangements were affected by this adaptation of the nave to external requirements, we have seen under the head Cathedral, to which also we refer for the general description of the conventual church.

Southward of the church, and parallel with the south transept, was carried the western range of the monastic offices; but it will be more convenient to examine their arrangement within the court. We enter then by a door near the west end of the church, and passing through a vaulted passage, find ourselves in the cloister court, of which the nave of the church forms the northern side, the transept part of the eastern side and other buildings, in the order to be presently described, complete the quadrangle. The cloisters themselves extended around the whole of the quadrangle, serving, among other purposes, as a covered way from every part of the convent to every other part. They were furnished, perhaps always, with lavatories, on the decoration and construction of which much cost was expended; and sometimes also with desks and closets of wainscot, which served the purpose of a scriptorium.

Commencing the circuit of the cloisters at the north-west corner, and turning southward, we have first the dormitory, or dorter, the use of which is sufficiently indicated by its name. This occupied the whole of the western side of the quadrangle, and had sometimes a groined passage beneath its whole length, called the ambulatory, a noble example of which, in perfect preservation, remains at Fountains. The south side of the quadrangle contained the refectory, with its correlative, the coquina or kitchen, which was sometimes at its side, and sometimes behind it. The refectory was furnished with a pulpit, for the reading of some portion of Scripture during meals. On this side of the quadrangle may also be found, in general, the locutorium, or parlour, the latter word being, at least in etymology, the full equivalent of the former. The abbot’s lodge commonly commenced at the south-east corner of the quadrangle; but, instead of conforming itself to its general direction, rather extended eastward, with its own chapel, hall, parlour, kitchen, and other offices, in a line parallel with the choir or eastern limb of the church. Turning northwards, still continuing within the cloisters, we come first to an open passage leading outwards, then to the chapter-house, or its vestibule; then, after another open passage, to the south transept of the church. Immediately before us is an entrance into the church, and another occurs at the end of the west cloister.

The parts of the establishment especially connected with sewerage, were built over or close to the stream; and we may remark that, both in drainage, and in the supply of water, great and laudable care was always taken.

The stream also turned the abbey mill, at a small distance from the monastery. Other offices, such as stables, brew-houses, bake-houses, and the like, in the larger establishments, usually occupied another court; and, in the smaller, were connected with the chief buildings in the only quadrangle. It is needless to say that, in so general an account, we cannot enumerate exceptional cases. It may, however, be necessary to say, that the greatest difference of all, that of placing the quadrangle at the north instead of the south side of the church, is not unknown; it is so at Canterbury and at Lincoln, for instance.

The subject may be followed out in the several plans of monasteries scattered among our topographical works, and in a paper read by Mr. Bloxam before the Bedfordshire Architectural Society, and published in their Report for 1850.

MONKS. The word monk, being derived from the Greek μόνος, solus, signifies the same as a solitary, or one who lives sequestered from the company and conversation of the rest of the world, and is usually applied to those who dedicate themselves wholly to the service of religion, in some monastery (as it is called) or religious house, and under the direction of some particular statutes, or rule. Those of the female sex who devote themselves in like manner to a religious life, are called nuns. (See Nuns.)

There is some difference in the sentiments of learned men concerning the original and rise of the monastic life. But the most probable account of this matter seems to be as follows:

Till the year 250, there were no monks, but only ascetics, in the Church. (See Ascetics.)

In the Decian persecution, which was about the middle of the third century, many persons in Egypt, to avoid the fury of the storm, fled to the neighbouring deserts and mountains, where they not only found a safe retreat, but also more time and liberty to exercise themselves in acts of piety and Divine contemplations; which sort of life became so agreeable to them, that when the persecution was over, they refused to return to their habitations again, choosing rather to continue in those cottages and cells which they had made for themselves in the wilderness.

The first and most noted of these solitaries were Paul and Anthony, two famous Egyptians, whom therefore St. Jerome calls the fathers of the Christian hermits. Some indeed carry up the original of the monastic life as high as John Baptist and Elias. But learned men generally reckon Paul the Thebæan, and Anthony, as the first promoters of this way of living among the Christians.

As yet there were no bodies or communities of men embracing this life, nor any monasteries built, but only a few single persons scattered here and there in the deserts of Egypt, till Pachomius, in the peaceable reign of Constantine, procured some monasteries to be built in Thebais in Egypt, from whence the custom of living in societies was followed by degrees in other parts of the world, and in succeeding ages.

Macarius peopled the Egyptian desert of Scetis with monks. Hilarion, a disciple of Anthony’s, was the first monk in Palestine or Syria. Not long after, Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, brought monachism into Armenia, Paphlagonia, and Pontus. But St. Basil is generally considered as the great father and patriarch of the Eastern monks. It was he who reduced the monastic life to a fixed state of uniformity, who united the Anchorets and Cœnobites, and obliged them to engage themselves by solemn vows. It was St. Basil who prescribed rules for the government and direction of the monasteries, to which rules most of the disciples of Anthony, Pachomius, and Macarius, and the other ancient fathers of the deserts, submitted. And to this day, all the Greeks, Nestorians, Melchites, Georgians, Mingrelians, and Armenians, follow the rule of St. Basil.

The monastic profession made no less progress in the West. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, retiring to Rome, about the year 339, with several priests, and two Egyptian monks, made known to several pious persons the life of Anthony, who then lived in the desert of Thebais; upon which many were desirous to embrace so holy a profession. To this effect several monasteries were built at Rome, and this example was soon followed all over Italy. Benedict of Nursia appeared in that country in the early part of the sixth century, and published his rule, which was universally received throughout the West; for which reason that saint was styled the patriarch of the Western monks, as St. Basil was of the Eastern.

France owes the institution of the monastic life to St. Martin, bishop of Tours, in the fourth century; who built the monasteries of Lugugé and Marmontier. The Council of Saragossa, in Spain, anno 380, which condemns the practice of clergymen, who affected to wear the monastical habits, is a proof that there were monks in that kingdom in the fourth century, before St. Donatus went thither out of Africa, with seventy disciples, and founded the monastery of Sirbita.

Augustine, being sent into England by Gregory the Great, in the year 596, to preach the faith, at the same time introduced the monastic state into this kingdom. It made so great a progress here, that, within the space of 200 years, there were thirty kings and queens who preferred the religious habit to their crowns, and founded stately monasteries, where they ended their days in retirement and solitude.

The monastic profession was also carried into Ireland by St. Patrick, who is looked upon as the apostle of that kingdom, and multiplied there in so prodigious a manner, that it was called the Island of Saints.—Broughton.

The monastic life soon made a very great progress all over the Christian world. Rufinus, who travelled through the East in 373, assures us there were almost as many monks in the deserts, as inhabitants in the cities. From the wilderness (contrary to its original institution) it made its way into the towns and cities, where it multiplied greatly: for the same author informs us, that, in the single city of Oxirinca, there were more monasteries than private houses, and above 30,000 monks.

The ancient monks were not, like the modern, distinguished into orders, and denominated from the founders of them; but they had their names from the places where they inhabited, as the monks of Scetis, Tabennesus, Nitria, Canopus in Egypt, &c. or else were distinguished by their different ways of living. Of these the most remarkable were,

1. The anchorets, so called from their retiring from society, and living in private cells in the wilderness. (See Anchorets.)

2. The Cœnobites, so denominated from their living together in common. (See Cœnobites.)

All monks were, originally, no more than laymen: nor could they well be otherwise, being confined by their own rules to some desert or wilderness where there could be no room for the exercise of the clerical functions. Accordingly St. Jerome tells us, the office of a monk is, not to teach, but to mourn. The Council of Chalcedon expressly distinguishes the monks from the clergy, and reckons them with the laymen. Gratian himself, who is most interested for the moderns, owns it to be plain from ecclesiastical history, that to the time of Pope Sircius and Zosimus, the monks were only mere monks, and not of the clergy.

In some cases, however, the clerical and monastic life were capable of being conjoined; as, first, when a monastery happened to be at so great a distance from its proper church, that the monks could not ordinarily resort thither for Divine service, which was the case of the monasteries in Egypt and other parts of the East. In this case, some one or more of the monks were ordained for the performance of divine offices among them. Another case, in which the clerical and monastic life were united, was, when monks were taken out of monasteries by the bishops, and ordained for the service of the Church. This was allowed, and encouraged, when once monasteries were become schools of learning and pious education. In this case they usually continued their ancient austerities; and upon this account the Greeks styled them ἱερομοναχοι, clergy-monks. Thirdly, it happened sometimes that a bishop and all his clergy embraced the monastic life by a voluntary renunciation of property, and enjoyed all things in common. Eusebius Vercellensis was the first who brought in this way of living, and St. Augustine lived thus among the clergy of Hippo. And so far as this was an imitation of cœnobitic life, and having all things in common, it might be called a monastic as well as a clerical life.

The Cœnobites, or such monks as lived in communities, were chiefly regarded by the Church, and were therefore under the direction of certain laws and rules of government, of which we shall here give a short account. And,

First, All men were not allowed to turn monks at pleasure, because such an indiscriminate permission would have been detrimental both to the Church and State. Upon this account the civil law forbids any of those officers called curiales to become monks, unless they parted with their estates to others, who might serve their country in their stead. For the same reason servants were not to be admitted into any monastery without their masters’ leave. Indeed, Justinian afterwards abrogated this law by an edict of his own, which first set servants at liberty from their masters, under pretence of betaking themselves to a monastic life. The same precautions were observed in regard to married persons and children. The former were not to embrace the monastic life, unless with the mutual consent of both parties. This precaution was afterwards broke through by Justinian; but the Church never approved of this innovation. As to children, the Council of Gangra decreed that if any such, under pretence of religion, forsook their parents, they should be anathematized. But Justinian enervated the force of this law likewise, forbidding parents to hinder their children from becoming monks or clerks. And as children were not to turn monks without consent of their parents, so neither could parents oblige their children to embrace a monastic life against their own consent. But the fourth Council of Toledo, A. D. 633, set aside this precaution, and decreed that, whether the devotion of their parents, or their own profession, made them monks, both should be equally binding, and there should be no permission to return to a secular life again, as was before allowable, when a parent offered a child before he was capable of giving his own consent.

The manner of admission to the monastic life was usually by some change of habit or dress, not to signify any religious mystery, but only to express their gravity and contempt of the world. Long hair was always thought an indecency in men, and savouring of secular vanity; and therefore they polled every monk at his admission, to distinguish him from seculars; but they never shaved any, for fear they should look too like the priests of Isis. This, therefore, was the ancient tonsure, in opposition to both these extremes. As to their habit and clothing, the rule was the same: they were to be decent and grave, as became their profession. The monks of Tabennesus, in Thebais, seem to have been the only monks, in those early days, who were confined to any particular habit. St. Jerome, who often speaks of the habit of the monks, intimates that it differed from others only in this, that it was a cheaper, coarser, and meaner raiment, expressing their humility and contempt of the world, without any singularity or affectation. The father is very severe against the practice of some who appeared in chains or sackcloth. And Cassian blames others who carried wooden crosses continually about their necks, which was only proper to excite the laughter of the spectators. In short, the Western monks used only a common habit, the philosophic pallium, as many other Christians did. And Salvian seems to give an exact description of the habit and tonsure of the monks, when, reflecting on the Africans for their treatment of them, he says, “they could scarce ever see a man with short hair, a pale face, and habited in a pallium, without reviling, and bestowing some reproachful language on him.”

We read of no solemn vow, or profession, required at their admission: but they underwent a triennial probation, during which time they were inured to the exercises of the monastic life. If, after that time was expired, they chose to continue the same exercises, they were then admitted without any further ceremony into the community. This was the method prescribed by Pachomius, the father of the monks of Tabennesus, from which all others took their model.

Nor was there, as yet, any solemn vow of poverty required; though it was customary for men voluntarily to renounce the world by disposing of their estates to charitable uses, before they entered into a community, where they were to enjoy all things in common. Nor did they, after renouncing their own estates, seek to enrich themselves, or their monasteries, by begging, or accepting, the estates of others. The Western monks did not always adhere to this rule, as appears from some Imperial laws made to restrain their avarice. But the monks of Egypt were generally just in their pretensions, and would accept of no donations but for the use of the poor. Some, indeed, did not wholly renounce all property, but kept their estates in their own hands, the whole yearly revenue of which they distributed in charitable uses.

As the monasteries had no standing revenues, all the monks were obliged to exercise themselves in bodily labour to maintain themselves, without being burdensome to others. They had no idle mendicants among them; they looked upon a monk that did not work as no better than a covetous defrauder. Sozomen tells us, that Serapion presided over a monastery of ten thousand monks, near Arsinoë in Egypt, who all laboured with their own hands, by which means they not only maintained themselves, but had enough to relieve the poor.

The monasteries were commonly divided into several parts, and proper officers appointed over each of them. Every ten monks were subject to one, who was called the decanus, or dean, from his presiding over ten; and every hundred had another officer called centenarius, from his presiding over a hundred. Above these were the patres, or fathers of the monasteries, called likewise abbates, abbots, from the Greek ἄββας, which signifies father; and hegumeni (ἡγούμενοι) presidents; and archimandrites, from mandru, a sheep-fold. The business of the deans was to exact every man’s daily task, and bring it to the œconomus, or steward, who gave a monthly account thereof to the father, or abbot. (See Abbot.)

To their bodily exercises they joined others that were spiritual. The first of these was a perpetual repentance. Upon which account the life of a monk is often styled the life of a mourner. And in allusion to this, the isle of Canopus, near Alexandria, formerly a place of great lewdness, was, upon the translation and settlement of the monks of Tabennesus there, called Insulæ Metanœæ, the Isle of Repentance.

The next spiritual exercise was extraordinary fasting. The Egyptian monks kept every day a fast till three in the afternoon, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and the fifty days of Pentecost. Some exercised themselves with very great austerities, fasting two, three, four, or five days together; but this practice was not generally approved. They did not think such excessive abstinence of any use, but rather a disservice to religion. Pachomius’s rule, which was said to be given him by an angel, permitted every man to eat, drink, and labour, according to his bodily strength. So that fasting was a discretionary thing, and matter of choice, not of compulsion.

Their fastings were accompanied with extraordinary and frequent returns of devotion. The monks of Palestine, Mesopotamia, and other parts of the East, had six or seven canonical hours of prayer. Besides which they had their constant vigils, or nocturnal meetings. The monks of Egypt met only twice a day for public devotion; but, in their private cells, whilst they were at work, they were always repeating psalms, and other parts of Scripture, and intermixing prayers with their bodily labour. St. Jerome’s description of their devotion is very lively: “When they are assembled together, (says that father,) psalms are sung, and the Scriptures read: then, prayers being ended, they all sit down, and the father begins a discourse to them, which they hear with the profoundest silence and veneration. His words make a deep impression on them; their eyes overflow with tears, and the speaker’s commendation is the weeping of his hearers. Yet no one’s grief expresses itself in an indecent strain. But when he comes to speak of the kingdom of heaven, of future happiness, and the glory of the world to come, then one may observe each of them, with a gentle sigh, and eyes lifted up to heaven, say within himself, ‘Oh that I had the wings of a dove, for then would I flee away, and be at rest!’” In some places, they had the Scriptures read during their meals at table. This custom was first resorted to in the monasteries of Cappadocia, to prevent idle discourses and contentions. But in Egypt they had no occasion for this remedy; for they were taught to eat their meat in silence. Palladius mentions one instance more of their devotion, which was only occasional; namely, their psalmody at the reception of any brethren, or the conducting them with singing of psalms to their habitation.

The laws did not allow monks to interest themselves in any public affairs, either ecclesiastical or civil; and those who were called to any employment in the Church, were obliged to quit their monastery thereupon. Nor were they permitted to encroach upon the duties, or rights and privileges, of the secular clergy.

By the laws of their first institution, in all parts of the East, their habitation was not to be in cities, or places of public concourse, but in deserts, and private retirements, as their very name implied. The famous monk Anthony used to say, “That the wilderness was as natural to a monk, as water to a fish; and therefore a monk in a city was quite out of his element, like a fish upon dry land.” Theodosius enacted, that all who made profession of the monastic life should be obliged by the civil magistrate to betake themselves to the wilderness, as their proper habitation. Baronius, by mistake, reckons this law a punishment, and next to a persecution of the monks. Justinian made laws to the same purpose, forbidding the Eastern monks to appear in cities; but, if they had any business of concern to be transacted there, they might do it by their Apocrisarii or Responsales, that is, their proctors or syndics, which every monastery was allowed for that purpose.

But this rule admitted of some exceptions. As, first, in times of common danger to the faith. Thus Anthony came to Alexandria, at the request of Athanasius, to confute the Arian heresy. Sometimes they thought it necessary to come and intercede with the emperors and judges for condemned criminals. Thus the monks in the neighbourhood of Antioch forsook their cells, to intercede with the emperor Theodosius, who was highly displeased with that city for demolishing the imperial statues. Afterwards, indeed, this practice grew into an abuse, and the monks were not contented to petition, but would sometimes come in great bodies or troops, and deliver criminals by force. To repress which tumultuous way of proceeding, Arcadius published a law, forbidding any such attempts under very severe penalties.

As the monks of the ancient Church were under no solemn vow or profession, they were at liberty to betake themselves to a secular life again. Julian himself was once in the monastic habit. The same is observed of Constans, the son of that Constantine, who, in the reign of Honorius, usurped the empire in Britain. The rule of Pachomius, by which the Egyptian monks were governed, has no mention of any vow at their entrance, nor any punishment for such as deserted their station afterwards.

In process of time, it was thought proper to inflict some punishment on such as returned to a secular life. The civil law excludes deserters from the privilege of ordination. Justinian added another punishment; which was, that if they were possessed of any substance, it should be all forfeited to the monastery which they had deserted. The censures of the Church were likewise inflicted on deserting monks in the fifth century.

MONOPHYSITES. (From μόνος, only, and φύσις, nature.) A general name given to all those sectaries in the Levant who only own one nature in our blessed Saviour and who maintain that the Divine and human nature of Jesus Christ were so united as to form only one nature, yet without any change, confusion, or mixture of the two natures. (See Eutychians.)

MONOTHELITES. Christian heretics in the seventh century, so called from the Greek words μόνος (only) and θέλημα (will), because they maintained, that, though there were two natures in Jesus Christ, the human and the Divine, there was but one will, which was the Divine.

The author of this sect was Theodore, bishop of Pharan in Arabia, in 626, who first started the question, and maintained that the manhood in Christ was so united to the Word, that, though it had its faculties, it did not act by itself, but the whole act was to be ascribed to the Word, which gave it the motion. Thus, he said, it was the manhood of Christ that suffered hunger, thirst, and pain; but the hunger, thirst, and pain were to be ascribed to the Word. In short, the Word was the sole author and mover of all the operations and wills in Christ.

Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, was of the same sentiment; and the emperor Heraclius embraced the party so much the more willingly, as he thought it a means of reconciling some other heretics to the Church.

Pope Martin I. called a council at Rome in 649, upon the question about the two operations and two wills. In this council, at which were present 105 Italian bishops, the doctrine of the Monothelites was generally condemned. The emperor Constans, who looked upon this condemnation as a kind of rebellion, caused Pope Martin to be violently carried away from Rome, and, after most cruel usage, banished him to Chersona.

However, this heresy was finally condemned in the sixth general council, held at Constantinople, under Constantine Pogonatus, in the year 680.

MONTANISTS. Christian heretics, who sprung up about the year 171, in the reign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. They were so called from their leader, the heresiarch Montanus, a Phrygian by birth, whence they are sometimes styled Phrygians and Cataphrygians.

Montanus, it is said, embraced Christianity in hopes of rising to the dignities of the Church. He pretended to inspiration, and gave out that the Holy Ghost had instructed him in several points which had not been revealed to the apostles. Priscilla and Maximilla, two enthusiastic women of Phrygia, presently became his disciples, and in a short time he had a great number of followers. The bishops of Asia, being assembled together, condemned his prophecies, and excommunicated those who dispersed them. Afterwards, they wrote an account of what had passed to the Western Churches, where the pretended prophecies of Montanus and his followers were likewise condemned.

The Montanists, finding themselves exposed to the censure of the whole Church, formed a schism, and set up a distinct society, under the direction of those who called themselves prophets. Montanus, in conjunction with Priscilla and Maximilla, was at the head of the sect.

These sectaries made no alteration in the creed. They only held that the Holy Spirit made Montanus his organ for delivering a more perfect form of discipline than that which was delivered by the apostles. They refused communion for ever to those who were guilty of notorious crimes, and believed that the bishops had no authority to reconcile them. They held it unlawful to fly in time of persecution. They condemned second marriages, allowed the dissolution of marriage, and observed three Lents.

The Montanists became separated into two branches, one of which were the disciples of Proclus, and the other of Æschines. The latter are charged with following the heterodoxy of Praxeas and Sabellius concerning the Trinity. The celebrated Tertullian was a Montanist.

MONUMENT. The memorial placed over the body of a Christian, after his burial in consecrated ground.

The earliest monuments in England which have come down to us are, perhaps, not older than the Norman Conquest; and the most ancient is the simplest form. A stone coffin is covered with a single stone slab, which is also the only recipient of whatever device may be designed to commemorate the tenant of the narrow dwelling over which it closes. So early as the middle of the ninth century, (840,) Kenneth, king of Scotland, made an ordinance that such coffins should be adorned with the sign of the cross, in token of sanctity, on which no one was on any account to tread; and, perhaps, there were none but purely religious emblems employed for some generations after this time. The sign of the cross still continued for centuries the most usual ornament of tombs, but by-and-by it became associated with others which were most of them intended to designate the profession of him whose dust they honoured. Hence we have the crosier and mitre, with perhaps a chalice and paten, upon the tomb of an ecclesiastic, of an abbot, or a bishop; the knight has a sword, and his shield at first plain, but afterwards charged with his arms on his tomb. Sometimes an approach to religious allegory is discovered on monuments even of these very early ages, such as, for instance, the cross or crosier stuck into the mouth of a serpent or cockatrice, indicating the victory of the cross and of the Church over the devil. These, and the like devices, occurring before any attempt at the human figure was made, are in a low relief, or indented outline.

By-and-by the human figure was added, recumbent, and arrayed in the dress of the individual commemorated; and this figure soon rose from low relief to an effigy in full proportions. The knight and the ecclesiastic are now discovered so perfectly attired according to their order and degree, that the antiquary gathers his knowledge of costume from these venerable remains. Some affecting lessons of mortality are now forcibly inculcated by circumstances introduced into the sepulchre; for instance, the figure of the deceased appears nearly reduced to a skeleton, and laid in a shroud; a few instances occur in which the corpse thus represented is below a representation of the living person. Another interesting intimation of the character of the deceased appears in the crossed legs of those who had vowed a pilgrimage to the Holy Land; and the lion is frequently found, as well as the serpent, at the feet of the recumbent figure, perhaps in allusion to the words of the psalmist, “Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under thy feet.”

All this time the tomb has been gradually increasing in height and in general splendour, the sides are adorned with figures in several compartments, which run into niches or panels, according to the advance of architectural design, and at last they are surmounted with an arch, low at first and little decorated, but afterwards very elaborately wrought into a rich canopy. Religious allegories become more complex on the sides of the tomb, and we have instances of some which have since been borrowed by artists of name, and perhaps accounted new by many; for instance, it is not rare to see a representation of the soul of the dying conveyed to heaven by angels, while the corpse lies upon the litter, and this was a design chosen for the cenotaph of the Princess Charlotte. The relatives of the deceased are sometimes represented by many small statues in the niches; or armorial bearings are introduced, sparing at first, and often, as on the tomb of Lionell Lord Wells, in Methley church, supported on the breasts of angels. Angels also frequently support the head of the recumbent figure, and at the feet are sometimes one or more priests with an open book in their hands. The space in the wall behind the tomb and beneath the canopy allows of allegorical devices, sometimes in fresco, sometimes in mosaic. But what most demands attention are the recumbent figures themselves, generally with both hands raised in the attitude of prayer; or, if they be bishops, with the right hand as if giving a blessing. The effigies of the man and his wife appear always on the same tomb, lying side by side, and in the same pious attitude; a frequently recurring sight, which inspired the lines of Piers Plowman:—

“Knyghts in ther conisance clad for the nones,

Alle it semed seyntes ysacred opon erthe,

And lovely ladies ywrought leyen by her sides.”

And surely there is a beauty and propriety in that character of monuments for Christian men in Christian churches, which could suggest the words,

“Alle it semed seyntes ysacred opon erthe,”

far greater than we recognise in the vain-glorious boastings of success in secular pursuits, perhaps even in sinful undertakings, which cumber church walls. It is a holier thought to remember what was sacred in the Christian man; who, imperfect as he may have been, was yet, as he was a Christian, in some sense a saint, and to embody it in some pious attitude upon his tomb, than to forget everything that is Christian, and to celebrate only the secular or the vicious.

Gorgeous as some of these tombs are, they did not satisfy the splendour of that age, and the canopy swells into an actual chapel, sometimes in the body of the larger church, as that of William of Wykeham, in Winchester, and those of Cardinal Beaufort, and Bishops Waynflete and Fox, in the same cathedral. Sometimes the chapel is a building complete in itself, as that of the Beauchamps, at St. Mary’s church, Warwick, and that of Henry VII. at Westminster.

MORALITIES, MYSTERIES, and MIRACLES. A kind of theatrical representations, which were made by the monks, friars, and other ecclesiastics of the middle ages, the vehicle of instruction to the people. Their general character was the same, but the miracles may be distinguished as those which represented the miracles wrought by the holy confessors, and the sufferings by which the perseverance of the martyrs was manifested; of which kind the first specified by name is a scenic representation of the legend of St. Catherine. The moralities were certain allegorical representations of virtues or vices, always so contrived as to make virtue seem desirable, and vice ridiculous and deformed. The mysteries were representations often of great length, and requiring several days’ performance, of the Scripture narrative, or of several parts of it, as, for instance, the descent of Christ into hell. Of these mysteries two complete series have lately been published from ancient manuscripts, the Townley Mysteries, performed by the monks of Woodchurch, near Wakefield, and the different leading companies of that town; and the Coventry Mysteries, performed with like help of the trades in Coventry, by the Grey Friars of that ancient city. Both of these collections begin with the creation, and carry on the story in different pageants or scenes until the judgment-day.

It will not be supposed that these plays are free from the deformities of every other kind of literature of the times to which they are referred; nor that the performance of them was without a great deal more of the coarseness of an unrefined age than would be tolerated now: neither need it be concealed that the theology therein embodied was sometimes rather Popish than Catholic.

On the whole it may fairly be said, that these miracles, mysteries, and moralities, were wholesome for the times; and that though they afterwards degenerated into actual abuses, yet that they are not to be condemned without measure and without mercy.

Their history and character are interesting, not only as giving a fair picture of the character of remote ages, but also because they seem to be the original from which arose stage plays and oratorios.

As a specimen of these old moralities see in Dodsley’s collection of Old Plays—God’s Promises, by Bale, bishop of Ossory, which dramatizes the leading events of the Sacred History. It was printed in 1538.

MORAVIANS, or UNITED BRETHREN. A sect generally said to have arisen under Nicholas Lewis, count of Zinzendorf, a German nobleman of the last century, and thus called because the first converts to the system were some Moravian families. According to the society’s own account, however, they derive their origin from the Greek Church in the ninth century, when, by the instrumentality of Methodius and Cyrillus, two Greek monks, the kings of Bulgaria and Moravia, being converted to the faith, were, together with their subjects, united in communion with the Greek Church. Methodius was their first bishop, and for their use Cyrillus translated the Scriptures into the Sclavonian language.

It is sometimes supposed that because the Moravians have bishops, they are less to be blamed than other dissenting sects. But, to say nothing of the doubt that exists with respect to the validity of their orders, an episcopal church may be, as the Moravians and Romanists of this country are, in a state of schism. And the very fact that the difference between them and the Church is not great, if this be so, makes the sin of their schism, in not conforming, yet greater.

Though the Brethren acknowledge no other standard of truth than the sacred Scriptures, they in general profess to adhere to the Augsburg Confession of Faith. Both in their Summary of Christian Doctrine, which is used for the instruction of their children, and in their general instructions and sermons, they teach the doctrine of the Trinity; and in their prayers, hymns, and litanies address the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the same manner as is done in other Christian Churches; yet they chiefly direct their hearers to Jesus Christ, as the appointed channel of the Deity, in whom God is known and made manifest unto man. They dwell upon what he has done and suffered, and upon the glorious descriptions given of him as an Almighty Saviour. They recommend love to him, as the constraining principle of the Christian’s conduct; and their general manner is more by beseeching men to be reconciled to God, than by alarming them with the terrors of the law, and the threatenings against the impenitent, which they, however, do not fail occasionally to set before their hearers. They avoid, as much as possible, everything that would lead to controversy; and though they strongly insist upon salvation by grace alone through faith, yet they will not enter into any explanation, or give any decided opinion, concerning particular election. They have, therefore, been considered by high Calvinists as leaning to Arminianism, and by others as Calvinists; but they themselves decline the adoption of either name, and conceive that the gospel may be preached by both. They profess to believe that the kingdom of Christ is not confined to any party, community, or church; and they consider themselves, though closely united in one body or visible Church, as spiritually joined in the bond of Christian love to all who are taught of God, and belong to the universal Church of Christ, however much they may differ in forms, which they deem non-essentials.

See Crantz’s History of the Brethren; Spangenberg’s Exposition of Christian Doctrine; Ratio Disciplinæ Unit. Fratrum, by Loretz, &c.

MORMONISTS, or LATTER DAY SAINTS. The Census Report published in 1854, gives the following account of these enthusiasts. Although, in origin, the Mormon movement is not English, but American, yet, as the new creed, by the missionary zeal of its disciples, has extended into England, and is making some not inconsiderable progress with the poorer classes of our countrymen, it seems desirable to give, as far as the inadequate materials permit, some brief description of a sect, the history of whose opinions, sufferings, and achievements, shows, perhaps, the most remarkable religious movement that has happened since the days of Mahomet.

Joseph Smith, the prophet of the new belief, was born in humble life in 1805, at Sharon in the state of Vermont, from whence in 1815 he removed with his parents to Palmyra, New York. When about 15 years old, being troubled by convictions of his spiritual danger, and perplexed by the multitude of mutually hostile sects, he saw, he says, while praying in a grove, a vision of “two personages,” who informed him that his sins were pardoned, and that all existing sects were almost equally erroneous. This vision was repeated three years afterwards, in 1823, when an angel, he reports, informed him that the American Indians were a remnant of the Israelites, and that certain records, written by the Jewish prophets and containing history and prophecy, had, when the Indians fell into depravity, been buried in the earth at a spot which the angel indicated. Smith was further told, that he had been selected as the instrument by which these valuable records should be brought to light; the revelations they contained being necessary for the restoration of that purity of creed and worship from which all the modern churches had alike departed.

Accordingly, upon the 22nd of September, 1823, Smith, the story runs, discovered in the side of a hill, about four miles from Palmyra in Ontario County, a stone box, just covered by the earth, in which was deposited the “Record,”—a collection of thin plates of gold, held together by three golden rings. Part of this golden book was sealed, but the portion open to inspection was engraven thickly with “Reformed Egyptian” characters. Together with the book he found two crystal lenses “set in the two rims of a bow,” apparently resembling an enormous pair of spectacles; this instrument he said was the Urim and Thummim used by ancient seers.

The simple inspection of these treasures was the whole extent of Smith’s achievements on his first discovery of them; he was not permitted by the angel to remove them until four years afterwards, on the 22nd of September, 1827. During the interval he received occasional instruction from his supernatural visitant.

The news of his discovery attracted such attention, and procured him so much obloquy, that, according to the narrative of his biographers, he was exposed to personal violence, and was obliged to fly to Pennsylvania, carrying his golden plates concealed in a barrel of beans. When thus in some security, he, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, set to work upon the translation of the unsealed portion, which, when complete, composed a bulky volume, which he called the “Book of Mormon”—“Mormon” meaning, he explained, more good, from “mor,” a contraction for more, and “mon,” Egyptian for good. “Mormon,” too, was the name of a supposed prophet living in the fourth or fifth century, who, after the principal portion of the American Israelites had fallen in battle, and the whole of them become degenerate, engraved on plates a summary of their history and prophecies. These plates, his son, Moroni, in the troublous times which followed, hid for safety in a hill then called Cumora, about the year A. D. 420.

Mormons defend the authenticity of this recital, by asserting the improbability that Smith, an illiterate person, could invent it, and, unaided, write so large and peculiar a volume. To the objection that the golden plates are not produced, they give Smith’s own reply to the applications made to him by his disciples for a view—that such an exhibition of them is prohibited by special revelation. Nevertheless, in further proof of Smith’s veracity, three “witnesses” were found to testify that they had actually seen the plates, an angel having shown them; and a similar testimony was borne by eight other “witnesses,”—four of those belonging to a family named Whitmer, and three being the two brothers and the father of Smith. The utmost that Smith did towards allowing access by indifferent parties to the plates, was to give to one of his inquiring followers a copy upon paper of a portion of the plates in the original hieroglyphics, viz. the “Reformed Egyptian.” This was submitted by the yet unsatisfied disciple to Professor Anthon of New York, who, however, did not recognise the characters as those of any ancient language known to him. The Mormon advocates appear to think these evidences irresistible.—Upon the other hand, it is asserted, by opponents of the Mormons, that about the years 1809–12, a person of the name of Solomon Spaulding, who had been a clergyman, conceived and executed the design of writing a religious tale, the scenes and narrative of which should be constructed on the theory that the American Indians were the lost ten tribes of Israel. This work, when finished, he entitled “The Manuscript found;” and the purport of the fiction was, to trace the progress of the tribes from Jerusalem to America, and then describe their subsequent adventures in the latter country,—“Mormon” and his son “Moroni” being prominent characters, and Nephi, Lehi, and the Lamanites (names frequently occurring in the Book of Mormon) being also mentioned. The MS. of this production, it is further stated, found its way into the hands of one Sidney Rigdon, who was intimately connected with Smith from the commencement of his career.

The “Book of Mormon” was succeeded by a “Book of Doctrine and Covenants,” being a collection of the special revelations made to Smith and his associates upon all points connected with the course and welfare of the Church. This was continually enlarged as further revelations, consequent upon the varying fortunes and requirements of the body, were received. Amongst these was one by which the “Aaronic Priesthood” was revived—another by which baptism by immersion was commanded—a third for the institution of “Apostles”—and others for the temporal regulation of the Church from time to time. In these productions the peculiar phraseology of the sacred Scriptures was profusely imitated.

It appears that at the end of about three years after Smith’s announcement of himself as a prophet, about thirty persons were convinced of the reality of his pretensions, and from this time forward converts rapidly increased. Smith removed to Kirtland in Ohio, and set up a mill, a store, and a bank.

It was not without opposition that this progress was effected. As appears to be usual upon the rise of new religious sects, the Mormons were accused of holding many outrageous and immoral doctrines, and, amongst them, that of a community of wives. The popular hostility was often violently manifested, and the “saints” were subjected to much ill-treatment. Smith himself, in 1832, was tarred and feathered by a midnight mob; and, in the following year, the whole of the Mormons in Missouri (amounting to above a thousand persons) were expelled from Independence, Jackson County, which had been described by Smith as the Zion appointed by revelation for the resting-place of the “saints.” They removed to Clay County, where, in 1837, they were joined by the prophet himself, whose bank in Kirtland had failed. Meantime, the prejudice against the Mormons followed them to their new habitation, and, in 1838, after several sanguinary outbreaks, Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were imprisoned, and the whole community of Mormons were expelled from their possessions in Missouri. They took refuge in the neighbouring state of Illinois. Here, in 1839, their prophet, who had managed to escape from prison, joined them. They now numbered 15,000 souls.

In Illinois, they chose the village of Commerce as their residence, which soon became converted into a considerable town, of which the “prophet” was appointed mayor. This town they called Nauvoo, or “Beautiful,” according to the language of the Book of Mormon. A body of militia, called the Nauvoo Legion, was established—Smith being “General.” In 1841, a “revelation” ordered the construction of a splendid temple, towards which object all the Mormons were to contribute a full tithe of their possessions. It is said that they expended on this structure nearly a million of dollars.

In Nauvoo, the Mormons seem to have increased and prospered greatly: the town extended fast; the temple gradually rose; and the prophet was the absolute head of a comparatively powerful community, which hardly recognised the ordinary laws of the state. In 1843 he became a candidate for the presidency, and put forth a statement of his views. In 1844, however, occurred the final catastrophe of his life. A Nauvoo paper, having printed certain scandal of him, was, by order of the council of the town, suppressed, and its office razed; on which, the editors retired to Carthage, and obtained a warrant against Smith and his brother. This warrant Smith refused to recognise: the county force prepared to execute it; and the “saints” prepared their city for defence. To save the town, however, Smith surrendered on the promise of protection from the governor. This promise proved of little value; for, on the 27th of June, 1844, a mob broke into Carthage prison, and Joseph and Hyrum Smith were shot.

Upon the prophet’s death there were two competitors for the vacant supremacy—Sidney Rigdon and Brigham Young. The former was the earliest associate of Smith, and professed to be acquainted with “all his secrets;” but, as the prominent advocate of the “Spiritual Wife” doctrine, he was looked upon with disfavour as the virtual author of much of the suspicion and hostility with which the Mormons were regarded. Brigham Young succeeded therefore to the post of “prophet,” (which he still retains,) and Rigdon was expelled from the community. An interval of scarcely interrupted progress followed, during which the temple was completed; but in 1845 the troubles were renewed: perpetual conflicts, in which blood was shed, occurred, and the city of Nauvoo itself was regularly besieged. At length the Mormons, conscious of their inability alone to cope with their antagonists, and seeing that no confidence could be reposed upon the law for their protection, undertook (since nothing less would satisfy their enemies) that they would altogether quit the State—commencing their departure in the spring of 1846.

This time it was no mere temporary, neighbouring refuge which the Mormons sought. The elders of the church, aware of the hostility to which it would be constantly exposed in any portion of the populated States, resolved, with equal policy and daring, to escape entirely from the settled territory, and to seek far off, beyond the Rocky Mountains, some secluded and unoccupied retreat in which they could, secure from molestation, build their earthly “Zion,” and, by gathering thither from all quarters of the world the converts to their faith, become a thriving and a powerful community, too potent to be further interfered with. This remarkable pilgrimage, involving the removal of some thousands of men, women, children, cattle, and stores, over thousands of untrodden miles—across wide unbridged rivers—by the difficult passes of snow-capped mountains—and through deserts, prairies, and tribes of predatory Indians—was at once commenced. A party of pioneers set out from Nauvoo in February, 1846, when it was still winter—the waggons crossing the Mississippi on the ice. These were to prepare the way for the main body of the citizens, who, according to stipulation, might remain in Nauvoo till these preparations were completed. Their departure was, however, hastened by the fresh hostility of their opponents, who—concluding from the progress still continued in the decorations of the temple that the Mormons secretly intended to elude their promise and return—attacked the town in September, 1846, and expelled the whole of its remaining population. These then followed and overtook the pioneering party, which, after dreadful sufferings from cold and heat, from hunger and disease, had, finding it impossible to reach their destination till the following year, encamped upon the banks of the Missouri, on the lands of the Omahas and Pottawatamies. Here they had sown the land to some extent with grain, the crops of which were to be reaped by their successors. After a dreary winter, spent in this location, they began their march towards their final settlement. In April, 1847, the first detachment of 143, with 70 waggons, crossed the Rocky Mountains; arriving at the basin of the Great Salt Lake, in the latter portion of July, in time to sow the land for an autumn crop. The second party started in the summer with 566 waggons and a great supply of grain. The others followed in the course of 1848—their passage much alleviated by the tracks prepared by their predecessors, and the harvests left for them to gather.

The valley of the Great Salt Lake is a territory of considerable extent, enclosed on all sides by high rocky mountains. The Lake itself is nearly 300 miles in circumference, with islands rising from its surface to an elevation of some thousand feet: its shores are covered in some places with the finest salt, and its water is as buoyant as the waves of the Dead Sea. Portions of the land are desert; but a vast expanse is wonderfully fertile, and abounds in all facilities for pasturage and cultivation. Here the Mormons have now firmly fixed themselves, and made, since 1848, continual progress. Further settlements have been established, and several cities founded: that of the Great Salt Lake itself has a plot of several acres, destined to support a temple whose magnificence shall far exceed the splendour of the former Nauvoo edifice. Relying on the inexhaustible resources of the region to sustain innumerable inhabitants, the principal endeavour of the rulers is to gather there as many immigrants as possible, professing the same faith. They calculate that thus, established in an almost inaccessible retreat, with numbers continually augmenting, they will soon be able to defy external enmity, and rear upon a lasting basis their ecclesiastical republic. Missionary agents are despatched to almost every portion of the world to make fresh converts and facilitate their transit to America. In England these endeavours have been followed by no slight success: it is computed that at least as many as 30,000 persons in this country belong to the community, and nearly 20,000 have already, it is said, departed for the Great Salt Lake. This settlement itself has now, by the name of “Utah,” been admitted to the United States’ Confederacy; but it seems, from a report of the judges sent there by the recent President, that the authority of the federal government is virtually set at nought; the laws and their administration being always found accordant with the pleasure of the Mormon rulers.

A printed “Creed” presents the following summary of their opinions, but omits some rather material points:—

“We believe in God the eternal Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgressions.

“We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

“We believe that these ordinances are: 1st, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 2d, Repentance. 3d, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. 4th, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit. 5th, The Lord’s supper.

“We believe that men must be called of God by inspiration, and by laying on of hands by those who are duly commissioned to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

“We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church, viz. apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, &c.

“We believe in the powers and gifts of the everlasting gospel, viz. the gift of faith, discerning of spirits, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, tongues and the interpretation of tongues, wisdom, charity, brotherly love, &c.

“We believe in the word of God recorded in the Bible. We also believe the word of God recorded in the Book of Mormon and in all other good books.

“We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal; and we believe that he will yet reveal many more great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and Messiah’s second coming.

“We believe in the literal gathering of Israel, and in the restoration of the ten tribes; that Zion will be established upon the Western continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth a thousand years; and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.

“We believe in the literal resurrection of the body, and that the dead in Christ will rise first, and that the rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years are expired.

“We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, unmolested, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how or where they may.

“We believe in being subject to kings, queens, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honouring, and sustaining the law.

“We believe in being honest, true, chaste, temperate, benevolent, virtuous, and upright, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul,—we ‘believe all things,’ we ‘hope all things,’ we have endured very many things, and hope to be able to ‘endure all things.’ Everything virtuous, lovely, praiseworthy, and of good report we seek after, looking forward to the ‘recompence of reward.’”

A rather more specific outline of some points of their belief is given by one of their “apostles.” According to him, the “saints” believe that all mankind, in consequence of Adam’s sin, are in a state of ruin: from this, however, they are all delivered by the sacrifice of Christ, and are made secure of everlasting happiness, unless they commit any actual sin. Infants, therefore, being irresponsible, will be eternally redeemed; and such among the people of the earth as have not had the benefit of revelation will receive a mitigated punishment. The rest, in order to be saved from endless ruin, must comply with four conditions:—(1.) they must believe in Christ’s atonement; (2.) they must repent of their transgressions; (3.) they must receive baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, administered only by one authorized of Christ; and (4.) they must receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost—this ordinance also being, like that of baptism, only to be administered by duly authorized apostles or elders. All who comply with these conditions obtain forgiveness of their sins and are made partakers of the Holy Ghost—enjoying, too, the gifts of prophecy and healing, visions and revelations, and the power of working miracles.

Among the prominent opinions, not included in these statements, are their doctrines of the materiality of the Deity, and of the two-fold order of the priesthood, viz. the Melchisedekian and the Aaronic. They are also charged by their opponents with the practice and the sanction of polygamy; and evidence is not unplentiful of their allowance of something closely similar; and in their various publications very peculiar doctrines on the subject of marriage are propounded. Their standard books, however, specially denounce the crime.

In England and Wales there were, in 1851, reported by the Census officers as many as 222 places of worship belonging to this body—most of them however being merely rooms. The number of sittings in these places (making an allowance for 53, the accommodation in which was not returned,) was 30,783. The attendance on the Census Sunday (making an estimated addition for 9 chapels from which no intelligence on this point was received) was: Morning, 7,517; Afternoon, 11,481; Evening, 16,628. The preachers, it appears, are far from unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain disciples: the surprising confidence and zeal with which they promulgate their creed—the prominence they give to the exciting topics of the speedy coming of the Saviour and his personal millennial reign—and the attractiveness to many minds of the idea of an infallible church, relying for its evidences and its guidance upon revelations made perpetually to its rulers,—these, with other influences, have combined to give the Mormon movement a position and importance with the working classes, which, perhaps, should draw to it much more than it has yet received of the attention of our public teachers.

MORTAL SIN. (See Deadly Sin.)

MORTIFICATION. Any severe penance observed on a religious account. The mortification of sin in believers is a duty enjoined in the sacred Scriptures. (Rom viii. 13; Col. iii. 5.) It consists in breaking the league with sin; declaration of open hostility against it; and strong resistance to it. (Eph. vi. 10, &c.; Gal. v. 24; Rom. viii. 13.)

MORTMAIN. This is where lands are given to some spiritual person or corporation and to their successors; and because the lands were never to revert to the donor, or his heirs, and by that means the services and other profits due for the same were extinct, therefore it was called a gift mortua manu.

The first statute against mortmain was that of Magna Charta, (9 Hen. III. c. 36,) which declares, “that if any one shall give lands to a religious house, the grant shall be void, and the land forfeited to the lord of the fee.” The next was the 7 Edw. I. stat. ii., commonly called the statute “De Religiosis,” which restrained people, at the time of their death or otherwise, from giving or making over any lands or rents to churches or religious houses, without the king’s leave first obtained. This is called the statute of mortmain; but being evaded, the 13 of Edw. I. was passed, and afterwards by the 15 Rich. II. c. 5, it was declared, “that it was within the compass of the statute of Edward I. to convert any land into a churchyard, though it be done with the consent or connivance of the ter-tenant, and confirmed by the pope’s bull.

This last statute extended only to bodies corporate, and, therefore, by the 23 Hen. VIII. c. 10, it is enacted, “that if any grants of lands or other hereditaments should be made in trust to the use of any churches, chapels, churchwardens, guilds, fraternities, &c., to have perpetual obits, or a continual service of a priest for ever, or for sixty or eighty years, or to such like uses or intents, all such uses, intents, and purposes shall be void; they being no corporations, but erected either of devotion, or else by the common consent of the people; and all collateral assurances made for defeating this statute shall be void, and the said statute shall be expounded most beneficially for the destruction of such uses as aforesaid.”

Though the prohibition by the statute of mortmain in the Magna Charta was absolute, yet a royal charter of licence (18 Edw. III. stat. iii. c. 3) afforded relaxation of the restraint, and by the 17 Car. II. c. 3, the following relief was granted:—“Every owner of any impropriations, tithes, or portion of tithes, in any parish or chapelry, may give and annex the same, or any part thereof, unto the parsonage or vicarage of the said parish church or chapel where the same do lie or arise; or settle the same in trust for the benefit of the said parsonage or vicarage, or of the curate and curates there successively, where the parsonage is impropriate and no vicar endowed, without any licence of mortmain.

“And if the settled maintenance of any parsonage, vicarages, churches, and chapels united, or of any other parsonage or vicarage with cure, shall not amount to the full sum of £100 a year clear and above all charges and reprises, it shall be lawful for the parson, vicar, and incumbent of the same, and his successors, to take and purchase to him and his successors lands and tenements, rents, tithes, or other hereditaments, without any licence of mortmain.” This dispensing power was carried so high in the reign of King James II., that by the 1 Wm. III. sess. ii. c. 2, it was enacted, that no dispensation, by “non obstante,” to any statute shall be allowed. By the 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 37, and 2 & 3 Anne, c. 11, certain relaxations were again made; but by the 9 Geo. II. c. 36, further restraints were imposed, which render it impossible for the Church of England to augment poor livings, under the provisions of 17 Car. II. c. 3, already recited.

By 12 & 13 Vict. c. 49, s. 4, grants of land for sites of schools, not exceeding five acres, made by owners or tenants in tail are valid, although the grantor die within twelve months.

MORTUARY, (Mortuarium,) in the English ecclesiastical law, is a gift left by a man at his death to his parish church, in recompence of personal tithes omitted to be paid in his lifetime; or, it is that beast, or other cattle, which, after the death of the owner, by the custom of the place, is due to the parson or vicar, in lieu of tithes or offerings forgot, or not well and truly paid by him that is dead.

Selden tells us, it was usual anciently to bring the mortuary along with the corpse, when it came to be buried, and to offer it to the Church as a satisfaction for the supposed negligence and omission the deceased had been guilty of in not paying his personal tithes; and from thence it was called a corpse present.

A mortuary is not properly due to an ecclesiastical incumbent from any but those of his own parish; but by custom, in some places, they are paid to the incumbents of other parishes, when corpses are carried through them. The bishops of Bangor, Landaff, St. David’s, &c. had formerly mortuaries of priests, abolished by 12 Anne, stat. ii. c. 6. And it was customary, in the diocese of Chester, for the bishop to have a mortuary, on the death of every priest dying within the archdeaconry of Chester, of his best beast, saddle and bridle, and best gown or cloak, hat, and upper garment under the gown. By 28 Geo. II. c. 6, mortuaries in the diocese of Chester were abolished, and the rectory of Waverton attached to the see in lieu thereof. By the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 6, mortuaries were commuted into money payments, which were regulated as follows:—“No parson, vicar, curate, parish priest, or other, shall for any person dying or dead, and being at the time of his death of the value in moveable goods of ten marks or more, clearly above his debts paid, and under the sum of £30, take for a mortuary above 3s. 4d. in the whole. And for a person dying or dead, being at the time of his death of the value of £30 or above, clearly above his debts paid, in moveable goods, and under the value of £40, there shall no more be taken or demanded for a mortuary, than 6s. 8d. in the whole. And for any person dying or dead, having at the time of his death of the value in moveable goods of £40 or above, to any sum whatsoever it be clearly above his debts paid, there shall be no more taken, paid, or demanded for a mortuary, than 10s. in the whole. The Welsh bishoprics and the diocese of Chester were excepted from the operation of this statute, and therefore subsequent acts were passed with respect to them.

MOTETT, in Church music, a short piece of music highly elaborated, of which the subject is taken from the psalms or hymns of the Church. It somewhat resembles our anthems. The derivation is from the Italian Mottetto, a little word or sentence; originally signifying a short epigram in verse; and afterwards applied as now defined, as the words of the Motett properly consist of a short sentence from Holy Scripture.—Jebb.

MOTHER OF GOD. (See Mariolatry, Virgin Mary, Nestorians.) “The Virgin Mary,” says Pearson on the Creed, “is frequently styled the Mother of Jesus in the language of the evangelists, and by Elizabeth, particularly, the Mother of her Lord, as also, by the general consent of the Church, because he which was born of her was God, the Deipara: which, being a compound title, begun in the Greek Church, was resolved into its parts by the Latins, and so the Virgin was plainly named the Mother of God.”

We admit that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God; but we protest against the conclusion that she is, on that account, to be treated with peculiar honour, or to be worshipped; for this expression is used not to exalt her, but to assert unequivocally the Divinity of her Son: He whom she brought forth was God, and therefore she is a bringer forth or mother of God.

The term was first brought prominently forward at the Council of Ephesus, (A. D. 431,) the third of those four general councils, the decisions of which are authoritative in the Church of England; and it was adopted as a formula against the Nestorians. The Nestorian controversy originated thus. In the year 428, Nestorius was bishop of Constantinople, and he had brought with him from Antioch, where he had before resided, a priest named Anastasius, his chaplain and friend; this person, preaching one day in the church of Constantinople, said, “Let no one call Mary mother of God, for she was a woman, and it is impossible that God should be born of a human creature.” These words gave great offence to many both of the clergy and laity; for they had always been taught, says the historian Socrates, to acknowledge Jesus Christ as God, and not to sever him in any way from the Divinity. Nestorius, however, declared his assent to what Anastasius had said, and became, from his high position in the Church, the heresiarch.

When the heresy had spread into Egypt, it was refuted by St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, in a pastoral letter, which he published for the direction of his people. “I wonder,” he says, “how a question can be raised, as to whether the Holy Virgin should be called mother of God; for if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is not the Holy Virgin, his mother, the mother of God? This is the faith we have been taught by the apostles.” He next proves that he who was born of the Virgin Mary is God in his own nature, since the Nicene Creed says that the only begotten Son of God, of the same substance with the Father, himself came down from heaven and was incarnate; and then he proceeds, “You will say, perhaps, is the Virgin, then, mother of the Divinity? We answer, It is certain that the Word is eternal, and of the substance of the Father. Now, in the order of nature, mothers, who have no part in the creation of the soul, are still called mothers of the whole man, and not of the body only; for surely it would be a hypercritical refinement to say, Elizabeth is mother of the body of John, and not of his soul. In the same way, therefore, we express ourselves in regard to the birth of Emmanuel, since the Word, having taken flesh upon him, is called Son of Man.” In a letter to Nestorius himself he enters into a fuller explanation: “We must admit in the same Christ two generations: first, the eternal, by which he proceeds from his Father; second, the temporal, by which he is born of his mother. When we say that he suffered and rose again, we do not say that God the Word suffered in his own nature, for the Divinity is impassible; but because the body which was appropriated to him suffered, so also we say that he suffered himself. So too we say he died. The Divine Word is in his own nature immortal. He is life itself; but because his own true body suffered death, we say that he himself died for us. In the same way, when his flesh is raised from the dead, we attribute resurrection to him. We do not say that we adore the man along with the Word, lest the phrase ‘along with’ should suggest the idea of non-identity; but we adore him as one and the same person, because the body assumed by the Word is in no degree external or separated from the Word.”—Conc. Eph. part i. v. 8. “It is in this sense,” he says afterwards, “that the Fathers have ventured to call the Holy Virgin mother of God, not that the nature of the Word, or his Divinity, did receive beginning of his existence from the Holy Virgin, but because in her was formed and animated a reasonable soul and a sacred body, to which the Word united himself in hypostasis, which is the reason of its being said, ‘he was born according to the flesh.’”

It was jealousy for the Lord Jesus Christ, and anxiety to maintain his honour, and to assert his Divinity, which influenced the Fathers at the Council of Ephesus, and not any special regard to the creature through whose instrumentality he was brought into the world. And the decisions of that council, because they can be proved to be scriptural, the Church of England accepts. The council vindicated this title, not because it was a high title for Mary, but because to deny it is to deny that he is God whom she brought forth. The heresy of Nestorius related to the incarnation or junction of the two natures in Christ, which he affirmed not to be a union, but merely a connexion; whereas the object of the Council of Ephesus was to assert “the real and inseparable union of the two natures in Christ, and to show that the human nature, which Christ took of the Holy Virgin, never subsisted separately from the Divine person of the Son of God.”

To the use of the term, however, though we contend for its propriety, divines of the Church of England are not partial, because, by the subtilty of the Romish controversialists, it has been so used, or rather misused, as to make it seem to confer peculiar honour and privileges upon the Virgin Mary. The primitive Christians, like ourselves, were contented with speaking of the Virgin as “the mother of my Lord;” and this phrase sufficed until, as we have seen, heretics arose who understood the word Lord in an inferior sense, and then it became necessary to assert that God and Lord, as applied to our blessed Saviour, are synonymous terms. And sound theologians will still occasionally use the term Mother of God, lest Nestorianism should be held unconsciously by persons who wish to be orthodox, and people forget the great truth expressed by St. Paul, that “God purchased the Church with his own blood;” and that Christ is “over all, God blessed for ever.”

The Council of Ephesus caused the Nicene Creed, and several passages out of St. Cyprian, St. Basil, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and many others, to be read in council. And from them they gathered, and therefore pronounced, that according to the Scriptures, as interpreted by the catholic Church, Christ, though he have two natures, yet he is but one person, and by consequence that the Virgin Mary might properly be called Θεοτόκος, because the same person who was born of her is truly God as well as man: which being once determined by an universal council to be the true sense and meaning of the Scriptures in this point, hath been acknowledged by the universal Church ever since, till this time.—Bishop Beveridge.

MOULDING. An ornamental form given to angles and edges of masonry or wood-work, and carried uniformly along a considerable extent. The use of mouldings must commence with the earliest attempts at ornament in masonry or carpentry. The Saxon mouldings, so far as we can collect from existing specimens, were extremely rude and simple; but with the Norman mouldings the case is precisely the reverse, so far, at least, as simplicity is concerned: for though the mouldings themselves may be resolved into a very few forms and combinations, they were often either treated as if themselves broken and mitred together at various angles, as in the case of the chevron and embattled mouldings; or they were themselves decorated with forms not of their own nature, as the medallion, beak head, and other like mouldings, which are however, strictly speaking, rather decorations of mouldings, than themselves mouldings. It would far exceed our limits to describe the several mouldings of the succeeding styles. We must be content with saying, in general, that in the Early English they reached their greatest complexity and depth, and that they gradually became less numerous, and shallower, to the Perpendicular; the happy mean being reached in this, as in almost everything else, in the Geometrical. The particular mouldings, which may be said to be distinctive of a style, are chiefly the ogee, in several of its forms, of the Decorated; the scroll of the Decorated, with the later Geometric; the wide and shallow casement or hollow of the Perpendicular. The hollows, in the Early English, usually separate single mouldings, in the Decorated groups of mouldings. The earlier mouldings, as Norman and Early English, generally occupy the planes of the wall and of the soffit; the later, especially Perpendicular, the chamfer plane only. To be at all appreciated, the subject of mouldings must be studied in the “Oxford Glossary,” or in Paley’s “Manual of Gothic Mouldings;” and to be mastered, it must be pursued, pencil in hand, in our ancient ecclesiastical edifices.

MOVEABLE and IMMOVEABLE FEASTS. The feasts kept in the Christian Church are called moveable and immoveable, according as they fall always on the same day in the calendar in each year,—as the saints’ days; or depend on other circumstances,—as Easter, and the feasts calculated from Easter. The Book of Common Prayer contains several tables for calculating Easter, and the following rules to know when the moveable feasts and holy-days begin:

“Easter Day, on which the rest depend, is always the first Sunday after the full moon which happens upon, or next after, the twenty-first day of March; and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter Day is the Sunday after.

“Advent Sunday is always the nearest Sunday to the feast of St. Andrew, whether before or after.

Septuagesima | Sunday is | Nine | Weeks before Easter.
Sexagesima | Eight
Quinquagesima | Seven
Quadragesima | Six
Rogation Sunday | is | Five Weeks | after Easter.”
Ascension Day | Forty Days
Whit Sunday | Seven Weeks
Trinity Sunday | Eight Weeks

MOYER’S LECTURE. A lecture established by Lady Moyer. The following is an extract from the will of the Lady Moyer, or, as she is therein styled, “Dame Rebecca Moyer, late of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, in the county of Middlesex, widow.”

“My now dwelling-house in Bedford Row, or Jockey Field, I give to my dear child Eliza Moyer, that out of it may be paid twenty guineas a year to an able minister of God’s word, to preach eight sermons every year on the Trinity and Divinity of our ever-blessed Saviour, beginning with the first Thursday in November, and to the first Thursday in the seven sequel months, in St. Paul’s, if permitted there, or, if not, elsewhere, according to the discretion of my executrix, who will not think it any encumbrance to her house. I am sure it will bring a blessing on it, if that work be well and carefully carried on, which in this profligate age is so neglected. If my said daughter should leave no children alive at her death, or they should die before they come to age, then I give my said house to my niece, Lydia Moyer, now wife to Peter Hartop, Esq., and to her heirs after her, she always providing for that sermon, as I have begun, twenty guineas every year.”

There is a list of the preachers of this lecture at the end of Mr. John Berriman’s “Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16,” (which is the substance of the lectures he preached,) down to the year 1740–1: and in a copy of that book in Sion College library, there is a continuation of the list in MS., by Mr. John Berriman, to the year 1748. In the year 1757, they were preached by Mr. William Clements, librarian of Sion College, but he did not publish them till 1797. In the year 1764, or thereabouts, the preacher was Benjamin Dawson, LL.D., who printed them under the title of “An Illustration of several Texts of Scripture, particularly wherein the Logos occurs, 1765.” Dr. Thomas Morell, author of the “Thesaurus Græcæ, Poeseos,” is supposed to have been the last. Mr. Watts, librarian of Sion College, (to whom the reader is indebted for the information here given,) heard him preach one of them in January, 1773. One of these lectures Dr. Morell published, without his name, in April, 1774. It was written against Lindsey, and entitled “The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity justified.” In the “Gentleman’s Magazine for 1804,” p. 187, mention is made of a Mrs. Moyer, who “died at Low Layton, February, 1804, the widow of Benjamin Moyer, Esq., son of Lawrence Moyer, merchant, who succeeded as heir of his uncle, Sir Samuel Moyer, a rich Turkey merchant, sheriff of Essex in 1698; Bart., 1701; died, 1716. His widow Rebecca, sister of Sir William Jolliffe, Knt., founded the lecture for a limited number of years.” This does not, however, appear to have been the case, no limitations being mentioned in Lady Moyer’s will. But since there is no compulsory obligation in the will to perpetuate the lecture, the probability is that, in course of time, (perhaps immediately after Dr. Morell’s turn expired,) the property fell into other hands, and the lecture was no longer continued.

MOZARABIC LITURGY. The ancient liturgy of Spain; the name Mozarabic signifying those Christians who were mixed with, or lived in the midst of, Arabs, or Moors. Mr. Palmer considers that this liturgy was derived at a very early age from that of Gaul, which it much resembles. It was abolished in 1060 in Arragon, but was not for some time afterwards relinquished in Navarre, Castile, and Leon. Cardinal Ximenes founded a college and chapel in Toledo for the celebration of this rite: the only place perhaps in Spain where it is preserved.—Palmer’s Origin. Liturg.

MOZECTA, MUZECTA, MOZZETTO. An ecclesiastical vestment, like the bishop’s colobrium or tunicle, worn by the canons in certain cathedrals of Sicily.—Peiri Sicilia Sacra.

MULLION, more correctly Monial. The upright bars dividing a traceried window into lights.

MUSIC, as connected with the Church service, is sometimes used in a peculiar and technical sense, to signify the accompaniment of a band of instrumental music, as violins and wind instruments, not the organ only. A service in music abroad is understood in this sense. These kind of accompaniments are foreign to the genuine spirit of the Church of England, which, as a general rule, recognises the organ only. Charles II. introduced the foreign style of music into his chapel, which, however, was but short-lived. Evelyn in his Memoirs, (Dec. 22, 1662,) speaking of the service at the Chapel Royal when he was present, says, “Instead of the ancient, grave, and solemn wind music accompanying the organ, was introduced a concert of 24 violins between every pause, after the French fantastical light way, better suiting a tavern or a play-house than a church.” The only stated musical service in the Church was that performed annually a few years since at the feast of the sons of the clergy at St. Paul’s. The instrumental accompaniments are now laid aside. At what are called musical festivals the service is so accompanied.

MUSIC TABLE. A sort of Lectern, with three sides, round which the choir were placed, in the middle of Bishop Andrewes’s chapel; as appears by the plan given in Canterbury’s Doom, 1646.

MYNCHERY. A nunnery. A corruption of ministere, or minster.

MYSTERY. (From μύειν τὸ στόμα, to shut the mouth; hence μυστήριον, mystery.) Something secret, hidden from human comprehension, or revealed only in part. The term is applied both to doctrines and facts. By the usage of the Church it also denotes that inscrutable union in the sacrament of the inward and spiritual grace with the outward and visible sign. Hence in the early Church the sacraments were denominated “mysteries,” and the term derived a still greater force, from the secrecy which was observed in the administration of those ordinances. More especially, however, was the holy communion thus designated, as we learn from the ancient Fathers, who speak repeatedly of the “sacred” and “tremendous mysteries,” in allusion to this sacrament. With this application, the term appears in our own Communion Office, where Christ is said to have “instituted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of his love, and for a continual remembrance of his death.” We are also exhorted so to prepare ourselves, that we may be “meet partakers of those holy mysteries;” and after their reception, thanks are rendered to God, that he has vouchsafed to “feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of his Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ.”

MYSTERIES. (See Moralities.)

MYSTIC. Sacredly obscure.

MYSTIC RECITATION. Several parts of the Greek liturgy are ordered to be said μυστικῶς, that is, in a low voice, or whisper, like the secreto of the Roman offices.—Jebb.

MYSTICAL. Having a hidden, allegorical, or secret meaning. In the baptismal offices we read, “Sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin:” from which it would be absurd to infer that the mere physical application of water can remove sin; and yet, on the other hand, the fact that the remission of sin is associated with baptism, rests on Scriptural authority. There is, therefore, a secret operation of God’s grace in cleansing the soul linked to the sacramental application of water to the body; and the concurrence or co-existence of these the Church regards as a “mystical washing away of sin.”

Again: in the Communion Office, the faithful recipients are said to be “very [true] members incorporate of the mystical body of Christ.” Now, how the Church can constitute “the body of Christ,” will appear to any one an inscrutable mystery, if he will but divest himself of the familiarity of the terms. As to the fact, it is indisputable; but the manner is beyond our full comprehension, partaking in some measure of the nature of allegory, and being strictly mystical. It is worth while to add, that the Church does not recognise the notion of an invisible Church, as constituting this “mystical body,” composed of those only who shall be finally saved; for she goes on to pray for the assistance of God’s grace, “that we may continue in that holy fellowship,” &c., a petition somewhat irrelevant if such an hypothesis be adopted.

MYSTICS. A party which arose towards the close of the third century, distinguished by their professing pure, sublime, and perfect devotion. They excuse their fanatical ecstasies by alleging the passage of St. Paul, “The Spirit prays in us with sighs and groans which cannot be uttered.” They contend that, if the Spirit prays within us, we must resign ourselves to its motions, and be guided and swayed through its impulse by remaining in a state of mere inaction. The principles proceeded from the known doctrine of the Platonic school, which was also adopted by Origen and his disciples, that the Divine nature was diffused through all human souls; or that the faculty of reason, from which proceed the health and vigour of the mind, was an emanation from God into the human soul, and comprehended in it the principles and elements of all truth, human and divine. They denied that men could, by labour or study, excite this celestial flame in their breasts; and therefore they disapproved highly of the attempts of those who, by definitions, abstract theorems, and profound speculations, endeavoured to form distinct notions of truth, and to discover its hidden nature. On the contrary, they maintained that silence, tranquillity, repose, and solitude, accompanied with such acts as might tend to extenuate and exhaust the body, were the means by which the hidden and internal word was excited to produce its latent virtues, and to instruct them in the knowledge of Divine things. For thus they reasoned: Those who behold with a noble contempt all human affairs; who turn away their eyes from terrestrial vanities, and shut all the avenues of the outward senses against the contagious influences of a material world, must necessarily return to God when the spirit is thus disengaged from the impediments that prevented that happy union; and in this blessed frame they not only enjoy inexpressible raptures from their communion with the Supreme Being, but are also invested with the inestimable privilege of contemplating truth undisguised and uncorrupted in its native purity, while others behold it in a vitiated and delusive form.

The number of the Mystics increased in the fourth century, under the influence of the Grecian fanatic, who gave himself out for Dionysius the Areopagite, disciple of St. Paul, and probably lived about this period; and by pretending to higher degrees of perfection than other Christians, and practising greater austerity, their cause gained ground, especially in the Eastern provinces, in the fifth century. A copy of the pretended works of Dionysius was sent by Balbus to Louis the Meek, in the year 824, which kindled the holy flame of mysticism in the Western provinces, and filled the Latins with the most enthusiastic admiration of this new religion. In the twelfth century, these Mystics took the lead in their method of expounding the Scriptures. In the thirteenth century they were the most formidable antagonists of the Schoolmen; and, towards the close of the fourteenth, many of them resided and propagated their tenets in almost every part of Europe.

Among the Mystics of that time we may notice the Dominican John Tauler, of Strasburg, A. D. 1361; Henry Suso of Ulm, A. D. 1365; and especially John Ruysbroock, called Doctor Ecstaticus, A. D. 1381, who of all the Mystics was the most dreamy and enthusiastic. Among Protestants there have been and are many Mystics, but they have not formed a sect.—Mosheim. Gieseler.

NAG’S HEAD FABLE. (See Consecration of Bishops.)

NAHUM, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Nahum is the seventh of the twelve lesser prophets; a native of Elkoshai, a little village of Galilee, the ruins of which were still to be seen in the time of St. Jerome. The particular circumstances of this prophet’s life are altogether unknown.

Authors are divided as to the time when Nahum prophesied, some fixing it to the reign of Ahaz, others to that of Manasseh, and others to the times of the captivity. St. Jerome places it in the reign of Hezekiah, after the war of Sennacherib in Egypt, which the prophet speaks of as a thing passed.

The subject of Nahum’s prophecy is the destruction of Nineveh, which he describes in the most lively and pathetic manner; and this prophecy was verified in the siege of that city by Astyages in the year of the world 3378, before Christ 622.

NAME. (See Christian Name.) The Christian name is given us in baptism. All things being prepared for the baptism of the child, the minister is now to “take it into his hands,” and to ask the godfathers and godmothers to “name” it. For the “Christian name” being given as a badge that we belong to Christ, we cannot more properly take it upon us, than when we are enlisted under his banner. We bring one name into the world with us, which we derive from our parents, and which serves to remind us of our original guilt, and that we are born in sin: but this new name is given us at our baptism, to remind us of our new birth, when, being washed in the laver of regeneration, we are thereby cleansed from our natural impurities, and become in a manner new creatures, and solemnly dedicate ourselves to God. So that the naming of children at this time hath been thought by many to import something more than ordinary, and to carry with it a mysterious signification. We find something like it even among the heathens; for the Romans had a custom of naming their children on the day of their lustration, (that is, when they were cleansed and washed from their natural pollution,) which was therefore called “Dies Nominalis.” And the Greeks also, when they carried their infants, a little after their birth, about the fire, (which was their ceremony of dedicating or consecrating them to their gods,) were used at the same time to give them their names.

And that the Jews named their children at the time of circumcision, the Holy Scriptures, (Gen. xxi. 3, 4; Luke i. 59, 60; ii. 21,) as well as their own writers, expressly tell us. And though the rite itself of circumcision was changed into that of baptism by our Saviour, yet he made no alteration as to the time and custom of giving the name, but left that to continue under the new, as he had found it under the old dispensation. Accordingly we find this time assigned and used to this purpose ever since; the Christians continuing from the earliest ages to name their children at the time of baptism.—Wheatly.

NANTES, EDICT OF. An edict of toleration, promulgated by Henry IV. of France in 1598, which restored the Protestants to all the favours which had been granted them in former reigns, and gave them the liberty of serving God according to their conscience, and a full participation in all civil rights and privileges. This edict was, at the instigation of the Jesuits, revoked by Louis XIV. in the year 1685.

NARTHEX. (Gr. and Lat.) This name is given by ancient writers to a part of the fabric of the Christian church. There was the exterior or outward, and the interior or inward, Narthex.

The exterior narthex, which we may call the ante-temple, consisted of the whole circumference of the outward courts, including the vestibulum or porch, and the atrium or area before the church.

The interior narthex, or ante-temple within the church, (the only part properly so called,) was the first section or division of the fabric, after entering into the church, and was peculiarly allotted to the monks and women, and used for the offices of rogations, supplications, and night watches. Here likewise they placed the dead corpses, whilst the funeral rites were performing. This lower part of the church was the place of the Energumens and the Audientes; and hither Jews, heathens, heretics, and schismatics were sometimes allowed to come, in hopes of their conversion by hearing the Scriptures read and sermons preached.

Dr. Beveridge and others seem to place here the font or baptistery, as in our modern churches. But it is certain that, for many ages, the baptistery was a distinct place from the body of the church, and reckoned among the Exedræ, or buildings adjoining to the church.

This part of the church was called Narthex, because being long, but narrow, and running across the front of the church, it was supposed to resemble a ferula, that is, a rod or staff; for any oblong figure was by the Greeks called νάρθηξ, Narthex.

NATIONAL COVENANT. (See Confessions of Faith.)

NAVE. The central passage of the church, extending from the west end to the transept or choir. The derivation of this word has been a matter of dispute. Some very plausibly derive it from νάος, others from navis, a ship, since the nave resembles the hull of a ship turned upside down; and refer both this term and νάος also to the ancient Phœnicians, whose original temples were said to be their vessels thus reversed. At all events it is remarkable that both the old French nef, the Italian and Spanish nave, and the Latin navis, all signify a ship as well as the nave of a church. (See Churches and Cathedral.)

NAVICULA; ship, or ark. A vessel formed “like the keel of a boat,” out of which the frankincense was poured in Bishop Andrewes’ chapel, and Queen Elizabeth’s chapel. Canterbury’s Doom, 1646. See Hiereugia Anglicana, pp. 4, 5, and 9.

NAZARENES. Christian heretics, so called. This name was originally given to all Christians in general, because Jesus Christ was of the city of Nazareth. But afterwards it was restrained to a sect of heretics, who affected to assume it rather than that of Christians. Their religion was a strange jumble of Judaism and Christianity: for they were Jews by birth, were circumcised, kept the sabbath, and other observances of the Mosaical law; and at the same time received the New Testament as well as the Old, acknowledged Jesus Christ to be the Messiah, and practised the Christian baptism. Theodoret indeed pretends they honoured Jesus Christ only as a just and good man; and he places the beginning of their heresy about the time of Domitian. St. Augustine makes them the successors of those whose obstinacy in the like opinions was condemned by the apostolical Council of Jerusalem.

The Nazarenes (as well as the Ebionites) were descended from those Christians, who left Jerusalem a little before the siege, and retired to the country about Jordan, called Perea; whence they are sometimes called Peratics. There were some of them remaining in the time of St. Augustine. They dwelt about Pella in Decapolis, near the river Jordan, and at Berea, a city of Lower Syria. They perfectly understood the Hebrew tongue, in which they read the books of the Old Testament.

These heretics, keeping the mean between the Jews and the Christians, pretended to be friends alike to both: nevertheless, the Christians treated them as abominable heretics, and the Jews detested them more than the other Christians, because they acknowledged Jesus Christ to be the Messiah. Epiphanius says, they cursed and anathematized them three times a day in their synagogues.—Broughton.

NEHEMIAH, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Nehemiah was born at Babylon during the captivity, and succeeded Ezra in the government of Judah and Jerusalem; whither he came with a commission from Artaxerxes Longimanus, authorizing him to repair and fortify the city in the same manner as it was before its destruction by the Babylonians.

Nehemiah was a Jew, and was promoted to the office of cup-bearer to the Persian king; and the opportunities he had of being daily in the king’s presence, together with the favour of Esther the queen, procured him the privileges he obtained for building the city, and the settlement of his country. When he came to Jerusalem, he finished the rebuilding of the walls in fifty-two days, and dedicated the gates of the city with great solemnity. Then he reformed some abuses, which had crept in among his countrymen, particularly the extortion of the usurers, by which the poor were so oppressed, as to be forced to sell their lands and children to support themselves and their families. Then he returned to Persia, and came back again with a new commission, by virtue of which he regulated everything relating both to the state and religion of the Jews. The history of these transactions is the subject matter of this Book of Nehemiah.

Nehemiah died at Jerusalem, having governed the people of Judah for about thirty years.

NEOLOGIANS. German Rationalists are so designated; from νέος, new, and λόγος, doctrine. They are distinguished from mere deists and pantheists, by admitting the principal facts of the Bible, though they attempt to explain away what is miraculous, while they treat the Scriptures with no more of reverence than they would show to any other ancient book, and regard our Lord himself as they would regard any good and wise philosopher.

NESTORIANS. (See Mother of God.) The followers of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who lived in the fifth century. They believed that in Christ there were not only two natures, but two persons; of which the one was Divine, even the Eternal Word, and the other, which was human, was the man Jesus; that these two persons had only one aspect; that the union between the Son of God and the Son of man was formed in the moment of the Virgin’s conception, and was never to be dissolved; that it was not, however, an union of nature or of person, but only of will and affection; that Christ was therefore to be carefully distinguished from God, who dwelt in him as in his temple; and that Mary was to be called the mother of Christ, and not the mother of God.

This heresy was condemned by the fourth general council, that of Ephesus, A. D. 431; in which all are anathematized who refuse to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God. For a full account of this people, see Mr. Badger’s Nestorians and their Rituals.

NEWEL. The central column round which the steps of a winding stair are disposed. They are sometimes designed with considerable taste, and carefully executed.

NICENE CREED; sometimes called the Constantinopolitan Creed. This creed was chiefly composed by the orthodox fathers of the first general Council of Nice, A. D. 325, to define the Christian faith, in opposition to the heresy of Arius. As sanctioned by this assembly it ended with “I believe in the Holy Ghost.” The remainder was added by the second general council, held at Constantinople, A. D. 381, in which the heresy of Macedonius, with regard to the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, was condemned. In the fifth century, the Western churches added to this creed the words filioque, in conformity with the doctrine, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, as well as from the Father.

The Church for three hundred years had been content to profess in her creed, that Christ was the Lord; comprehending, under this title, the highest appellations given to him in Scripture, without stating minutely, or scrutinizing too narrowly, a doctrine proposed rather to us as an object of faith than of understanding. Happy had it been for the Christian world, if this moderation of the Church had been suffered to continue; but Arius, a discontented priest of Alexandria in Egypt, either having conceived a different opinion, or wishing to bring himself into notice by the assertion of a novelty, took upon him to maintain that Christ was not a Divine person, in the highest sense, but a creature, superior indeed to human nature, but not a partaker of the supreme Godhead.

The publishing of this opinion raised a violent ferment and schism in the Church. Constantine the Roman emperor summoned a council at Nice, in Bithynia, to settle this dispute; and there, in the year 325, Arius’s doctrine was condemned in an assembly of 300 bishops, and that creed framed, which from the name of the city was called the Nicene Creed. And here it is necessary to observe, that the meaning of the three creeds of our Church, and all creeds that can be composed on gospel principles, is nothing more than a declaration of the sense in which we accept the profession made in our baptism. By baptism we are admitted into the Church of Christ; by the command of Christ we are baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This is the condition, by which alone we can partake of the Christian covenant; this is the mark by which alone we are distinguished from the professors of every other religion upon earth.

When we repeat a creed, therefore, we do no more than declare our repeated assent to the conditions of the baptismal covenant; and it would be sufficient to do this in the very words that Christ enjoins, “I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” if explanations had not been demanded, to show what we mean by this declaration. Creeds then do not, properly speaking, contain articles of faith, but an explanation of the sense in which we understand the primary position of our religion. And this view of the matter will show us the reason, why no creed is prescribed in Scripture; why all creeds ever have been, and ever must be, the composition of men.—Dean Vincent.

The three creeds, which are the three barriers of the faith of our Church, extracted from the Holy Scripture in the purer ages of Christianity, though variously expressed, are yet the same in substance; agreeable to each other; and all agreeable to the word of God, and approved all along by the Catholic Church. In these forms she calls upon her members to declare their belief to be consonant to that of the Church universal. The Apostles’ Creed, as the plainest and shortest form, is appointed for common and daily use. The Athanasian, for festivals which relate more immediately to our Saviour; or which are placed at such convenient distances from each other, as that none may be wholly ignorant of the mysteries therein contained. And the Nicene Creed is to be repeated whenever the eucharist is administered according to the institution of our Lord, whose eternal generation, Godhead, incarnation, sufferings, and exaltation, are therein summarily contained and acknowledged.—Archdeacon Yardley.

It is called “the Nicene Creed,” because it was for the most part framed at the great Council of Nice. But because the great Council of Constantinople added the latter part, and brought it to the frame which we now use, therefore it is called also “the Constantinopolitan Creed.” This creed began to be used in churches at the Communion Service immediately after the Gospel, in the year of our Lord 339. [The introduction of it in this place is, however, more commonly referred to Peter the Fuller, bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 471.] Afterwards it was established in the churches of Spain and France, after the custom of the Eastern Church, by the Council of Toledo, and continued down to our times. The reason why this creed follows immediately after the Epistle and Gospel, is the same that was given for the Apostles’ Creed following next after the lessons at morning and evening prayer. To which the canon of Toledo hath added another reason for saying it here, before the people draw near to the holy communion; namely, that the breasts of those who approach to those dreadful mysteries, may be purified by a true and right faith.—Bp. Sparrow.

The creed is a summary of the doctrine of the gospel, and here is placed next to it, because it is grounded upon it. In the gospel we “believe with our heart unto righteousness;” in the creed we “confess with our mouth unto salvation” (Rom. x. 10); for all the people ought to repeat the creed after the minister. It doth more largely condemn all heresies than the Apostles’ Creed: wherefore it is fitly enjoined to be recited by all before the sacrament, to show that all the communicants are free from heresy, and in the strictest league of union with the Catholic Church; as also to prepare themselves for worthy receiving, by exercising that faith, of which they have so much use at the Lord’s table, as the Council of Toledo ordained in the year 600 [589]. So that every one must openly profess and firmly embrace all these articles, before he can be fit to receive; yea, and while he repeats them with his lips, he must resolve to show forth in his life, that he doth sincerely believe them, by strictly living according to them.—Dean Comber.

As in the Morning Prayer, so in the Communion Service, for the same reason, after reading the Scripture, we recite the creed: only then we have that of the ancient Latin Church; here that of the ancient Greek.—Abp. Secker.

Besides the general reasons for repeating the creed, the rehearsal of our faith before the receiving of the holy communion is founded on these two special grounds:—1. It is meet that all should first profess the same faith, who partake of the same mysteries; for surely, if “no stranger, nor uncircumcised person,” could eat of the passover, that typical sacrament, (Exod. xii. 43, 48,) much more no stranger to the Christian faith, nor unbeliever, should partake of the real sacrament of the Lord’s supper. 2. As the acknowledgment of the articles of our Christian faith is part of the vow made at our baptism, so ought the same acknowledgment to be repeated at the Lord’s supper, wherein we renew that vow.—Dr. Bisse.

Add to this, that every solemn confession of our faith must be looked upon as giving glory and honour to God, in recognising his essence and attributes, and the blessings which flow from those sources on mankind: and hence it, in a peculiar manner, befits this holy service of thanks and praise. In this we imitate the most ancient liturgies of the Church; which, when this holy sacrament was celebrated, had an eucharistical form, wherein God’s power and goodness were acknowledged in the creation, preservation, and redemption of the world. Thus we, though in a shorter form of undoubted authority, confess to the holy and undivided Trinity, and distinctly own the Divinity of each person. We commemorate the creation of the world by “God the Father Almighty.” We acknowledge Jesus Christ to be our “Lord;” to have been “begotten” from all eternity, to be “of one substance with the Father,” and with him Creator of all things: that “for our salvation he came down from heaven, was made man, suffered, and died” for us. We commemorate his resurrection, ascension, and sitting at God’s right hand: express our expectation of his second coming; and declare that “his kingdom shall have no end.” We confess to God, that he hath inspired the prophets; that he hath built a Church on the foundation of the apostles; that he hath appointed baptism for the remission of sins; and given us leave to “look for the resurrection of the dead” and an happy eternity.

What more glorious hymn than this can we sing to the honour of God? Is it possible to mention anything else that can so much redound to his glory? May not this our service be well styled the eucharist, when we thus give praise and glory to Almighty God for the wonderful manifestation of his attributes, and the inestimable blessings he hath bestowed upon us? Let not any one therefore think, that repeating the creed is barely a declaration of his faith to the rest of the congregation: for, besides that, it is a most solemn act of worship, in which we honour and magnify God, both for what he is in himself, and for what he hath done for us. And let us all, sensible of this, repeat it with reverential voice and gesture; and lift up our hearts with faith, thankfulness, and humble devotion, whenever we say, “I believe,” &c.—Archdeacon Yardley.

The Nicene Creed is properly sung in all choirs. Bishop Beveridge says, “We stand at the creeds; for they being confessions of our faith in God, as such they come under the proper notion of hymns or songs of praise to him.” The rubric sanctions, that is, enjoins in choirs, the custom: and such has been the usage of most choirs since the Reformation; an usage kept up throughout the Western Church, according to Mr. Palmer, since the year 1012. It is not adapted to chanting, like the Psalms. In our Prayer Book it is divided, like the Apostles’ Creed and the Gloria in excelsis, into three paragraphs, of which the central one has special reference to God the Son.—Jebb.

NICOLAITANS. Heretics who arose in the Christian Church during the time of the apostles, (as appears from Rev. ii. 6, 15,) and are taken to be the fathers of the Gnostics. Some of the ancient fathers affirm that Nicolas, one of the seven first deacons, was the founder of this sect; that being blamed by the apostles for keeping company with his wife, whom he had left before to live in continence, he invented this brutal error to excuse his proceeding, and thought that impurity was a necessary means to attain to eternal happiness: others say that the holy apostles, reproaching him for being jealous of his wife, who was very handsome, he sent for her, and in a great assembly gave her leave to marry whom she pleased: upon which some libertines framed a heresy of their own, and unjustly called it by his name. They denied the Divinity of Christ by an hypostatical union, saying, the Divine inhabited, but was not united to, the human nature; they held that all pleasures were good, and that it was lawful to eat meats offered to idols. Becoming too much known by this name, they assumed that of the Gnostics, and divided themselves into other sects, called Phibionites, Stratiotics, Levitics, and Barborites.

NIPTER. (Gr. In Latin, pediluvium.) The ceremony of washing feet. This is performed by the Greek Christians on Good Friday, in imitation of our Saviour, who on that day washed his disciples’ feet with his own hands.

In the monasteries, the abbot represents our Saviour, and twelve of the monks the twelve apostles. Among these the steward and porter have always a place; the former acts the part of St. Peter, and imitates his refusal to let Jesus wash his feet; the latter personates the traitor Judas, and is loaded with scoffs and derision. The office used on this occasion is extant in the Euchologium.

NOCTURNS. Services anciently held during the night. In the Breviary, the Psalter is divided into portions, the first of which consists of fourteen Psalms, the second of three, and the third of three. These all form a part of the Sunday office of matins, each of which portions is called a nocturn. These were designed to be read at these nightly assemblies, with other services appointed in order for the various nights.

NOETIANS. Christian heretics in the third century, followers of Noëtus, a philosopher of Ephesus, who pretended that he was another Moses sent by God, and that his brother was a new Aaron. His heresy consisted in affirming that there was but one person in the Godhead, and that the Word and the Holy Spirit were but external denominations given to God in consequence of different operations: that as creator he is called Father; as incarnate, Son; and as descending upon the apostles, the Holy Ghost.

This heresiarch, being summoned to appear before the assembly of the Church of Ephesus, to give an account of his doctrine, made a very catholic profession of faith; but he had no sooner gained a dozen followers, than he began publicly to teach and spread his opinions. He was excommunicated by the Church of Ephesus, and after his death denied ecclesiastical burial.

Being reprehended by his superiors, he is said to have replied, “What harm have I done? I adore one only God; I own none but him. He was born, suffered, and is dead.”

NOMINALISTS. At the restoration of the study of logic in the eleventh century, many disputes took place, trivial in their origin, but important on account of the colour which they gave to religious controversy, concerning the objects of logic. Agreeing that the essential object of logic was the discussion of universals, as distinguished from particular or individual things, two parties were formed on the question whether universals are words and names only, or things and real essences. Those who declared them to be only names and words, and who of course, therefore, determined that logic was only conversant with words, were called Nominalists, and basing their philosophy on that of Aristotle, were principally supported by the talent and authority of Roscellinus. Those who held that universals were real existences, and so that logic was conversant with things and realities, were called Realists. They supported their hypothesis on the authority of Plato. Johannes Scotus Erigena, in the ninth century, had taught this doctrine, but without leaving behind him any school of avowed followers. The controversy with the Nominalists was commenced in the eleventh century, and in the thirteenth the greater part of the schoolmen were Realists.

NOMINATION. This is the offering of a clerk to him who has the right of presentation, that he may present him to the ordinary. (For form of Nomination, see Curacy.)

The nominator must appoint his clerk within six months after the avoidance, for, if he does not, and the patron presents his clerk before the bishop hath taken any benefit of the lapse, he is bound to admit that clerk.

But where one has the nomination, and another the presentation, if the right of presentation should afterwards come to the queen, it has been held, that he that has the nomination will be entitled to both, because the queen, who is to present, is only an instrument to him who nominates, and it is not becoming the dignity of a queen to be subservient to another; but the nominator should name one to the lord chancellor, who, in the name of the queen, should present to the ordinary.

And as the presentation, so the right of nomination, may be forfeited to the queen. It is true, if the patron, upon a corrupt agreement unknown to the nominator, presents his clerk, this shall not be prejudicial to the nominator within the statute of simony; but if the nominator corruptly agrees to nominate, his right of nomination shall be forfeited to the queen.

NONES. A term employed in the Roman calendar, inserted in all correct editions of the Prayer Book. The nones were the fifth day of each month, excepting in March, May, July, and October, when the nones fell on the 7th day. They were so called from their being the ninth day in each month before the ides.—Stephens’s Book of Common Prayer, notes on the Calendar, p. 270.

NONJURORS. Those conscientious men who refused to renounce their oath of allegiance to King James II., and to transfer it to the Prince of Orange. What was at first a necessary separation from the Church of England, degenerated, after a time, into a wilful schism. The history of the Nonjurors is written by Lathbury (London, 1845).

NORMAN. The highest development of Romanesque architecture in England, which succeeded the Saxon at the Conquest, and admitted the pointed arch which marks the Transition, about 1145. It must be observed, however, that many buildings, generally called Norman, and which agree with the Norman style in all essential particulars, except in the accident of their being built before 1066, must, architecturally, be classed with this style. The Norman is so absolutely distinguished from all Gothic orders by the round arch, that it is needless to enter into its differentials. Several of its peculiarities will be found under the heads Buttress, Capital, Cathedral, Mouldings, Pier, Pillar.

NORTH SIDE. In the rubric immediately preceding the office for the Holy Communion, the priest is directed to stand at the north side of the table. As this work is not a Dictionary of the English language, it might seem beside our purpose to offer any explanation of those words, which are sufficiently clear, though they have been perplexed by the unreasonable scruples of some of our generation. Johnson gives the following as one of the definitions of side, “any part of any body opposed to any other part:” another is, “right or left.” The north side then is that which is opposed to the south; viz. the left side to those who look to the east, where the holy table is placed. By a side is meant that which is lateral, as contradistinguished from that which is opposite or vertical. A side is the short end of the table, and so the Scotch liturgy understood the word, “the north side, or end thereof.” The table usually in English churches stands at the end of the chancel: the exceptions are so few as clearly to prove a rule; and it must be obvious to common sense, that when placed differently, the priest’s position there should be the same relatively to the church as if the table stood at the east; that is, at the left side of those who look towards the chancel from the body of the church. Universal custom has been in conformity with the plain meaning of the rule; and the priest always has stood at that which formed the north or left side of the square table. Had the intention of the compilers of the liturgy been different, the rubric would have been worded in some such way as this, “the priest standing at the north-west corner, or angle,” or “left angle.” An angle, or corner, is not a side; and could never be so interpreted, unless the table were placed diagonally. The following authorities are explicit.

“The design is, that the priest may be the better seen and heard, which, as our altars are now placed, he cannot be, but at the north or south side. And as Bishop Beveridge has shown, that whenever in the ancient liturgies the minister is directed to stand before the table, the north side of it is always meant.”—Wheatly.

“This seems to have been ordered, for the purpose of avoiding the fashion of the priest’s standing with his face towards the east, as is the Popish practice.”—L’ Estrange.

As to the words in the rubric preceding the Collect for the Queen, the priest standing as before, Mr. Collis observes, that these mean “not standing as he rehearsed the Commandments; for if that were designed nothing would have been said here. But standing as before, namely, as he stood at the north side of the table, before he was ordered to turn to the people. When the Commandments are read by him, he directs himself to the people; when he comes to the collect, he directs himself to the Almighty by prayer.”

NOTES OF THE CHURCH. The necessity of devising some general notes of the Church, and of not entering at once on controversial debates concerning all points of doctrine and discipline, was early perceived by Christian theologians. Tertullian appeals, in refutation of the heresies of his age, to the antiquity of the Church derived from the apostles, and its priority to all heretical communities; Irenæus, to the unity of the Church’s doctrines, and the succession of her bishops from the apostles; St. Augustine, to the consent of nations; St. Jerome, to the continued duration of the Church from the apostles, and the very appellation of the Christian name. In modern times, Bellarmine the Romanist added several other notes, such as,—agreement with the primitive Church in doctrine; union of members among themselves and with their head; sanctity of doctrine and of founders; continuance of miracles and prophecy; confession of adversaries; the unhappy end of those who are opposed to the Church, and the temporal felicity conferred on it. Luther assigned as notes of the true Church, the true and uncorrupted preaching of the gospel; administration of baptism, of the eucharist, and of the keys; a legitimate ministry, public service in a known tongue, and tribulations internally and externally. Calvin reckons only truth of doctrine and right administration of the sacraments, and seems to reject succession. The learned theologians of the Church of England adopt a different view in some respects. Dr. Field admits the following notes of the Church: truth of doctrine; use of sacraments and means instituted by Christ; union under lawful ministers; antiquity without change of doctrine; lawful succession, i. e. with true doctrine; and universality in the successive sense, i. e. the prevalence of the Church successively in all nations. Bishop Taylor admits, as notes of the Church, antiquity, duration, succession of bishops, union of members among themselves and with Christ, sanctity of doctrine.

Palmer, from whom this account is abridged, takes, as notes of the Church, what the Nicene, or Constantinopolitan, Creed gives, as the Church’s attributes, “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.”

NOVATIANS. A Christian sect, which sprang up in the third century; occasioned by the jealousy which Novatian, a priest of Rome, conceived upon seeing Cornelius raised to the episcopate of the Roman Church, to which he himself aspired. Enraged at the disappointment, he endeavoured to blacken the character of Cornelius, by charging him with a criminal lenity towards those who had apostatized during the persecution of Decius. He maintained, that such persons ought indeed to be exhorted to repentance, but never to be absolved by the Church, reserving their absolution to God alone, who had the power and authority to remit sins. Hence he was led to deny, in general, that the Church had the power of remitting mortal sins, upon the offender’s repentance. And at last he went so far as to deny that apostates could ever hope for pardon even from God himself: a doctrine which so terrified some of those who had lapsed and repented, that, in despair, they quite abjured Christianity, and returned to Paganism.

The followers of Novatian added to this original heresy of their master another, which was the unlawfulness of second marriages; against which they were as severe as against apostates; denying communion for ever to such persons as married a second time after baptism, and treating widows who married again as adulteresses.

As these heretics pretended that the Church was corrupted by the communion it granted to sinners, it is no wonder they rebaptized those they gained over to their sect. In baptizing, they used the received forms of the Church, and had the same belief concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in whose name they baptized. St. Cyprian rejected their baptism, as he did that of all heretics; but it was admitted by the eighth canon of the Council of Nice.

The Novatians put on the external appearance of great piety and purity; and though they did not refuse the title of Novatians, they assumed the proud appellation of Catharii, that is, the Pure, or Puritans; and like the Pharisees among the Jews, they would not suffer other men to come near them, lest their purity should be defiled thereby.

The schism which Novatian had formed in the Roman Church was not confined to Rome, nor to Italy, nor even to the West. It made its way into the East, and subsisted a long time at Alexandria, in several provinces of Asia, at Constantinople, in Scythia, and in Africa. The Novatians abounded particularly in Phrygia and Paphlagonia. Constantine seems to have favoured them a little by a law of the year 326; which preserves to them their churches and burying-places, provided they never belonged to the Catholic Church. But in a famous edict about the year 331, he sets them at the head of the most detestable of all heretics, forbidding them to hold public or private assemblies, confiscating their oratories or churches, and condemning their leaders to banishment. It is pretended this edict had not the designed effect as to the Novatians, by means of Acesius their bishop, who resided at Constantinople, and was in great esteem with the emperor, on account of his virtuous and irreproachable life. The Novatian sect was entirely extinct, or at least reduced to a very inconsiderable party, about the middle of the fifth century.

NOVEMBER, FIFTH OF. (See Forms of Prayer.)

NOVICES, in countries where monachism prevails, are those persons who are candidates, or probationers, for a religious life. The time of their probation is called the Noviciate; after which, if their behaviour is approved, they are professed, that is, admitted into the order, and allowed to make the vows, wear the habit, &c.

The novices among the Jesuits are disciplined in a very peculiar manner. To make them the better understand the nature and extent of the obedience they owe to their superiors, they have certain emblematical pictures in their chambers or studies. For example: in the middle of the canvass is a boy stooping down with a piece of timber on his shoulders, with this motto, fortiter, upon it. He has a harp in his hand, to intimate the cheerfulness of his submission. On the right hand is a little dog in a rising posture, to show that the novice is to obey with despatch and expedition. His breast is open, to show that his superiors have his heart as well as his limbs at their service. His mouth is represented shut, to show that there must be no grumbling or contesting the point with his superiors; and his ears are stopped, to intimate that he must submit to orders however unacceptable to that sense.

If a novice breaks through any part of this submission, he has a penance enjoined him according to the nature of his misbehaviour. For instance, if he discovers a haughty disposition, he is ordered to go into the infirmary and perform the coarsest offices to the sick and decrepit. If he refuses to do as he is bid, or murmurs at it, he is brought into the refectory at dinner or supper time, and obliged to confess his fault upon his knees before all the company.

NUMBERS, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. It is the fourth book of the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses, and receives its denomination from the numbering of the families of Israel, by Moses and Aaron; who mustered the tribes, and marshalled the army of the Hebrews, in their passage through the wilderness.

A great part of this Book is historical, relating several remarkable events which happened in that journey; as, the sedition of Aaron and Miriam; the rebellion of Korah and his companions; the murmurings of the whole body of the people; Balaam’s prophecy; the miraculous budding of Aaron’s rod, &c. It gives likewise a distinct account of the several stages of journeyings through the wilderness. But the greatest part of this Book is spent in enumerating the several laws and ordinances, not mentioned in the preceding books; such as, the office and number of the Levites; the trial by the waters of jealousy; the rites to be observed by the Nazarites; the making of fringes on the borders of their garments; the law of inheritance; of vows; of the cities of refuge, &c.

The Book of Numbers comprehends the history of about thirty-eight years, though the most part of the things related in it fell out in the first and last of these years, and it does not appear when those things were done which are related in the middle of the Book.

NUMERALS. The designation of twelve priests, in the cathedral of Nola (inferior to the canons).—Jebb.

NUNS. Those women who devote themselves, in a cloister or nunnery, to a religious life. (See Monks.)

There were women, in the ancient Christian Church, who made public and open profession of virginity, before the monastic life, or name, was known in the world; as appears from the writings of Cyprian and Tertullian. These, for distinction’s sake, are sometimes called ecclesiastical virgins, and were commonly enrolled in the canon or matricula of the Church. They differed from the monastic virgins chiefly in this—that they lived privately in their fathers’ houses, whereas the others lived in communities. But their profession of virginity was not so strict as to make it criminal in them to marry afterwards, if they thought fit.

In the following ages, the censures of the Church began to be inflicted upon professed virgins who should marry; and these censures seem to have grown more severe, in proportion to the esteem and value Christians set upon celibacy and the monastic life. Yet there never was any decree for rescinding or making null such marriages.

Some canons allowed virgins to be consecrated at twenty-five years of age, and others at sixteen or seventeen; but time quickly showed, that neither of these terms were so conveniently fixed as they might be. Other canons, therefore, required virgins to be forty years old, before they were veiled, as may be seen in the Councils of Agde and Saragossa. And the imperial laws decreed, that, if any virgin was veiled before that age, either by the violence or hatred of her parents, (which was a case that often happened,) she was at liberty to marry. Hence appears a wide difference between the practice of the ancient Christian Church in this matter, and that of the modern Church of Rome.

As to the consecration of virgins, it had some things peculiar in it. It was usually performed publicly in the church by the bishop. The virgin made a public profession of her resolution, and then the bishop put upon her the accustomed habit of sacred virgins. One part of this habit was a veil, called the sacrum velamen; another was a kind of mitre, or coronet, worn on the head. In some places the custom of shaving professed virgins prevailed; as it did in the monasteries of Syria and Egypt, in St. Jerome’s time: but the Council of Gangra strongly condemned this practice, accounting that a woman’s hair was given her by God as a mark of subjection. Theodosius the Great added a civil sanction to this ecclesiastical decree: whence it appears that the tonsure of virgins was anciently no allowed custom of the Church, however it came to prevail in the contrary practice of later ages.

As the society of virgins was of great esteem in the Church, so they had some particular honours paid to them. Their persons were sacred, and severe laws were made against any that should presume to offer the least violence to them. The emperor Constantine charged his own revenues with the maintenance of them; and his mother Helena often entertained them and waited upon them at her own table. The Church gave them also a share of her own revenues, and assigned them an honourable station in the churches, whither the most noble and religious matrons used to resort with earnestness to receive their salutations and embraces.

The ancient names of these virgins were Nonnæ, Moniales, Sanctimoniales, and Ascetriæ. The term Nonnæ (from whence our English word nuns) is, according to Hospinian, an Egyptian name signifying a virgin.

In the Romish Church, when a young woman is to be professed, that is, to be made a nun, the habit, veil, and ring of the candidate are carried to the altar, and she herself, accompanied by her nearest relations, is conducted to the bishop. Two ancient venerable matrons attend upon her as bridewomen. When the bishop has said mass, the archpriest chants an anthem, the subject of which is, that she ought to have her lamp lighted, because the bridegroom is coming to meet her. Then the bishop calls her in a kind of recitative, to which she answers in the same manner. Being come before the prelate, and on her knees, she attends to the exhortation he makes to her with regard to a religious life, and in the mean time the choir chants the Litanies. Then the bishop, having the crosier in his left hand, pronounces the benediction. She then rises up, and the bishop consecrates the new habit, sprinkling it with holy water. When the candidate has put on her religious habit, she again presents herself before the bishop, and sings on her knees, Ancilla Christi sum, &c., i. e. “I am the servant of Christ.” Then she receives the veil, and afterwards the ring, by which she is married to Jesus Christ; and, lastly, the crown of virginity. When she is crowned, an anathema is denounced against all who shall attempt to break her vows. After the communion, the prelate gives her up to the conduct of the abbess, saying to her: “Take care to preserve pure and spotless this young woman, whom God has consecrated,” &c.—Broughton.

NUNC DIMITTIS. The first words in Latin of the Song of Simeon, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,” appointed as one of the hymns to be used after the second lesson at even-song. It was used in this place in the most ancient times. It is found in the Apostolical Constitutions. And even at the present day this hymn is repeated at evening prayer in the patriarchate of Constantinople. The hymn occurs in the Latin office for compline, from which, and from the vesper service, our office of Evening Prayer was compiled.

After the second evening lesson out of the Epistles of the holy apostles, this hymn is most commonly used. The author of it is supposed to be that holy doctor whom the Jews call Simeon the Just, son of the famous Rabbi Hillel, a man of eminent integrity, and one who opposed the then common opinion of the Messiah’s temporal kingdom. The occasion of composing it was his meeting Christ in the temple when he came to be offered there, wherein God fulfilled his promise to him, that he should not die till he had seen the Messiah: taking Jesus therefore in his arms, inspired with joy and the Holy Ghost, he sang this “Nunc dimittis:” and though we cannot see our Saviour with our bodily eyes as he did, yet he is, by the writings of the apostles, daily presented to the eyes of our faith; and if we were as much concerned for heaven, and as loose from the love of this world, as old Simeon was, and as we ought to be, we might, upon the view of Christ in His holy word by faith, be daily ready to sing this hymn; which was indited by the Spirit, recorded in holy writ, and is adopted into the public service of all Christian Churches, Greek and Latin, Reformed and Roman, and used to be sung in extraordinary by divers saints and martyrs a little before their death.—Dean Comber.

This hymn, called from the Latin beginning of it “Nunc dimittis,” expresses the gratitude of good old Simeon, “a just man and devout,” as we read in St. Luke ii. 25–32, “and waiting for the consolation of Israel; to whom it was revealed that he should not die till he had seen the Lord’s Christ.” Accordingly, “he came by the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, he took him up in his arms, (image to yourselves the scene, I beg you,) and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,” that is, in comfort, “according to thy word; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared” to set “before the face of all people.” And the following sentence hath a strong appearance of being designed by the Holy Ghost to intimate, (whether the speaker of it perceived the design or not,) that, contrary to the expected and natural order of things, Christ should first “be a light to lighten the Gentiles;” then, afterwards, “the glory of God’s people Israel.” To perceive the fitness of Simeon’s thanksgiving for our use, it needs only to be remembered, and ever should in repeating it, that we also “have seen the Lord’s salvation.” For though we have not yet beheld our Saviour with our bodily eyes, to that of faith he is exhibited continually in the gospel history and sacraments: we may meet him in his Church; we may converse with him in our private meditations. And this we should think happiness enough for us here, whatever else we want or suffer; and be always prepared, and always willing, to “bless God,” and “depart in peace.”—Abp. Secker.

This hymn comes very properly after the second lesson, which is always taken out of the New Testament, wherein is contained and delivered to us that gospel, the enjoyment and participation of which is the ground and foundation of the whole hymn. It should be added, that this hymn is addressed to God; and since it may be used as the personal address of every devout Christian, no one should repeat it after a careless manner; but consider to whom it is repeated, and utter the whole after a suitable manner.—Dr. Bennet.

NUNCIO. An ambassador from the pope to some prince or state; or a person who attends on the pope’s behalf at a congress, or at an assembly of several ambassadors. A nuncio, in fact, is the pope’s ambassador, as the internuncio is his envoy extraordinary. A nuncio has a jurisdiction, and may delegate judges in all the states where he resides, except in France, where he has no authority beyond that of a simple ambassador. Sometimes a nuncio is invested with the functions of a legatus natus. (See Legate.)

OATHS. “As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his apostle, so we judge that the Christian religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth.”—Article xxxix. The first oath mentioned in the Holy Scriptures is that of Abraham, Gen. xiv. 22, 23.

The Oath of Allegiance is as follows:—“I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance, to her Majesty, Queen Victoria. So help me God.” This is taken by Protestant dissenting ministers, when licensed by the civil magistrates; as is also the following:

Oath of Supremacy:—“I, A. B., do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

OBADIAH, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. This prophecy is contained in one single chapter, and is partly an invective against the cruelty of the Edomites, who mocked and derided the children of Israel, as they passed into captivity, and, with other enemies their confederates, invaded and oppressed these poor strangers, and divided the spoil amongst them; and partly a prediction of the deliverance and salvation of Israel, and of the victory and triumph of the whole Church over her enemies.

The time when this prophecy was delivered is wholly uncertain. The Hebrews believe, that this prophet was the same with the governor of Ahab’s house, mentioned in the First Book of Kings, who hid and fed the hundred prophets, whom Jezebel would have destroyed. Some say he was that Obadiah whom Josiah made overseer of the works of the temple. But most writers make him contemporary with Hosea, Amos, and Joel.

OBIT. An office performed at funerals, when the corpse was in the church before it was buried; it afterwards came to be performed on the anniversary of the death of a benefactor. Thus, in many of our colleges, the obit or anniversary of the death of the founder is piously observed. (See Commemoration.) The obiit Sundays (once a quarter) at St. George’s at Windsor, were celebrated formerly with great magnificence, and are to a certain degree still. In Kennet’s Register, p. 765, (as quoted in the Hiereugia Anglicana, p. 211,) there is the following notice. “1662, Sept. 10.—This day was published the service that is performed in the King’s Free Chapel of St. George, in the castle of Windsor, upon Obiit Sunday in the morning, (that is, the Sunday before every quarter day,) and at the offering up of the achievements of the deceased Knights of the Garter.

The Rubric. The service is the same that is appointed in the Book of Common Prayer, until you come to the Psalm for the day of the month, instead of which you have these proper Psalms, xxi., cxlvi., cxlvii. After the Psalm the junior canon upon the place cometh out of his stall with the verger before him, and readeth the lesson at the desk, which is taken out of the forty-fourth chapter of Ecclesiasticus. After the lesson Te Deum laudamus is sung. After the Te Deum is ended, they all depart out of the quire in the body of the church to sermon. After sermon is ended, the canons go to the altar, and the quire go to their stalls, and the communion service beginneth. The Epistle is taken out of the twenty-third chapter of Deuteronomy; the Gospel in the fifth of St. John, beginning at the twenty-fourth and ending at the thirtieth verse. After the sacrament (which is always on the Obiit Sunday) is ended, and the blessing given at the altar, the canons go to their stalls, and these following prayers are read:

Priest. O Lord, save the king.

Quire. And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee.

Collect. O Lord, our heavenly Father and merciful Saviour, we praise and thank thee, O Lord, &c.

God save our gracious sovereign, and all the companions of the most honourable and noble Order of the Garter.

Here endeth the obiit service.

The verse and response, O Lord, save the queen, &c., are used daily after the anthem in St. George’s Chapel.—Jebb.

OBLATION. An offering to God.

In the office for the holy communion we pray God to “accept our alms and oblations.” The word oblations was added to this prayer for the Church militant here on earth, at the same time that the rubric enjoined, that, if there be a communion, “the priest is then,” just before this prayer, “to place upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient.” Hence it is clearly evident that by that word we are to understand the elements of bread and wine, which the priest is to offer solemnly to God, as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty over his creatures, and that from henceforth they may be peculiarly his. For in all the Jewish sacrifices, of which the people were partakers, the viands or materials of the feast were first made God’s by a solemn oblation, and then afterwards eaten by the communicants, not as man’s, but as God’s provision, who, by thus entertaining them at his own table, declared himself reconciled and again in covenant with them. And therefore our blessed Saviour, when he instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, first gave thanks, and blessed the elements, i. e. offered them up to God as the Lord of the creatures, as the most ancient Fathers expound that passage; who for that reason, whenever they celebrated the eucharist, always offered the bread and wine for the communion to God upon the altar, by this or some such short ejaculation, “Lord, we offer thine own out of what thou hast bountifully given us.” After which they received them, as it were, from him again, in order to convert them into the sacred banquet of the body and blood of his dear Son. Consonant to this, in the First Common Prayer of King Edward VI., the priest was ordered in this place to set the bread and wine upon the altar. But at the second review, to conciliate the ultra-Protestants, this ancient usage appears to have been thrown out. It was however restored at the last review of the Prayer Book in the reign of Charles II., when it was ordered that the bread and wine should be placed solemnly on the table by the priest himself. Whence it appears that the placing of the elements upon the altar before the beginning of the morning service, by the hands of a lay-clerk or sexton, as is sometimes the irreverent practice, is a profane breach of the aforesaid rubric.—Mede. Wheatly.

The English liturgy is not without a verbal oblation, which occurs at the beginning of the prayers and commemorations. After the elements have been placed on the table, and thus devoted to the service and honour of God, the priest prays to God thus: “We humbly beseech thee most mercifully to accept our alms and oblations, and to receive these our prayers, which we offer unto thy Divine Majesty.” Here three species of sacrifice or oblation are verbally offered: first, the “alms,” which St. Paul describes as a sacrifice well-pleasing to God; secondly, the “oblations,” namely, the creatures of bread and wine; thirdly, the “prayers,” which, according to St. John, are offered with incense on the heavenly altar, and of which the holy Fathers speak as a sacrifice and oblation to God.—Palmer.

In a more extended sense of the word, we mean by oblations whatever religious Christians offer to God and the Church, whether in lands or goods. It is probable that the example of St. Paul might incite the primitive Christians to offer these gifts to the Church; for he appointed every one of the Corinthians and Galatians to yield something to God for the saints every Lord’s day: but this being thought too often, therefore Tertullian tells us it was afterwards done every month, and then ad libitum: but it was always the custom for communicants to offer something at receiving the sacrament, as well for holy uses, as for relief of the poor, which custom is, or ought to be, observed at this day.

In the first ages of the Church, those deposita pietatis, which are mentioned by Tertullian, were all voluntary oblations, and they were received in lieu of tithes; for the Christians at that time lived chiefly in cities, and gave out of their common stock, both to maintain the Church, and those who served at the altar.

But when their numbers increased, and they were spread abroad in the countries, then a more fixed maintenance was necessary for the clergy; but still oblations were made by the people, which, if in the mother Church, then the bishop had half, and the other was divided amongst the clergy; but if offered in a parish church, then the bishop had a third part, and no more.

These oblations, which at first were voluntary, became afterwards, by a continual payment, due by custom.

It is true there are canons which require every one who approaches the altar to make some oblation to it, as a thing convenient to be done.

And it is probable that, in obedience to the canons, it became customary for every man who made a will before the Reformation, to devise something to the high altar of the church where he lived, and something likewise to the mother church or cathedral; and those who were to be buried in the church usually gave something towards its reparations.

But at the great festivals all people were obliged to offer something, not only as convenient, but as a duty; but the proportion was left to the discretion of the giver; and we think, with great reason, for the bounty of the Christians in those ages was so great, that men would build churches on their own lands, on purpose that they might have an equal share of those oblations with the clergy.

And this might be the occasion that the emperors Constantine and Valentinian made laws to prohibit such excessive gifts, which in those days were kept in store-houses built for that very purpose.

But in succeeding ages there was little occasion for such laws, for the zeal of the people was so considerably abated, that, instead of those repositories, the clergy had little chests to contain those gifts, till at last they dwindled into so small a portion, that now, as a quaint writer observes, they can scarce be felt in the parson’s pocket.

We have the authority of Bishop Patrick to show that, in the prayer after the Offertory, the elements are specially intended by the word oblations. “We humbly beseech God,” he says, “to accept not only our alms, but also our oblations. These are things distinct; and the former, alms, signifying that which was given for the relief of the poor, the latter, oblations, can signify nothing else but (according to the style of the ancient Church) the bread and wine presented unto God.”—Christian Sacrifice, p. 77. But it is no less unquestionable, (adds a note in Stephens’s edition of the Common Prayer Book, vol. i. p. 1175,) that this term was also employed to signify money, intended for the maintenance of the clergy, for the service of God, for merciful works of the more spiritual kind, and that it sometimes even denotes the alms for relief of temporal necessities; and numerous authorities exist to prove that, ecclesiastically speaking, “oblations” were not to be confined to the sacred elements exclusively: although oblations are expressly distinguished from alms.

The ecclesiastical meanings of the word oblation may be illustrated from the coronation service of Queen Victoria. Her “first oblation” was a pall or altar cloth of gold, and an ingot of gold: the next a sword: and afterwards at the Offertory were two “oblations;” the first being bread and wine for the communion, which were “by the archbishop received from the queen, (who was kneeling,) and reverently placed upon the altar, and decently covered with a fine linen cloth:” with a prayer, “Bless, O Lord, we beseech thee, these thy gifts, and sanctify them unto their holy use,” &c. “Then the queen, kneeling as before, makes her second oblation, a purse of gold;” and then follows a prayer to God “to receive these oblations.”

OCTAVE. The octave is the eighth day after any principal festival of the Church. In ancient times it was customary to observe these days with much devotion, including the whole period also from the festival to the octave. It was thought that the subject and occasion of these high festivals called for their being lengthened out in this manner; and the period of eight days was chosen because the Jews celebrated their greater feasts, some for seven days, and the feast of Tabernacles for eight days. Such Jewish institutions being only types and shadows, the Christians thought it fit not to have their commemorations of shorter duration.

In our Prayer Book we retain the observance of the octaves of Christmas, Easter, Ascension, and Whitsunday, by using, for seven days after each of these festivals, an appropriate “Preface,” in the Communion Service, if that sacrament is administered on any of these days. The preface for Whitsunday is, however, only to be used for six days after, because the seventh (or octave of Whitsunday) would be Trinity Sunday, which has a preface of its own.

The first two days of the octaves of Easter and Whitsunday have special services, and in some cathedrals are observed with nearly the same solemnity as the festival itself. It appears by the Pietas Londinensis, published in 1714, that in the church of St. Dunstan in the West, the holy communion was administered on every day during the octaves of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide.—Jebb.

OFFERING DAYS. “The four general offering days,” Bishop Cosin says, “in the Church of England enjoined by convocation in 1536, [ought to be 1537,] were Christmas Day, St. John Baptist’s Day, St. Michael’s Day, [Easter Day.] Which order is in some places still observed, and the king and queen in their chapel royal, or wherever they be at church on those days, never omit it, but arise from their seat and go in solemn manner to present their offering upon their knees at God’s altar. And then is read by the priest or bishop attending, the sentence here prescribed, 1 Cor. ix.”—Jebb.

OFFERTORY. So called, because it is that part of the Communion Service in which the offerings are made. The custom of making oblations at the communion is certainly apostolical, as appears from 1 Cor. xvi. 2: “On the first day of the week let every one lay by him in store as God hath prospered him.” Which custom continued down to the following ages, as appears from different passages in Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, and other ancient writers. Out of those offerings, which were not always in money, but in bread, wine, corn, &c., were taken as much bread and wine as served for the celebration of the communion at the time; but if any persons were under public infamy, by reason of any ill actions by them committed, their offerings were not to be received. These offerings in the primitive times were so considerable, that they were divided into four portions; one for the relief of the poor; the second the bishop retained for his maintenance; the third was for the maintenance of the church and its ornaments; and the fourth for the clergy. The office of the Offertory was used in Walafrid Strabo’s time, who lived in the middle of the ninth century; and it was so long before his time, that he could not tell to whom to ascribe its original.—Dr. Nicholls.

Formerly, Mr. Palmer observes, this anthem was probably sung in choirs. The sentences at the Offertory are set to varied melodies, in Marbeck’s book, according to the licence given in King Edward VI.’s First Book, either to sing or say them. This licence is withdrawn by the rubric as it now stands, so altered in King Edward’s Second Book, since the saying of the sentences by the priest is expressly enjoined. Of the old custom a vestige is preserved in the ceremony of the installation of Knights of the Garter, and formerly was at coronations.

OFFICIAL. The official is the person to whom cognisance of causes is committed by such as have an ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The official of an archdeacon stands in like relation to him as the chancellor does to the bishop.

OGEE. (Ogive, French.) An inflected curve; a curve formed of two segments of a circle, one struck from one side, and the other from the other side of the same right line. This curve occurs chiefly in mouldings, and is principally characteristic of the Decorated style; but it occurs in other styles also, and has several variations according to its place and date. The word is used in French as a generic term for pointed architecture.

OPHITÆ (from ὄφις, a serpent); also called Serpentinians. A ridiculous sort of heretics, who had for their leader a man called Euphrates. They entertained almost the same fantastic opinions that were holden by the other Egyptian Gnostics concerning the æons, the eternal matter, the creation of the world in opposition to the will of God, the rulers of the seven planets that presided over this world, the tyranny of Demiurge, and also concerning Christ united to the man Jesus, in order to destroy the empire of this usurper. But besides these, they maintained the following particular tenet (whence they received the name of Ophites): “That the Serpent by which our first parents were deceived, was either Christ himself, or Sophia, [Wisdom,] concealed under the form of that animal;” and in consequence of this opinion they are said to have nourished a certain number of serpents, which they looked upon as sacred, and to which they offered a sort of worship, a subordinate kind of divine honours. There is some curious information about the Ophitæ in the lately discovered work of Hippolytus.

OPTION. An archbishop had the choice or option of any one dignity or benefice in the gift of every bishop consecrated or confirmed by him, which he may confer on his chaplain, or whom else he pleases. This was styled his option. The privilege has been relinquished by English archbishops since 1845, in consequence of a construction put on some words in the cathedral act (3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, sect. 42). “That it shall not be lawful for any spiritual person to sell or assign any patronage or presentation belonging to him by virtue of any dignity or spiritual office held by him.”

Bishop Sherlock, on his appointment to the see of London in 1749, had a dispute with Archbishop Herring as to the right of option. A compromise took place: but the bishop printed a pamphlet on the subject in 1755. It never was published, and but 50 copies were printed.—Heylin’s Life of Bishop Sherlock, prefixed to his Works, vol. i. lx.

OPUS OPERATUM. An expression frequently occurring in discussions respecting the efficacy of the sacraments, &c., importing a necessary spiritual effect flowing from the outward administration, (from the thing done,) irrespective of the moral qualities of the recipient. This doctrine is alleged as one of the corruptions of the Church of Rome, and, if carried out, would obviously equalize, in a great measure, the benefits received by the worthy and the unworthy who approach the altar, and would justify the administration of baptism to the heathen, &c., not only on consent, but by the application of physical force.

In a certain sense it is unquestionably true, that all the appointed means of grace have an effect ex opere operato, inasmuch as the act itself, though inefficacious in its own nature, is an institution of God, and consecrated by him as an instrument not to be made void at the caprice of man. Thus, the preaching of the gospel is inevitably a savour of life or of death. The administration of baptism is invariably an admission into the Church. But that the use of an appointed ordinance goes beyond this, and results in all cases in a moral effect on the individual, and in the insuring of higher portions of Divine grace ex necessitate, is contrary to the views of the Church, the doctrine of Scripture, and the preservation of man’s free agency.

ORARIUM. (See Stole.)

ORATORIO. In Church music, a musical drama, of which the subject is always sacred, and intended to be performed in a church. The origin of this kind of spiritual and musical drama, which has now run into great excesses, is found in the plan of Filippo Neri, in the early part of the sixteenth century, to arrest the attention of those to whom he preached, by procuring the execution of pieces of sacred music of more than common interest before and after his sermon. This custom, which commenced in the congregation of the Oratory, (whence the name Oratorio,) was imitated by all the societies of the same foundation, and soon became so popular, that the best masters, both in composition and in execution, were found to take a part in it. The performance in the time of Filippo Neri himself was scarcely more than a cantata, but it soon after assumed a more perfectly dramatic form, being distributed between several persons, and accompanied with action and scenic representation, so as to present much of the character of a musical mystery. (See Moralities.) In this way many sacred subjects were performed, such as Job and his friends, the Good Samaritan, and the Prodigal Son.

Oratorio derived its name from the Oratorio, or chapel in the church of St. Girolamo della Carita at Rome, where Filippo Neri’s confraternity assembles. (See Priests of the Oratory.)

In England, oratorios have been much used in our cathedrals. Among the most celebrated oratorios are the Messiah of Handel, and the Creation of Haydn.

ORATORY. A name given by Christians to certain places of religious worship.

In ecclesiastical antiquity, the term houses of prayer, or oratories, is frequently given to churches in general, of which there are innumerable instances in ancient Christian writers. But in some canons the name oratory seems confined to private chapels, or places of worship set up for the convenience of private families, yet still depending on the parochial churches, and differing from them in this, that they were only places of prayer, but not for celebrating the communion; or, if that were at any time allowed to private families, yet, at least, upon great and solemn festivals, they were to resort for communion to the parish churches.—Broughton.

ORATORY, PRIESTS OF THE. There are two congregations of monks, one in Italy, the other in France, which are called by this name.

The priests of the oratory in Italy had for their founder, Philip de Neri, a native of Florence, who, in the year 1548, founded at Rome the Confraternity of the Holy Trinity. This society originally consisted of but fifteen poor persons, who assembled in the church of St. Saviour in campo, every first Sunday in the month, to practise the exercises of piety prescribed by the holy founder. The pope gave leave to assemble in the church of St. Girolamo dell Carita, from the Oratorio or chapel in which church they derived their name. Afterwards, their number increasing, by the addition to the society of several persons of distinction, Neri proceeded to establish an hospital for the reception of poor pilgrims, who, coming to Rome to visit the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul, were obliged, for want of a lodging, to lie in the streets, and at the doors of the churches. For this charitable purpose, Pope Paul IV. gave to the society the parochial church of St. Benedict, close by which church was built an hospital so large, that, in the Jubilee year, 1600, it received 44,500 men, and 25,500 women, who came in pilgrimage to Rome.

Philip Neri, besides this charitable foundation for pilgrims, held spiritual conferences at Rome, in a large chamber accommodated in the form of an oratory: in which he was assisted by the famous Baronius, author of the “Ecclesiastical Annals.” Here were delivered lectures of religion and morality, and the auditors were instructed in ecclesiastical history. The assembly always ended with prayers, and hymns to the glory of God; after which, the founder, and his companions, visited the churches and hospitals, and took care of the sick. And now it was that this religious society began to be called Priests of the Oratory.

In 1574, the Florentines at Rome, with the permission of Pope Gregory XIII., built a very spacious oratory, in which Neri continued his religious assemblies. The pope likewise gave him the parochial church of Vallicella, and, the same year, approved the constitutions he had drawn up for the government of his congregation, of which St. Philip himself was the first general.

This new institute soon made a great progress, and divers other establishments were made on the same model; particularly at Naples, Milan, Fermo, and Palermo. The founder having resigned the office of general, he was succeeded therein by Baronius, who was afterwards promoted to the dignity of a cardinal. Neri died the 25th of May, 1595, and was canonized in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV. After his death, this congregation made a further progress in Italy, and has produced several cardinals and eminent writers, as Baronius, Oderic Rainaldi, and others.

The priests of the Oratory in France were established upon the model of those in Italy, and owe their rise to Cardinal Berulle, a native of Champagne; who resolved upon this foundation, in order to revive the splendour of the ecclesiastical state, which was greatly sunk through the miseries of the civil wars, the increase of heresies, and a general corruption of manners. To this end he assembled a community of ecclesiastics, in 1611, in the suburb of St. James, where is at present the famous monastery of Val-de-Grace. They obtained the king’s letters patent for their establishment; and, in 1613, Pope Paul V. approved this congregation under the title of the Oratory of Jesus.

This congregation consisted of two sorts of persons; the one, as it were, incorporated, the other only associates. The former governed the houses of this institute; the latter were only employed in forming themselves to the life and manners of ecclesiastics. And this was the true spirit of this congregation, in which they taught neither human learning, nor theology, but only the virtues of the ecclesiastical life.

After the death of Cardinal Berulle, which happened the 2nd of October, 1629, the priests of the Oratory made a great progress in France and other countries. This order had eleven houses in the Low Countries, one at Liege, two in the county of Avignon, and one in Savoy, besides fifty-eight in France. The first house, which was, as it were, the mother of all the rest, was that of the street St. Honoré, at Paris, where the general resided. The priests of this congregation were not, properly speaking, monks, being obliged to no vows, and their institute being purely ecclesiastical or sacerdotal.—Broughton. The Oratorians have lately appeared in England.

ORDEAL. An appeal to the judgment of Almighty God, in criminal cases, when the innocence or guilt of the accused rested on insufficient evidence.

Among the Saxons and Normans, if any person was charged with theft, adultery, murder, treason, perjury, &c., in these cases, if the person neither pleaded guilty, nor could be convicted by legal evidence, it was either in the prosecutor’s or judge’s power to put him upon the ordeal; and provided he passed through this test unhurt, he was discharged; otherwise he was put into the hands of justice, to be punished as the law directed, in case he had been cast by the ordinary forms of prosecution. For we are to observe, that this trial by ordeal was not designed for the punishment of those in whose cases the ordinary forms had miscarried; the intention of it was rather to clear the truth, where it could not be otherwise discovered, and make way for the execution of the law.

There are several sorts of this inquiry; the trial was sometimes made by cold, and sometimes by scalding, water; sometimes by ploughshares, or bars of iron, heated burning hot; sometimes the accused purged their innocence by receiving the sacrament; and sometimes by eating a piece of barley bread called the corsned.

In the trial by cold water, the persons suspected were thrown naked into a pond, or river: if they sank they were acquitted, but if they floated upon the river without any swimming postures it was taken for an evidence of guilt.

When scalding water was the test, they were to plunge their arm in a tub, or kettle, to the elbow; if this was done without any signs of pain, or marks of scalding, the person was discharged; but if there was the least complaint under the operation, or any scar or impression to be seen, it was taken for proof against him. Slaves, peasants, and people of mean condition, were put upon this water ordeal.

Persons of figure and quality were generally tried by the burning iron. This ordeal had different circumstances in proportion to the crimes objected. If the person was only impeached for a single crime, the iron was to weigh but one pound: but if he was prosecuted upon several articles, the weight of the iron was to increase proportionably; and here the person impeached was either to hold a burning ball of iron in his hand, and move with it to a certain distance, or else to walk barefoot upon heated ploughshares, placed about a yard from each other. If after this trial his hands and feet were untouched, and he discovered no signs of feeling any pain, he was discharged by the court; but if the matter fell out otherwise, he was remitted to the punishment of the law.

Before the person accused was brought to the ordeal, he was obliged to swear his innocence, and sometimes receive the holy eucharist.

The Christians of this age had a strong reliance upon this way of trial, not in the least doubting but that God would suspend the force of nature, and clear the truth by a supernatural interposition. If we may believe the records of those times, we shall find that innocent persons were frequently rescued, in a surprising manner, perhaps by some skilful management on the part of the authorities aware of the fact.

To proceed to some of the preliminaries of the ordeal. After the charge was legally brought in, the person impeached was to spend three days in fasting and prayer. At the day of the trial, which was made in the church, the priest, appearing in the habit of his function, took up the iron which lay before the altar, and, repeating the hymn of the Three Children, put it into the fire. This being done, he proceeded to some forms of benediction over the fire and iron; after which, he sprinkled the iron with holy water, and made the sign of the cross in the name of the Blessed Trinity: upon which the person accused passed through the test.

The ceremony of the scalding water ordeal was much the same. But when the trial was to be made by cold water, the three days’ fast and the other religious circumstances being premised, the person suspected drank a draught of holy water, to which the priest added an imprecation in case he was guilty: then the water, into which the presumed criminal was to be thrown, had a sort of exorcising form of prayer said over it; by which the element was, as it were, conjured, by the most solemn expressions, to detect the guilty and discover the truth.

The bread called the corsned was another way of trial. The person prosecuted took an ounce of it fasting, or sometimes the same quantity in cheese, and sometimes the holy eucharist. Immediately before this was done, the priest read the Litany proper to the occasion, and proceeded to another prayer, in which he desired that God would please to bring the truth of the matter in question to light, and that the evil spirits might have no power to perplex the inquiry, and prevent the discovery; that if the person was guilty, the morsel might stick in his throat and find no passage; that his face might turn pale, his limbs be convulsed, and an horrible alteration appear in his whole body; but if innocent, he desired that which the party received might make its way easily into his stomach, and turn to health and nourishment.

Notwithstanding the commonness of this custom in England, and other parts of Christendom, it began to be disliked at last, and fell several times under the censure of the Church and State: thus Louis, and Lotharius his successor, emperors of Germany, positively forbade the ordeal by cold water. The trial likewise by scalding water, and burning iron, was condemned by Pope Stephen V. It is probable they might think it a rash way of proceeding, and a tempting of God; and that it was unreasonable to put innocence upon supernatural proof, and pronounce a man guilty, unless he had a miracle to acquit him. The first public discountenance of it from the State which we meet with in England, was in the third year of King Henry III. Most of the judges in their circuits received an order from the king and council not to put any person upon the trial ordeal, in regard it was prohibited by the court of Rome. This order of the king and council, Sir Edward Coke, as Sir Henry Spelman observes, mistakes for an act of parliament. It is true, as that learned antiquary goes on to say, at that time of day, a public regulation, passed in council, and sealed with the king’s seal, had the force of a law. It must, however, be said, this prohibition does not run to the judges of all the circuits; but, it may be, the rest of the justices might receive the same instructions another way. And though we meet with no express law afterwards to this purpose, yet this method of trial, standing condemned by the canons, languished by degrees, and at last grew quite out of practice.

ORDER. The rules or laws of a monastic institution; and afterwards, in a secondary sense, the several monastics living under the same rule or order. Thus the Order of Clugni signifies literally the new rule of discipline prescribed by Odo to the Benedictines already assembled in the monastery of Clugni; but secondarily, and in the more popular sense, the great body of monastic institutions, wherever established, which voluntarily subjected themselves to the same rule.

ORDERS, HOLY. (See Bishop, Clergy, Deacon, Ordinal, Ordination, Presbyter, Priest.) “It is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scriptures and ancient authors, that from the apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church; bishops, priests, and deacons. Which offices were evermore had in such reverent estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by public prayer, with imposition of hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful authority. And therefore, to the intent that these orders might be continued and reverently used and esteemed, in the united Church of England and Ireland, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a bishop, priest, or deacon in the united Church of England or Ireland, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following, or hath had formerly episcopal consecration or ordination.”—Preface to the English Ordinal.

As it is here said, in the ancient Church these three orders of ministry, as established by Christ and his apostles, universally prevailed. But, besides the bishops, priests, and deacons, there were, in most of the Churches, other ecclesiastical persons of inferior rank, who were allowed to take part in the ministrations of religion. These constituted what are called the inferior orders, and in some of the ancient canons they have the name of “clergy.”

There is this great difference between the three holy orders and the others, that the former are everywhere mentioned as those degrees of men whose ministrations were known and distinguished, and without which no Church was looked upon as complete; but to show that the inferior orders were never thought to be necessary in the same degree, let it be considered, that different Churches, or the same Church in different ages, had more or fewer of the inferior orders. In some were only readers; in others, subdeacons, exorcists, and acolyths. The Apostolic Canons mention only subdeacons, readers, and singers. The Laodicean enumerate these, and also exorcists and ostiaries. But while there was no standing rule respecting these merely ecclesiastical orders, the three essential grades of the ministry were found in all parts of the Church.

In the Church of England, the following are the regulations respecting admission to Holy Orders observed in the various dioceses, as given in Hodgson’s “Instructions.”

Persons desirous of being admitted as candidates for deacon’s orders, are recommended to make a written application to the bishop,[10] six months before the time of ordination, stating their age, college, academical degree, and the usual place of their residence; together with the names of any persons of respectability to whom they are best known, and to whom the bishop may apply, if he thinks fit, for further information concerning them.

The following six papers are to be sent by a candidate for deacon’s orders, to the bishop in whose diocese the curacy which is to serve as a title is situate, three weeks before the day of ordination, or at such other time as the bishop shall appoint; and in due time he will be informed by the bishop’s secretary when and where to attend for examination.

1. Letters testimonial from his college; and in case the candidate shall have quitted college, he must also present letters testimonial for the period elapsed since he quitted college, in the following form, signed by three beneficed clergymen, and countersigned by the bishop of the diocese in which their benefices are respectively situate, if they are not beneficed in the diocese of the bishop to whom the candidate applies for ordination.

2. Form of letters testimonial for orders.

“To the [11]Right Reverend ——, by Divine permission Lord Bishop of —— [the bishop in whose diocese the curacy conferring the title is situate].

Whereas our beloved in Christ, A. B., bachelor of arts, (or other degree,) of —— college, in the university of ——, hath declared to us his intention of offering himself as a candidate for the sacred office of a deacon, and for that end hath requested of us letters testimonial of his good life and conversation; we therefore, whose names are hereunto subscribed, do testify that the said A. B. hath been personally known to us for the space of[12]—— last past; that we have had opportunities of observing his conduct; that during the whole of that time we verily believe that he lived piously, soberly, and honestly; nor have we at any time heard anything to the contrary thereof; nor hath he at any time, as far as we know or believe, held, written, or taught anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the united Church of England and Ireland; and, moreover, we believe him, in our consciences, to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy to be admitted to the sacred order of deacons.

In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names, this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 18—.

[13]C. D. rector of ——.

E. F. vicar of ——.

G. H. rector of ——.”

[Countersignature.]

3. Form of notice or “Si quis,” and of the certificate of the same having been published in the church of the parish where the candidate usually resides, to be presented by the candidate if he shall have quitted college.

“Notice is hereby given, that A. B., bachelor of arts, (or other degree,) of —— college, Oxford, [or Cambridge,] and now resident in this parish, intends to offer himself a candidate for the holy office of a deacon, at the ensuing ordination of the Lord Bishop of ——;[14] and if any person knows any just cause or impediment for which he ought not to be admitted into holy orders, he is now to declare the same, or to signify the same forthwith to the Lord Bishop of ——.

We do hereby certify, that the above notice was publicly read by the undersigned C. D., in the parish church of ——, in the county of ——, during the time of Divine service on Sunday the —— day of last [or instant], and no impediment was alleged.

Witness our hands this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 18—.

C. D. officiating minister.

E. F. churchwarden.”

4. Certificate from the divinity professor in the university, that the candidate has duly attended his lectures. Also a certificate from any other professor whose lectures the candidate may have been directed by the bishop to attend.

5. Certificate of the candidate’s baptism, from the register book of the parish where he was baptized, duly signed, by the officiating minister, to show that he has completed his age of twenty-three years; and in case he shall have attained that age, but cannot produce a certificate of his baptism, then his father or mother, or other competent person, must make a declaration, before a justice of the peace, of the actual time of his birth: and here it may be necessary to remark, that by an act of the 44 Geo. III. c. 43, intituled “An Act to enforce the due observance of the canons and rubric respecting the ages of persons to be admitted into the sacred order of deacon and priest,” it is enacted, that thenceforth no person shall be admitted a deacon before he shall have attained the age of three and twenty years complete; and that no person shall be admitted a priest before he shall have attained the age of four and twenty years complete: and that if a person shall be admitted a deacon before he shall have attained the age of twenty-three years complete, or a priest before he shall have attained the age of twenty-four years complete, such admission shall be void in law; and the person so admitted shall be incapable of holding any ecclesiastical preferment.

6. The form of a nomination to serve as a title for orders, if the incumbent is non-resident.

To the Right Reverend ——, Lord Bishop of ——.

These are to certify your lordship, that I, C. D., rector [or vicar, &c.] of ——, in the county of ——, and your lordship’s diocese of ——, do hereby nominate A. B., bachelor of arts, (or other degree,) of —— college in the university of ——, to perform the office of curate in my church of —— aforesaid; and do promise to allow him the yearly stipend of —— pounds, to be paid by equal quarterly payments, [as to amount of stipend, see title “Stipends payable to Curates,”] with the surplice fees, amounting on an average to —— pounds per annum, (if they are intended to be allowed,) and the use of the glebe-house, garden, and offices, which he is to occupy (if that be the fact; if not, state the reason, and name where and what distance[15] from the church the curate purposes to reside): and I do hereby state to your lordship, that the said A. B. does not intend to serve, as curate, in any other parish, nor to officiate in any other church or chapel (if such be the fact, otherwise state the real fact); that the net annual value of my said benefice, estimated according to the act of parliament 1 & 2 Victoria, c. 106, sects. 8 and 10, is —— pounds, and the population thereof, according to the latest returns of population made under the authority of parliament, is ——. That there is only one church belonging to my said benefice (if there be another church or chapel, state the fact); and that I was admitted to the said benefice on the —— day of —— 18—.[16] “And I do hereby promise and engage with your lordship and the said A. B., that I will continue to employ the said A. B., in the office of curate in my said church, until he shall be otherwise provided of some ecclesiastical preferment, unless, for any fault by him committed, he shall be lawfully removed from the same; and I hereby solemnly declare that I do not fraudulently give this certificate, to entitle the said A. B. to receive holy orders, but with a real intention to employ him in my said church, according to what is before expressed.”

Witness my hand this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 18—.

[Signature and address of] C. D.

Declaration [to be written at the foot of the Nomination].

“We the before-named C. D. and A. B. do declare to the said Lord Bishop of ——, as follows; namely, I the said C. D. do declare that I bonâ fide intend to pay, and I the said A. B. do declare that I bonâ fide intend to receive, the whole actual stipend mentioned in the foregoing nomination and statement, without any abatement in respect of rent or consideration for the use of the glebe-house, garden, and offices thereby agreed to be assigned, and without any other deduction or reservation whatsoever.

Witness our hands this —— day of ——, 18—.

[Signatures of] C. D.

A. B.”

6. (a) The form of nomination to serve as a title for orders, if the incumbent is resident.

The same form as No. 6, so far as “quarterly payments;” then proceed as follows:—And I do hereby state to your lordship, that the said A. B. intends to reside in the said parish, in a house [describe its situation, so as clearly to identify it], distant from my church —— mile [if A. B. does not intend to reside in the parish, then state at what place he intends to reside, and its distance from the said church]; that the said A. B. does not intend to serve, as curate, any other parish, nor to officiate in any other church or chapel (if such be the fact, otherwise state the real fact); and I do hereby promise and engage with your lordship, and so on [in the same form as No. 6, to the end].

Witness my hand this —— day of ——, 18—.

[Signature and address of] C. D.

The declaration to be written at the foot of the nomination is to be in the same form as No. 6, so far as the word “statement,” after which proceed as follows:—“Without any deduction or reservation whatsoever.

Witness our hands this —— day of ——, 18—.

[Signatures of] C. D.

A. B.”

It is proper to observe, that the following declaration is to be subscribed previous to ordination, in the bishop’s presence, by all persons who are to be ordained:—

“I, A. B., do willingly, and from my heart, subscribe to the thirty-nine articles of religion of the united Church of England and Ireland, and to the three articles in the thirty-sixth canon; and to all things therein contained.”

N. B.—The following are the three articles referred to:

“1. That the Queen’s majesty, under God, is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her highness’s dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within her majesty’s said realms, dominions, and countries.

“2. That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering of bishops, priests, and deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used; and that he himself will use the form in the said book prescribed, in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, and none other.

“3. That he alloweth the book of articles of religion, agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces and the whole clergy, in the convocation holden at London, in the year of our Lord one thousand five hundred sixty and two; and that he acknowledgeth all and every the articles therein contained, being in number nine and thirty, besides the ratification, to be agreeable to the word of God.”

Oaths to be taken by those who are to be ordained, at the time of Ordination.

THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

“I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria. So help me God.”

THE OATH OF SUPREMACY.

“I, A. B., do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

The act of parliament 59 Geo. III. c. 60, contains directions for the use and guidance of candidates for orders who are to officiate as clergymen in the colonies, or for her Majesty’s foreign possessions.

Instructions as to Priest’s orders.[17]

The following papers are to be sent by a candidate for priest’s orders to the bishop, three weeks before the day of ordination, or at such other time as the bishop shall appoint, and in due time he will be informed by the bishop’s secretary when and where to attend for examination.

Where a candidate applies for priest’s orders to the same bishop who ordained him deacon, the papers 1 and 2 only are required.

1. Letters testimonial of his sound doctrine, good life, and behaviour, for the time elapsed since he was ordained deacon, signed by three beneficed clergymen, and countersigned by the bishop of the diocese in which their benefices are respectively situate, if not beneficed in the diocese of the bishop to whom the candidate applies for ordination. (See Form of Testimonial, in Instructions as to Deacon’s Orders, No. 2.)

2. Notice, or “Si quis,” and certificate of the publication thereof. (See Form thereof, in the Instructions as to Deacon’s Orders, No. 3.)

In case the candidate was ordained deacon by the bishop of another diocese, he must produce not only the papers, Nos. 1 and 2, but also the following papers, Nos. 3, 4, and 5.

As it is not common for a deacon to be ordained priest by any other than the bishop who admitted him to deacon’s orders, a candidate applying to the bishop of another diocese must, in the first instance, state to him the particular circumstances which occasion the application, the curacy which he served, and for what period.

3. Letters of deacon’s orders.

4. A certificate of baptism.

5. Nomination, if not already licensed.

The same subscriptions and oaths are made and taken by candidates for priest’s orders, as by candidates for deacon’s orders.

With respect to foreign Protestants, Palmer observes: “We are not bound to condemn Presbyterian orders in every case: for instance, the appointment of ministers by the Protestants in Germany during the Reformation, was most probably invalid; and yet, considering their difficulties, the fact of their appeal to a general council, their expectation of reunion with the Church, and therefore the impossibility of establishing a rival hierarchy, I think we are not bound to condemn their appointments of ministers, as many learned and orthodox writers have done; who, however, seem not to have observed the peculiarities of their position, and to have supposed that they were at once definitively separated from the Roman churches. Certain differences of opinion, then, in reference to the question of Presbyterian ordinations, may exist without any material inconvenience.

“That ordinations by mere presbyters are, (however excusable under circumstances of great difficulty,) in fact, unauthorized and invalid, is the more usual sentiment of theologians, and is most accordant with Scripture, and with the practice of the Catholic Church in general, and of our Churches in particular, which do not recognise any such ordinations.”

ORDERS OF MONKS. The several orders of monks are distinguished in this manner by their habits. The White Friars are canons regular of the order of St. Augustine. Grey Friars are Cistercian monks, who changed their black habit into a grey one. The Black Friars are Benedictines.

ORDINAL. The Ordinal is that book which contains the forms observed in the Church for making, ordaining, and consecrating, bishops, priests, and deacons. In the liturgy established in the second year of King Edward VI., there was also a form of consecrating and ordaining of bishops, priests, and deacons, not much differing from the present form. Afterwards, by the 3 & 4 Edward VI. c. 10, it was enacted that all books heretofore used for the service of the Church, other than such as shall be set forth by the king’s majesty, shall be clearly abolished (s. 1). And by the 5 & 6 Edward VI. c. 1, it is thus enacted: The king, with the assent of the lords and commons in parliament, has annexed the Book of Common Prayer to this present statute, adding also a form and manner of making and consecrating of archbishops, bishops, priests, and deacons, to be of like force and authority as the Book of Common Prayer. And, by Art. 36: “The book of consecration of archbishops and bishops, and ordering of priests and deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward VI., and confirmed at the same time by authority of parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering; neither hath it anything that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites, we declare all such to be rightly ordered, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.” And by Canon 8: “Whosoever shall affirm or teach, that the form and manner of making and consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons, containeth anything that is repugnant to the word of God; or that they who are made bishops, priests, and deacons, in that form, are not lawfully made, nor ought to be accounted either by themselves or others to be truly either bishops, priests, or deacons, until they have some other calling to those Divine offices, let him be excommunicated, ipso facto, not to be restored until he repent and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”

The form in which orders are conferred in our Church is this: “The bishop, with the priests present, shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of priesthood; the receivers humbly kneeling, and the bishop saying, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest, in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his holy sacraments: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” In the office for the ordering of deacons, the bishop lays on his hands, but does not use the words, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” &c., or grant authority to forgive or retain sins. In the office for the consecration of bishops, the form is thus: “Then the archbishop and bishops present shall lay their hands upon the head of the elected bishop, kneeling before them on his knees, the archbishop saying, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the laying on of our hands, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is given thee BY the imposition of our hands, for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness.’”

Several Protestant dissenting communities have taken it upon themselves to lay on hands when a person is elected to the dissenting ministry; but none, that we are aware of, have ever assumed the solemn office of thus conferring the grace of God by the imposition of human hands, which would clearly be blasphemous, except there existed a commission from God to do so, which commission, without the apostolical succession, cannot be proved, unless by miracle. This form has given great offence to many conscientious ultra-Protestants. Attempts are sometimes made to explain the words away; but such explanations have been seldom found satisfactory, except to those whose interest it is to be satisfied. It is evident that they are to be understood simply, clearly, unequivocally, to express that the grace of God is given by the imposition of the bishop’s hands; and that if we speak of this as superstitious or ungodly, we are, as may be seen from the 36th Article and the 8th Canon, under the anathema of our Church. On the other hand, the comfort is indescribably great to those who believe that grace ministerial is thus conveyed in attending the ministry of the Church; the efficacy of the ministrations of whose ministers depends not on the merit or talent of the individual, but on the grace of God, of which he is the authorized, though unworthy, dispenser.

ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH. Rites ordained by God to be means of grace, such as, 1. Baptism (Matt. xxviii. 19); 2. The Lord’s supper (Matt. xxvi. 26; 1 Cor. xi. 24, &c.); 3. Preaching and reading the word (Mark xvi. 15; Rom. x. 15); 4. Hearing the gospel (Mark iv. 24; Rom. x. 17); 5. Public and private prayer (1 Cor. xiv. 15, 19; Matt. vi. 6; Ps. v. 1, 7); 6. Singing of psalms (Col. iii. 16; Eph. v. 19); 7. Fasting (Matt. ix. 15; Joel ii. 12); 8. Solemn thanksgiving (Ps. ix. 14; 1 Thess. v. 18). See Rites.

ORDINARY. The person who has ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as of course and of common right, in opposition to persons who are extraordinarily appointed. In some acts of parliament we find the bishop called ordinary, and so he is taken at the common law, as having ordinary jurisdiction in causes ecclesiastical; albeit, in a more general acceptation, the word Ordinary signifies any judge authorized to take cognizance of causes in his own proper right, as he is a magistrate, and not by way of deputation or delegation.

ORDINATION. (See Orders.) The apostles appointed bishops, priests, and deacons, to be the standing guides and governors of the Church; and because there should be a succession of them continued in all ages, for the peace and preservation of those churches which they had planted, therefore it is necessary that there should be a power lodged somewhere, to set apart some distinct orders of men to those public offices, and this is called ordination. Many dissenting sects hold it necessary that there should be such a power, but they dispute where it is. Some affirm that a man ought not to take upon him the ministry without a lawful call, which is very true. They likewise agree that ordination ought to be continued, and they define it to be a solemn setting apart of some person to a church office; but they say it is only to be done by preaching presbyters, and that those who are not set apart themselves for the work of the ministry, have no power to join in setting apart others for that purpose; and this form of ordination was proposed to the parliament, in the year 1643, by an assembly of those persons, in order to be ratified. There is another sort of people who hold that where there are no such preaching presbyters, in such case, other persons, sufficiently qualified and approved for their gifts and graces by other ministers, being chosen by the people, and set apart for the ministry, by prayer and fasting in the congregation, may exercise that office, so that some place the power of ordination in simple presbyters, and others in the people. There are others who maintain that ordination is not to be justified by Scripture, and that the word itself signifies a lifting up of hands, and is used in Scripture for giving a vote, which in all popular assemblies is customary even at this day: from whence they infer that the Christian churches were at first democratical, that is, the whole congregation chose their pastor; and that by virtue of such choice he did not pretend to any peculiar jurisdiction distinct from others, but he was only approved by the congregation for his parts, and appointed to instruct the people, to visit the sick, and to perform all other offices of a minister, and at other times he followed his trade; and that the Christians in those days had no notion how a pastor could pretend to any succession to qualify him for the ministry, for that the pretence of dispensing divine things by a mere human constitution was such an absurdity that it could not be reconciled to reason.

This and many more such calumnies were cast on ordination, and the bishops themselves were called ordination-mongers; but it was by those who alleged that the purity of the Christian religion, and the good and orderly government of the world, had been much better provided for without any clergy. But we will show from Scripture, from antiquity, and from the concurrent testimony of the Fathers, that bishops had, and ought to have, the power of ordination.

When our Saviour established the Christian Church, he made his apostles governors thereof, and vested them with a power to ordain others to the ministry; and, accordingly, they ordained the seven deacons, and consecrated St. James bishop of Jerusalem, and he ordained presbyters of that church. That Timothy, as soon as he was made bishop of Ephesus by the great apostle of the Gentiles, but not before, had this power of ordination, is allowed by St. Chrysostom himself, who magnified the power of presbyters more than any of the Fathers; and he proves it thus, viz. because St. Paul gave Timothy a caution, not to admit any one rashly to an ecclesiastical office. It is true he likewise bid him not to despise the gift which was given to him by prophecy, with laying on of the hands of the company of elders; but he could not mean by those words an assembly of ordinary presbyters, for as such they could not have conferred any extraordinary commission, especially upon Timothy, because he was, at that very time, a bishop, and ordained by St. Paul himself. He had a jurisdiction over all the presbyters of Asia; for he had power given him by that apostle to inquire into their conversation and abilities, and then to admit them into that holy office, if he found them qualified, and not otherwise. Titus had the same power throughout that populous island of Crete; and these things are so plain, that they must deny the authority of the Scriptures, who deny the power of ordination to be originally in bishops: and therefore they have invented a senseless objection, viz. that though Timothy and Titus were superior to presbyters, yet their power was but temporary; for they were chosen by the apostles at that time, upon a particular occasion, to preside in the assemblies of presbyters, to moderate the affairs of those churches, which power was to determine at the expiration of their commission. But this cannot be proved by history, or any records. It is a mere invention, contrived to make a party between those two distinct orders of men; and it can have no foundation in Scripture, from the promiscuous use of the words bishop and presbyter: for though it is true that the last is used to show the humility of a bishop, yet it is as true that the word apostle is likewise used to show his superiority. So that, in the primitive times, bishops ordained as bishops, and not as presbyters; for in those days, as it has been already observed, bishops and presbyters were accounted distinct in order, whatever has of late years been advanced to the contrary. Therefore, the objection that a bishop and presbyter were neither distinct in order or office; that though the apostles, and those who immediately succeeded them, exercised a large jurisdiction, yet it was granted to them by our Saviour as they were apostles, and did in no wise concern their successors, to whom he gave no such authority, nor any manner of superiority over their fellow presbyters,—these, and such like, are doctrines which neither agree with the Scripture, nor with the Fathers; they are contrary to the plain and constant usage in the Church for 1600 years, during all which time all Christian churches were governed by bishops.

By the 31st canon of the Church of England it is ordained: “Forasmuch as the ancient Fathers of the Church, led by the example of the apostles, appointed prayers and fasts to be used at the solemn ordaining of ministers, and to that purpose allotted certain times, in which only sacred orders might be given and conferred, we, following their holy and religious example, do constitute and decree, that no deacons or ministers be made or ordained, but only on Sundays immediately following jejunia quatuor temporum, commonly called Ember Weeks, appointed in ancient time for prayer and fasting, (purposely for this cause at the first institution,) and so continued at this day in the Church of England.” (See Ember Days.)

ORGAN. The greatest of all instruments of music, consisting of pipes, or flutes, made vocal by wind, which is supplied by bellows, and acted on by keys touched by the hands and feet. The Latin word organum, means an instrument in general; (just as we now employ the word organ;) but in the course of time it was more specially applied, in a more limited sense, to instruments of music, and specially to that great vehicle of sound, which is in part a combination of many instruments, and is an orchestra in itself. The first organ was made by Ctesibius of Alexandria, about 200 years B. C., (as appears from Athenæus, iv. 75,) with pipes of bronze and lead, with keys, levers, and slides: the wind from a bellows, in which the pressure of water supplied the place of the weight now placed on the bellows. This sort of organ was called hydraulic; and continued in use so late as the ninth century. An epigram of Julian the Apostate, in the middle of the fourth century, describes it as played with the fingers, not with the fists, and as having copper pipes. (Brunck, Analecta ii. 403.) St. Augustine describes it as “grande, et inflata follibus.” It is also spoken of by Ammianus Marcellinus; and exactly described by Claudian, in the fourth century; and Cassiodorus (in the fifth century) defines it as a tower, made with various pipes, inflated by bellows, and played on by the fingers, and as having great sweetness and power. It was never used in the Greek Church. Its first ecclesiastical use in the West is a matter of obscurity. Bellarmine states, though on doubtful authority, that, in 660, Pope Vitalian introduced it into the church service at Rome. D. Rimbault, in his very interesting notes to Roger North’s Memoirs of Music, (p. 48,) says, that it was introduced into the English service by Theodore and Adrian, emissaries of Vitalian; and from a passage in the writings of Adhelm, bishop of Sherborne, who died in 709, it appears that the external case was gilt, (“auratis capsis,”) and that the pipes were numerous: “maxima millenis organa flabris.” All ecclesiastical historians relate, that in 757 the Eastern emperor Constantine Copronymus sent an organ to Pepin, which was placed, as affirmed by M. Hamel, (Manuel des Facteurs des Orgues,) in a church at Compiegne. In 811, ambassadors from Constantinople brought two organs to Charlemagne. However, it is supposed that its use did not become generally known in France till 826, when a Venetian priest introduced what is supposed to be an hydraulic organ. In the same century, Walafred Strabo says, Louis le Debonnaire gave an organ to Aix la Chapelle. In 994, according to Petronius, there were organs at Erfurt and Magdeburg. In 951, Wulstan relates that Elphege, bishop of Winchester, gave an organ to Winchester with 400 pipes, 40 keys, and (if his meaning is clear) 26 pairs of bellows, played by two organists. (See Turner’s Anglo-Saxons, book ix. c. 9.) In the tenth century, Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury, gave an organ to Malmesbury, described by William of Malmesbury as having copper pipes. At the same time an organ was given to Ramsey church, with copper pipes, “emitting a sweet melody and far-resounding peal,” played on feast days. (See Turner, as before.) In the twelfth century, an organ is mentioned in the abbey of Fécamp. And Gervas the monk, describing Canterbury cathedral as he knew it before the fire in 1172, says, that it had arches to carry organs.

The above notices suffice to show the error of Bingham’s statement, that organs were not used in churches till after Thomas Aquinas’ time in 1250. Aquinas merely specifies harps and psalteries, as not used, “which our Church does not assume, lest she should seem to judaize.” The south of France, as also the south of Italy, long retained Oriental customs in their churches; thus at Lyons organs were for a long time unemployed. Cardinal Caietan says, the organ was not used in the primitive Church, and gives this as a reason why it is not used in the pope’s chapel. A tenacious respect for antiquity seems to be the only reason which forbids its use in the Greek churches: since, in some branches of that communion, as in Russia, vocal harmony in the sacred offices is carried to great perfection. Hospinian, an ultra-Protestant writer, contends against the use of it, on the authority of St. Paul.

So strongly prejudiced were other writers of the ultra-Protestant school against organs that Newte, in his preface to Dodwell on Music, after mentioning the report of Balæus, that organs were introduced in the year 660, adds, “or rather that it may not want the mark of the beast of the Revelation, as the Magdeburg continuators say, 666.” It is difficult to understand the principle of the objection. The ordering of the instrumental as well as oral music in the temple was a matter, be it remembered, of Divine institution: thus in 2 Chron. xxix. 25. “And he set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king’s seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets.” To be consistent, all oral song, nay, the words of the sacred songs themselves, ought to be silenced also.

At the time of the Reformation, organs were considered as among the vilest remnants of Popery, by all the more enthusiastic partisans of Protestantism. And by those who carried out the principles of ultra-Protestantism to their legitimate extent at the great Rebellion, organs were so generally demolished, that scarcely an instrument could be found in England at the Restoration; and foreigners were brought over to play on some of those which were then erected. It is satisfactory to see such prejudices wearing away. We now find those whose horror at fasting, or at self-denials, or at turning to the east in prayer, or at preaching in a surplice, as the Prayer Book directs, or implies, or at bowing to the altar, or at preferring prayer to preaching, &c., is unfeigned, and who see in these observances nothing but Popery, nevertheless expending large sums of money to erect organs, which are now heard to sound in their very meeting-houses. We believe the Kirk of Scotland is alone consistent in this respect, and true to the principles of their ultra-Protestant forefathers; the members of that Establishment do not even yet tolerate what at the Reformation was called “a squeaking abomination.”

The organ in the Anglican Church had been the regular accompaniment of the choral service for some hundred years before the Reformation. It is still used in cathedrals, collegiate and royal churches and chapels, more frequently than abroad; where it is more employed for symphonies than for an accompaniment, and that in general only on Sundays, holy-days, and eves; whereas in regular English choirs it is used at least twice daily, accompanying the psalms, canticles, and anthems, and those parts of the service which are allowed by the rubric to be sung, including the responses and litanies on more solemn occasions. In ancient times (till the great Rebellion) organs were more common in the college chapels at the universities than now. The general introduction of organs into London parish churches, however, did not take place till after the Restoration. Their use appears never to have been very general, even in cathedrals, in Ireland; and in Scotland it is supposed that they were not introduced till the 15th century.

The phrase pair of organs occurs in many old books. It had its origin probably in the two stops which were common in the smaller mediæval organs: possibly, however, to the two organs, which in the middle ages, as now, entered into the construction of the larger instruments. These large organs consist in reality of three or four instruments, each having its separate sound-board and set of keys; viz. 1. The great organ, for choruses and louder passages: 2. The choir organ, softer than the former, used for the verse passages, &c., and the alternate chant of the psalms; generally placed in front of the great organ; not called from chair, as some suppose, (as being placed behind the organist’s chair,) but from the choir: as appears from Dugd. Mon. ed. 1830, ii. 103, “when in the 15th century the abbot of Croyland gave two organs to his church; the greater one being placed in the nave, the lesser in the choir.” 3. The swell, an English invention, formerly the third manual, played what was called the echo; which is still occasionally found abroad. 4. The pedal organ, or that which is played by the feet. Foreign organs have frequently four rows of manuals, and two of pedals.

It appears from Mr. Hamel’s work, already mentioned, that the organ of the middle ages was by no means so small as is commonly imagined by those who have been misled by ancient monuments and drawings. In the 16th century began the construction of those enormous machines, for which Germany is so renowned: and in consequence it became customary in the north of Europe to transfer the organ from one side of the choir to the chancel screen, (the worst position possible,) or the west end. The improvement of the organ has been progressively advancing ever since.

It may be considered consistent with the object of a Church Dictionary to conclude this long article with some observation on an objection often made to the employment in sacred music of what are wrongly called the imitative stops of the organ. In reality very few of its stops are imitative. The organ is properly a collection of several instruments, which a most complicated machinery enables the organist to play at the same time. The trumpet, the bassoon, and hautboy stops, for example, are each a set of real instruments of these names, differing from those usually so called, only in being inflated by a bellows, not by the mouth, and each giving but one note, and played on by keys. Thus when the psalmist calls on us to praise him with the sound of the trumpet, it is a literal response to his summons to accompany the voice with the stop of that name.

See Hamel, Manuel des Facteurs des Orgues, (comprehending Bedos’ great work;) and Roger North’s Memoirs of Music, edited by Rimbault, already referred to; Burney and Hawkins’s Histories of Music; and Burney’s Musical Tour.

The Organ mentioned in Scripture as the invention of Jubal, (Gen. iv. 21,) and in Job xxi. 12, and Ps. cl. 4, is in the Hebrew Huggab, meaning, as Parkhurst supposes, a fastening or joining together. It is supposed by Calmet (see Music) to have been like the ancient Pandean pipes, a set of unequal flutes played by the mouth. As used in Gen. iv. it seems to indicate wind instruments generally; but its form and capacity is altogether unknown.

ORGANIST. An ecclesiastical officer, whose business it is to play upon the organ in churches. In ancient times there was no stated organist, the vicars choral being responsible for this duty in turn. In cathedrals and choral foundations, he is, or ought to be, an essential member of the collegiate body. The duty of English cathedral organists is responsible, arduous, and of a sacred character. They are bound to attend twice every day; and in order to be efficient, ought to be skilful musicians, profound harmonists, versed in the knowledge of both instrumental and vocal harmony, and endued with religious feeling. No pains ought to be spared by the governing members of collegiate bodies to render the office not only respectable and efficient, but religious also.

ORIGINAL SIN. “Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk); but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek phronema sarkos, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe, and are baptized,” [renatis, i. e. born again, is the word used in the Latin copy,] “yet the apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.”—Article ix. This article was intended to oppose the notion of the School divines, who maintained that the infection of our nature is not a mental, but a mere corporeal taint; that the body alone receives and transmits the contagion, while the soul proceeds, in all cases, immaculate from the hands of the Creator. Original sin they directly opposed to original righteousness, and this they considered, not as something connatural with man, but as a superinduced habit, or adventitious ornament, the removal of which could not prove detrimental to the native powers of the mind. Thus the School divines maintained, in opposition to our Articles, that the lapse of Adam conveys to us solely imputed guilt, the corporeal infection which they admitted, not being sin itself, but the subject matter; not peccatum, but fomes peccati. The Lutherans taught that original sin is a corruption of our nature in a general sense, the depravation of the mental faculties and the corporeal appetites. The Calvinists maintain that lust and concupiscence are truly and properly sin.

The Scriptures teach us that the sin of Adam not only made him liable to death, but that it also changed the upright nature in which he was originally formed, into one that was prone to wickedness; and that this liability to death, and propensity to sin, were entailed from him upon the whole race of mankind: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” (Rom. v. 12.) “As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” (ver. 18.) “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” (ver. 19.) “Through the offence of one, many be dead.” (ver. 15.) “By one man’s offence death reigned by one.” (ver. 17.) “By man came death.” (1 Cor. xv. 21.) “In Adam all die.” (ver. 22.) “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” (Gen. viii. 21.) “There is no man that sinneth not.” (1 Kings viii. 46.) “God made man upright, but they found out many inventions.” (Ecc. vii. 29.) “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 John i. 8.) “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” (Jer. xvii. 9.) “The flesh is weak.” (Matt. xxvi. 41.) “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” (Gal. v. 17.) “I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin, which is in my members.” (Rom. vii. 23.) The general corruption of human nature, in consequence of Adam’s disobedience, was acknowledged by the ancient Fathers of the Christian Church. The term Original Sin was first used by Augustine, and before his time it was called the old guilt—the ancient wound—the common curse—the old sin, &c.—Tomline.

In Scripture this is called “the sin that dwelleth in us” (Rom. vii. 17); “the body of sin” (vi. 6); “the law of sin and death” (viii. 2); “lust” (vii. 7); “the sin which so easily besets us” (Heb. xii. 1); “the flesh” (Gal. v. 16); “the old man” (Eph. iv. 22); “the likeness of Adam” (Gen. v. 3).

The corruption of nature called “original sin” is derived by continual descent from father to son; wherewith all the powers of the soul and body are infected, and that in all men equally. And then, actual sin arising from hence, the understanding is blinded with ignorance and infidelity. The memory is prone to forget the good things which the understanding hath conceived. The will is disobedient to the will of God, understood and remembered by us, (the freedom of holiness, which it had at the first, being now lost,) and is wholly bent to sin. The affections are ready to overrule the will, and are subject to all disorder. And the conscience itself is distempered and polluted.—Usher.

Let us look into the world, let us look into ourselves, and we shall see sufficient proofs of this original corruption; even in our infancy it shows itself in many instances of obstinacy and perverseness; and as we grow up it increases with our years; and unless timely checked by our utmost care and diligence, (through the assistance of Divine grace,) produces habits of all manner of iniquity. Let the proud deist boast of the dignity of his nature, the sufficiency of his reason, and the excellency of his moral attainments; but let us Christians not be ashamed to own our own misery and our guilt; that our understandings are darkened, our wills corrupted, and our whole nature depraved: then may we apply to the Physician of our souls for the succours of his grace, which alone can help and relieve us.—Waldo.

ORIGENISTS. Heretics, in the fourth century, so called, because they pretended to draw their opinions from the writings of the famous Origen, a priest of Alexandria.

The Origenists made their first appearance in Italy in 397. Rufinus of Aquileia, a priest of Alexandria, had studied the works of Origen with so much application, that he adopted that writer’s Platonic notions for Catholic truths. Full of these ideas, he went to Jerusalem, where Origen had a great many partisans. There he made his court to Melania, a Roman lady, who had embraced Origen’s opinions. Afterwards he came to Rome with this lady, who was greatly esteemed in that city. Here he set out with an outward show of simplicity, and pretended, after the example of Origen, an universal contempt of all worldly things. This made him looked upon as one who lived up to the highest Christian perfection. Rufinus took advantage of this prejudice in his favour to propagate his opinions, in which the credit of Melania was of great use to him. And now he began to have a great number of followers, and to form a considerable sect. But another Roman lady, named Marcella, having acquainted Pope Anastasius, that Rufinus and Melania were spreading very dangerous opinions in Rome, under the veil of piety, the holy father examined into the fact, and forbade them to teach any more. Rufinus and Melania submitted to the prohibition; Melania returned to Jerusalem, and Rufinus to Aquileia. However, the opinions they had broached continued to be maintained and defended by many learned men, who were therefore distinguished by the name of Origenists.

The errors ascribed to the Origenists are in number nine, and are as follows:—

1. The souls of men were holy intelligences, who enjoyed the presence of God; but being tired with the Divine contemplation, they degenerated; and as their first fervour was greatly abated, the Greeks therefore called the soul νους, from the word νοσεω, which signifies to slacken or grow cold.

2. Our Saviour’s soul was united to the Word, before his conception, and before he was born of the Holy Virgin.

3. The body of our Saviour Jesus Christ was first formed entire in the Virgin’s womb; and afterwards his soul, which long before had been united to the Word, came and was joined to it.

4. The Word of God has been successively united with all the angelical natures; insomuch that it has been a cherub, seraph, and all the celestial virtues, one after another.

5. After the resurrection, the bodies of men will be of a spherical figure, and not of their present erect stature.

6. The heavens, sun, moon, and stars, are animated bodies, and have an intelligent soul.

7. In future ages, our Saviour Jesus Christ will be crucified for the salvation of the devils, as he has already been for that of men.

8. The power of God is not infinite, and was so exhausted in the creation of things, that he has no more left.

9. The punishment of the devils, and of the damned, will continue only for a certain limited time.

These nine errors are distinctly recited by the second Council of Constantinople, at the end of a letter of the emperor Justinian against Origen. The recital of them is immediately followed by an anathema against Origen, and all who maintained his opinions: in which it is remarkable, that the council excommunicated Origen near three hundred years after his death.

The heresy of the Origenists spread widely in Egypt, and especially among the monks. Several eminent bishops opposed them, particularly Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, who, in the year 399, assembled a council in that city, in which the monks inhabiting the mountain of Nitria were condemned as Origenists.

Avitus, a Spanish priest, revived the errors of the Origenists in Spain, about the year 415; and probably it was against the followers of this Avitus, that the Council of Toledo was held in 633.

ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH. The common feelings of our nature would suggest the decent adornment of the house of our God: “Shall we,” in the words of our homily, “be so mindful of our common base houses, deputed to so low occupying, and be forgetful toward that house of God wherein be administered the words of our eternal salvation; wherein are entreated the sacraments and mysteries of our redemption; the fountain of the regeneration is there presented unto us; the partaking of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ is there offered unto us; and shall we not esteem the place where so heavenly things are handled?”

The following are the chief enactments of the Church and the State, with reference to the ornaments of the church. By the rubric before the Common Prayer, as also by the 1st of Elizabeth, c. 2, “Such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of England, by authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.”

Reynolds. “The archdeacons shall take care that the clothes of the altar be decent and in good order; that the church have fit books both for singing and reading; and at least two sacerdotal vestments.”

By the statute of Circumspecte agatis, 13 Edward I. st. iv. “The king to his judges sendeth greeting:—Use yourselves circumspectly in all matters concerning the prelates, where they do punish for that the church is not conveniently decked: in which case the spiritual judge shall have power to take knowledge, notwithstanding the king’s prohibition.”

“Not conveniently decked.” For the law allows the ecclesiastical court to have cognizance in this case, of providing decent ornaments for the celebration of Divine service.

Canon 85. “The churchwardens or questmen shall take care that all things in the church be kept in such an orderly and decent sort, without dust, or anything that may be either noisome or unseemly, as best becometh the house of God, and is prescribed in a homily to that effect.”

Canon 82. “Whereas we have no doubt but that in all churches within the realm of England, convenient and decent tables are provided and placed for the celebration of the holy communion; we appoint that the same tables shall from time to time be kept and repaired in sufficient and seemly manner, and covered in time of Divine service with a carpet of silk or other decent stuff, thought meet by the ordinary of the place, (if any question be made of it,) and with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration, as becometh that table, and so stand, saving when the said holy communion is to be administered.”

In ancient times, the bishops preached standing upon the steps of the altar. Afterwards it was found more convenient to have pulpits erected for that purpose.

And by Canon 83. “The churchwardens or questmen, at the common charge of the parishioners, in every church, shall provide a comely and decent pulpit, to be set in a convenient place within the same, by the discretion of the ordinary of the place (if any question do arise); and to be there seemly kept for the preaching of God’s word.”

Canon 82. “And likewise a convenient seat shall be made at the charge of the parish, for the minister to read service in.”

Canon 58. “Every minister saying the public prayers, or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the Church, shall wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish. And if any question arise touching the matter, decency, or comeliness thereof, the same shall be decided by the discretion of the ordinary.”

Canon 81. “According to a former constitution, (viz. among the constitutions of 1570,) too much neglected in many places, we appoint, that there shall be a font of stone in every church and chapel where baptism is to be ministered: the same to be set in the ancient usual places. In which only font the minister shall baptize publicly.”

In an act in the 27 Henry VIII. it was enacted, that money collected for the poor should be kept in the common coffer or box standing in the church of every parish.

And by Canon 84. “The churchwardens shall provide and have, within three months after the publishing of these constitutions, a strong chest, with a hole in the upper part thereof, to be provided at the charge of the parish, (if there be none such already provided,) having three keys; of which one shall remain in the custody of the parson, vicar, or curate, and the other two in the custody of the churchwardens for the time being; which chest they shall set and fasten in the most convenient place, to the intent the parishioners may put into it their alms for their poor neighbours. And the parson, vicar, or curate shall diligently, from time to time, and especially when men make their testaments, call upon, exhort, and move their neighbours, to confer and give as they may well spare to the said chest: declaring unto them, that whereas heretofore they have been diligent to bestow much substance otherwise than God commanded, upon superstitious uses, now they ought at this time to be much more ready to help the poor and needy, knowing that to relieve the poor is a sacrifice which pleaseth God: and that also, whatsoever is given for their comfort, is given to Christ himself, and is so accepted of Him, that He will mercifully reward the same. The which alms and devotion of the people, the keepers of the keys shall yearly, quarterly, or oftener, (as need requireth,) take out of the chest, and distribute the same in the presence of most of the parish, or of six of the chief of them, to be truly and faithfully delivered to their most poor and needy neighbours.”

Rubric. “Whilst the sentences of the offertory are reading, the deacons, churchwardens, or other fit persons appointed for that purpose, shall receive the alms for the poor, and other devotions of the people, in a decent basin, to be provided by the parish for that purpose.”

This offertory was anciently an oblation for the use of the priest; but at the Reformation it was changed into alms for the poor.

Canon 20. “The churchwardens against the time of every communion shall, at the charge of the parish, with the advice and direction of the minister, provide a sufficient quantity of fine white bread, and of good and wholesome wine: which wine we require to be brought to the communion table in a clean and sweet standing pot, or stoop of pewter, if not of purer metal.”

Winchelsea. “The parishioners shall find at their own charge, the chalice, or cup, for the wine.”

Which, says Lyndwood, “although expressed in the singular number, yet is not intended to exclude more than one, where more are necessary.”

Winchelsea. The parishioners, at their own charge, shall find bells with ropes.

Winchelsea. The parishioners shall find, at their own charge, a bier for the dead.

“If any parishes be yet unfurnished of the Bible of the largest volume, the churchwardens shall, within convenient time, provide the same at the charge of the parish.”

By Canon 80. “The churchwardens or questmen of every church and chapel shall, at the charge of the parish, provide the Book of Common Prayer, lately explained in some few points, by his Majesty’s authority according to the laws and his Highness’s prerogative in that behalf; and that, with all convenient speed, but, at the furthest, within two months after the publishing of these our constitutions.”

By the 1 Eliz. c. 2. The Book of Common Prayer shall be provided at the charge of the parishioners of every parish and cathedral church. (s. 19.)

By the 13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4. “A true printed copy of the (present) Book of Common Prayer shall, at the costs and charges of the parishioners of every parish church and chapelry, cathedral, church, college, and hall, be provided before the feast of St. Bartholomew, 1662, on pain of £3 a month for so long time as they shall be unprovided thereof.” (s. 2.)

Canon 80. “If any parishes be yet unfurnished of the Book of Homilies allowed by authority, the churchwardens shall, within convenient time, provide the same at the charge of the parish.”

By Canon 17. “In every parish church and chapel shall be provided one parchment book at the charge of the parish, wherein shall be written the day and year of every christening, wedding, and burial within the parish; and for the safe keeping thereof, the churchwardens, at the charge of the parish, shall provide one sure coffer, with three locks and keys, whereof one to remain with the minister, and the other two with the churchwardens severally.”

Canon 99. “The table of degrees of marriages prohibited shall be, in every church, publicly set up at the charge of the parish.”

Canon 82. “The Ten Commandments shall be set, at the charge of the parish, upon the east end of every church and chapel, where the people may best see and read the same.”

Canon 82. “And other chosen sentences shall, at the like charge, be written upon the walls of the said churches and chapels in places convenient.”

Lord Coke says, “Concerning the building or erecting of tombs, sepulchres, or monuments for the deceased in church, chancel, common chapel, or churchyard, in convenient manner, it is lawful; for it is the last work of charity that can be done for the deceased; who, whilst he lived, was a living temple of the Holy Ghost, with a reverent regard and Christian hope of a joyful resurrection. And the defacing of them is punishable by the common law, and those who build or erect the same shall have the action during their lives, and, after their decease, the heir of the deceased shall have the action. But the building or erecting the sepulchre, tomb, or other monument, ought not to be to the hinderance of the celebration of Divine service.”

Of grave-stones, (he says,) winding-sheets, coats of arms, penons, or other ensigns of honour, hung up, laid, or placed in memory of the dead, the property remains in the executors; and they may have actions against such as break, deface, or carry them away, or an appeal of felony.

But Sir Simon Degge says, he conceives that this must be intended, by licence of the bishop, or consent of the parson and churchwardens.

Dr. Watson says, this is to be understood of such monuments only as are set up in the aisles belonging to particular persons; or if they be set up in any other part of the church, he supposes it is to be understood that they were placed there with the incumbent’s consent.

And Dr. Gibson observing thereupon says thus:—“Monuments, coat armour, and other ensigns of honour, set up in memory of the deceased, may not be removed at the pleasure of the ordinary or incumbent. On the contrary, if either they or any other person shall take away or deface them, the person who set them up shall have an action against them during his life, and after his death the heir of the deceased shall have the same, who (as they say) is inheritable to arms, and the like, as to heir-looms: and it avails not that they are annexed to the freehold, though that is in the parson. But this, as he conceives, is to be understood with one limitation; if they were set up with consent of the ordinary; for though (as my Lord Coke says) tombs, sepulchres, or monuments may be erected for the deceased, in church or chancel, in convenient manner, the ordinary must be allowed the proper judge of that conveniency; inasmuch as such erecting, he adds, ought not to be to the hinderance of the celebration of Divine service. And if they are erected without consent, and upon inquiry and inspection be found to the hinderance of Divine service, he thinks it will not be denied that in such case the ordinary has sufficient authority to decree a removal, without any danger of an action at law.”

If any superstitious pictures are in a window of a church or aisle, it is not lawful for any to break them without licence of the ordinary: and in Pricket’s case, Wray, chief justice, bound the offender to good behaviour.

Besides what has been observed in particular, there are many other articles for which no provision is made by any special law, and therefore must be referred to the general power of the churchwardens, with the consent of the major part of the parishioners as aforesaid, and under the direction of the ordinary; such as the erecting galleries, adding new bells, (and of consequence, as it seems, salaries for the ringers,) organs, clock, chimes, king’s arms, pulpit cloths, hearse cloth, rushes or mats, vestry furniture, and such like. The soil and freehold of the church and churchyard is in the parson; but the fee simple of the glebe is in abeyance. And if the walls, windows, or doors of the church be broken by any person, or the trees in the churchyard be cut down, or grass there be eaten up by a stranger; the incumbent of the rectory (or his tenant, if they be let) may have his actions for the damages. But the goods of the church do not belong to the incumbent, but to the parishioners; and if they be taken away or broken, the churchwardens shall have their action of trespass at the common law.

The magnificence of the first Jewish temple was acceptable to God; and the too sparing contributions of the people towards the second, was severely reproved; and therefore no one can justly complain, that the ornaments now made use of in our churches are too many, or expensive. Far from us be all ornaments unbecoming the worship of a spirit, or the gravity of a church; but it has an ill aspect when men think that well enough in God’s house, which they would not endure in the meanest offices of their own. It is not enough barely to devote churches to the public services of religion, unless they are set apart with the solemn rites of a formal dedication. By these solemnities the founders were accustomed to surrender all the right they had in them, and make God himself the sole owner. And whoever gave any lands or endowments to the service of God, gave it in a formal writing, sealed and witnessed, (as is now usual in common transactions,) the tender of the gift being made upon the altar, by the donor on his knees. At the consecration of both the tabernacle and the temple of the Jews, it pleased the Almighty to give a manifest sign that he then took possession of them. (Ex. xl. 34; 1 Kings viii. 10, 11.)—Wheatly.

Temples, and other utensils designed by God himself, are holy as related to him by that designation. Temples, utensils, lands, &c. devoted and lawfully separated by man, for holy uses, are holy as justly related to God by that lawful separation. To say, as some do, that they are indeed consecrated and separated, but not holy, is to be ridiculously wise by self-contradiction, and the masterly use of the word holy contrary to custom and terms. Ministers are more holy than temples, lands, or utensils, as being more nearly related to holy things. And things separated by God himself are more holy than those justly separated by man. And so of days.—Baxter.

Can we judge it a thing seemly for any man to go about the building of an house to the God of heaven, with no other appearance than if his end were to rear up a kitchen, or a parlour, for his own use? or when a work of such a nature is finished, remaineth there nothing but presently to use it, and so an end? Albeit the true worship of God be to God in itself acceptable, who respecteth not so much in what place, as with what affection he is served; and therefore Moses in the midst of the sea, Job on the dunghill, Ezekiah in bed, Jeremy in mire, Jonas in the whale, Daniel in the den, the Children in the furnace, the Thief on the cross, Peter and Paul in prison, calling unto God were heard, as St. Basil noteth, manifest notwithstanding it is, that the very majesty and holiness of the place where God is worshipped hath in regard of us great virtue, force, and efficacy, for that it serveth as a sensible help to stir up devotion.—Hooker.

The reader who desires to possess a perfect knowledge on this head, is referred to Bingham’s “Origines Ecclesiasticæ,” or Antiquities of the Christian Church, b. viii.

ORTHODOXY. (Ὀρθὸς and δοκέω.) Soundness of doctrine.

Of course the question here to be decided is, What is soundness of doctrine? If two men take Scripture for their guide, and professing to have no other guide, come to opposite conclusions, it is quite clear that neither has a right to decide that the other is not orthodox. On this principle it is as uncharitable and illogical for the Trinitarian to call the Socinian not orthodox, as it is for the Socinian to predicate the same of the Trinitarian. But if we interpret Scripture by the sense of the Church, then we may consistently call those orthodox who hold the doctrines which she deduces from Scripture, and those heterodox who do not hold those doctrines. So that orthodoxy means soundness of doctrine, the doctrine being proved to be sound by reference to the consentient testimony of Scripture and the Church. Hence perhaps it is, that as those low-churchmen, who repudiate Socinian notions, are by some called evangelicals, so high-churchmen are designated orthodox. Both titles, if intended to be applied exclusively, are applied incorrectly.

ORTLIBENSES. (Lat.) A sect, or branch, of the ancient Vaudois or Waldenses.

The Ortlibenses denied there was a Trinity before the nativity of Jesus Christ, who, according to them, was not till that time the Son of God. To these two persons of the Godhead they added a third, during the preaching of Jesus Christ; namely, St. Peter, whom they acknowledged to be the Holy Ghost. They held the eternity of the world; but had no notion of the resurrection of the body, or the immortality of the soul. Notwithstanding which, they maintained (perhaps by way of irony) that there would be a final judgment, at which time the pope and the emperor would become proselytes to their sect.

They denied the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His cross, they pretended, was penance and their own abstemious way of life: this, they said, was the cross our Saviour bore. They ascribed all the virtue of baptism to the merit of him who administered it. They were of opinion, that Jews might be saved without baptism, provided they embraced their sect. They boldly asserted, that they themselves were the only true mystical body, that is to say, the Church of Christ.

PACIFICATION, EDICTS OF, were decrees or edicts, granted by the kings of France to the Protestants, for appeasing the troubles occasioned by their persecution.

The first edict of pacification was granted by Charles IX., in January, 1562, permitting the free exercise of the reformed religion near all the cities and towns of the realm. March 19, 1563, the same king granted a second edict of pacification, at Amboise, permitting the free exercise of the reformed religion in the houses of gentlemen and lords high-justiciaries (or those that had the power of life and death) to their families and dependants only; and allowing other Protestants to have their sermons in such towns as they had them in before the seventh of March; obliging them withal to quit the churches they had possessed themselves of during the troubles. Another, called the edict of Lonjumeau, ordering the execution of that of Amboise, was published March 27, 1558, after a treaty of peace. This pacification was of but short continuance; for Charles, perceiving a general insurrection of the Huguenots, revoked the said edicts in September, 1568, forbidding the exercise of the Protestant religion, and commanding all the ministers to depart the kingdom in fifteen days. But, on the eighth of August, 1570, he made peace with them again, and published an edict on the eleventh, allowing the lords high-justiciaries to have sermons in their houses for all comers, and granting other Protestants two public exercises in each government. He likewise gave them four cautionary towns, viz. Rochelle, Montauban, Cognac, and La Charité, to be places of security for them during the space of two years. Nevertheless, in August, 1572, he authorized the Bartholomew massacre, and at the same time issued a declaration, forbidding the exercise of the Protestant religion.

Henry III., in April, 1576, made peace with the Protestants, and the edict of pacification was published in parliament, May 14, permitting them to build churches, and have sermons where they pleased. The Guisian faction, enraged at this general liberty, began the famous league for defence of the Catholic religion, which became so formidable, that it obliged the king to assemble the states of the kingdom at Blois, in December, 1576; where it was enacted, that there should be but one religion in France, and that the Protestant ministers should be all banished. In 1577, the king, to pacify the troubles, published an edict in parliament, October 8th, granting the same liberty to the reformed which they had before. However, in July, 1585, the league obliged him to publish another edict, revoking all former concessions to the Protestants, and ordering them to depart the kingdom in six months, or turn Papists. This edict was followed by more to the same purpose.

Henry IV. coming to the crown, published a declaration, July 4, 1591, abolishing the edicts against the Protestants. This edict was verified in the parliament of Chalons; but the troubles prevented the verification of it in the parliaments of the other provinces; so that the Protestants had not the free exercise of their religion in any place but where they were masters, and had banished the Romish religion. In April, 1598, the king published a new edict of pacification at Nantes, granting the Protestants the free exercise of their religion in all places where they had the same in 1596 and 1597, and one exercise in each bailiwick.

This edict of Nantes was confirmed by Louis XIII. in 1610, and by Louis XIV. in 1652. But his letter, in 1685, abolished it entirely; since which time the Protestants ceased to be tolerated in France till the Revolution.—Broughton.

PÆDO-BAPTISM. (From παῖς, a child, and βαπτίζω, to baptize.) The baptism of children. (See Baptism of Infants.)

PALL, or PALLIUM. The word pallium properly signifies a cloak, thrown over the shoulders: afterwards it came to denote a sort of cape or tippet, and hence the ecclesiastical designation in the Western Church.

The origin of the pall, which has been generally worn by the Western metropolitans, is disputed; but whoever considers the ancient figures of it which are found in manuscripts, &c., will see that it was originally only a stole wound round the neck, with the ends hanging down behind and before. In the East the pall is called omophorion, and has been used, at least, since the time of Chrysostom. It is used by all the Eastern bishops, above the phenolion or vestment, during the eucharist; and, as used by them, resembles the ancient pall much more nearly than that worn by the Western metropolitans.—Palmer.

The pall was part of the imperial habit, and originally granted by the emperors to the patriarchs. Thus Constantine gave the use of the pall to the bishop of Rome; and Anthimus, patriarch of Constantinople, being expelled his see, is said to have returned the pall to the emperor Justinian; which implies his having received it from him. And the reason of the royal consent in this manner seems to be, because it was high treason to wear any part of the imperial habit without licence.

In after ages, when the see of Rome had carried its authority to the highest pitch, under Pope Innocent III., that pontiff, in the Lateran Council, A. D. 1215, decreed the pall to be a mark and distinction, intimating the plenitude of the apostolic power, and that neither the function nor title of archbishop should be assumed without it; and this, not only when a bishop was preferred to the degree of archbishop, but likewise in case of translations, when an archbishop was removed from one see to another. It was decreed, likewise, that every archbishop should be buried in his pall, that his successor might make no use of it, but be obliged to apply to the pope for another. By these means the court of Rome brought vast sums of money into its exchequer.

In the Romish Church the following is the description of the pall as given by Romish writers. The pallium is a part of the pontifical dress worn only by the pope, archbishops, and patriarchs. It is a white woollen band of about three fingers’ breadth, made round, and worn over the shoulders, crossed in front with one end hanging down over the breast; the other behind it is ornamented with purple crosses, and fastened by three golden needles or pins. It is made of the wool of perfectly white sheep, which are yearly, on the festival of St. Agnes, offered and blessed at the celebration of the holy eucharist, in the church dedicated to her in the Nomentan Way in Rome. The sheep are received by two canons of the church of St. John Lateran, who deliver them into the charge of the subdeacons of the Apostolic College, and they then are kept and fed by them until the time for shearing them arrives. The palliums are always made of this wool, and when made they are brought to the church of St. Peter and St. Paul, and are placed upon the altar over their tomb on the eve of their festival, and are left there the whole night, and on the following day are delivered to the subdeacons, whose office it is to take charge of them. The pope alone always wears the pallium, and wherever he officiates, to signify his assumed authority over all other particular churches. Archbishops and patriarchs receive it from him, and cannot wear it, except in their own churches, and only on certain great festivals when they celebrate the mass.

An archbishop in the Romish Church, although he be consecrated as bishop, and have taken possession, cannot before he has petitioned for, and received and paid for the pallium, either call himself archbishop, or perform such acts as belong to the “greater jurisdiction;” those, namely, which he exercises not as a bishop, but as archbishop, such as to summon a council, or to visit his province, &c. He can, however, when his election has been confirmed, and before he receives the pallium, depute his functions, in the matter of ordaining bishops, to his suffragans, who may lawfully exercise them by his command. If, however, any archbishop in the Romish Church, before he receives the pallium, perform those offices which result immediately from the possession of it, such as, for instance, those relating to orders and to the chrism, &c., the acts themselves are valid, but the archbishop offends against the canons and laws of the Church.

The pall is still retained as an heraldic ensign, in the arms of the archbishops of Canterbury, Armagh, and Dublin, and formerly constituted those of the archbishop of York also.

Pall is also used for a covering; as the black cloth which covers the coffin at funerals, and sometimes for an altar cloth. Thus at the coronation, the sovereign makes an oblation of a pall, or altar cloth of gold.

PALM SUNDAY. The Sunday next before Easter, so called from palm branches being strewed on the road by the multitude, when our Saviour made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

This week, immediately preceding the feast of Easter, is more especially designed to fit us for that great solemnity; and, to that end, is to be spent in more than ordinary piety and devotion. It was anciently called sometimes the Great Week, sometimes the Holy Week, because it hath a larger service than any other week, every day having a second service appointed for it, in which are rehearsed at large the sufferings of Christ, as they are described by the four evangelists; that by hearing and reading the history of his passion, we may be better prepared for the mystery of his resurrection; that, by his rising from the dead, we may be quickened to newness of life. This day, which begins this holy week, is called by the name of Palm Sunday, being the day on which our Saviour entered Jerusalem with great joy; some spreading their garments, others cutting down branches of palm, carrying them in their hands, and strewing them in the way, which hath been remembered with great solemnity.—Dr. Hole.

In the missals this Sunday is called Palm Sunday; and in many parts of England it still retains its ancient name. On this day, till the æra of the Reformation, the people in solemn procession carried in their hands palms, or branches of some other tree, in commemoration of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem five days before his death. The palms were then placed on the altar by the clerks, before the time of the celebration of the eucharist; and numerous benedictory collects were pronounced over them by the priest.—Shepherd.

The collect for the day puts us in mind of the tender love of God towards mankind, in sending his Son, not only to take upon him our flesh, but to suffer in it the death of the cross for our sins; to the intent, “that all mankind should follow the example of his great humility;” and thence teaches us to pray, “that we may both follow the example of his patience, and also be made partakers of his resurrection.”

The Epistle for the day presents us to this purpose with the highest and best pattern for our imitation, even the Son of God, who hath done and suffered all these great things for us.

This Gospel, with the rest that follow on each day of this holy week, gives us an ample account of the death and passion of our blessed Saviour, together with the many circumstances that went before and came after it.—Dr. Hole.

PANTHEISM. (Πᾶν, all; Θεὸς, God.) A subtle kind of atheism, which makes God and the universe the same, and so denies the existence and sovereignty of any God over the universe. It is to be feared that much of the mere natural religion of the present day partakes of the character of Pantheism.

PAPA. (Πάππας, Greek.) A name originally given to the bishops of the Christian Church, though now it is become in the West the pretended prerogative and sole privilege of the pope, or bishop of Rome. The word signifies no more than father.

Tertullian, speaking indefinitely of any Christian bishop who absolves penitents, gives him the name of Benedictus Papa. Heraclas, bishop of Alexandria, has the same title given him. St. Jerome gives the title of Papa to Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Paulinus; and, writing often to St. Augustine, he always inscribes his epistles Beatissimo Papæ Augustino.

The name Papa was sometimes given to the inferior clergy, who were called Papæ Pisinni, that is, little fathers; in comparison of whom Balsamon calls presbyters Protopapæ, i.e. chief fathers.

The Greek Christians have continued to give the name Papa to their priests. And there is, in all Oriental cathedrals, and at Messina in Sicily, (where Oriental customs are largely retained,) there was formerly an ecclesiastical dignitary styled Protopapa, who, besides a jurisdiction over several churches, had a particular respect paid him by the cathedral. For, upon Whitsunday, the prebendaries went in procession to the Protopapa’s church, (called the Catholic,) and attended him to the cathedral, where he sang solemn Vespers, according to the Greek rituals, and was afterwards waited upon back to his own church with the same pompous respect. The Vespers, and the Epistle and Gospel, at Pentecost, are still sung by Greek priests.—Pirri-Sicilia Sacra. (See Pops.)

PAPISTS. (See Popery and Roman Catholics. For the form of reconciling Papists to the Church of England, see Abjuration.)

PARABLE. The parabolical, enigmatical, figurative, and sententious way of speaking was the language of the Eastern sages and learned men; and nothing was more insupportable than to hear a fool utter parables: “The legs of the lame are not equal; so is a parable in the mouth of fools.” (Prov. xxvi. 7.)

It is generally applied, as in the New Testament, to a figurative discourse, or a story with a typical meaning; but in the Old Testament, it sometimes signifies a mere discourse: as Job’s parable, which occupies many chapters of the book of Job (xxvi.——xxxi. inclusive). The same title is applied by its inspired composer to the seventy-eighth Psalm, (ver. 2,) which is historical, not deeply mystical, like the forty-ninth.

Our Saviour in the Gospel seldom speaks to the people but in parables: thereby verifying the prophecy of Isaiah, (vi. 9,) that the people should see without knowing, and hear without understanding, in the midst of instruction. Some parables in the New Testament are supposed to be true histories. In others our Saviour seems to allude to some points of history in those times; as that describing a king who went into a far country to receive a kingdom. This may hint at the history of Archelaus, who, after the death of his father, Herod the Great, went to Rome, to receive from Augustus the confirmation of his father’s will, by which he had the kingdom of Judea left to him.

PARABOLANI. (Lat.) In the ancient Christian Church were certain officers, deputed to attend upon the sick, and to take care of them all the time of their weakness.

At Alexandria, the Parabolani were incorporated into a society, to the number of 500 or 600, elected by the bishop of the place, and under his direction. But that this was not an order peculiar to the Church of Alexandria is very evident, because there is mention made of Parabolani at Ephesus at the time of the second council held there. (A. D. 449.)

They were called Parabolani from their undertaking a most dangerous and hazardous office, (παραβολον εργον,) in attending the sick, especially in infectious and pestilential diseases. The Greeks used to call those παραβολοι, who hired themselves out to fight with wild beasts in the amphitheatre; for the word παραβαλλειν signifies exposing a man’s life to danger. In this sense, the Christians were often called Parabolani by the heathens, because they were so ready to expose their lives to martyrdom. And, upon the like account, the name Parabolani was given to the officers we are speaking of.

These Parabolani, being men of a bold and daring spirit, were ready upon all occasions to engage in any quarrel that should happen in Church or State, as they seem to have done in the dispute between Cyril the bishop and Orestes the governor of Alexandria. Wherefore the emperor Theodosius put them under the inspection of the Præfectus Augustalis, and strictly prohibited them to appear at any public shows, or in the common council of the city, or in the courts of judicature, unless any of them had a cause of his own, or appeared as syndic for the whole body. Which shows that the civil government always looked upon the Parabolani as a formidable body of men, and kept a watchful eye over them, that, while they were serving the Church, they might not do any disservice to the State.—Bingham.

PARACLETE. A comforter and advocate; a title applied to God the Holy Ghost. (John xv. 26.)—See Holy Ghost.

PARACLETICE, (Gr.,) among the Greek Christians, is a book of anthems, or hymns, so called, because they chiefly tend to comfort the sinner, or because they are partly invocatory, consisting of pious addresses to God and the saints.

The hymns or anthems in this book are not appropriated to particular days, but contain something proper to be recited every day, in the mass, vespers, matins, and other offices.

Allatius finds great fault with this book, and says there are many things in it disrespectful to the Virgin Mary, and many things ascribed to her against all reason and equity; that it affirms that John the Baptist, after his death, preached Christ in hell; and that Christ himself, when he descended into hell, freed all mankind from the punishments of that place and the power of the devil.

PARAPET. A low wall protecting the gutter in the roof of churches or other buildings. Early parapets are universally plain, but, with the Decorated style, they begin to be panelled, and sometimes pierced with various patterns, and in the Perpendicular they are very frequently crenellated.

PARAPHRASE. (Chaldaic.) It is commonly believed that the first translation of the holy Bible was in Chaldee, and that the ignorance of the Jews in the Hebrew tongue, after the Babylonish captivity, was the occasion of that version, called the Targum, or Chaldee paraphrase, which was neither done by one author, nor at the same time, nor made upon all the books of the Old Testament. The first upon the Pentateuch was done by Onkelos, a proselyte, who lived about the time of our Saviour, if we believe the Hebrew authors; the second upon the Pentateuch is attributed to Jonathan, the son of Uzziel, who is not the same with the Theodotion, which in Greek has the same signification as Jonathan in Hebrew; that is, the gift of God. The third upon the same book is called the Targum Hierosolymitanum, or the Jerusalem paraphrase; the author of which is not certainly known, nor the time when it was composed. Schikard believes it to bear the same date as the Targum of Jerusalem, which was written about 300 years after the last destruction of the temple, burnt in the seventieth year after our Lord’s incarnation. There are, besides these, three paraphrases upon the books of Moses; another upon the Psalms, Job, and Proverbs; there is also one upon the Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, but the author not known; and we have a Chaldee paraphrase upon Joshua, Judges, Kings, and the Prophets, by Jonathan, the son of Uzziel, who, according to the Jews, had before written the paraphrase upon the Pentateuch.

Several learned men believe that all the rabbins say concerning the Chaldee paraphrase is fabulous, and that the oldest of all the translations is that of the Septuagint: it is also added that they are later than St. Jerome, who, having great acquaintance with the most learned rabbins, and having written so much upon that subject, could not fail of speaking of the Chaldee paraphrases, if there had been any such in his time. The Jews affirm they were composed in the time of the prophets, and they have them in so great veneration, that they are obliged to read in their synagogue a section of Onkelos’ paraphrase, when they have read a Hebrew text in the Bible.

PARCLOSE. Screens separating chapels, especially those at the east end of the aisles, from the body of the church, are called parcloses.

PARDONS. (See Indulgences.) In the Romish Church, pardons or indulgences are releasement from the temporal punishment of sin; the power of granting which is supposed to be lodged in the pope, to be dispensed by him to the bishops and inferior clergy, for the benefit of penitents throughout the Church. In the theory of pardons, the point is assumed, that holy men may accomplish more than is strictly required of them by the Divine law; that there is a meritorious value in this overplus; that such value is transferable, and that it is deposited in the spiritual treasury of the Church, subject to the disposal of the pope, to be, on certain conditions, applied to the benefit of those whose deficiencies stand in need of such a compensation. A distinction is then drawn between the temporal and the eternal punishment of sin; the former of which not only embraces penances, and all satisfactions for sin in the present life, but also the pains of purgatory in the next. These are supposed to be within the control and jurisdiction of the Church; and, in the case of any individual, may be ameliorated or terminated by the imputation of so much of the overabundant merits of the saints, &c., as may be necessary to balance the deficiencies of the sufferer.

The privilege of selling pardons, it is well known, was frequently granted by the pope to monastic bodies in every part of the Church; and the scandals and disorders consequent upon them, was one of the first moving causes of the Reformation. Against these most pernicious and soul-destroying errors, the Church of England protests in her twenty-second Article: “The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping, and adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also of invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.”

In treating this subject we will first show what the Romish doctrine is, and then how repugnant it is to Scripture.

As for the first, what their doctrine concerning pardons is, it is difficult to determine; they have had so many crotchets about it, that one can scarce tell where to find them. We shall endeavour to explain it in these following propositions:—

First, They assert, as Bellarmine saith, that “many holy men have suffered more for God and righteousness’ sake than the guilt of the temporal punishment, which they were obnoxious to for faults committed by them, could exact.”

Secondly, Hence they say, as Johannes de Turrecremata, “That one can satisfy for another, or one can acceptably perform satisfactory punishment for another,” viz. “because they suffer more than is due to their own sins; and seeing all sufferings are satisfactory, what they undergo more than is due to their own is satisfactory for other men’s sins.”

Thirdly, “Seeing they who thus undergo satisfactory punishments for others do not appoint the fruit of this their satisfaction to any particular persons, it therefore,” as Roffensis saith, “becomes profitable to the whole Church in common, so that it is now called the common treasury of the Church, to wit, that from thence may be fetched whatsoever any others lack of due satisfaction.”

Fourthly, “This common treasure,” saith Bellarmine, “is the foundation of pardons.” So that, as he saith, “the Church hath power to apply this treasure of satisfaction, and by this to grant our pardons.”

By this, therefore, we may have some sight into this great mystery, and perceive what they mean by pardons. For as Laymanus the Jesuit saith, “A pardon or indulgence is the remission of a temporal punishment due to God without the sacrament, by the application of the satisfaction of Christ and the saints.” Or, as Gregorius de Valentia saith, “An ecclesiastical pardon or indulgence is a relaxation of a temporal punishment by God’s judgment due to actual sins, after the remission of the fault made without the sacrament (of penance), by the application of the superabundant satisfaction of Christ and the saints, by him who hath lawful authority to do it.” But let us hear what a pope himself saith concerning these pardons. Leo X., in his decretal, ann. 1518, saith, “The pope of Rome may, for reasonable causes, grant to the same saints of Christ who, charity uniting them, are members of Christ, whether they be in this life or in purgatory, pardons out of the superabundancy of the merits of Christ and the saints; and that be used, for the living as well as for the dead, by his apostolic power of granting pardons, to dispense or distribute the treasure of the merits of Christ and the saints, to confer the indulgence itself, after the manner of an absolution, or transfer it after the manner of a suffrage.” So that, as Durandus saith, “The Church can communicate from this treasure to any one, or several, for their sins, in part or in whole, according as it pleases the Church to communicate more or less from the treasure.” And hence it is that we find it said in the book of indulgences or pardons, that “Pope Sylvester and Gregory, that consecrated the Lateran Church, gave so many pardons, that none could number them but God; Boniface being witness, who said, ‘if men knew the pardons of the Lateran Church, they would not need to go by sea to the holy sepulchre. In the chapel of the saints are twenty-eight stairs that stood before the house of Pilate in Jerusalem. Whosoever shall ascend those stairs with devotion hath, for every sin, nine years of pardons; but he that ascends them kneeling, he shall free one soul out of purgatory.’” So that it seems the pope can not only give me a pardon for sins past, but to come; yea, and not only give me a pardon for my own sins, but power to pardon other men’s sins, else I could not redeem a soul from purgatory.

We have been the larger in the opening of this great Romish mystery, because we need do no more than open it; for, being thus opened, it shows itself to be a ridiculous and impious doctrine, utterly repugnant to the Scriptures. For this doctrine, thus explained, is grounded upon works of supererogation; for it is from the treasury of these good works that the Romish Church fetches all her pardons. Now this is but a bad foundation, contrary to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; as we have seen in the fourteenth Article. And if the foundation be rotten, the superstructure cannot be sound. Again, this doctrine supposes one man may and doth satisfy for another; whereas the Scriptures hold forth “Christ [as] our propitiation,” (1 John ii. 2,) “Who trode the wine-press of his Father’s wrath alone” (Isaiah lxiii. 3). Lastly, this doctrine supposes that a pope, a priest, a finite creature, can pardon sins; whereas the Scripture holds forth this as the prerogative only of the true God. For “who is a God like unto thee,” saith the prophet Micah, “that pardoneth iniquities?” (Mic. vii. 18.) And therefore the scribes and Pharisees, when they said, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke v. 21,) what they said, though wickedly said by them, not acknowledging Christ to be God, and so not to have that power, yet it was truly said in itself: for, had not Christ been God, he would have had no more power to forgive sins than the pope.

And whatsoever the doctors of the Romish Church now hold, we are sure the Fathers of old constantly affirmed that it was God only could forgive sin. So Chrysostom saith, “For none can pardon sins but only God.” Euthymius, “None can truly pardon sins, but he alone who beholds the thoughts of men.” Gregory, “Thou who alone sparest, who alone forgivest sins. For who can forgive sins but God alone?” Ambrose, “For this cannot be common to any man with Christ to forgive sins. This is his gift only who took away the sins of the world.” Certainly the Fathers never thought of the pope’s pardons, when they let such and the like sentences slip from them. Nay, and Athanasius was so confident that it was God only could pardon sin, that he brings this as an argument against the Arians, to prove that Christ was God, because he could pardon sin. “But how,” saith he, “if the Word was a creature, could he loose the sentence of God, and pardon sin?” It being written by the prophets that this belongs to God; for “who is a God like to thee, pardoning sins, and passing by transgressions?” For God said, “Thou art earth, and unto earth thou shalt return.” So that men are mortal: and how then was it possible that sin should be pardoned or loosed by creatures? Yet Christ loosed and pardoned them. Certainly had the pope’s pardons been heard of in that age, this would have been but a weak argument. For Arius might easily have answered, “It doth not follow, that, because Christ could pardon sin, he was therefore God; for the pope is not God, and yet he can pardon sin.” But thus we see the Fathers confidently averring, it is God only can pardon sins, and therefore that the pope cannot pardon them by any means whatsoever, unless he be God, which as yet they do not assert. And so that the Romish doctrine concerning pardons is a fond thing, repugnant to the Scriptures.—Beveridge.

PARISH. A parish is that circuit of ground which is committed to the charge of one parson or vicar, or other minister having cure of souls therein. A reputed parish is where there is a parochial chapel, with all parochial rites entirely independent of the mother-church, as to sacraments, marriages, burials, repairs, &c. (See Chapel.)

The word parish is from the Greek word παροικία, (paroichia,) which signifies sojourning, or living as a stranger or inmate; for so it is used among the classical Greek writers. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word גר, (Ger,) peregrinus, by πάροικος, (Gen. xv. 13, &c.,) and the word מגור, (Magor,) peregrinatio, by παροικία. (Ps. cxix. 54.)

The primitive Christians received a great part of their customs, and also their phraseology from the Jews; who, when they travelled abroad, and many of them were settled in any town, either built them a synagogue, or else procured a large room, where they performed their public worship; and all that were strangers in that place met there at the times of public devotion. This brotherhood of Jews, which was mixed with the inhabitants of the place, they called the παροικία, or the society of the sojourners. At the beginning of Christianity, the Christians were in the same condition with the Jews, they being themselves either Jews, or Jewish proselytes, or living in a retired condition, sequestered from the world, and little mixing with affairs. Upon which account St. Peter addresses them ὡς παροικοὺς, &c., as strangers and pilgrims. (1 Pet. ii. 11.) This number of strangers in the heathen cities was called the παροικία, over which there was set, by apostolical authority, a bishop, a προεσθώς, a cazan, (an inspector,) or a rhosh cohel (a head of the congregation); all which names denoted the episcopal authority, and which in little time centred in the one most usual name, of ἐπίσκοπος, or bishop, as is plainly seen by the Ignatian epistles. So that the ἐπίσκοπος and παροικία became relative terms; he that had the superintendency of the congregation, whether one or more, was called the bishop, and the congregation under his care was called the παροικία. Hence, in the most early time of the Greek Church, the word παροικία was used to signify, what we now call a diocese; and thus, in the apostolic canons, a bishop that leaves his diocese παροικίαν for another is to be reduced to lay-communion. Hence it is said, “The bishop of the diocese παροικιας of Alexandria departed this life.” And again, “the glory παροικιας of the diocese of Cæsarea.” The Latins took up the same way of expression, from the Greek, denoting a diocese by the word parochia, which mode of expression lasted till after the time of Charlemagne.

But it is to be observed, that when the word parochia signified a diocese, the word diocesis signified a parish. So in the Council of Agatha, presbyter dum diocesin tenet, “whilst the presbyter is in possession of his living.” And in the third Council of Orleans, diocesis is the same with basilica, a parish church. But in the seventh or eighth century, when parish churches began frequently to be founded in villages, the old names shifted, and diocesis was used to denote the extent of the bishop’s jurisdiction; and parochia, the place where the presbyter’s care was limited.

That the word παροικία was not exclusively applied to a parish, and that a bishop’s diocese was not anciently confined to a single parish, as it has been asserted by the advocates for Presbyterianism, see Maurice’s “Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy,” and Scater’s “Original Draught of the Primitive Church.”

How ancient the division of parishes is, may at present be difficult to ascertain; for it seems to be agreed on all hands, that, in the early ages of Christianity in this island, parishes were unknown, or at least signified the same that a diocese does now. There was then no appropriation of ecclesiastical dues to any particular Church; but every man was at liberty to contribute his tithes to whatever priest or church he pleased, provided only that he did it to some; or if he made no special appointment or appropriation thereof, they were paid into the hands of the bishop, whose duty it was to distribute them among the clergy, and for other pious purposes, according to his own discretion. Mr. Camden says, England was divided into parishes by Archbishop Honorius, about the year 630. Sir Henry Hobart lays it down, that parishes were first erected by the Council of Lateran, which was held A. D. 1179. Each widely differing from the other, and both of them perhaps from the truth; which will probably be found in the medium between the two extremes: for Mr. Selden has clearly shown, that the clergy lived in common without any division of parishes, long after the time mentioned by Camden; and it appears from the Saxon laws, that parishes were in being long before the date of that Council of Lateran, to which they are ascribed by Hobart.

Many parish churches were founded in great towns and villages in Italy, Spain, and France, during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, under the cathedral church of the bishop; and though they were later in England, yet there are some instances as early as the year 700: for about that time Bede relates, that the bishop of Hexham consecrated a parish church in the manor of one Pach, a Saxon earl, and not long after for one Addi. Nay, before this he relates of Birinus, first bishop of the West Saxons, that he built and dedicated several churches in his diocese of Dorchester. When Egbert, archbishop of York, made his constitutions, about the year 750, they seem to be growing up apace. By that canon, “Unusquisque sacerdos ecclesiam suam cum omni diligentia ædificet.”—Spelman. And he forbids that the tithes formerly paid to the mother-church should be paid to the new-built oratories. By the time of Edward the Confessor these parishes were grown so numerous, that complaint was made that the clergy were impoverished thereby. After which time the division of parishes was not much altered; for the survey of England in Doomsday Book is not very different from our later ones.—Nicholls.

Before the establishment of parishes in England, the bishops sent out their clergy (who lived with them) to preach to the people as occasion required; but as Christianity extended, and the number of converts increased, this method became inconvenient, and a resident clergy was found expedient. Parishes were then formed, and churches were built, and endowed by lords of manors and others; and hence arose the patronage of laymen.

The cause of the great difference in the extent of different parishes is this: that churches were most of them built by lords of the manor for their tenants; and so the parish was of the size of the lord’s manor.

In 1520, according to a book made out by Cardinal Wolsey, the number of parish churches is reckoned 9407, but Chamberlain makes them 9913. Camden reckons 9284. The number of charity briefs issued was according to an account in Burns’ “Ecclesiastical Law,” 10,489. Formerly Archdeacon Plymley, in his charge to the clergy of Salop, 1793, says that, from the “Liber Regis,” there were in England and Wales 5098 rectories, 3687 vicarages, and 2970 churches, neither rectorial nor vicarial; in all 11,755 churches in the 10,000 parishes. It is scarcely necessary to add, that both churches and parishes have much increased since that period.

As to divisions and consolidations of parishes, see 58 Geo. III. c. 45; 59 Geo. III. c. 134; 8 & 9 Vic. c. 70. See also 3 & 4 Vic. c. 60, sec. 6.

PARSON. (Persona ecclesiæ.) Parson properly signifies the rector of a parish church, because, during the time of his incumbency, he represents the Church, and in the eye of the law sustains the person thereof, as well in suing as in being sued, in any action touching the same. Parson imparsonee (persona impersonata) is he that, as lawful incumbent, is in actual possession of a parish church, and with whom the church is full, whether it be presentative or impropriate. The word persona is however applied in ancient documents to others besides parochial incumbents, that is, to ecclesiastical officers who had a personal responsibility for the services and duties proper to their churches. (See Persona.)

PARSONAGE. The parson’s residence. It is applicable both to rectories and to vicarages, and indeed to the official residences of all incumbents of parishes, parochial districts, or chapelries. As to giving of lands for parsonages, see 55 Geo. III. c. 147.

PARVISE. A chamber over a church porch. The parvise was most likely always a kind of domus inclusa for some officer of the church, as, for instance, the sacristan; and from the frequent occurrence of an altar in the east window, we may presume that it was sometimes a temporary lodging for a priest.

PASCH. The festival of Easter.

PASCHAL. Pertaining to the Passover. The lamb offered in this Jewish festival being a prominent type of Christ, the terms paschal and paschal lamb are often used in application to the Redeemer. An example occurs in the proper preface for Easter Day, in the Communion Office, thus: “Thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, for he is the very Paschal Lamb, which was offered for us, and hath taken away the sin of the world,” &c.

PASSALORYNCHITES, or PATTALORYNCHIANS. Certain heretics, the followers of Montanus, who made profession of never speaking, and for that purpose always held their fingers upon their mouths, grounding it upon certain words of the 140th Psalm. They began to appear in the second age; and St. Jerome testifies, that even in his time he found some of them in Galatia, as he travelled to Ancyra.

PASSING BELL. By the sixth canon it is enjoined, “When any is passing out of this life, a bell shall be tolled, and the minister shall not then slack to do his last duty. And after the party’s death (if so it fall out) there shall be rung no more but one short peal, and one other before the burial, and one other after the burial.”

PASSION WEEK. So we denominate the week immediately preceding the festival of Easter, because in that week our Saviour’s passion and death happened.

The primitive Christians called it Hebdomas Magna, or the Great Week. No one can better describe it to us than St. Chrysostom, who says, “It was called the Great Week, not because it consisted of longer days, or more in number, than other weeks, but because at this time great things were wrought for us by our Lord. For in this week the ancient tyranny of the devil was dissolved, death was extinct, the strong man was bound, his goods were spoiled, sin was abolished, the curse was destroyed, paradise was opened, heaven became accessible, men and angels were joined together, the middle wall of partition was broken down, the barriers were taken out of the way, the God of peace made peace between things in heaven and things in earth; therefore it is called the Great Week. And as this is the head of all other weeks, so the Great Sabbath is the head of this week. Therefore, in this week, many increase their labours; some adding to their fastings, others to their watchings; others give more liberal alms, testifying the greatness of the Divine goodness by their care of good works, and more intense piety and holy living. As the Jews went forth to meet Christ, when he had raised Lazarus from the dead, so now not only one city, but all the world, go forth to meet him, not with palm branches in their hands, but with alms-deeds, humanity, virtue, fastings, tears, prayers, watchings, and all kinds of piety, which they offer to Christ their Lord. And not only we, but the emperors of the world, honour this week, making it a time of vacation from all civil business. The imperial letters are sent abroad at this time, commanding all prisoners to be set at liberty from their chains. For, as our Lord, when he descended into hell, set free those that were detained by death; so the servants, according to their power, imitating the kindness of their Lord, loose men from their corporal bonds, when they have no power to relax the spiritual.”

It is plain from hence, that the ancient Christians paid an extraordinary regard to this Holy Week, and that this consisted in additional exercises of devotion, longer fastings, more liberal alms, vacation from all civil business, and a general release of prisoners, some particular cases of criminals only excepted.

The Thursday in this week, which was the day on which Christ was betrayed, was observed with some peculiar customs. In some churches, the communion was administered in the evening after supper, in imitation of the communion of the apostles at our Lord’s last supper. On this day the Competentes, or candidates of baptism, publicly rehearsed the creed before the bishops or presbyters in the church. And on this day it was customary for servants to receive the communion. The modern ritualists call this day Maundy Thursday. (See Maundy Thursday.)

The Friday was called Good Friday, or Pasch of the Cross, in opposition to Easter, or the Pasch of the Resurrection. On this day, not only penitents were absolved, but a general absolution and indulgence was proclaimed to all the people, observing the day with fasting, prayers, and contrition.

The Saturday of this week was known by the name of the Great Sabbath. It had many peculiarities belonging to it. For this was the only Sabbath throughout the year that the Greek churches, and some of the Western, kept as a fast; all other Saturdays, or Sabbaths, being observed as festivals. On this day they continued to fast, not only till evening, but till cock-crowing in the morning, which was the supposed time of our Saviour’s resurrection. And the preceding time of the night was spent in Divine service, praying, preaching, and baptizing such of the catechumens as presented themselves. A remnant of which custom seems still to be kept up in the Latin offices, which prescribe the reading of numerous chapters from the Holy Scriptures, called prophecies, with prayers, &c. interspersed. Eusebius tells us that, in the time of Constantine, this vigil was kept with great pomp. For that emperor set up lofty pillars of wax, to burn as torches all over the city, so that the night seemed to outshine the sun at noonday. The fifth Sunday in Lent is called in the Roman office, Passion Sunday, that name being applied to it in reference to our Lord’s prediction on that day of his approaching passion. And some persons call the week, of which Passion Sunday is the first day, Passion Week; and the real Passion Week they call Holy Week. This is, however, a piece of pedantry, founded on a mistake.

PASSOVER. (Pesach, Heb., which signifies a leap, a passage.) (Pascha, in the LXX.) The Passover was a solemn festival of the Jews, instituted in commemoration of their coming out of Egypt, because the night before their departure the destroying angel, that slew the first-born of the Egyptians, passed over the houses of the Hebrews without entering them, because they were marked with the blood of the lamb, which for this reason was called the paschal lamb.

PASTOR. Literally, a shepherd; figuratively, the bishop of a diocese, or the priest of a parish, whose people are, likewise, figuratively called their flock. It is employed in this sense in one of the prayers for the Ember Week, and in the Ordination Services.

PASTORAL STAFF. (See Crosier.) It is mentioned in one of the rubrics of King Edward VI.’s First Prayer Book, which is still the law of the Church, according to the present rubric as to the “ornament of the Church,” which prescribes that the bishop shall in his public ministrations, besides his proper vestments, have “his pastoral staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain.”

PATEN. The plate on which the sacred bread in the eucharist is laid. The original word signifies a wide open dish. It occurs in our Communion Office, at consecration, “here the priest is to take the paten into his hands.”

PATRIARCHS. (From the Greek πατριὰ, family, and ἄρχων, head or ruler.) Patriarchs among Christians are ecclesiastical dignitaries, or bishops, so called from their paternal authority in the Church.

In the ancient Christian Church, patriarchs were next in order to metropolitans or primates. They were originally styled archbishops, and exarchs of a diocese. For the name archbishop was anciently a more extensive title than now, and scarce given to any but those whose jurisdiction extended over a whole imperial diocese, as the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, &c. After the setting up the patriarchal power, the name archbishop was appropriated to the patriarchs.

The first time we meet with the name patriarch given to any bishop by public authority of the Church, is in the Council of Chalcedon, which mentions the most holy patriarchs, particularly Leo, patriarch of great Rome. Among private authors, the first who mentions patriarchs by name is Socrates, who wrote his history about the year 440, eleven years before the Council of Chalcedon. But though we cannot trace the name any higher, yet the power itself was much earlier. The Romanists carry it up to the time of the apostles. Others fix it to a little before the Council of Nice. Others ascribe its rise to that very council. In a matter so obscure, and so variously controverted among learned men, it is no easy matter to determine where the right lies. But, however it be, the fourth century affords pregnant proofs of the establishment and growth of the patriarchal power.

The power of patriarchs was not one and the same precisely in all churches, but differed according to the different customs of places and countries, or the pleasure of kings or councils. The patriarch of Constantinople grew to be a patriarch over the patriarchs of Ephesus and Cæsarea. And the patriarch of Alexandria had some prerogatives which no other patriarchs besides himself enjoyed. Such was the right of consecrating and approving every single bishop under his jurisdiction.

The general privileges of the patriarchate were these following:—First, the patriarchs ordained all the metropolitans under them; but they themselves were to be ordained by a diocesan synod. Secondly, they had the power of convening all their metropolitans and provincial bishops to a diocesan synod. Thirdly, they had the privilege of receiving appeals from metropolitans and provincial synods, and reversing their decrees. In the fourth place, they might inquire into the administration of metropolitans, and censure them in case of heresy or misdemeanour. By virtue of this power, Chrysostom deposed Gerontius, bishop of Nicomedia. Fifthly, a patriarch had power to delegate, or send a metropolitan into any part of his diocese, as his commissioner, to hear and determine ecclesiastical causes in his name. Sixthly, the metropolitans did nothing of moment without consulting the patriarchs. Seventhly, it was the patriarch’s office to publish both ecclesiastical and civil laws, which concerned the Church. The last privilege of patriarchs was, that they were all co-ordinate and independent of one another. After ages, it is true, made great alteration in this matter.

Learned men reckon up thirteen patriarchs in those early ages, that is, one in every capital city of each diocese in the Romish empire. The patriarchs were as follows:—

The patriarchs of Antioch and Ephesus, in Asia.

The patriarch of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia.

The patriarch of Thessalonica, in Macedonia.

The patriarch of Sirmium, in Illyricum.

The patriarchs of Rome and Milan, in Italy.

The patriarchs of Alexandria and Carthage, in Egypt.

The patriarch of Lyons, in France.

The patriarch of Toledo, in Spain.

The patriarch of York, in Britain.

The patriarch of Constantinople, styled the Œcumenical, or Universal Patriarch.

All these were independent of one another, till Rome by encroachment, and Constantinople by law, gained a superiority over some of the rest. The subordinate patriarchs, nevertheless, still retained the title of exarchs of the diocese, and continued to sit and vote in councils.

The title of patriarch is still kept up in the Greek Church; the supreme head of which is the patriarch of Constantinople, who pays a large sum (sometimes ten, sometimes twenty, thousand crowns) to the Grand Seignor, for his instalment. His revenue amounts to near forty thousand crowns a year, arising from the sale of bishoprics and other benefices; besides that every priest in Constantinople pays him a crown per annum. There are about 150 bishops and archbishops dependent on this patriarch.

After the patriarch of Constantinople, the richest is the patriarch of Jerusalem. The patriarch of Antioch is the poorest of them all. The patriarch of Alexandria is very powerful: he assumes the title of Grand Judge of the whole world. But what distinguishes him more than all the rest from the patriarch of Constantinople is, his being less exposed to the avarice and resentments of the Turks.

The patriarch of Constantinople is elected by the archbishops and bishops, with the consent and approbation of the Grand Seignor, who presents the new patriarch with a white horse, a black capuch, a crosier, and an embroidered caftan. The bishop of Heraclea, as chief archbishop, has a right to consecrate him. This prelate, dressed in pontifical robes, conducts the patriarch to his throne, and vests him with the cross, mitre, and other ornaments. He is attended to the church by some of the officers of the Porte, who read over his letters patent at the church door, with a strict charge to the people to own him as their head, to maintain him suitably to his dignity, and to pay his debts, under penalty of bastinado and confiscation of their effects.

The Jews had their patriarchs, who were governors set up upon the destruction of Jerusalem. One of these had his residence at Tiberias, and another at Babylon; who were the heads of the Jews dispersed throughout the Roman and Persian empires. They continued in great power and dignity till the latter end of the fourth century, about which time the order ceased.

PATRIMONY. A name anciently given to church estates, or revenues. Thus we find mentioned, in the letters of St. Gregory, not only the patrimony of the Roman Church, but those likewise of the Churches of Rimini, Milan, and Ravenna. This name, therefore, does not peculiarly signify any sovereign dominion or jurisdiction, belonging to the Roman Church, or the pope.

Churches, in cities whose inhabitants were but of modern subsistence, had no estates left to them out of their own district: but those in imperial cities, such as Rome, Ravenna, and Milan, where senators, and persons of the first rank, inhabited, were endowed with estates in divers parts of the world. St. Gregory mentions the patrimony of the Church of Ravenna in Sicily, and another of the Church of Milan in that kingdom. The Roman Church had patrimonies in France, Africa, Sicily, in the Cottian Alps, and in many other countries. The same St. Gregory had a lawsuit with the bishop of Ravenna for the patrimonies of the two Churches, which afterwards ended by agreement.

PATRIPASSIANS. (A patre passo.) A denomination that arose in the second century. Praxeas, a man of genius and learning, denied any real distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and maintained that the Father, sole Creator of all things, had united to himself the human nature of Christ. Hence his followers were called Monarchians, because of their denying a plurality of persons in the Deity; and also Patripassians, because they believed that the Father was so intimately united with the man Christ, his Son, that he suffered with him the anguish of an afflicted life, and the torments of an ignominious death. It does not appear that this sect formed to itself any separate place of worship, or removed from the ordinary assemblies of Christians.

PATRON. The person who has the right to present to a benefice. The greatest part of the benefices in England are presentative; the thanes or lords, who built and endowed churches, having first agreed with the bishops that they should have the privilege of presenting fit clerks to serve and receive the profits of the churches founded by them; which right is continued to their posterity, and those who have purchased of them. See the 14 & 15 Vic. c. 97, for a new legislative right of patronage to builders and endowers of new churches.

PAUL, ST., THE CONVERSION OF. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the twenty-fifth of January.

The Church chooses to commemorate St. Paul by his Conversion, because, as it was wonderful in itself, and a miraculous effect of the powerful grace of God, so was it highly beneficial to the Church of Christ: for, while the other apostles had their particular provinces, he had the care of all the Churches, and by his indefatigable labours contributed very much to the propagation of the gospel throughout the world.

It is remarkable of this great apostle of the Gentiles, that, after his conversion, he changed his name, being called before Saul, a name famous among the tribe of Benjamin (to which he belonged) ever since the first king of Israel, Saul, was chosen out of that tribe. The name Paul, which he afterwards assumed, related to the Roman corporation where he was born; though some have thought it was in memory of his converting Sergius Paulus, the Roman governor.

Among other reasons which may be assigned for the miraculous conversion of St. Paul, the most considerable seems to be, that this might add the greater weight and authority to his preaching; which was necessary, considering the great share he was to have in planting Christianity in the world. Add to this, that St. Paul appears to have had a very honest mind, and to have been influenced with a regard only to what he thought truth; but being prejudiced by education, and pushed on by the heat of his natural temper, was transported with furious zeal; and therefore God was pleased to “show mercy to him,” because what he did was done “ignorantly, in unbelief;” and in a miraculous manner to convince him of the truth of that religion which he persecuted.

PAUL’S, ST., CROSS. (See Cross.)

PAULIANISTS. The Paulianists derive their name from Paulus Samosatensis, who was elected bishop of Antioch, A. D. 260. He maintained, amongst other errors, that our Lord was a mere man, and had not come down from heaven. He was condemned and deposed by a council at Antioch, A. D. 272. One of the canons of Nice required the Paulianists to be rebaptized, because in baptizing they did not use the only lawful form according to our Saviour’s command.

PAULICIANS. Heretics in the seventh century, disciples of Constantine, a native of Armenia, and a favourer of the errors of Manes.

As the name of Manicheans was become odious to all nations, he gave those of his sect the title of Paulicians, on pretence that they followed only the doctrine of St. Paul.

One of their most detestable maxims was, not to give alms to the poor, that they might not contribute to the support of creatures who were the work of the bad god.

The sect of the Paulicians did not spread much till the reign of the emperor Nicephorus, who began to reign in 801. The protection of this prince drew great numbers to their party. But the empress Theodora, regent during the minority of Michel, published an edict, obliging them to follow the Catholic faith, or to depart out of the empire. Many of them chose rather to suffer death than to obey; and several, who lay concealed, afterwards took up arms against the emperor Basil, the Macedonian.

PAX. A small tablet of silver, or some fit material, often very elaborately ornamented, by means of which the kiss of peace was, in the mediæval Church, circulated through the congregation. It was introduced when the primitive kiss of peace, which used to circulate throughout the Christian assemblies, was discontinued on account of some appearance of scandal which had grown out of it. In the place of this, a small tablet of silver or ivory, or some appropriate material, having first received the kiss of the priest, was presented by him to the deacon, and by him again to the people, by all of whom it was kissed in order; thus receiving and transmitting from each to all the symbol of Christian love and unity, without any possibility of offence.

In the Syrian churches, the following seems to be the way in which the same thing is symbolized. In a part of the prayers, which has a reference to the birth of Christ, on pronouncing the words “Peace on earth, good will towards men,” the attending ministers take the officiating priest’s right hand between both their hands, and so pass the peace to the congregation, each of whom takes his neighbour’s right hand, and salutes him with the word peace. In the Romish Church the Pax is still used. By the Church of England it was omitted at the Reformation as a useless ceremony. Though the pax as an ornament is found among the ornaments of the altar, preserved in many churches after the Reformation.—See Hiereugia Anglicana.

PAX VOBISCUM. (Lat.) In English, “Peace be with you.” A form of salutation frequently made use of in the offices of the ancient Christian Church.

First, It was usual for the bishop to salute the people, in this form, at his first entrance into the church. This is often mentioned by St. Chrysostom, who derives it from apostolical practice.

Secondly, The reader began the reading of the lessons with this form. St. Cyprian plainly alludes to this, when, speaking of a new reader, whom he had ordained to that office, he says, Auspicatus est Pacem, dum dedicat lectionem; he began to use the salutation, Peace be with you, when he first began to read. The third Council of Carthage took away this privilege from the readers, and gave it to the deacons, or other superior ministers of the church.

Thirdly, In many places, the sermon was introduced with this form of salutation, and often ended with it.

Fourthly, It was always used at the consecration of the eucharist: and,

Lastly, At the dismission of the congregation. And, whenever it was said by the officiating minister, the people always answered, And with thy spirit.

St. Chrysostom lays open the original intent and design of this practice. For he says, it was an ancient custom in the apostles’ days, when the rulers of the Church had the gift of inspiration, for the people to say to the preacher, Peace be with thy spirit; acknowledging thereby that they were under the guidance and direction of the Spirit of God.

In our own liturgy we use an equivalent salutation, namely. The Lord be with you; to which the people answer, (as the primitive Christians did,) And with thy spirit. It occurs but twice in our Prayer Book, i. e. after the Creed at Morning and Evening Prayer. In the First Book of King Edward it followed the versicles, immediately preceding the collect for the day: besides being used more than once in other offices.

PECULIARS. Those parishes and places are called peculiars, which are exempted from the jurisdiction of the proper ordinary of the diocese where they lie. These exempt jurisdictions are so called, not because they are under no ordinary, but because they are not under the ordinary of the diocese, but have one of their own. They are a remnant of Popery. The pope, before the Reformation, by a usurped authority, in defiance of the canons of the Church, exempted them from the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese. At the Reformation, by an oversight, they were not restored to the jurisdiction of the diocesan, but remained under the sovereign, or under such other person, as by custom or purchase obtained the right of superintendence.

The act 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 77, which constituted the ecclesiastical commission, empowered the commissioners “to propose those parishes, churches, or chapelries which are locally situate in any diocese, but subject to any peculiar jurisdiction, other than the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese in which the same are locally situate, shall be only subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese within which such parishes, churches, or chapelries are locally situate.” (Sect. 10.) In consequence of recommendations by the commissioners, peculiars have been abolished in most, if not all, dioceses of England.

PELAGIANS. Heretics who first appeared about the latter end of the fourth, or beginning of the fifth, century.

Pelagius, author of this sect, was a Briton, being born in Wales. His name, in the British language, was Morgan, which signifies sea-born; from whence he had his Latin name Pelagius. He is said to have been a monk by profession; but probably was no otherwise such than as those were so called who led stricter lives than others within their own houses. Some of our ancient historians pretend that he was abbot of Bangor. But this is not likely, because the British monasteries (according to a learned author) were of a later date. St. Augustine gives him the character of a very pious man, and a Christian of no vulgar rank. According to the same father, he travelled to Rome, where he associated himself with persons of the greatest learning and figure. Here he instructed several young persons, particularly Cœlestius and Julianus; as also Timasius and Jacobus, who afterwards renounced his doctrine, and applied themselves to St. Augustine. During this time he wrote his “Commentaries on St. Paul’s Epistles,” and his Letters to Melania and Demetrias.

Pelagius, being charged with heresy, left Rome, and went into Africa, where he was present at the famous conference held at Carthage, between the Catholics and Donatists. From Carthage he travelled into Egypt, and at last went to Jerusalem, where he settled. He was accused before the Council of Diospolis in Palestine, where he recanted his opinions; but relapsing, and discovering the insincerity of his recantation, he was afterwards condemned by several councils in Africa, and by a synod at Antioch. Pelagius died somewhere in the East, but where is uncertain. His principal tenets, as we find them charged upon his disciple Cœlestius by the Church of Carthage, were these:

I. That Adam was by nature mortal, and, whether he had sinned or not, would certainly have died.

II. That the consequences of Adam’s sin were confined to his person, and the rest of mankind received no disadvantage thereby.

III. That the law qualified men for the kingdom of heaven, and was founded upon equal promises with the gospel.

IV. That, before the coming of our Saviour, some men lived without sin.

V. That new-born infants are in the same condition with Adam before his fall.

VI. That the general resurrection of the dead does not follow in virtue of our Saviour’s resurrection.

VII. That a man may keep the commands of God without difficulty, and preserve himself in a perfect state of innocence.

VIII. That rich men cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, unless they part with all their estate.

IX. That the grace of God is not granted for the performance of every moral act; the liberty of the will, and information in points of duty, being sufficient for this purpose.

X. That the grace of God is given in proportion to our merits.

XI. That none can be called the sons of God, but those who are perfectly free from sin.

XII. That our victory over temptation is not gained by God’s assistance, but by the liberty of the will.

The heresy of Pelagius, notwithstanding its condemnation, made its way into Britain, where its author was born; being conveyed thither by one Agricola, the son of Severianus, a Pelagian bishop of Gaul. The orthodox party were very diligent in opposing its progress, and for that purpose requested the Gallican bishops to send over some persons of eminence to manage the contest. Those chosen for this purpose were Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus, bishop of Troyes; who, arriving in Britain, held a famous conference with the Pelagians at St. Alban’s, in which the latter were put to silence, and the people gave sentence, by their acclamations, for Germanus and Lupus. The Pelagian error respecting original sin is noticed in our ninth Article.

PENANCE. (Pœnitentia, Latin.) As repentance is the principle and inward feeling of sorrow for sin, which we are determined to forsake, so penance is the outward profession of that sorrow. An account of penance in the primitive Church may be seen in Bingham, and more concisely in Coleman, from whom we shall quote in this article. Penance, in the Christian Church, is an imitation of the discipline of the Jewish synagogue; or, rather, it is a continuation of the same institution. Excommunication in the Christian Church is essentially the same as expulsion from the synagogue of the Jews; and the penances of the offender, required for his restoration to his former condition, were not materially different in the Jewish and Christian Churches. The principal point of distinction consisted in this, that the sentence of excommunication affected the civil relations of the offender under the Jewish economy; but in the Christian Church it affected only his relations to that body. Neither the spirit of the primitive institutions of the Church, nor its situation, nor constitution in the first three centuries, was at all compatible with the intermingling or confounding of civil and religious privileges or penalties.

The act of excommunication was, at first, an exclusion of the offender from the Lord’s supper, and from the agapæ. The term itself implies separation from the communion. The practice was derived from the injunction of the apostle, 1 Cor. v. 11, “With such an one no not to eat.” From the context, and from 1 Cor. x. 16–18; xi. 20–34, it clearly appears that the apostle refers, not to common meals, and the ordinary intercourse of life, but to these religious festivals.

Examples of penitence or repentance occur in the Old Testament; neither are there wanting instances, not merely of individuals, but of a whole city or people, performing certain acts of penance,—fasting, mourning, &c. (Nehem. ix. and Jonah iii.) But these acts of humiliation were essentially different, in their relations to individuals, from Christian penance.

We have, however, in the New Testament, an instance of the excommunication of an offending member, and of his restoration to the fellowship of the Church by penance, agreeably to the authority of St. Paul, 1 Cor. v. 1–8; 2 Cor. ii. 5–11. This sentence of exclusion from the Church was pronounced by the assembled body, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. By this sentence, the offender was separated from the people of the Lord, with whom he had been joined by baptism, and was reduced to his former condition as a heathen man, subject to the power of Satan, and of evil spirits. This is, perhaps, the true import of delivering such an one up to Satan.

A similar act of excommunication is described briefly in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha.” The μαράν ἀθὰ corresponds, in sense, with the Hebrew חרם, and denotes a thing devoted to utter destruction; (which, however, is by some supposed to be the Syro-Chaldaic מרנא אתה, expressed in the Greek character, meaning, “The Lord cometh.”) (See Maranatha.) The whole sentence implies that the Church leaves the subject of it to the Lord, who cometh to execute judgment upon him. All that the apostle requires of the Corinthians is, that they should exclude him from their communion and fellowship; so that he should no longer be regarded as one of their body. He pronounces no further judgment upon the offender, but leaves him to the judgment of God. “What have I to do to judge them that are without?” (ver. 12,) i. e. those who are not Christians, to which class the excommunicated person would belong. “Do not ye judge them that are within?” i. e. full members of the Church. But them that are without God judgeth; or rather will judge, κρινεῖ, as the reading should be. It appears from 2 Cor. ii. 1–11, that the Church had not restored such to the privileges of communion, but were willing to do so; and that the apostle very gladly authorized the measure.

It is important to remark that, in the primitive Church, penance related only to such as had been excluded from the communion of the Church. Its immediate object was, not the forgiveness of the offender by the Lord God, but his reconciliation with the Church. It could, therefore, relate only to open and scandalous offences. De occultis non judicat ecclesia—the Church takes no cognizance of secret sins—was an ancient maxim of the Church. The early Fathers say expressly, that the Church offers pardon only for offences committed against her. The forgiveness of all sin she refers to God himself. Omnia autem, says Cyprian, Ep. 55, remisimus Deo omnipotenti, in cujus potestate sunt omnia reservata. Such are the concurring sentiments of most of the early writers on this subject. It was reserved for a later age to confound these important distinctions, and to arrogate to the Church the prerogative of forgiving sins.

The readmission of penitents into the Church was the subject of frequent controversy with the early Fathers, and ancient religious sects. Some contended that those who had once been excluded from the Church for their crimes, ought never again to be received to her fellowship and communion. But the Church generally were disposed to exercise a more charitable and forgiving spirit.

PENANCE. In the law of England, penance is an ecclesiastical punishment or penalty, used in the discipline of the Church of England, by which an offender is obliged to give a public satisfaction to the Church for scandal done by his evil example. For small offences and scandals, a public satisfaction or penance is required to be made before the minister, churchwardens, and some of the parishioners, as the ecclesiastical judge shall think fit to decree. These penances may be moderated at the discretion of the judge, or commuted for money to be devoted to pious uses. In the case of incest or incontinency the offender is sometimes enjoined to do public penance in the cathedral, the parish church, or the market-place, bare-legged, bare-headed, and in a white sheet, and to make open confession of his crime in a form of words prescribed by the judge. This sort of punishment, however, being contrary to the spirit of the age, and the profligate being found to make parties to abet the offender, it has fallen into desuetude.

PENANCE, THE SACRAMENT OF. The Romanists define penance a sacrament, wherein a person, who has the requisite dispositions, receives absolution at the hands of the priest, of all sins committed since baptism. (See Auricular Confession, Satisfaction, Purgatory, Absolution.)

The Council of Trent (sess. 14, can. 1) has expressly decreed, that every one is accursed who shall affirm that penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ in the universal Church, for reconciling those Christians to the Divine majesty who have fallen into sin after baptism; and this sacrament, it is declared, consists of two parts—the matter and the form: the matter is the act of the penitent, including contrition, confession, and satisfaction; the form of it is the act of absolution on the part of the priest. Accordingly it is enjoined, that it is the duty of every man, who hath fallen after baptism, to confess his sins once a year, at least, to a priest; that this confession is to be secret; for public confession is neither commanded nor expedient; and that it must be exact and particular, including every kind and act of sin, with all the circumstances attending it. When the penitent has so done, the priest pronounces an absolution, which is not conditional or declarative only, but absolute and judicial. This secret or auricular confession was first decreed and established in the fourth Council of Lateran, under Innocent III., in 1215 (cap. 21). And the decree of this council was afterwards confirmed and enlarged in the Council of Florence, and in that of Trent, which ordains that confession was instituted by Christ; that, by the law of God, it is necessary to salvation, and that it has always been practised in the Christian Church. As for the penances imposed on the penitent by way of satisfaction, they have been commonly the repetition of certain forms of devotion, as Paternosters or Ave-Marias, the payment of stipulated sums, pilgrimages, fasts, or various species of corporeal discipline. But the most formidable penance, in the estimation of many who have belonged to the Roman communion, has been the temporary pains of purgatory. But, under all the penalties which are inflicted or threatened in the Romish Church, it has provided relief by its indulgences, and by its prayers or masses for the dead, performed professedly for relieving and rescuing the souls that are detained in purgatory.

The reader need scarcely be reminded how entirely opposed all this is to the doctrine of the Church of England. The Church of Rome affirms “penance” to be a “sacrament,” instituted by Christ himself, and secret “confession” to be one of its constituent parts, instituted by the Divine law; and she anathematizes those who contradict her:—the Church of England denies “penance” to be a sacrament of the gospel; affirms it to have “grown of the corrupt following of the apostles;” and “not to have” the proper “nature of a sacrament,” as “not having any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God;” and of course denies the sacramental character of “confession.” The Church of Rome pronounces, that, by the Divine law, “all persons” must confess their sins to the priest:—the Church of England limits her provisions for confession to “sick persons.” The Church of Rome pronounces that all persons are “bound” to confess:—the Church of England directs, that the sick “be moved” to make confession. The Church of Rome insists upon a confession of “all sins whatsoever:”—the Church of England recommends “a special confession of sins,” if the sick person “feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter.” The Church of Rome represents penance as instituted for reconciling penitents to God “as often as they fall into sin after baptism;” and imposes confession “once a year:”—the Church of England advises it on a peculiar occasion. And the purpose of the Church of England in so advising it evidently is the special relief of a troubled conscience: whereas the Church of Rome pronounces it to be “necessary to forgiveness of sin and to salvation;” and denounces with an anathema “any one who shall say, that confession is only useful for the instruction and consolation of the penitent.” And let it be observed, in the first place, that as the Church of England, in her Commination Service, speaks of the ancient ordinance of open penance as “a discipline” the restoration of which is “much to be wished,” she hereby recognises the ancient systems essentially different from that of Rome: namely, a public expression of sorrow and repentance, to satisfy the congregation, scandalized by the offence; not as a private purchase of indemnity to the individual: and, in the next place, when she uses the word penance, in the second exhortation in the same service, “Seeking to bring forth worthy fruits of penance,” she but quotes the words of John the Baptist, (St. Luke iii. 8,) and thus identifies penance with repentance, μετάνοια, that is, change of mind or heart. So that the outward penance is the mere outward symbol of the inward repentance.

PENITENTIAL. A collection of canons in the Romish Church, which appointed the time and manner of penance to be regularly imposed for every sin, and forms of prayer that were to be used for the receiving of those who entered into penance, and reconciling penitents by solemn absolution; a method chiefly introduced in the time of the degeneracy of the Church.

PENITENTIAL PSALMS. (See Psalms.)

PENITENTIARIES, in the ancient Christian Church, were certain presbyters, or priests, appointed in every church, to receive the private confessions of the people; not in prejudice to the public discipline, nor with a power of granting absolution before any penance was performed, but to facilitate the exercise of public discipline, by acquainting men what sins the laws of the Church required to be expiated by public penance, and by directing them in the performance of it; and only to appoint private penance for such private crimes as were not proper to be publicly censured, either for fear of doing harm to the penitent himself, or giving scandal to the Church.

The office of penitentiary priests was abrogated by Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, in the reign of Theodosius, upon a certain accident that happened in the church. A gentlewoman, coming to the penitentiary, made a confession of the sins she had committed since her baptism. The penitentiary enjoined her to fast and pray. Soon after she came again, and confessed that, during the course of her penance, one of the deacons of the Church had defiled her. This occasioned the deacon to be cast out of the Church, and gave great offence to the people. Whereupon the bishop, by the advice of a presbyter named Eudæmon, took away the penitentiary’s office, leaving every one to his own conscience; this being the only way to free the Church from reproach.—Bingham.

Nectarius’s example was followed by all the bishops of the East, who took away their penitentiaries. However, the office continued in use in the Western Churches, and chiefly at Rome. A dignitary in many of the foreign cathedrals is so called.

PENITENTS. (See Penance.) Penance in the primitive Church, as Coleman from Augusti remarks, was wholly a voluntary act on the part of those who were subject to it. The Church not only would not enforce it, but they refused even to urge or invite any to submit to this discipline. It was to be sought as a favour, not inflicted as a penalty. But the offending person had no authority or permission to prescribe his own duties as a penitent. When once he had resolved to seek the forgiveness and reconciliation of the Church, it was exclusively the prerogative of that body to prescribe the conditions on which this was to be effected. No one could even be received as a candidate for penance, without permission first obtained of the bishop, or presiding elder.

The duties required of penitents consisted essentially in the following particulars:

1. Penitents of the first three classes were required to kneel in worship, whilst the faithful were permitted to stand.

2. All were required to make known their penitential sorrow by an open and public confession of their sin. This confession was to be made, not before the bishop or the priesthood, but in the presence of the whole Church, with sighs, and tears, and lamentations. These expressions of grief they were to renew and continue so long as they remained in the first or lowest class of penitents, entreating at the same time, in their behalf, the prayers and intercessions of the faithful. Some idea of the nature of these demonstrations of penitence may be formed from a record of them contained in the works of Cyprian. Almost all the canons lay much stress upon the sighs and tears accompanying these effusions.

3. Throughout the whole term of penance, all expressions of joy were to be restrained, and all ornaments of dress to be laid aside. The penitents were required, literally, to wear sackcloth, and to cover their heads with ashes. Nor were these acts of humiliation restricted to Ash Wednesday merely, but then especially they were required.

4. The men were required to cut short their hair, and to shave their beards, in token of sorrow. The women were to appear with dishevelled hair, and wearing a peculiar kind of veil.

5. During the whole term of penance, bathing, feasting, and sensual gratifications, allowable at other times, were prohibited. In the spirit of these regulations, marriage was also forbidden.

6. Besides these restrictions and rules of a negative character, there were certain positive requirements with which the penitents were expected to comply.

They were obliged to be present, and to perform their part, at every religious assembly, whether public or private; a regulation which neither believers nor catechumens were required to observe.

They were expected to abound in deeds of charity and benevolence, particularly in almsgiving to the poor.

Especially were they to perform the duties of the parabolani, in giving attendance upon the sick, and in taking care of them. These offices of kindness they were expected particularly to bestow upon such as were affected with contagious diseases.

It was also their duty to assist at the burial of the dead. The regulations last mentioned are supposed to have been peculiar to the Church of Africa.

These duties and regulations collectively were sometimes included under the general term εξομολόγησις, confession. By this was understood not only words, but works; both, in connexion, being the appropriate means of manifesting sorrow for sin, and the purpose of amendment.

PENITENTS IN POPISH COUNTRIES. There are, in Popish countries, particularly in Italy, several fraternities (as they are called) of penitents, distinguished by the different shape and colour of their habits. These are secular societies, who have their rules, statutes, and churches; and make public processions under their particular cross or banner. Of these there are more than a hundred; the most considerable of which are as follows:—

I. White Penitents. These are of different sorts at Rome. The most ancient is that of Gonfalon, instituted in 1264, in the church of St. Mary Major: in imitation of which four others were established in the church of Ara-Cœli; the first under the title of the Nativity of our Lord; the second under the invocation of the Holy Virgin; the third under the protection of the Holy Innocents; and the fourth under the patronage of St. Helena. The brethren of this fraternity, every year, give portions to a certain number of young girls, in order to their being married. Their habit is a kind of white sackcloth, and on the shoulder is a circle, in the middle of which is a red and white cross.

II. Black Penitents. The most considerable of these are the Brethren of Mercy, or St. John Baptist. This fraternity was instituted in 1488, by some Florentines, in order to assist criminals at the time of their death, and during their imprisonment. On the day of execution, they walk in procession before them, singing the seven Penitential Psalms, and the Litanies; and, after they are dead, they take them down from the gibbet, and bury them. Their habit is black sackcloth. There are others whose business is to bury such persons as are found dead in the streets. They wear a death’s head on one side of their habit.

III. | Blue Penitents. | All these are remarkable only for the different colours of their habits.
IV. | Grey Penitents.
V. | Red Penitents.
VI. | Green Penitents.
VII. | Violet Penitents.

The Church of Rome wrongly renders our word repentance by penance, penance being an attendant on repentance: and she has erred in making penance a sacrament in the same sense as baptism and the Lord’s supper. This our Church condemns, but she speaks of the ancient discipline of the Church in a manner which greatly shocks ultra-Protestants. We allude to the following address in the Commination Service:—“Brethren, in the Primitive Church there was a godly discipline, and, at the beginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious sin were put to open penance, and punished in this world, that their souls might be saved in the day of the Lord; and that others, admonished by their example, might be the more afraid to offend. Instead whereof (until the said discipline may be restored again, which is much to be wished) it is thought good, that at this time (in the presence of you all) should be read the general sentences of God’s cursing against impenitent sinners, gathered out of the seven and twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, and other places of Scripture; and that ye should answer to every sentence, Amen: to the intent that, being admonished of the great indignation of God against sinners, ye may the rather be moved to earnest and true repentance, and may walk more warily in these dangerous days, fleeing from such vices, for which ye affirm with your own mouths the curse of God to be due. (See Penance.)

PENTATEUCH, from two Greek words, signifying five books. It is the general or collective designation of the five books of Moses. The Samaritan Pentateuch, discovered and brought to England in the 17th century, by the instrumentality of Archbishop Usher and others, is the Hebrew Pentateuch written in the ancient Hebrew letters. It is supposed by many learned men to be the actual text of the Scriptures used by the Samaritans, when at their petition, Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, appointed one of the Jewish priests to dwell at Bethel and teach them how they should fear the Lord. (2 Kings xvii. 28.) The copy of the Scriptures then said to be brought by this priest, contained the canon of Scripture, as it then existed; and the Samaritans never recognised any other. By several critics the text is supposed more correct than the Hebrew; and as an element of biblical criticism it is invaluable.

PENTECOST. (From Πεντηκοστὸς, the fiftieth.) A solemn festival of the Jews, so called because it was celebrated fifty days after the feast of the Passover. (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16.) It corresponds with the Christian Whitsuntide, which is sometimes called by the same name.

PENTECOSTALS. These were oblations made by the parishioners to their priest at the feast of Pentecost, which are sometimes called Whitsun-farthings; but they were not at first offered to their priests, but to the mother-church; and this may be the reason that the deans and prebendaries in some cathedrals are entitled to receive these oblations, and in some places the bishop and archdeacons, as at Gloucester.

PERAMBULATION. Perambulations, for ascertaining the boundaries of parishes, are to be made by the minister, churchwardens, and parishioners, by going round the same once a year, in or about Ascension week. The parishioners may justify going over any man’s land in their perambulations, according to usage; and it is said may abate all nuisances in their way. There is a homily appointed to be used before this ceremony, and Queen Elizabeth’s injunctions appointed the 103rd and 104th Psalms to be said in the course of the perambulation. (See Rogation Days.) The perambulations are still kept up in several parishes; but have lost their religious character. However, they have been observed religiously within the memory of some old persons in distant parts of England.

PERNOCTATIONS, watching all night,—long a custom with the more pious Christians, especially before the greater festivals.

PERPENDICULAR. The last style of pure Gothic architecture, which succeeded the Decorated about 1360. It is most readily distinguished by its window tracery (see Tracery); but the use of the four-centred arch (see Arch) is a more important character, though by no means invariably found in this style. Other characteristics will be found under Capital, Pillar, Vaulting, Moulding.

PERPETUAL CURATE. The incumbent of a church, chapel, or district, which is within the boundaries of a rectory or vicarage; so called from a curate assistant, whose office expires with the incumbency of the person who employs him.

PERPETUALS. Twenty ministers of the choir at Lyons, so called from being bound to perpetual service there:—like our vicars-choral.

PERSECUTION. The sufferings which are inflicted by the world upon the Church in all ages, the most striking of which were those which are designated in history the Ten Persecutions, and which raged from the time of Nero, A. D. 64, to the accession of Constantine, under the successive Roman emperors, Domitian, (A. D. 81–86,) Trajan, Adrian, Aurelius, Antoninus, Severus, Maximus, Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, and Maximian, under the last of whose rule the persecution raged against the Church in East and West for the space of ten years. Each of these periods swelled the list of the noble army of martyrs. Under Nero, the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul suffered. St. Clement, bishop of Rome; Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem; and Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, were put to death in the reign of Trajan. In the persecution of Aurelius, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Apollinaris, and Tatian presented their apologies, as did Tertullian in the next persecution under Severus (200). Nicephorus, an ecclesiastical historian, tells us that it were easier to count the sands upon the seashore than to number the martyrdoms in the persecution under Decius (249). The great St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, suffered under Valerian (14th of September, 258).

Though the above ten are the most memorable of the persecutions of the cross of Christ, the Church has ever been opposed by the world. Thus in our country, during the Rebellion, the king and primate underwent martyrdom, while thousands of faithful men suffered the loss of all things for the name of Christ. And, even in this day, though physical persecution is forbidden by the law, moral persecution is more or less endured by every self-denying Christian, who has to bear taunts and nicknames from ungodly men.

PERSEVERANCE, FINAL. According to the Calvinistic system, the elect receive the grace of perseverance, so that when grace has once been received, they cannot finally fall from it. This follows from their view of election. But, according to the Catholic view of grace and of election, men may fall, and fall finally, from the grace they have once received. The reader is requested to refer to the article on Election; this may be considered a continuation. Since the reformed Church of England (with the primitive and Catholic) regards election as an admission into the pale of the visible Church Catholic, not a necessary and infallible admission into eternal glory, she obviously could not teach the doctrine of the assured final perseverance of every individual among the elect; but, annexing a totally different sense to the word elect itself from that which is jointly advocated by Calvin and by Arminius, she consistently pronounces that the elect, as she understands the term, may finally fall away, and thence may everlastingly perish.

To this moral possibility of final apostasy the Anglican Church, as was felt by the Calvinistic party in the conference at Hampton Court, alludes, though she does not specifically there define the matter, in her sixteenth Article.

“After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given and fall into sin; and, by the grace of God, we may rise again, and amend our lives.”

Here it seems to be not obscurely intimated, that the elect, even after they have received the Holy Ghost, may so depart from grace given, and may so fall into sin, that they either may, or may not, be restored by the influential grace of God.

Such, accordingly, was doubtless perceived to be the case by the Calvinistic party; for otherwise it is impossible to account for their proposed alteration of the article, which would have made it speak the language of assured personal final perseverance.

They moved King James, that, to the original words of the article, “after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin,” might be subjoined the following explanatory addition, “yet neither totally nor finally.”

Had this addition been made, the seventeenth Article would doubtless have taught the doctrine of the final perseverance of all the elect. The wish to make it do so imported a consciousness that the reformed Anglican Church held no such doctrine.

Nor was this consciousness ill-founded. The homily on “Falling from God” as we might anticipate from its very title, distinctly asserts, in both its parts, the moral possibility, in the elect, of finally departing from grace given, and of thus perishing everlastingly.

The doctrine of the possibility of the elect finally falling away, says Faber in his work on “Election,” from grace to perdition; a doctrine which, in truth, is nothing more than the inevitable and necessary result of that ideality of election, which, from primitive antiquity, has been adopted by the Anglican Church, is very distinctly and very affectingly propounded also in her admirable and sublime burial service.

“Spare us, Lord most holy, O God most mighty, O holy and merciful Saviour, thou most worthy Judge eternal, suffer us not, at our last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from thee.”

The prayer before us is couched in the pluralizing form, and the persons who are directed concurrently with the officiating minister to use it, are those identical persons who, having been chosen in the course of Divine providence, and brought by baptism into the pale of the visible Church, have thence been declared to be the elect people of God.

Consequently those who, in the judgment of the Church of England, are the elect people of God, are nevertheless directed to pray, that the Lord would not suffer them, at their last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from him.

Hence, as the English Church understands the term elect, it is possible, from the very necessity of such a prayer, that those who are elect may not only for a season fall away from God and be afterward renewed by repentance, but may even fall away from him totally and finally.

PERSON. (See Trinity.) On the awful subject of the persons in the Trinity we shall merely quote the Athanasian Creed. “The Catholic faith is this. That we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is One Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.

“But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all One: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.”

The application of the term “Persons” to the sacred Three has been objected to; but it is defensible on the ground of the impossibility of finding a phrase equally expressive, and less objectionable. Archbishop Tillotson well says, “Because we find the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost spoken of in Scripture as we should speak of three Persons, therefore we call them Persons; and since the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture hath thought fit, in speaking of these three, to distinguish them from one another, as we use in common speech to distinguish three several persons, I cannot see any reason why, in the explication of this mystery, which purely depends upon Divine revelation, we should not speak of it in the same manner as the Scripture doth.” Precision in speaking of objects of faith seems, beyond this, impossible. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three, distinguished from each other in Scripture, is clear; as it is also that there is but one God. Why, then, refuse the word “Persons,” used with due reverence and humility, by which we only understand a peculiar distinction in each, making, in some way, a difference from the other two? Indeed the objection was despised as a bad one by even Socinus himself.

But in fact the word “Person” is used by St. Paul as applied both to the Father and the Son; to the former, Heb. i. 3; to the latter, 2 Cor. ii. 10, and also iv. 6, as it should have been rendered.

The word was used, and well applied, against the opinion entertained by the Sabellians, that there was but one real Person in the Godhead with different manifestations; and the notion of three hypostases with an individual unity in the Divine essence, was generally received in the Church as a proper mean for avoiding the opposite heresies of Sabellius and Arius.

The Latin Church understanding “substance” by the term hypostasis, as used by the Greek Church, and denying three substances, would not readily use that term, but adopted the word “Person,” (Persona,) to characterize the three distinct subsistencies in the one Divine essence. And hence has arisen a charge, (the word hypostasis being used for Person in the Greek copies of the Creed,) that the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are in opposition to each other; the former asserting that the Son “is of one substance with the Father,” while, according to the latter, there is one substance of the Father, another of the Son, &c. But as the word is rightly translated in our version “Person,” from the original Latin, the objection, which is still repeated, (the passage being quoted as if it were one “substance”—not one “Person—of the Father,” &c.,) is persevered in under a mistake, if it be not a wilful misrepresentation.—See Bull and Waterland.

PERSONA. A term applied in ancient cathedral and collegiate churches to those who held particular offices, not necessarily of dignity, or of jurisdiction, but involving personal responsibility, and strict residence. In England, at Salisbury and other cathedrals of the old foundation, the dignitaries, as the dean, precentor, chancellor, and treasurer, &c., were called Personæ Principales, or Privilegiatæ, as having each a peculiar office, connected with the service of the church. At St. Paul’s the four archdeacons were included in this title, though somewhat incorrectly.—Dugdale’s St. Paul’s, p. 235. In other places, as at York, and Beverley, the inferior priests were called Personæ. Abroad the Personnate were chiefly offices of the inferior collegiate clergy, generally implying some individual office, as subchanter, sacristan, &c. &c.—Jebb.

PETER-PENCE was an annual tribute of one penny, paid at Rome out of every family, at the feast of St. Peter. This, Ina, the Saxon king, when he went in pilgrimage to Rome, about the year 740, gave to the pope, partly as alms, and partly by way of recompense for a house erected in Rome for English pilgrims. It continued to be generally paid until the time of King Henry VIII., when it was enacted, that henceforth no person shall pay any pensions, Peter-pence, or other impositions, to the use of the bishop and see of Rome.

PETER’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the twenty-ninth of June.

St. Peter was born at Bethsaida, a town situated upon the banks of the sea of Galilee. He was originally called Simon, or Simeon, to which our Saviour, after his conversion, added the name of Cephas, which, in the vulgar language of the Jews, signified a stone, or rock: from thence it was derived into the Greek Πέτρος, (Petrus,) which is of the same import. Our Lord probably intended to denote thereby the constancy and firmness of his faith, and his activity in building up the Church.

St. Peter was a fisherman by trade, and brother of St. Andrew, who first brought him to our Saviour. He became a disciple and follower of Christ, upon seeing the miracle of the great draught of fishes, and was one of his most immediate companions. He is by the ancients styled the mouth of the apostles, because he was the first and forwardest, on all occasions, to profess his zeal and attachment to our Saviour; for which reason our Lord pronounced him blessed. But it does not appear that our Saviour gave any personal prerogative to St. Peter, as universal pastor and head of the Church. He is first placed among the apostles, because, as most think, he was first called. If he is styled “a rock,” all the apostles are equally styled “foundations;” and the power of the keys is promised to the rest of the apostles as well as to St. Peter.

This apostle became a great example of human frailty, in his behaviour upon the approach of our Saviour’s sufferings. It is well known, that, for fear of being involved in the punishment with which his Master was threatened, he disclaimed all knowledge of him, and denied him thrice. But he soon recovered from his fall, and endeavoured by penitential tears to wash away his guilt.

St. Peter’s first mission, after our Saviour’s ascension, was to those Christians whom Philip the deacon had converted in Samaria; where he conferred on them the gift of the Holy Ghost, and severely rebuked Simon Magus, for imagining the gift of God could be purchased with money. Some time after, he had a special vision from heaven, by which the Divine goodness removed those prejudices of his education, which the Jews had entertained against the Gentiles. In the dispute between the Jewish and Gentile converts, he declared God’s acceptance of the Gentiles, and that the yoke of the Jewish rites ought not to be laid upon them. Yet afterwards he dissembled his Christian liberty, and thereby confirmed the judaizing Christians in their errors; for which he stands justly rebuked by St. Paul. Being imprisoned by Herod, he was miraculously delivered by an angel, who knocked off his chains, and conducted him to a place of safety.

St. Peter, afterwards, preached at Antioch, and was the first bishop of that place. He likewise preached the gospel to the Jews dispersed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia. Towards the latter end of his life, he went to Rome, about the second year of the emperor Claudius, where he laboured in establishing Christianity, chiefly among the Jews, being the apostle of the circumcision. Here he set himself to expose the impostures of Simon Magus, which he did successfully, by working himself those wonders that Simon falsely boasted of. Particularly, he raised to life a kinsman of the emperor, which the magician had attempted in vain. And, when Simon Magus, to recover his reputation, pretended to fly up to heaven from the hill of the Capitol, by the prayers of St. Peter his artificial wings failed him, and falling he was so bruised, that in a short time he died.

St. Peter suffered martyrdom about the year of Christ 69, under the emperor Nero, whom he had provoked by his success against Simon Magus, and by his reducing many dissolute women to a sober and virtuous life; and it was probably in that persecution when the emperor burnt Rome, and charged the Christians with the guilt and punishment of it. He was crucified with his head downwards. It is said, his body was embalmed by Marcellinus the presbyter, and buried in the Vatican, near the Triumphal Way, where there was a church erected to his memory, now the famous cathedral of St. Peter’s at Rome.

PEWS. These are enclosed seats in churches. Pews, according to modern use and idea, were not known till long after the Reformation. Enclosed pews were not in general use before the middle of the seventeenth century: they were for a long time confined to the family of the patron.

There were, however, long before there were enclosed pews, appropriated seats: and as concerning seats many disputes arise, we will mention what the law is as to these particulars. As to seats in the body of the church, the freehold of the soil is in the incumbent, and the seats are fixed to the freehold; yet, because the church itself is dedicated to the service of God, and the seats are built that the people may more conveniently attend Divine service, therefore, where there is any contention about a seat in the body of the church, upon complaint made to the ordinary, he may decide the controversy by placing that person in it whom he thinks fit: and this power is conferred upon him by law, because he who has the general cure of souls within his diocese, is presumed to have a due regard to the qualities of the contending parties, and to give precedence to him who ought to have it. And though the seats are built and repaired at the charge of the parish; and the churchwardens should prescribe, that, by reason thereof, they have used to dispose them to such persons as they thought fit, yet since of common right the ordinary has the disposal thereof, and by the same right the parishioners ought to repair them, therefore such prescription shall not be allowed against his jurisdiction. But this jurisdiction extends only to placing or displacing the inhabitants of the parish; for the ordinary cannot grant a seat to a man and his heirs, because a seat in the church properly belongs to some house in the parish, and not to the person, but as owner of the house; and if such grant should be good to a man and his heirs, they would have the seat, though they lived in another parish, which is very unreasonable, and contrary to the original intention of building seats in churches, which was for the inhabitants of that parish, that they might more conveniently attend the service of the church; and certainly if the bishop cannot make such a grant, no private person can do it, for the reasons before mentioned.

But where there is no contention, and the ordinary does not interpose, because there is no complaint, there the parson and churchwardens have power to place the parishioners in seats; and in some places the churchwardens alone have that power by custom, as in London. If a seat is built in the body of the church, without the consent of the bishop, the churchwardens may pull it down, because it was set up by a private person without the licence of the ordinary; but it hath been held, that if in removing such seat they cut the timber, or break it, an action of trespass lies against them. This, like many other cases reported by Mr. Noy, is not law: for the freehold of the church being in the incumbent, when the person has fixed a seat to it, it is then become parcel of his freehold, and consequently the right is in him, so that the breaking the timber could not be prejudicial to the other, because he had no legal right to the materials after they were fixed to the freehold. And because seats in the body of the church are to be disposed by the parson and churchwardens, therefore it was formerly held that a man cannot prescribe for a seat there; and yet he might prescribe for the upper part of a seat there. But now the law is settled as to this matter, viz. that one may prescribe for a seat in the body of the church, setting forth that he is seised of an ancient house, &c., and that he and all those whose estate he hath therein, have, time out of mind, used and had a seat in the body of the church for themselves and their families, as belonging to the said house, and that they repaired the said seat; and the reason why he must allege that he repaired it is, because the freehold being in the parson, there must be some special cause shown for such a prescription; but as to this matter the court distinguished between an action on the case brought against a disturber and a suggestion for a prohibition: for in the first case you need not allege that you repair, because the action is brought against a wrong-doer; but upon a suggestion for a prohibition it must be alleged that you repair, because otherwise you shall not divest the ordinary of that right which properly belongs to him. Tenants in common cannot make a joint prescription to a seat in a church, but they may prescribe severally; and if they should bring an action jointly for a disturbance, and upon the evidence it should appear they are tenants in common, they must be nonsuited, because such evidence will not maintain the title upon which the action is founded, for though it is a possessory action, yet since that possession must be maintained by a title derived out of a prescription, they must prescribe severally. And in these prescriptions there is not much exactness required; for if an action on the case is brought for disturbing the plaintiff, &c., it is not sufficient for him to allege, that he is seised in fee of a messuage, &c., (without saying it is an ancient messuage,) and that he, and all those whose estate he hath in the said messuage, had (without saying time out of mind) a seat in the church, which they used to repair as often as there was occasion, &c., this is well enough, because the action is founded on a wrong done by one who disturbed him in his possession; in which action the plaintiff will recover damages, if the verdict is found for him. It is true he may libel in the spiritual court, and prescribe there for a seat, &c.; but if the prescription is denied, a prohibition will be granted; if it is not denied, then that court may proceed to sentence, which, if it happen to be against the prescription, in such case also a prohibition will lie, because the suit being upon a prescription, the proceedings in it were coram non judice in that court; but this seems unreasonable, for it can be only to discharge the person of the costs which he ought to pay. As to seats in aisles of churches, the law is, that if a man has a house in a parish, and a seat in the aisle of the church which he has repaired at his own charge, he shall not be dispossessed by a bishop: if he should, he may have a prohibition, because it shall be intended to be built by his ancestors, with the consent of parson, patron, and ordinary, and appropriated by them to his and their use; and if he is disturbed by any other person in sitting there, he may have an action on the case against him, but then he must prove that he repaired it: and so it was adjudged between Dawtree and Dee, for seats in a little chapel in the north part of the chancel of Petworth, in Sussex; for though no man can tell the true reason of prescriptions, yet some probable reason must be alleged to gain such a peculiar right, and none is more probable than repairing it. And this will entitle a man to a seat in an aisle, though he lives in another parish; and therefore, where the plaintiff set forth that he had an ancient messuage in the parish of H., and that he and all those whose estate he had in the said house, had a seat in the aisle in the parish church of B.; this is a good prescription for a seat in the aisle, because he or they might build or repair it, though it is not a good prescription to have a seat in nave ecclesiæ of another parish. As to the chancel, the ordinary hath no authority to place any one there, for that is the freehold of the rector; and so is the church; but he repairs the one, but not the other, and it is for this reason that an impropriator hath the chief seat in the chancel. But yet a man may prescribe to have a seat here, as belonging to ancient messuage.

So much for the laws of pews: the history of their gradual introduction into churches seems to be as follows:—

The first mention that we find made of a reading pew is in Bishop Parkhurst’s Articles of Visitation for his diocese of Norwich, (1596,) where it is ordered, “That in great churches, where all the people cannot conveniently hear the minister, the churchwardens and others, to whom the charge doth belong, shall provide and support a decent and convenient seat in the body of the church, where the said minister may sit or stand, and say the whole of the Divine service, that all the congregation may hear and be edified therewith; and that in smaller churches there be some convenient seat outside the chancel door, for that purpose.”

Before this time, the appointed place for the priest was in the choir, or, as appointed in the Second Book of King Edward, in such place of the church, chapel, or chancel, as the people may best hear, without any note of the provision of a pew, or any mention of “a little tabernacle of wainscot, provided for the purpose.” The first authority for the setting up of reading desks in all our churches, is the canon of 1603.

The earliest pew for the use of the congregation remaining, whose age is determined by the appearance of a date, is in the north aisle of Geddington St. Mary, Northamptonshire, and has the following inscription:

Churchwardens, William Thorn,

John Wilkie,

Minister, Thomas Jones, 1602.

Another pew occurs in the same church, dated 1604.

From this time till the episcopate of Wren, bishop of Hereford, pews seem to have become more universal, and only then to have found their deserved rebuke. Among other questions in his several articles of visitation we find the following: “Are all the seats and pews so ordered, that they which are in them may kneel down in time of prayer, and have their faces up to the holy table?” “Are there any privy closets or close pews in your church? Are any pews so loftily made, that they do any way hinder the prospect of the church or chancel, so that they which be in them are hidden from the face of the congregation?”

The last question points at another objection to pews, besides their destructive effect on the interior of a church. They seem to have originated with the Puritans, and to have been intended to conceal the persons sitting in them, that they might, without conviction, disobey the rubrics and canons, providing for a decent deportment during Divine service. The injunctions especially avoided under cover of pews, were the order to bow at the name of Jesus, and the rule to stand at the Gloria Patri.

It would, however, be equally absurd and unjust to apply such remarks to the present times; nor shall we offer any reasons against pews instead of open benches, except that they destroy the ecclesiastical character of a church, that they encourage pride, that they make a distinction where no distinction ought to exist, and that they must be erected at a loss of 20 per cent. of church accommodation.—See the Cambridge Camden Society’s History of Pews.

PHARISEES. From the Hebrew word Pharez, division, or separation. (In other words, sectarians, or separatists.) The most sanctimonious sect of the Jews, forming their religious world. They were denounced by our Lord for their hypocrisy, that is to say, the hypocrisy of the majority. St. Paul was originally a Pharisee: “after the most strictest sect (αἵρεσιν) of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.” Acts xxvi. 5.

PHILIP, ST., AND ST. JAMES’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the first day of May.

I. St. Philip was a native of Bethsaida, in Galilee, and probably a fisherman, the general trade of that place. He had the honour of being first called to be a disciple of our blessed Saviour. It was to Philip our Saviour proposed that question, what they should do to procure so much bread as would feed the vast multitude that followed him? It was to him the Gentile proselytes addressed themselves, when desirous to see Jesus. And it was with Philip our Lord had that discourse concerning himself before the last supper.

The Upper Asia fell to this apostle’s lot, where he took great pains in planting the gospel, and by his preaching and miracles made many converts. In the latter end of his life, he came to Hierapolis in Phrygia, a city very much addicted to idolatry, and particularly to the worship of a serpent or dragon of prodigious bigness. St. Philip, by his prayers, procured the death, or, at least, the disappearing, of this monster, and convinced its worshippers of the absurdity of paying Divine honours to such odious creatures. But the magistrates, enraged at Philip’s success, imprisoned him, and ordered him to be severely scourged, and then put to death; which, some say, was by crucifixion; others, by hanging him up against a pillar.

St. Philip is generally reckoned among the married apostles; and it is said, he had three daughters, two whereof persevered in their virginity, and died at Hierapolis; the third, having led a very spiritual life, died at Ephesus. He left behind him no writings. The Gospel, under his name, was forged by the Gnostics, to countenance their bad principles, and worse practices.

II. St. James the Less is styled, in Scripture, our Lord’s brother; and by Josephus, eminently skilful in matters of genealogy, expressly called the brother of Jesus Christ: by which the ancient Fathers understand, that he was Joseph’s son by a former wife. He was surnamed the Less, to distinguish him from the other St. James; and that either from the stature of his body, or the difference of his age. But he acquired a more honourable appellation from the piety and virtue of his life; which was that of St. James the Just, by which he is still known.

After our Saviour’s ascension, St. James was chosen bishop of Jerusalem. St. Paul, after his conversion, addressed himself to this apostle, by whom he was honoured with the right hand of fellowship. It was to St. James, St. Peter sent the news of his miraculous deliverance out of prison. This apostle was principally active at the Synod of Jerusalem, in the great controversy concerning the Jewish rites and ceremonies. He was of a meek and humble disposition. His temperance was admirable; for he wholly abstained from flesh, and drank neither wine nor strong drink, nor ever used the bath. Prayer was his constant business and delight, and by his daily devotions his knees were become as hard and brawny as camels.

St. Paul having escaped the malice of the Jews, by appealing to Cæsar, they resolved to revenge it upon St. James, who was accused before their council of transgressing the Law, and blaspheming against God. The scribes and Pharisees endeavoured, by flattering speeches, to engage him, at the confluence of the paschal solemnity, to undeceive the people concerning Jesus Christ; and, that he might be the better heard, they carried him with them to the top of the temple. There they addressed him in these words; “Tell us, O just man, what are we to believe concerning Jesus Christ, who was crucified?” He answered with a loud voice; “He sits in heaven on the right hand of the Majesty on high, and will come again in the clouds of heaven.” Enraged at this reply, they threw him down from the place where he stood; and being very much bruised, though not killed, he recovered strength enough to get upon his knees, and pray for his murderers, who loaded him with a shower of stones, till one with a fuller’s club beat out his brains.

PHOTINIANS, or SUTINIANS. Heretics, in the fourth century, so denominated from Photinus, bishop of Simich, a person of great accomplishments, and who, in the first years of his administration of that see, appeared very regular, but changed suddenly after he had taught the people the knowledge of the true God, that is, attempted to corrupt them, says Vincentius Lirinensis, by his detestable opinions and doctrine; for, not contented with renewing the errors of Sabellius, Paulus Samosatenus, Cerinthus, and Ebion, he added to their impieties, that Jesus Christ was not only mere man, but began to be the Christ when the Holy Ghost descended upon him in Jordan.

PHYLACTERY. (φυλακτήριον.) This word is derived from the Greek, and properly denotes a preservative, such as pagans carried about them to preserve them from evils, diseases, or dangers; for example, they were stones, or pieces of metal, engraved under certain aspects of the planets. The East is to this day filled with this superstition; and the men do not only wear phylacteries for themselves, but for their animals also.

PICARDS. The name of a Christian sect, who improved the mistakes of the Adamites to the extravagance of going naked. They sprung up in the beginning of the fifteenth century, and were denominated from one Picard, who set it on foot: he ordered all his proselytes to go naked, called himself the Son of God, and pretended he was sent into the world as a new Adam, by his Father, to refresh the notion, and restore the practice of the law of nature, which, he said, consisted principally in two things, the community of women, and going stark naked. And one of the principal tenets of this people was, that their party were the only free people in nature, all other men being slaves, especially those who wore any clothes upon the score of modesty.

PIE. This was the table used before the Reformation to find out the service belonging to each day. If the word be of Greek origin, it may be referred to πίναξ or πινακίδιον. But the Latin word is pica, which perhaps came from the ignorance of the friars, who have thrust in many barbarous words into the liturgies. Some say pie is derived from litera picata, a great black letter in the beginning of some new order in the prayer, and among printers that term is still used, the pica letter.

PIER. The solid masses of masonry between arched openings, as in bridges, and between windows and doors. This name is so often given to the pillars in Gothic architecture, that it would be pedantic entirely to disuse it in that sense; but it ought in strictness to be confined at least to those wall-like square pillars, which are found in Norman architecture; as, for instance, alternately with proper pillars in Durham cathedral, or in the nave of Norwich.

Pier, Norwich.

PIETISTS. A set of zealous but misguided men in Germany, the followers of Philip James Spener, who attempted the revival of what he called vital religion in Germany in the seventeenth century, and to that end assembled around him those like-minded with himself, and in societies which he formed, commonly called Colleges of Piety, laid the foundations of many disorders. His disciples, as is usual, far outran the more measured zeal of their master; and their false notions, amounting sometimes to principles of mutiny and sedition, gave rise to a long and bitter controversy in Germany.

PILGRIMAGE. A kind of superstitious discipline, which consists in making a journey to some holy place, in order to adore the relics of some deceased saint. Pilgrimages began to be made in the fourth century, but they were most in vogue after the end of the eleventh century, when every one was for visiting places of devotion, not excepting kings and princes; and even bishops made no difficulty of being absent from their churches on the same account.

PILLAR. The isolated support of an arch, including base, shaft, and capital, in Norman and Gothic architecture. There were great variations in the forms of pillars during the progress of ecclesiastical architecture. The Norman pillar is often a square, pier-like mass, relieved by attached semi-pillars, or by three-quarter shaft in retiring angles, as in the accompanying example from Norwich; or it is a cylindrical shaft, often fluted, or cut in zigzags or other diaper patterns. The Early English pillar frequently consists of a central bearing shaft, surrounded by smaller detached shafts; either set almost close to the central shaft, sometimes even within hollows, as at York, so as to lose the effect of their separateness, or at a very considerable distance from the central shaft, as at Chichester and Ely.

Pillar, Norwich.

York

Chichester.

Ely.

The Geometrical pillar but seldom retains the detached shaft. Its section is perhaps more usually a quatrefoil than any other single form; but there are countless varieties, the mouldings always of course following the style to which they belong. The accompanying example is from St. Asaph. The Decorated pillar is equally various in section; where it is moulded, the ogee usually forms part of it, but in small and plain examples it is very frequently a simple octagon. In the Perpendicular the pillar follows the general poverty of the style, but it is also distinguished by the base being stilted; by the outer mouldings being continuous, and the inner order only being carried by an attached shaft with a capital; and by its being narrower from east to west than from north to south. The exceptions, however, to all these rules are so numerous, that they could only be represented by many illustrations.

St. Asaph.

PINNACLE. A small spire-like termination to a buttress, or to any decorative shaft rising above the parapet. In buttresses, especially flying buttresses, the pinnacles are of great use in resisting the outward pressure by their weight. They do not occur in Norman architecture; they are, in fact, a correlative of the pointed arch.

The pinnacle at the temple at Jerusalem was probably the gallery, or parapet, or wall on the top of the buttresses, which surrounded the roof of the temple, properly so called. Josephus tells us that the roof of the temple was defended by pretty tall golden spikes, to hinder birds from alighting thereon. It was not on the roof of the temple that Jesus Christ was placed, but on the wall that surrounded the roof.—Calmet’s Dict. of the Bible, ed. Taylor.

PISCINA. Originally signified a fishpond; and in a secondary sense, any vessel for holding or receiving water. A water drain, usually accompanied with decorative features, near the altar, on the south side. The piscina is often the only remaining indication of the place where an altar has been. Some churches have double piscinas.

PISCIS, PISCICULI, and VESICA PISCIS. The fish is an hieroglyphic of Jesus Christ, very common in the remains of Christian art, both primitive and mediæval. The origin of it is as follows:—From the name and title of our blessed Lord, Ἰησοῦς Χριστὺς Θεοῦ Ὑιὸς Σωτὴρ, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour, the early Christians, taking the first letter of each word, formed the name ἸΧΘΥΣ, Piscis, a fish. From this name of our blessed Lord, Christians also came to be called Pisciculi, fishes, with reference to their regeneration in the waters of baptism, consecrated to that effect by our blessed Lord, the mystical ἸΧΘΥΣ. Thus Tertullian, speaking of Christians, says, “for we, after our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, our ἸΧΘΥΣ, are also fishes, and born in the water; nor are we otherwise saved but by remaining in the water.” The Vesica Piscis, which is the figure of an oval, generally pointed at either end, and which is much used as the form of the seals of religious houses, and to enclose figures of Jesus Christ, or of the saints, also has its rise from this name of our blessed Lord: though some say, that the mystical Vesica Piscis has no reference, except in its name, to a fish, but represents the almond, the symbol of virginity and self-production. Clement of Alexandria, in writing of the ornaments which a Christian may consistently wear, mentions the fish as a proper device for a ring, and says, that it may serve to remind the Christian of the origin of his spiritual life.

PIUS IV. (See Creed.)

PLANETA. (See Chasuble.)

PLENARTY, (from the word plenus, “full,”) signifying that a church is full, or provided with, an incumbent.

PLURALITY. This is where the same person obtains two or more livings with cure of souls. There are various canons of the Church against the practice; and the authorities of the Church are taking prompt measures to abolish it in the English Church. The statute 1 & 2 Vic. c. 106, and subsequently the 13 and 14 Vic. c. 98, made very important changes in the law of England regarding pluralities.

PLUVIALE. Another name for the cope: so called because it was originally a cloak, a defence from the rain. (See Cope.)

PLYMOUTH BRETHREN. Of this sect, who call themselves the Brethren, the following account is taken from the Register-general’s return.

“Those to whom this appellation is applied receive it only as descriptive of their individual state as Christians—not as a name by which they might be known collectively as a distinct religious sect. It is not from any common doctrinal peculiarity or definite ecclesiastical organization that they have the appearance of a separate community; but rather from the fact that, while all other Christians are identified with some particular section of the Church of God, the persons known as ‘Brethren’ utterly refuse to be identified with any. Their existence is, in fact, a protest against all sectarianism; and the primary ground of their secession from the different bodies to which most of them have once belonged, is, that the various tests by which, in all these bodies, the communion of true Christians with each other is prevented or impeded, are unsanctioned by the Word of God. They see no valid reason why the Church (consisting of all true believers) which is really one, should not be also visibly united, having as its only bond of fellowship and barrier of exclusion, the reception or rejection of those vital truths by which the Christian is distinguished from the unbeliever. Looking at existing churches, it appears to them that all are faulty in this matter; national Churches by adopting a too lax—dissenting Churches by adopting a too limited—criterion of membership. The former, it appears to Brethren, by considering as members all within a certain territory, mingle in one body the believers and the unbelievers; while the latter, by their various tests of doctrine or of discipline, exclude from their communion many who are clearly and undoubtedly true members of the universal Church. The Brethren, therefore, may be represented as consisting of all such as, practically holding all the truths essential to salvation, recognise each other as, on that account alone, true members of the only Church. A difference of opinion upon aught besides is not regarded as sufficient ground for separation; and the Brethren, therefore, have withdrawn themselves from all those bodies in which tests, express or virtual, on minor points, are made the means of separating Christians from each other.

“In the judgment of the Brethren, the disunion now existing in the general Church is the result of a neglect to recognise the Holy Spirit as its all-sufficient guide. Instead, they say, of a reliance on his promised presence and sovereignty as Christ’s vicar on earth, ever abiding to assert and maintain his lordship in the Church according to the written Word, men, by their creeds and articles, have questioned the sufficiency of Scripture as interpreted to all by him, and, by their ministerial and ritual appointments, have assumed to specify the channels through which only can his blessings be communicated. All these various human forms and systems are believed by Brethren to be destitute of scriptural authority, and practically restrictive of the Holy Spirit’s operations.

“Chiefly with regard to ministry are these opinions urged; the usual method of ordaining special persons to the office, being held to be unscriptural and prejudicial. They conceive that Christians in general confound ministry (i.e. the exercise of a spiritual gift) with local charges, as eldership, &c. Such charges, they infer from Scripture, required the sanction of apostles or their delegates, to validate the appointment (Acts xiv. 23; Titus i. 5); whereas the ‘gifts’ never needed any human authorization (Acts xviii. 24–28; Rom. xii.; 1 Cor. xii.—xvi.; Phil. i. 14; 1 Peter iv. 9, 10). Further, they urge that while Scripture warrants the Church to expect a perpetuity of ‘gifts,’—as evangelists, pastors, teachers, exhorters, rulers, &c.,—because they are requisite for the work of the ministry, (Eph. iv. 7–13,)—it nowhere guarantees a permanent ordaining power, without which the nomination or ordaining of elders is valueless. All believers are, it is affirmed, true spiritual priests capacitated for worship, (Heb. x. 19–25,) and all who possess the qualifications from the Lord are authorized to evangelize the world or instruct the Church; and such have not alone the liberty, but also an obligation to employ whatever gift may be intrusted to their keeping. Hence, in their assemblies, Brethren have no pre-appointed person to conduct or share in the proceedings; all is open to the guidance of the Holy Ghost at the time, so that he who believes himself to be so led of the Spirit, may address the meeting, &c. This arrangement is considered to be indicated as the proper order in 1 Cor. xiv.,—to flow from the principle laid down in 1 Cor. xii.,—and to be traceable historically in the Acts of the Apostles. By adopting it, the Brethren think that they avoid two evils, by which all existing sects are, more or less, distinguished; the first, the evil of not employing talents given to believers for the Church’s benefit; the second, the evil of appointing as the Church’s teachers men in whom the gifts essential for the work have not yet been discovered. The Brethren, therefore, recognise no separate orders of ‘clergy’ and ‘laity’—all are looked upon as equal in position, (Matt. xxiii. 8; 1 Cor. x. 17; xii. 12–20, &c.,) differing only as to ‘gifts’ of ruling, teaching, preaching, and the like (Rom. xii. 4–8; 1 Cor. xii. 18, 28, &c.). The ordinances, consequently, of baptism, when administered, and the Lord’s supper, which is celebrated weekly, need no special person to administer or preside (Acts ix. 10–18; x. 48; xx. 7; 1 Cor. xi.). Another feature of some importance is, that wherever gifted men are found among the Brethren, they, in general, are actively engaged in preaching and expounding, &c., on their own individual responsibility to the Lord, and quite distinct from the assembly. So that, though they may occasionally use the buildings where the Brethren meet, it is in no way as ministers of the Brethren, but of Christ.

“The number of places of worship which the Census officers in England and Wales returned as frequented by the Brethren was 132; but probably this number is below the truth, in consequence of the objection which they entertain to acknowledge any sectarian appellation. Several congregations may be included with the number (96) described as ‘Christians’ only.”

PŒNULA. (See Chasuble.)

POLITY, ECCLESIASTICAL. By this is meant the constitution and government of the Christian Church, considered as a society.

Scarce anything in religion (says a learned author) has been more mistaken than the nature and extent of that power, which our blessed Saviour established in his Church. Some have not only excluded the civil magistrates of Christian states from having any concernment in the exercise of this power, and exempted all persons invested with it from the civil courts of justice, but have raised their supreme governor of the Church to a supremacy, even in civil affairs, over the chief magistrate; insomuch that he has pretended, on some occasions, to absolve subjects from their allegiance to their lawful princes; and others have run so far into contrary mistakes, as either to derive all spiritual power wholly from the civil magistrate, or to allow the exercise thereof to all Christians without distinction. The first of these opinions manifestly tends to create divisions in the State, and to excite subjects to rebel against their civil governors: the latter do plainly strike at the foundation of all ecclesiastical power; and wherever they are put in practice, not only the external order and discipline, but even the sacraments of the Church must be destroyed, and its whole constitution be quite dissolved.

The nature of ecclesiastical polity will be best understood by looking back to the constitution of the ancient Christian Church.

The Church, as a society, consisted of several orders of men. Eusebius reckons three: viz. the Ἡγούμενοι, Πιστοὶ, and Κατηχούμενοι, i. e. rulers, believers, and catechumens. Origen reckons five orders: but then he divides the clergy into three orders, to make up the number. Both these accounts, when compared together, come to the same thing. Under the Ἡγούμενοι, or rulers, are comprehended the clergy, bishops, priests, and deacons; under the Πιστοὶ, or believers, the baptized laity; and under the Κατηχούμενοι, or catechumens, the candidates for baptism. The believers were perfect Christians; the catechumens imperfect. The former, having received baptism, were allowed to partake of the eucharist; to join in all the prayers of the Church; and to hear discourses upon the most profound mysteries of religion: more particularly the use of the Lord’s Prayer was the sole prerogative of the believers, whence it was called Εὐχὴ πιστῶν, the prayer of believers. From all these privileges the catechumens were excluded. (See Catechumens.)

The distinction between the laity and the clergy may be deduced from the very beginnings of the Christian Church; notwithstanding that Rigaltius, Salmasius, and Selden pretend there was originally no distinction, but that it is a novelty, and owing to the ambition of the clergy of the third century, in which Cyprian and Tertullian lived. (See Clergy.)

The clergy of the Christian Church consisted of several orders, both superior and inferior.

The superior orders of the clergy were, 1. The Bishops; 2. The Presbyters; 3. The Deacons.

It has been pretended that the bishops and presbyters were the same; and this opinion has given rise to the sect of the Presbyterians. But it is clearly proved against them, from ecclesiastical antiquity, that bishops and presbyters were distinct orders of the clergy. (See Bishops, Deacons, Presbyters, and Presbyterians.)

Among the bishops there was a subordination, they being distinguished into, 1. Primate Metropolitans; 2. Patriarchs or Archbishops; 3. Diocesan Bishops; 4. Chorepiscopi or Suffragan Bishops. (See the articles Archbishops, Chorepiscopi, Diocese, Patriarchs. and Primates.)

The presbyters were the second order of the superior clergy, and besides being the bishop’s assistants in his cathedral church, had the care of the smaller districts, or parishes, of which each diocese consisted. (See Parishes and Presbyters.)

The deacons were the third order of the superior clergy, and were a kind of assistants to the bishops and presbyters, in the administration of the eucharist, and other parts of Divine service. There were likewise deaconesses, or female deacons, who were employed in the service of the women. Out of the order of deacons was chosen the archdeacon, who presided over the deacons and all the inferior officers of the Church. (See the articles Archdeacons, Deacons, and Deaconesses.)

The inferior orders of the clergy were, 1. The Sub-deacons; 2. The Acolyths; 3. The Exorcists; 4. The Readers; 5. The Door-keepers; 6. The Singers; 7. The Copiatæ, or Fossarii; 8. The Parabolani; 9. The Catechists; 10. The Syndics; 11. The Stewards. (See each under their respective articles.)

All these orders of the clergy were appointed to their several offices in the Church by solemn forms of consecration or ordination, and had their respective privileges, immunities, and revenues. And, by means of this gradation and subordination in the hierarchy, the worship and discipline of the primitive Church were exactly kept up, according to St. Paul’s direction, “Let everything be done decently, and in order.”

How far the constitution of our own Church agrees with, or has departed from, this plan of the ancient hierarchy, may be seen at one glance of the eye. We have the general distinction of bishops, presbyters or priests, and deacons. Among the first we retain only the distinction of archbishops (with the title likewise of primates) and bishops, having no patriarchs or chorepiscopi. And as to the inferior orders of the clergy, as acolyths, &c., they are all unknown to the Church of England. The Romish Church has retained most of them, but it were to be wished she came as near to the faith and worship, as she does to the external constitution, of the hierarchy of the ancient Church.

But, as no society can subsist without laws, and penalties annexed to the breach of them, so the unity and worship of the Christian Church were secured by laws both ecclesiastical and civil. The ecclesiastical laws were, either rules and orders made by each bishop for the better regulation of his particular diocese; or laws made, in provincial synods, for the government of all the diocese of a province; or, lastly, laws respecting the whole Christian Church, made in general councils, or assemblies of bishops from all parts of the Christian world. (See Synods.)

The civil laws of the Church were those decrees and edicts, made from time to time by the emperors, either restraining the power of the Church, or granting it new privileges, or confirming the old.

The breach of these laws was severally punished both by the Church and State. The ecclesiastical censures, respecting offenders among the clergy, were, chiefly, suspension from the office, and deprivation of the rights and privileges of the order. Those respecting the laity consisted chiefly in excommunication, or rejection from the communion of the Church, and penance both public and private.

POLYGLOTT BIBLES, are such Bibles, or editions of the Holy Scriptures, as are printed in various languages, at least three, the texts of which are ranged in opposite columns. Some of these Polyglott editions contain the whole Bible, others but a part of it. The principal Polyglotts that have yet appeared are these following:—

1. The Bible of Francis Ximenes, cardinal of the order of St. Francis. It was printed in 1514–17, in four languages—Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and Latin. From having been printed at Alcala, in Spain, anciently Complutum, this is called the Complutensian Polyglott. It cost Cardinal Ximenes 50,000 ducats.

2. The Psalter of Justiniani, bishop of Nebbio, of the order of St. Dominic. It appeared in 1516, in five languages; Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Latin, and Arabic.

3. The Psalter, by John Potken, provost of the collegiate church of St. George, at Cologne, published in 1518, in four languages—Hebrew, Greek, Chaldee, and Latin.

4. The Pentateuch, published by the Jews, at Constantinople, in 1546, in Hebrew, Chaldee, Persian, and Arabic; with the commentaries of Solomon Jarchi.

5. The Pentateuch, by the same Jews, in the same city, in 1547, in four languages—Hebrew, Chaldee, the vulgar Greek, and Spanish.

6. An imperfect Polyglott, containing only fragments of the book of Genesis and of the Psalms; the Proverbs, the prophets Micah and Joel, with part of Isaiah, Zechariah, and Malachi; published by John Draconitis, of Carlostad, in Franconia, in 1563–5, in five languages—Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Latin, and German.

7. Christopher Plantin’s Polyglott Bible, published by order of Philip II., king of Spain, Antwerp, in 1569, 1572. It is in eight volumes, and in Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and Latin: with the Syriac version of the New Testament. This is called the Antwerp Polyglott.

8. Vatablus’s Polyglott Bible, being the Old Testament in Hebrew and Greek, with two Latin versions, one of St. Jerome, the other of Sanctus Pagninus; and Vatablus’s notes. The editorship is attributed to R. Stephens, by Bishop Walton. Dibdin ascribes it to Bertramus, Hebrew professor at Geneva. It appeared at Heidelberg, in 1586.

9. A Bible in four languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German, published by David Wolder, a Lutheran minister, at Hamburg, in 1596.

10. The Polyglotts of Elias Hutter, a German. The first, printed at Nuremberg, in 1599, contains the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, in six languages; viz. the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Latin, Luther’s German, and Sclavonian; or French, Italian, or Saxon; the copies varying according to the nations they were designed for.

This author published the Psalter and New Testament, in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German. But his chief work is the New Testament in twelve languages, viz. Syriac, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, French, Latin, German, Bohemian, English, Danish, and Polish. This was printed at Nuremberg, in 1599.

11. M. le Jay’s Bible, in seven languages, printed at Paris, in 1645. The languages are, the Hebrew, Samaritan, Chaldee, Greek, Syriac, Latin, and Arabic.

12. Walton’s Polyglott, published in England, in 1657. In nine languages, viz. the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Samaritan, Syrian, Arabic, Æthiopic, Persic, and Latin; though no one book is printed in so many. This was the most complete and perfect Polyglott ever published. It consists of five volumes, with prolegomena, by Walton, which are in themselves a treasure of biblical criticism, some treatises in the first volume, several new Oriental versions in the fourth and fifth, and a very large collection of various readings in the sixth.

13. Reineccius’, or the Leipsic Polyglott, printed at Leipsic, 1753, in 3 vols., in Latin, German, Hebrew, and Greek: a cheap and commodious edition.

14. Bagster’s Polyglott, London, 1821, 4to and 8vo, in five languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English. Syriac.

POLYGLOTT PRAYER BOOK. The English Prayer Book was published in 1819, in eight languages, English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, ancient and modern Greek, and Latin.

PONTIFICAL. A book containing the offices used by a bishop, at consecration of churches, &c. Thus the Roman Pontifical is the book of offices for a bishop, according to the rites of the Roman Church. In England the Pontifical is not by authority published separately from the liturgy, so that it is never called by that name; though the offices of confirmation and ordination, in fact, compose the English Pontifical. For the consecration of churches and churchyards we have no office appointed by sufficient authority. (See Consecration of Churches.)

PONTIFICALIA. Properly the ensigns of a pontiff’s or bishop’s office; but the term is loosely used for any ecclesiastical dress. It is so used in the account of Bishop Andrewes’ consecration of St. Mary’s, Southampton, in Sparrow’s collection: “Episcopus capellam statim ingressus niduit se pontificalibus.”

POOR MAN’S BOX; or Poor Men’s Box. Till the last review, it was directed that the collection at the offertory should be put into the Poor Man’s Box: a term which (in imitation of the Scotch liturgy) was altered in the last review to a decent basin. It is clear, however, from many documents, that basins of gold and silver, and other metinal were used in the Church of England ever since the Reformation. In Ireland the Poor Man’s Box, or poor-box, as it is generally called, is still in general use. An oval box, half covered, of copper or wood, with a long handle. The Poor Man’s Box does not seem to be the same as the Alms’ Chest, prescribed by the 84th canon. So Wheatly observes: “not, I presume, into that fixed in the church, but into a little box which the churchwardens, or some other proper persons, carried about with them in their hands, as is still the custom at the Temple Church in London.”—Jebb.

POPE, THE. The sovereign pontiff, or supreme head, of the Romish Church. The appellation of Pope (Papa) was, anciently, given to all Christian bishops: but, about the latter end of the eleventh century, in the pontificate of Gregory VII., it was usurped by the bishop of Rome, whose peculiar title it has ever since continued.

The spiritual monarchy of Rome sprang up soon after the declension of the Roman empire; and one great, though remote, instrument, in promoting the increase of this monarchy, so pernicious to the supreme civil power, was, the barbarity and ignorance which from that time spread itself over the Western parts.

Rome was chosen for the place of residence of the ecclesiastical monarchy, because this city had the particular prerogative of being the capital city of the Roman empire, where the Christian religion had its first rise and increase. For what is related concerning St. Peter’s chair is nothing but a vain pretence, which may easily be seen from hence, that, afterwards, the bishop of Constantinople had the next place assigned him after the bishop of Rome, only because that city was then the place of the emperor’s residence, and called New Rome. And when afterwards the Western empire was come to decay, and the city of Rome had lost its former lustre, the bishop of Constantinople disputed the precedency with the Roman bishop. It is true the emperor Phocas granted the right of precedency to Boniface III., then bishop of Rome, who thereupon took upon him the title of Œcumenical bishop: but this did not imply any power or jurisdiction over the rest; for the other patriarchs never acknowledged any. So that here are no footsteps of Divine institution to be found, the papal power being purely human, and an usurpation upon the rights of other sees.

The bishops of Rome did not extend their power over the Western parts all at once; but it was introduced from time to time, by degrees, by various artifices, and under various pretences. What chiefly contributed to its growth was, first, the emperors choosing other places of residence besides Rome; for, by their constant presence there, they might easily have kept under the ambitious designs of the bishops. In the next place, the Western empire was divided into several new kingdoms, erected by the several barbarous and pagan nations, and these, having been converted to the Christian faith by the direction of the Romish Church, thought themselves obliged to pay her the profoundest respect.

In the fifth century, the bishops on this side of the Alps began to go to Rome, to visit the sepulchres of St. Peter and St. Paul. This voluntary devotion insensibly grew into a necessity. From hence it was easy for the popes afterwards to pretend, that the bishops ought to receive their confirmation from Rome. Besides, some other bishops and churches, that were novices in comparison of the ancient Roman Church, used to refer themselves to, and ask the advice of, the Church of Rome, concerning matters of great consequence, and the true interpretation of the canons. Hence the bishops of Rome, perceiving their answers were received as decisions, began to send their decrees before they were demanded. And hence they set themselves up as judges of the differences arising between the bishops, and, encroaching on the right and jurisdiction of the metropolitans, proceeded to suspend and depose whom they thought fit. At the same time, by making void the decisions of the provincial synods, they so diminished their authority, that by degrees they were quite abolished. Add to this, that Gregory VII. forced the bishops to take an oath of fealty to the popes, and by a decree enacted that none should dare to condemn any one, who had appealed to the pope. Nor did they forget to send legates or nuncios to all places, whose business was to exercise, in the pope’s name, the same authority, which had formerly belonged to the bishops and provincial synods. (See Legate.)

It is certain that many Romish bishops, especially among those on this side the Alps, were to a late period opposed to the pope’s authority; which evidently appeared at the Council of Trent, where the French and Spanish bishops insisted very strongly to have it decided, that bishops are obliged to residence by the law of God; the consequence of which was, the deriving their authority from God alone. The pope met with great difficulty before he could surmount this obstacle; and therefore it is very likely this will be the last council, since the pope will scarce put his grandeur to the hazard and decision of such another assembly. Not to mention that they are now of no farther use, since the Jesuits and others have taught, that the pope is infallible, and superior to councils. However that may be, the bishops are obliged for their own sakes not to withdraw themselves from the pope’s jurisdiction, since thereby they would fall under the civil power, and would be obliged to seek protection from their sovereigns, who must be potent princes, if they could protect them against the pope; so that they think it wiser, of two evils to choose the least.

The spiritual monarchy of Rome could not have been established, had its bishops continued dependent on any temporal prince; and therefore the popes took their opportunity to exempt themselves from the jurisdiction of the Greek emperors, whose authority was mightily decayed in Italy. This was greatly forwarded by the dispute concerning the use of images. For the emperor Leo Isaurus having quite ejected them out of the churches, Pope Gregory II., who stood up for the images, took occasion to oppose him, and stirred up the Romans and Italians to refuse to pay him tribute; by which means the power of the Greek emperors was lost in Italy, and these countries began to be free and independent of any foreign jurisdiction.

The pope, having freed himself from the authority of the emperors of Constantinople, and being in danger from the Lombards, who endeavoured to make themselves masters of Italy, had recourse for protection to the kings of France. Pepin, and afterwards Charles the Great, having entirely subdued the Lombards, these princes gave to the papal chair all that tract of land, which had been formerly subject to the Greek emperors. To obtain this gift, it is said, the pope made use of a fictitious donation of Constantine the Great, which, in those barbarous times, was easily imposed upon the ignorant world. By virtue of this grant, the popes pretended to a sovereign jurisdiction over these countries; which the people at first refused to submit to, thinking it very strange, that the pope, who was an ecclesiastical person, should at the same time pretend to be a temporal prince. When, therefore, the Romans mutinied against Leo III., he was forced to seek for assistance from Charles the Great, who restored the pope. On the other hand, the pope and people of Rome proclaimed Charles emperor; whereby he was put in possession of the sovereignty of that part of Italy, which formerly belonged to the governors of Ravenna, and the other remnants of the Western empire; so that the popes afterwards enjoyed these countries under the sovereign jurisdiction of the emperor, who therefore used to be called the patron and defender of the Church, till the reign of the emperor, Henry VI.

The popes at length began to grow weary of the imperial protection, because the emperor’s consent was required in the election of a pope, and, if they were mutinous, the emperors used to check them, and sometimes turn them out of the chair. The popes, therefore, for a long time, employed various artifices to exempt themselves from the power of the emperors. To this end, they frequently raised intestine commotions against them. But the reign of Henry IV. furnished them with an opportunity of putting their designs in execution. For Pope Gregory VII., surnamed Hildebrand, had the boldness to excommunicate this emperor, on pretence that he made a traffic of church benefices, by selling them to all sorts of persons, whom he installed before they had taken orders. And, not satisfied with this, he cited the emperor before him, to answer to the complaints of his subjects, and declared him to have forfeited all right and title to the empire. This obliged the emperor to renounce the right of constituting bishops. And though his son, Henry V., endeavoured to recover what was forcibly taken away from his father, and made Pope Paschal a prisoner, yet were the whole clergy in Europe so dissatisfied, that he was obliged at last to resign the same right again into the pope’s hands. This affair gave rise to the factions of the Guelfs and Ghibelines, the first of which were for the pope, the latter for the emperor. The succeeding emperors found so much work in Germany, that they were not in a condition to look after Italy; whereby the pope had sufficient leisure to make himself sovereign, not only over his own possessions, but over all possessions pertaining to the Church.

But the pope, not satisfied with this degree of grandeur, quickly set on foot a pretension of far greater consequence. For now he pretended to an authority over princes themselves, to command a truce between such as were at war together, to take cognizance of their differences, to put their kingdoms under an interdict, and, if they refused submission to the see of Rome, to absolve their subjects from their allegiance, and to deprive them of their crowns. This has been attempted against many crowned heads, and put in execution against some of them. And for this abominable pretension they pleaded their fictitious decretals, (see Decretals,) which grant to the popes an unlimited power over all Christians whatever. Pope Boniface VIII. gave the world clearly to understand his meaning, at the jubilee kept in the year 1300, when he appeared sometimes in the habit of an emperor, and sometimes in that of a pope, and had two swords carried before him, as the ensigns of the ecclesiastical and civil power.

But the popes could not long enjoy this intolerable usurpation in quiet; for it was often called in question, till they were obliged to desist in part from their pretensions. In particular, Philip the Handsome, king of France, gave several great blows to the papal authority. But the ensuing schisms, and the double elections, when the opposite factions chose two different popes at the same time, contributed most towards weakening the power of the holy see. Hence an occasion was taken to bridle the pope’s authority by general councils, which often proceeded so far as to depose the holy fathers. Therefore it is not to be wondered that, since the Council of Trent, the popes have been very averse to the calling of general councils, and seem to have bid adieu to them for ever. To this may be added, that the translation of the papal chair, by Clement V., from Rome to Avignon, where the popes constantly resided for seventy years together, carried along with it several inconveniences, which proved greatly prejudicial to the ecclesiastical monarchy. Among others, the pope’s authority being founded upon this belief, that St. Peter had been at Rome, and by his presence had communicated a particular prerogative and holiness to that chair, it was very much questioned whether the same could be transferred to Avignon.

But, when the ecclesiastical monarchy seemed to be come to the pinnacle of its grandeur, when all the Western parts were either in communion with, or in obedience to, the Church of Rome, by the influence of the Reformation, the pope became only the spiritual head of a sect, and eventually, as a civil power, of very slight importance.

The manner of the election of a pope is as follows: nine or ten days after the funeral of a deceased pope, the cardinals enter the conclave, which is generally held in the Vatican, in a long gallery, where cells of board are erected, covered with purple cloth, one for each cardinal. (See Conclave.)

The election is made by scrutiny, access, or adoration. The first is, when each cardinal writes the name of him whom he votes for, in a scroll of five pages. On the first is written by one of his servants, that the cardinal may not be discovered by his hand, “Ego eligo in summum pontificem reverendum dominum meum cardinalem.” On this fold two others are doubled down, and sealed with a private seal. On the fourth the cardinal writes his own name, and covers it with the fifth folding. Then, sitting in order on benches in the chapel, with their scrolls in their hands, they go up to the altar by turns, and, after a short prayer on their knees, throw the scroll into a chalice upon the table, the first cardinal bishop sitting on the right hand, and the first cardinal deacon on the left. The cardinals being returned to their places, the cardinal bishop turns out the scrolls into a plate, which he holds in his left hand, and gives them one by one to the cardinal deacon, who reads them with an audible voice, while the cardinals note down how many voices each person has; and then the master of the ceremonies burns the scrolls in a chafing-dish, that it may not be known for whom any one gives his voice. If two-thirds of the number present agree, the election is made, and he, on whom the two-thirds fall, is declared pope.

When the choice is made by access, the cardinals rise from their places, and, approaching him whom they would have elected, say, Ego accedo ad reverendissimum Dominum. The choice by adoration is much after the same manner, only the cardinal approaches him whom he would have chosen with the profoundest reverence. But both the one and the other must be confirmed by the scrutiny.

There has been another way of choosing a pope, namely, by compromise: that is, when the differences have risen so high that they could not be adjusted in the conclave, they have referred the choice to three or five, giving them leave to elect any one, provided it were determined within the time that a candle lighted by common consent should last. Sometimes they have had recourse to what is called inspiration; that is, the first cardinal rises up in chapel, and, after an exhortation to make choice of a capable person, immediately, as if inspired, names one himself: to which, if two-thirds of the cardinals present agree, he is reckoned legally chosen.

When one of the cardinals is chosen pope, the master of the ceremonies comes to his cell, to acquaint him with the news of his promotion. Whereupon he is conducted to the chapel, and clad in the pontifical habit, and there receives the adoration, or the respects paid by the cardinals to the popes. Then, all the gates of the conclave being opened, the new pope shows himself to the people, and blesses them, the first cardinal deacon proclaiming aloud these words: Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum; Papam habemus. Reverendissimus Dominus Cardinalis—electus est in summum Pontificem, et eligit sibi nomen. After this, he is carried to St. Peter’s church, and placed upon the altar of the holy apostles, where the cardinals come a second time to the adoration. Some days after is performed the ceremony of his coronation, before the door of St. Peter’s church, where is erected a throne, upon which the new pope ascends, has his mitre taken off, and a crown put upon his head, in the presence of the people. Afterwards is a grand cavalcade from St. Peter’s church to St. John Lateran, where the archbishop of that church presents the new pope with two keys, one of gold the other of silver.

It is probable that, in the first ages of the Church, the Roman clergy elected the pope; and some think the people had a share in the election. Afterwards, Odoacer, king of the Eruli, and Theodoric, king of the Goths in Italy, would suffer no election of a pope to be made without their consent. But this was abolished in 502, under Pope Symmachus. The succeeding princes, however, reserved to themselves a right to confirm the newly elected pope, who, without this confirmation, could not take possession of the pontificate. The tenth century saw several popes elected and deposed at the fancy of the Roman nobility and Italian princes. But, since the election of Celestin II., in 1443, the cardinals have retained the power of election, independent of the Roman people, or of any sovereign prince whatever.

It is a general maxim, in the choice of a pope, to elect an Italian; which is done, not only because they choose rather to bestow this dignity on a native of Italy than on a foreigner, but also because the security and preservation of the papal chair depends, in a great measure, on the balance which is to be kept between France and Spain: but this is not to be expected from a French or Spanish pope, who would quickly turn the scale, and, by granting too great privileges to his countrymen, endeavour to exclude others from the papal chair. It is also a sort of maxim, to choose a pope who is pretty far advanced in years, that there may be the quicker succession, and that it may not be in the power of a pope, during a long reign, to alter their customs, or, by making his family too powerful, to entail, as it were, the papal chair upon his house. They also take care that he be not too near akin to the deceased pope, that the vacant church benefices may not be engrossed by one family. It often happens, that one is chosen pope, of whom nobody thought before; and this comes to pass, when the cardinals are tired out by so many intrigues, and are glad to get out of the conclave. It is also observed, that a pope often proves quite another man, when he comes to sit in the chair, than that he was before, when only a cardinal.

Ever since the time of Pope Sixtus IV., that is, since the year 1471, the popes have made it their business to enrich their families out of the Church revenues, of which there are very remarkable instances. For it is related that Sixtus V., during a reign of five years, bestowed upon his family above three millions of ducats. The house of the Barbarini, at the death of Urban VIII., was possessed of 227 offices and Church benefices, whereby they amassed thirty millions of scudi.

Sergius III., (A. D. 904,) or Sergius IV., (A. D. 1009,) who was before called Os Porci, i. e. Swine-Face, is said to have been the first pope who changed his name upon his exaltation to the pontificate. This example has been followed by all the popes since his time, and they assume the names of Innocent, Benedict, Clement, &c.

When a pope is elected, they put on him a cassock of white wool, shoes of red cloth, on which is embroidered a gold cross, a mantle of red velvet, the rochet, the white linen albe, and a stole set with pearls. At home, his habit is, a white silk cassock, rochet, and scarlet mantle. In winter his Holiness wears a fur cap; in summer, a satin one. When he celebrates mass, the colour of his habit varies according to the solemnity of the festival. At Whitsuntide, and all festivals of the martyrs, he officiates in red; at Easter, and all festivals of virgins, in white; in Lent, Advent, and eves of fasting days, in violet; and on Easter-eve, and at all masses for the dead, in black. All these colours are typical: the red expresses the cloven tongue, and the blood of the martyrs; the white, the joy caused by our Saviour’s resurrection, and the chastity of virgins; the violet, the pale aspect of those who fast; and the black, grief and mourning.

The pope’s tiara, or crown, is a kind of conic cap, with three coronets, rising one above the other, and adorned with jewels. Paul II. was the first who added the ornaments of precious stones to his crown. The jewels of Clement VIII.’s crown were valued, they say, at 500,000 pieces of gold. That of Martin V. had five pounds and a half weight of pearls in it. “Nor is there anything unreasonable in this, (says Father Bonani,) since the pope governs the kingdom of Christ in quality of his viceroy; now this kingdom is infinitely superior to all the empires of the universe. The high priest of the Jews wore on his head and breast the riches which were to represent the majesty of the Supreme God. The pope represents that of the Saviour of the world, and nothing better expresses it than riches.” We must not omit, that the two strings of the pontifical tiara represent the two different manners of interpreting the Scriptures, the mystical and the literal.

The pope has two seals. One is called “the fisherman’s ring,” and is the impression of St. Peter holding a line with a bait to it in the water. It is used for those briefs that are sealed with red wax. The other seal is used for the bulls which are sealed with lead, and bears the figures of St. Peter and St. Paul, with a cross on one side, and a bust, with the name of the reigning pope, on the other. Upon the decease of a pope, these seals are defaced and broken by the cardinal Camerlengo, in the presence of three cardinals.

When the pope goes in procession to St. Peter’s, the cross is carried before him on the end of a pike about ten palms long. “Many reasons,” says F. Bonani, “authorize this custom. It is a monument of the sufferings of Jesus Christ, and of the pope’s adherence to the Saviour of the world. It is the true mark of the pontifical dignity, and represents the authority of the Church, as the Roman fasces did that of the consuls.” At the same time two grooms bear two fans on each side of his Holiness’s chair, to drive away the flies. This (according to the above-cited author) represents the seraphim covering the face of God with their wings.

The custom of kissing the pope’s feet is very ancient; to justify which practice, it is alleged, that the pope’s slipper has the figure of the cross upon the upper leather; so that it is not the pope’s foot, but the cross of Christ, which is thus saluted.

There are but few instances of the papal power in England before the Norman Conquest. But the pope, having favoured and supported William I. in his invasion of this kingdom, made that a handle for enlarging his encroachments, and, in that king’s reign, began to send legates hither. Afterwards he prevailed with King Henry I. to part with the right of nominating to bishoprics; and, in the reign of King Stephen, he gained the prerogative of appeals. In the reign of Henry II. he exempted all clerks from the secular power. This king, at first, strenuously opposed his innovation; but, after the death of Becket, who, for having violently opposed the king, was slain by some of the royal adherents, the pope got such an advantage over the king, that he was never able to execute the laws he had made. Not long after this, by a general excommunication of the king and his people, for several years, King John was reduced to such straits, that he surrendered his kingdoms to the pope, to receive them again, and hold them of him under a rent of a thousand marks. In the following reign of Henry III., partly from the profits of our best Church benefices, and partly from the taxes imposed by the pope, there went yearly out of the kingdom to Rome £70,000 sterling. But in the reign of Edward I., it was declared by the parliament, that the pope’s taking upon him to dispose of English benefices to foreigners, was an encroachment not to be endured; and this was followed by the statute of Provisors against popish bulls, and against disturbing any patron, in presenting to a benefice; which was afterwards enacted in Ireland also.

But the pope’s power received a mortal blow in England, by the reformation in religion, begun in the reign of Henry VIII.; since which time, to maintain the pope’s authority here, by writing, preaching, &c., was, till lately, made a premunire upon the first conviction, and high treason upon the second.

POPERY. (See Church of Rome, Council of Trent, Romanism.) By Popery we mean the peculiar system of doctrine, by adopting which the Church of Rome separates herself from the rest of the Catholic Church, and is involved in the guilt of schism. The Church of Rome, or Popery, has departed from the apostles’ doctrine, by requiring all who communicate with her to believe, as necessary to salvation,

1st, That that man is accursed who does not kiss, and honour, and worship the holy images.

2nd, That the Virgin Mary and other saints are to be prayed to.

3rd, That, after consecration in the Lord’s supper, the bread is no longer bread, and the wine no longer wine.

4th, That the clergyman should be excommunicated who, in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, gives the cup to the people.

5th, That they are accursed who say that the clergy may marry.

6th, That there is a purgatory; that is, a place where souls which had died in repentance are purified by suffering.

7th, That the Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all churches.

8th, That obedience is due from all Churches to the bishop of Rome.

9th, That they are accursed who deny that there are seven sacraments.

From those doctrines, contrary to Scripture and the primitive Church, have resulted these evil practices.

From the veneration of images has sprung the actual worship of them.

The invocation of the Blessed Virgin, and of other saints, has given rise to the greatest blasphemy and profaneness.

The bread in the eucharist has been worshipped as though itself were the eternal God.

From the doctrine of purgatory has sprung that of indulgences, and the practice of persons paying sums of money to the Romish bishops and clergy, to release the souls of their friends from the fabulous fire of purgatory.

Popery is a corrupt addition to the truth, and we can give the very dates of the several corruptions.

Attrition, as distinguished from contrition, was first pronounced to be sufficient.

The priest’s right intention was first pronounced to be indispensable to the valid participation of the sacraments, and

Judicial absolution was first publicly authorized, by the Council of Trent, A. D. 1551.

Auricular confession was first enjoined by Innocent III., at the fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215.

Apocrypha received as canonical first at the Council of Trent, A. D. 1547.

Compulsory celibacy of the clergy, first enjoined publicly at the first Council of Lateran, A. D. 1123.

Communion in one kind only, first authoritatively sanctioned by the Council of Constance, A. D. 1414.

Use of images and relics in religious worship, first publicly affirmed and sanctioned in the second Council of Nice, A. D. 787.

Invocation of saints, first taught with authority by the fourth Council of Constantinople, A. D. 754.

Papal infallibility was utterly unknown to the third Council of Constantinople, A. D. 680.

Papal supremacy, first publicly asserted by the fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215.

Prayers in a foreign tongue, first deliberately sanctioned by the Council of Trent, were expressly forbidden by the fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215.

Purgatory and indulgences, first set forth by the Council of Florence, A. D. 1438.

The Roman number of the sacraments was first taught by the Council of Trent, A. D. 1545.

Transubstantiation was first publicly insisted on by the fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215.

POPPY HEAD. The ornamental finial of a stall end. In design the poppy heads are extremely various; but they are almost universally made to assume the outline of the fleur-de-lis, to which not only foliage, but figures, faces, and whole groups, are made to conform themselves.

PORCH. A part of the church in which anciently considerable portions of the marriage service and of the baptismal services were performed. Being commenced here they were finished in the church.

POSTILS. A name anciently given to sermons or homilies. The name sprung from the fact that these were usually delivered immediately after reading of the Gospel (quasi post illa, sc. Evangelia). Also, printed expositions of Scripture, from the text being first exhibited, and post illa (after the words of the text) the explication of the writer.

PRÆMUNIRE, in law, is either taken for a form of writ, or for the offence whereon the writ of præmunire is granted. The writ in question is named from its initial words Præmunire facias, and it is chiefly known in ecclesiastical matters from a persecuting use to which it is applied by the statute of 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20, which enacts, that if the dean and chapter refuse to elect the person nominated by the king to the vacant bishopric, or if any archbishop or bishop refuse to confirm or consecrate him, they shall incur the penalties of the statutes of the præmunire. These penalties are no less than the following:—From the moment of conviction, the defendant is out of the king’s protection, his body remains in prison during the king’s pleasure, and all his goods, real or personal, are forfeited to the Crown. He can bring no action, nor recover damages, for the most atrocious injuries, and no man can safely give him comfort, aid, or relief.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION, THE. (From πρᾶγμα, business.) A rescript or answer of the sovereign, declared by advice of his council, to some college, order, or body of people, upon their consulting him in some case of their community.—Hutman.

Referring to the expression historically, the earliest Pragmatic Sanction on record is that drawn up by Louis IX., king of France, in 1268, against the encroachments of the Church and Court of Rome. It related chiefly to the rights of the Gallican Church, with reference to the elections of bishops and clergy. It was superseded in 1438 by the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII., which was drawn up at Bourges. This having re-asserted the rights and privileges claimed for the Gallican Church under Louis IX., it accorded with the Council of Basle, at that time sitting, in maintaining that a general council is independent of the pope, and in asserting that all papal bulls should be null and void unless they received the consent of the king. It withheld also the payment of annates. (See Annates.) Pope Pius II. succeeded in obtaining the abrogation of this sanction for a time. But the parliament of Paris refused to approve the conduct of Louis XI. in setting it aside, and he was compelled to restore it to its original influential position. It accordingly remained in full force up to the year 1517, when it was supplanted by the concordat, which was agreed upon between Francis I. and Pope Julius II. Although by the concordat privileges were given and received on both sides, yet the real advantages were on the side of Rome; which advantages it has ever since been her constant aim to improve.

PRAISE. A reverent acknowledgment of the perfections of God, and of the blessings flowing from them to mankind, usually expressed in hymns of gratitude and thanksgiving, and especially in the reception of the holy eucharist—that “sacrifice of praise, and sublimest token of our joy.” (See Eucharist.)

PRAXEANISTS. (See Patripassians.)

PRAYER. The offering up of our desires to God for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, by the aid of his Spirit, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies. The necessity of prayer is so universally acknowledged by all who profess and call themselves Christians, and so clearly enjoined in Scripture, that to insist upon this duty—this sacred and pleasant exercise to the renewed in heart—is unnecessary. Prayer is either private or public, and it implies faith in the particular providence of God. The general providence of God acts through what are called the laws of nature. By his particular providence God interferes with those laws, and he hath promised to interfere in behalf of those who pray in the name of Jesus. As we are to shape our labours by ascertaining, through the circumstances under which we are providentially placed, what is the will of God with reference to ourselves; as, for example, the husbandman, the professional man, the prince, all labour for different things placed within their reach, and do not labour for that which God evidently does not design for them; so we are to regulate our prayers, and we may take it as a general rule, that we may pray for that for which we may lawfully labour, and for that only. And when we pray for what is requisite and necessary for the body or the soul, we are at the same time to exert ourselves. Prayer without exertion is a mockery of God, as exertion without prayer is presumption. The general providence of God requires that we should exert ourselves, the particular providence of God that we should pray.

(For public prayer, see Liturgy and Formulary.)

PRAYER BOOK. (See Liturgy and Formulary.)

PREACHING. Proclaiming or publicly setting forth the truths of religion. Hence the reading of Scripture to the congregation is one branch of preaching, and is so denominated in Acts xv. 21. “Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” See Archbishop King’s valuable Treatise On the Inventions of Men, in which he demonstrates the extensive sense of preaching, as scripturally used; showing that all public services in the church are, in a certain sense, preaching. The term is, however, generally restricted to the delivering of sermons, lectures, &c.

Article XXIII. “It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.”

In the same convocation in which subscription in the Thirty-nine Articles was imposed upon the clergy, it was enjoined, with respect to preachers: “In the first place, let preachers take care that they never teach anything in the way of preaching, which they wish to be retained religiously and believed by the people, except what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and what the catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from that same doctrine.”—Canon. Eccles. Angl. xix. A. D. 1571.

Canon 36. “No person shall be received into the ministry, nor admitted to any ecclesiastical living, nor suffered to preach, to catechise, or to be a lecturer or reader of divinity in either university, or in any cathedral, or collegiate church, city, or market town, parish church, chapel, or any other place within this realm, except he be licensed either by the archbishop or by the bishop of the diocese where he is to be placed, under their hands and seals, or by one of the two universities under their seal likewise; and except he shall first subscribe to the three articles concerning the king’s supremacy, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-nine Articles (see Orders): and if any bishop shall license any person without such subscription, he shall be suspended from giving licences to preach for the space of twelve months.”

And by the 31 Elizabeth, c. 6. “If any person shall receive or take any money, fee, reward, or any other profit, directly or indirectly, or any promise thereof, either to himself or to any of his friends, (all ordinary and lawfully fees only excepted,) to procure any licence to preach, he shall forfeit £40.”

After the preacher shall be licensed, then it is ordained as follows:

Canon 45. “Every beneficed man, allowed to be a preacher, and residing on his benefice, having no lawful impediment, shall, in his own cure, or in some other church or chapel (where he may conveniently) near adjoining, where no preacher is, preach one sermon every Sunday of the year; wherein he shall soberly and sincerely divide the word of truth, to the glory of God, and to the best edification of the people.”

Canon 47. “Every beneficed man, licensed by the laws of this realm (upon urgent occasions of other service) not to reside upon his benefice, shall cause his cure to be supplied by a curate that is a sufficient and licensed preacher, if the worth of the benefice will bear it. But whosoever hath two benefices shall maintain a preacher licensed, in the benefice where he doth not reside, except he preach himself at both of them usually.”

By Canon 50. “Neither the minister, churchwardens, nor any other officers of the Church, shall suffer any man to preach within their churches or chapels, but such as by showing their licence to preach shall appear unto them to be sufficiently authorized thereunto, as is aforesaid.”

Canon 51. “The deans, presidents, and residentiaries of any cathedral or collegiate church shall suffer no stranger to preach unto the people in their churches, except they be allowed by the archbishop of the province, or by the bishop of the same diocese, or by either of the universities; and if any in his sermon shall publish any doctrine either strange or disagreeing from the word of God, or from any of the Thirty-nine Articles, or from the Book of Common Prayer, the dean or residents shall by their letters, subscribed with some of their hands that heard him, so soon as may be, give notice of the same to the bishop of the diocese, that he may determine the matter, and take such order therein as he shall think convenient.”

Canon 52. “That the bishop may understand (if occasion so require) what sermons are made in every church of his diocese, and who presume to preach without licence, the churchwardens and sidesmen shall see that the names of all preachers which come to their church from any other place be noted in a book, which they shall have ready for that purpose, wherein every preacher shall subscribe his name, the day when he preached, and the name of the bishop of whom he had licence to preach.”

Canon 53. “If any preacher shall in the pulpit particularly, or namely of purpose, impugn or confute any doctrine delivered by any other preacher in the same church, or in any church near adjoining, before he hath acquainted the bishop of the diocese therewith, and received order from him what to do in that case, because upon such public dissenting and contradicting there may grow much offence and disquietness unto the people, the churchwardens or party aggrieved shall forthwith signify the same to the said bishop, and not suffer the said preacher any more to occupy that place which he hath once abused, except he faithfully promise to forbear all such matter of contention in the church, until the bishop hath taken further order therein; who shall with all convenient speed so proceed therein, that public satisfaction may be made in the congregation where the offence was given. Provided, that if either of the parties offending do appeal, he shall not be suffered to preach pendente lite.”

Canon 55. “Before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, the preachers and ministers shall move the people to join with them in prayer, in this form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may: Ye shall pray for Christ’s Holy Catholic Church,” &c. (See Bidding Prayer.)

PREBEND. (Lat. Præbenda.) The stipend which is received by a prebendary, from the revenues of the cathedral or collegiate church with which he is connected. It denoted originally any stipend or reward, given out of the ecclesiastical revenues, to a person who had by his labours procured benefit to the Church; and the gratuity which was given either to a proctor or advocate, or any other person of the like kind. When the cathedral churches became well endowed, they left off receiving the income of their lands into one common bank, and dividing it among the members, but parcelled out the lands into several shares, appropriating them for the maintenance of each single clergyman who resided about the cathedral, calling it Præbenda, or Corpus Præbendæ, the Corps of the Prebend. Hence arose the difference between a prebend and a canonry. A canonry was a right which a person had in a church, to be deemed a member thereof, to have the right of a stall therein, and of giving a vote in the chapter; but a prebend was a right to receive certain revenues appropriated to his place. The number of prebends in the several cathedral churches was increased by the benefactions of respective founders; oftentimes out of the revenues of the rural clergy, and oftentimes by exonerating the lands of prebends from paying tithes to the ministers of the parishes where they lay.—Nicholls.

PREBENDARY. A clergyman attached to a cathedral or collegiate church, who enjoys a prebend in consideration of his officiating at stated times in the church. (See Dean and Chapter.)

In Scotland, there were established by the respective founders in the colleges of St. Salvador, at St. Andrew’s, and King’s College, Aberdeen, certain “Prebendaries, or perpetual chaplains, to sing and serve in the choir” of the chapel. These were, in fact, the same as chaplains in the choral colleges of England.

PRECENTOR. The leader of a choir. The precentor in almost all cathedrals of old foundation in England, and very generally on the continent, was the first dignitary in the chapter, ranking next to the dean. In some few instances the archdeacons preceded him. He superintended the choral service, and the choristers; and in Paris the precentor of Notre Dame had the supervision of the lesser schools in the city, as the chancellor had of the greater. In all the new foundations, except Christ Church in Dublin, where he is a dignitary, the precentor is a minor canon: an anomalous and modern provision. In most ancient cathedrals the precentor had for his badge of office a silver staff or baculus. In choral colleges the precentor is a chaplain. At Llandaff and St. David’s, till very lately, the precentor was presbyteral head of the chapter.

PRECEPTORIES were manors or estates of the Knights Templars, on which they erected churches for religious service, and convenient houses for habitation, and placed some of their fraternity under the government of one of those more eminent Templars, who had been by the grand master created “præceptores templi,” to take care of the lands and rents in that place and neighbourhood: these preceptories were only cells to the Temple, or principal house of the knights, in London. Preceptor was the title of the head of some old hospitals.

PRECES. A general word for prayers; but it is often applied in a technical sense to the shorter sentences, as versicles and suffrages which are said in the way of verse and response. In the English choral service the term is limited to those versicles (with the Gloria Patri) immediately preceding the Psalms, beginning “O Lord, open thou our lips.” These anciently formed a regular part of the harmonized services for cathedral choirs, which were set to music by an earlier musician.—Jebb. (See Responses, Versicles, and Service.)

PREDESTINATION. (See Election; see also Calvinism and Arminianism.) Of predestination and election our 17th Article thus speaks: “Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose, by his Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of predestination and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so, for curious and carnal persons lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.”

Such is the barrier which the Church places between this solemn subject and irreverent inquiries; but the Scripture doctrine of predestination may be further stated without any forgetfulness of the spirit here inculcated. We are told indeed by the Church, that “the godly consideration of predestination and our election in Christ is full of sweet and unspeakable comfort to godly persons” (Art. xvii.); and it is certain that it can be full neither of profit nor of comfort, unless we meditate upon it. And if it be among the things “hard to be understood,” (2 Pet. iii. 16,) this is no reason why we should not try to understand it, and, by understanding, cease to be “unlearned and unstable,” and so take care that it shall not be wrested to our destruction.

In the first chapter to the Ephesians, we find that there are certain persons whom God hath chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world; having predestinated them unto the adoption of children of Jesus Christ to himself, not on account of their good works, but according to the good pleasure of his will. (Eph. i. 4, 5.) Again, in another Epistle, we are told that God hath “called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” (2 Tim. i. 9.) These are persons whose names are said to have been written in heaven, in the book of life, called the Lamb’s book of life, (Rev. xx. 15; xxi. 27,) because the first among God’s elect is he who, being God as well as man, is the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. xiii. 8) as a propitiation for sins. (1 John ii. 2; iv. 10.) Thus, then, we see that there are persons who, in the words of St. Paul, are “vessels which God hath afore prepared unto glory.” (Rom. ix. 22–24.)

And now comes the question, Who are those who are thus predestinated to the glories of the new heaven, the new earth, the new Jerusalem, which is to come down from above? (Rev. xxi. 2.) Let St. Paul give the answer: “Whom he did predestinate, them he also called” (Rom. viii. 30): called by the circumstances under which he providentially placed them, either by the appearance, in the first ages, of an apostle or an evangelist; or, as is the case with us, by the fact of our being born in a Christian land: “and whom he called, them he also justified;” receiving them, for Christ’s sake, as his own children in holy baptism, he justified, or, for the same Saviour’s sake, counted as holy, those who as yet were not actually so: “and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” He glorified them by regenerating them, and making them temples of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. vi. 11, 19); than which what greater glory can pertain to the sons of men?

The foregoing passage furnishes us with a description of Christians, of baptized persons; and consequently to Christians we are to refer those other passages which relate to God’s predestination: them God hath predestinated to glory. And as such, as God’s elect people, predestinated not merely to means of grace, for this were clearly inadequate, but to glory in the kingdom of glory, the inspired writers were wont to address the multitude of the baptized. Thus the apostle addresses the Church of the Thessalonians, good and bad commingled, as “knowing” their “election of God.” (1 Thess. i. 4.) Thus St. Peter speaks of “the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” as “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. i. 2); and he speaks of them afterwards as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people;” and St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, addresses the Hebrews, meaning those who had made profession of the Christian faith, as “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.” Such, then, is our blessing, our privilege, our high hope as Christians. In the temple of the first Jerusalem there was a variety of chambers or mansions, employed for different purposes, though all relating directly or indirectly to the services of the sanctuary. In the new Jerusalem, which will itself be the temple of the universe, there will in like manner be “many mansions” or chambers: but if so, those mansions or chambers in the earthly Jerusalem having been intended for a variety of different offices, we may conclude that offices of different characters will exist in the new Jerusalem. It is very possible that we are not only each of us predestined to heaven, but predestined also each to our own particular place in heaven, that our very mansion is fixed. We know that God has predestinated particular persons to particular offices here on earth, long before their birth: as, for example, in the case of Jeremiah, God saith, “Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth of the womb, I sanctified thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto the nation.” And so with respect also to St. Paul, we are told that it “pleased God to separate him from his mother’s womb, that he might preach Christ among the heathen.” (Gal. i. 15, 16.) Nay, we find that this is really to be the case with respect to the next world, in some cases at least; for example, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, the apostles shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28): a particular office is allotted to them; to a particular office they are predestinated. When the mother of Zebedee’s children prayed that her children might sit, the one on the right hand, and the other on the left, in our Lord’s kingdom of glory, our Lord said, “to sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give.” (Matt. xx. 23.) No. These places are designed for certain persons who are preparing, or shall be prepared, to fill the same. This is already fixed in the counsels of God. These places, therefore, are not mine to give. They are already given. Your place is also designated: prepare for it by doing your duty. We know that some of the saints are predestinated to a mysterious office, the nature of which we cannot understand, but they will judge angels. (1 Cor. vi. 2, 3.) And at the last day shall the King say unto them that are on his right hand, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matt. xxv. 34.)

But this predestination to glory is, like our election, conditional. We shall not only be saved, but we shall occupy a predestined post of glory, if we escape condemnation at the day of judgment; not otherwise. The omission of all reference to the day of judgment is the vice of the Calvinistic system. The man, condemned at the day of judgment, will find an addition to his pangs, by knowing the glory to which he had been predestined, had he not perverted his ways. But if our sins are then found blotted out by the blood of the Lamb, we know that a certain place in heaven is designed for us, for which we are shaped and prepared by the circumstances under which we are placed while on earth. (See Bishop Pearson’s 23 and 24 Lectiones “de Prædestinatione” in Archdeacon Churton’s edition of his minor Works.)

PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, OUR LORD. (See Generation.) His existence before he was born of the Virgin Mary, and even before the creation of the world by him. The fact is stated thus by Bishop Bull in his “Defence of the Nicene Creed:”—All the catholic doctors of the first three centuries taught, that Jesus Christ, he who was afterwards so called, existed before he became man, or before he was born, according to the flesh, of the Blessed Virgin, in another nature, far more excellent than the human nature; that he appeared to holy men, giving them an earnest, as it were, of his incarnation; that he always presided over, and provided for, the Church, which in time to come he would redeem with his own blood; and of consequence that, from the beginning, the whole order or thread of the Divine dispensation, as Tertullian speaks, ran through him: further yet, that he was with the Father before the foundations of the world, and that by him all things were made.

PREFACES. Certain short occasional forms in the Communion Service, which are introduced by the priest, on particular festivals, immediately before the anthem, beginning, “Therefore with angels and archangels,” &c. This anthem is a song of praise, or an act of profound adoration, equally proper at all times; but the Church calls upon us more especially to use it on her chief festivals, in remembrance of those events which are then celebrated. Thus, on Christmas Day, the priest having said—“It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, everlasting God,”—adds the proper preface which assigns the reason for peculiar thankfulness on that particular day, viz. “Because thou didst give Jesus Christ, thine only Son, to be born as at this time for us; who, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, was made very man, of the Virgin Mary his mother, and that without spot of sin, to make us clean from all sin: therefore, with angels, &c.” The days for which these prefaces are provided are, Christmas, Easter, Ascension, and seven days after each of these festivals; also Whitsunday, and six days after; together with Trinity Sunday. The antiquity of such prefaces may be estimated from the fact that they are mentioned and enjoined by the 103rd canon of the African code, which code was formed of the decisions of many councils prior to the date of 418.

The decay of devotion let fall the apostolical and primitive use of daily and weekly communions, and the people in the later ages did not receive but at the greater festivals: upon which custom there were added to the general preface mentioned, before some special prefaces relating to the peculiar mercy of that feast on which they did communicate, the Church thinking it fit, that, since every festival was instituted to remember some great mercy, therefore they who received on such a day, besides the general praises offered for all God’s mercies, should at the Lord’s table make a special memorial of the mercy proper to that festival; and this seemed so rational to our reformers, that they have retained those proper prefaces which relate to Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday, so as to praise God for the mercies of Christ’s birth, resurrection, and ascension, for the sending the Holy Ghost, and for the true faith of the holy Trinity.—Dean Comber.

Our Lord himself, before he brake the bread and distributed it, gave thanks; and the Church has thought fit to do the same thing. But, because our Lord has not prescribed any set form for this, but used one agreeable to the thing and the time, the Church therefore, as matters and occasion required, has accordingly adapted peculiar forms of prayer and thanksgiving, suited, as St. Augustine says, to the diversity of festival days, in which different benefits are commemorated.—Bp. Cosin.

On the greater festivals there are proper prefaces appointed, which are also to be repeated, in case there be a communion, for seven days after the festivals themselves (excepting that of Whitsunday, which is to be repeated only six days after, because Trinity Sunday, which is the seventh, hath a preface peculiar to itself); to the end that the mercies may be the better remembered by often repetition, and also that all the people (who in most places cannot communicate all in one day) may have other opportunities, within those eight days, to join in praising God for such great blessings.

2. The reason of the Church’s lengthening out these high feasts for several days is plain: the subject-matter of them is of so high a nature, and so nearly concerns our salvation, that one day would be too little to meditate upon them, and praise God for them as we ought. A bodily deliverance may justly require one day of thanksgiving and joy; but the deliverance of the soul by the blessings commemorated on these times, deserves a much longer time of praise and acknowledgment. Since, therefore, it would be injurious to Christians to have their joy and thankfulness for such mercies confined to one day, the Church, upon the times when these unspeakable blessings were wrought for us, invites us, by her most seasonable commands and counsels, to fill our hearts with joy and thankfulness, and let them overflow eight days together.

3. The reason of their being fixed to eight days is taken from the practice of the Jews, who by God’s appointment observed their greater festivals, some of them for seven, and one, namely, the feast of Tabernacles, for eight days. And therefore the primitive Church, thinking that the observation of Christian festivals (of which the Jewish feasts are only types and shadows) ought not to come short of them, lengthened out their higher feasts to eight days.—Bp. Sparrow. Wheatly.

These prefaces are very ancient, though there were some of them, as they stood in the Latin service, of later date. For as there are ten in that service, whereof the last, concerning the Virgin Mary, was added by Pope Urban, 1095, so it follows that the rest must be of a more considerable antiquity. Our Church has only retained five, and those upon the principal festivals of the year, which relate only to the persons of the ever-blessed Trinity, and not to any saint.—Dr. Nicholls.

Mr. Palmer remarks that “the repetition by the people of the portion of the Preface, beginning ‘therefore with angels,’ never was the custom of the primitive Church, and could not have been intended by those who revised our liturgy, nor is it warranted by the nature of the Preface itself. It has perhaps,” he adds, “arisen from the custom of printing the latter part of the Preface in connexion with the hymn Tersanctus, and from the indistinctness of the rubric, which, in fact, gives no special direction for the people to join in repeating the hymn Tersanctus.” It may be remarked that the Tersanctus is marked as a separate paragraph in the two books of King Edward VI.

With respect to the Preface, there is an ambiguity in our rubrics, but none whatever in the choral usage, which is in accordance with the universal practice of the Church. The Preface is that part recited by the priest, beginning with “It is very meet, right,” &c., ending with “evermore praising thee and saying.” It is commonly imagined that the choir or congregation are to repeat with the priest the words, “Therefore with angels and archangels,” &c.; but this is contrary to all precedent. The choral communion services, and the one of Durham, all agree in beginning the hymn at the words, “Holy, holy, holy,” &c. The rubric merely says, “After each of which Prefaces shall immediately be sung or said;” it does not say by whom. The direction is as indeterminate as that of the Litany, which, like the passage in question, is sung distributively between minister and people in sequence.—Jebb.

PRELATE. An ecclesiastic having jurisdiction over other ecclesiastics. The title, though applicable to bishops, is not confined to their order. Before the Reformation abbots were styled prelates. Archdeacons are prelates in this sense of the word. (See Episcopacy, Bishop.)

PRELECTOR. A Lecturer. In the cathedral of Hereford, one of the prebendaries is elected to the office of Prelector, to hold it till he succeeds to a residentiary canonry, for which he is statutably considered to have a claim to be a candidate. His duty is to preach on Tuesdays, or else on any holiday which may occur during the week for a considerable portion of the year.

PREMONSTRATENSES. (Lat.) In French, Prémontrés. A religious order, founded by St. Norbert, descended from a noble family in the diocese of Cologne. He was educated suitably to his quality, and lived for some time at the emperor Henry the Fifth’s court. At about thirty years of age he was ordained deacon and priest; and, soon after, entering upon a very strict and mortified way of living, he resigned his church preferments, and distributed a large patrimonial estate to the poor. Then he embraced the rule of St. Augustine, and retiring with thirteen companions to a place called Premonstratum, in the diocese of Laon, in Picardy, he there began his order, about the year 1119. This ground, with the chapel of St. John Baptist, was given to St. Norbert by the bishop of Laon, with the approbation of Louis le Gros, king of France, who gave the Premonstratenses a charter of privileges. The place was called Premonstratum, because it was pretended the Blessed Virgin herself pointed out (premonstravit) this place for the principal house of the order, and at the same time commanded them to wear a white habit.

The monks of this order were, at first, so poor, that they had nothing they could call their own but one poor ass, which served them to carry wood, which they cut down every morning and sent to Laon, where it was sold to purchase bread. But, in a short time, they received so many donations, and built so many monasteries, that, thirty years after the foundation of this order, they had above one hundred abbeys in France and Germany.

The popes and kings of France have granted many privileges, and been very liberal, to the Premonstratenses. Besides a great number of saints, who have been canonized, this order has had several persons of distinguished birth, who have been contented with the humble condition of lay-brothers: as, Guy, earl of Brienne; Godfrey, earl of Namur, &c. It has likewise given the Church a great number of archbishops and bishops.

The order of Premonstratenses increased so greatly, that it had monasteries in all parts of Christendom, amounting to 1000 abbeys, 300 provostships, a vast number of priories, and 500 nunneries. These were divided into 30 cyrcaries or provinces. But this number of houses is greatly diminished; for, of 65 abbeys it had in Italy, there is not one remaining at present; not to mention the loss of all their monasteries in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, England, Scotland, and Ireland.

These monks, vulgarly called White Canons, came first into England in the year 1146, where their first monastery, called New House, was built in Lincolnshire, by Peter de Saulia, and dedicated to St. Martialis. In the reign of Edward I., when that king granted his protection to the monasteries, the Premonstratenses had twenty-seven houses in this kingdom.

PREROGATIVE COURT. The Prerogative Court of the archbishops of Canterbury and Armagh, is that court wherein all testaments are proved, and all administrations granted, when a party dying within the province has bona notubilia in some other diocese than where he dies; and is so called from having a prerogative throughout the whole province for the said purposes. (See Canons 92, 93, &c.)

PRE-SANCTIFIED. A word used by the Greek Church, who have a liturgy called that of the Presanctified, because that upon those days they do not consecrate the bread or wine, but receive the bread which was consecrated the day before. This service is observed all Lent long, except Saturdays and Sundays, and the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, which, being festivals, are exempt from fasting; the Greeks being of opinion that the whole communion service is not to be celebrated on fasting days, and upon this account charging the Latin Church with breach of the canons, because they celebrate the eucharist in Lent time, as they do the rest of the year, Good Friday excepted; for on that day this liturgy of the Presanctified is offered in the Latin Church; the priest then consecrating neither bread nor wine, but making use of the bread which was consecrated the day before, and communicating only under one kind; for the wine he receives is only for ablution, being unconsecrated. The Greeks do the same thing, from whence we may conclude that they communicate only in one kind during Lent, the wine that they then receive being not consecrated. The Communion of the Sick, as enjoined by the First Book of King Edward, if administered on any day of public communion, was a liturgy of the pre-sanctified; as the elements were not consecrated in the private house, but previously in the church.

PRESBYTER. (See Bishop, Deacon, Priest, Orders, Clergy.) The name πρεσβύτερος (elder) is a word borrowed from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which commonly signifies a ruler or governor, being, as St. Jerome observes, a name of office, not a mere indication of a man’s age; for elders were chosen, not by their age, but by their merits and wisdom. So that, as a senator among the Romans, and an alderman in our own language, signifies a person of such an order and station without any regard to age, in like manner a presbyter or elder in the Christian Church is one who is ordained to a certain office, and authorized by his quality, not his age, to discharge the several duties of that office and station in which he is placed. In this large and extensive sense, bishops were sometimes called presbyters in the New Testament, for the apostles themselves did not refuse that title. On the other hand, it is the opinion of many learned men, both ancient and modern, that presbyters were sometimes called bishops, while bishops who were properly such were distinguished by other titles, as that of chief priests, apostles, &c. Bingham shows, however, that those who maintained the identity of the names, did not thence infer identity of offices, but always esteemed bishops and presbyters to be distinct officers.

We know not the exact period at which the apostles first ordained presbyters. We do not read of their existence before A. D. 43, when the disciples at Antioch sent their collections to the presbyters of Judea. About A. D. 56, St. Paul sent for “the presbyters of the church” of Ephesus; and we afterwards read of bishops or presbyters at Philippi: and the directions to Timothy and Titus for their ordination in every city; the exhortation of St. Peter to “the presbyters;” and of St. James, “is any one sick among you, let him send for the presbyters of the church;” suffice to prove the general ordination of presbyters by the apostles.

The office of presbyters, like that of bishops, consisted in “feeding the Church of God,” and overseeing it; exhorting and convincing the gainsayers by sound doctrine. Being invested with the power of teaching, they also possessed authority in controversies. The Church of Antioch sent to Jerusalem to consult the apostles and “presbyters” on the question of circumcision; and we find afterwards that heretics were sometimes condemned by the judgment of presbyters, as well as by bishops in councils. They possessed in their degree the power of remitting or retaining sins by absolution, and by spiritual censures. They must, even at the beginning, have had the power of baptizing and celebrating the eucharist, of performing other rites, and offering up public prayers in the absence of the apostles, or by their permission; and the institution of bishops in every Church by the apostles only restrained the ordinary exercise of these powers. We know in particular from St. James, that presbyters had authority to visit the sick and offer prayers, anointing them with oil for the recovery of their health. From the time of the apostles, the office of public teaching in the Church, and of administering the sacraments, was always performed by the bishop, unless in cases of great necessity. The power of spiritual jurisdiction in each Church, of regulating its affairs generally, and especially its discipline, was shared by the bishop with the presbyters, who also instructed and admonished the people in private. The presbyters sat on seats or thrones at the east end of the church, and the bishop on a higher throne in the midst of them. In some churches they laid their hands with the bishops on the head of those who were ordained presbyters, and in others administered confirmation.

The wealth and temporal power of bishops during the middle ages may have induced some of the ignorant to suppose that presbyters were exceedingly inferior to bishops; but the Catholic Church, which sees with the eye of faith, as she acknowledges the same sacred dignity of the priesthood in every bishop, whether oppressed with extreme poverty, or whether invested with princely dignity and wealth, also views the greatness and the sanctity of the office of presbyter as little inferior to those even of the chief pastors who succeeded the apostles; and the Church has never flourished more, nor has the episcopate ever been held in truer reverence, than under the guidance of those apostolical prelates who, like St. Cyprian, resolved to do nothing without the consent of the clergy, and who have sedulously avoided even the appearance of “being lords over God’s heritage.” The spirit of a genuine Christianity will lead the presbyters to reverence and obey the bishops as their fathers; and will induce bishops to esteem the presbyters as fellow-workers together with them, and brethren in Jesus Christ.—Bingham. Palmer. Augusti.

The word presbyter is substituted for priest in the Scotch liturgy, compiled in the reign of King Charles I.

PRESBYTERIANS. A Protestant sect, which maintains that there is no order in the Church superior to presbyters, and on that account has separated from the Catholic Church. This sect is established by law in Scotland, where there nevertheless exists a national branch of the Catholic Church, under canonical bishops. The establishment of a sect cannot, of course, convert that sect into a Church: for instance, if the Socinian sect were established in England, it would not be a whit more a Church than it is at present. (See Church in Scotland.)

The Presbyterians had many endowed chapels in England, but the trustees and ministers having become Socinians, these endowed chapels, upwards of 170 in number, are the strongholds of Socinianism and Rationalism in this country. In England, Socinian and Presbyterian have thus become synonymous terms. These observations do not, however, apply to the meeting-houses in England of the Scotch Presbyterians.

The following statement is taken from the Registrar’s return:

“The Scottish Kirk adopts the Confession, Catechism, and Directory prepared by the Westminster Assembly as its standards of belief and worship. Its discipline is administered by a series of four courts or assemblies. (1.) The Kirk Session is the lowest court, and is composed of the minister of a parish and a variable number of lay elders, appointed from time to time by the session itself. (2.) The Presbytery consists of representatives from a certain number of contiguous parishes, associated together in one district. The representatives are the ministers of all such parishes and one lay elder from each. This assembly has the power of ordaining ministers and licensing probationers to preach, before their ordination: it also investigates charges respecting the conduct of members, approves of new communicants, and pronounces excommunication against offenders. An appeal, however, lies to the next superior court; viz. (3.) The Provincial Synod, which comprises several presbyteries, and is constituted by the ministers and elders by whom these presbyteries themselves were last composed. (4.) The General Assembly is the highest court, and is composed of representatives (ministers and elders) from the presbyteries, royal burghs, and universities of Scotland, to the number (at present) of 363; of which number rather more than two-fifths are laymen.

“The National Church of Scotland has three presbyteries in England; that of London, containing five congregations,—that of Liverpool and Manchester, containing three congregations,—and that of the North of England, containing eight congregations.

“Various considerable secessions have from time to time occurred in Scotland from the National Church, of bodies which, while holding Presbyterian sentiments, dissent from the particular mode in which they are developed by the Established Kirk, especially protesting against the mode in which Church patronage is administered, and against the undue interference of the civil power. The principal of these seceding bodies are,—the ‘United Presbyterian Church,’ and the ‘Free Church of Scotland;’ the former being an amalgamation (effected in 1847) of the ‘Secession Church’ (which separated in 1732) with the ‘Relief Synod’ (which seceded in 1752); and the latter having been constituted in 1843.

“The ‘United Presbyterian Church’ has five presbyteries in England, containing seventy-six congregations; of which, however, fourteen are locally in Scotland, leaving the number locally in England 62.

“The ‘Free Church of Scotland’ has no ramifications, under that name, in England; but various Presbyterian congregations which accord in all respects with that community, and which, before the disruption of 1843, were in union with the Established Kirk, compose a separate Presbyterian body under the appellation of the ‘Presbyterian Church in England,’ having, in this portion of Great Britain, seven presbyteries and eighty-three congregations.”

PRESBYTERIUM, or PRESBYTERY, the space in collegiate and large churches between the easternmost stalls of the choir and the altar; answering to the solea of the ancient basilicas.

PRESENCE. (See Real Presence.)

PRESENTATION, (see Patron and Benefice,) is the offering of a clerk to the bishop by the patron of a benefice. It differs from nomination in this, that while presentation signifies the offering a clerk to the bishop for institution, nomination signifies offering a clerk to the patron in order that he may be presented.

PRIEST. (See Orders, Ordination, Presbyter, Sacrifice, and Absolution.) Who can deny that our word priest is corrupted of presbyter? Our ancestors, the Saxons, first used preoster; whence, by further contraction, came preste and priest. The High and Low Dutch have priester; the French, prestre [now contracted into prêtre]; the Italian, prete; but the Spaniard only speaks full, presbytero.—Joseph Mede.

The Greek and Latin words, (ἱερεύς, sacerdos,) which we translate “priest,” are derived from words that signify holy: and so the word priest, according to the etymology, signifies him whose mere charge and function is about holy things; and therefore seems to be a most proper word to him who is set apart to the holy public service and worship of God, especially when he is in the actual ministration of holy things. If it be objected that, according to the usual acceptation of the word, it signifies him that offers up a sacrifice, and therefore cannot be allowed to a minister of the gospel, who hath no sacrifice to offer, it is answered, that the ministers of the gospel have sacrifices to offer, (1 Pet. ii. 5,) “Ye are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices” of prayer, praises, thanksgiving, &c. In respect of these, the ministers of the gospel may safely, in a metaphorical sense, be called priests; and in a more eminent manner than other Christians, because they are taken from among men to offer up these sacrifices for others. But besides these spiritual sacrifices mentioned, the ministers of the gospel have another sacrifice to offer, viz. the “unbloody sacrifice,” as it was anciently called, the commemorative sacrifice of the blood of Christ, which does as really and truly show forth the death of Christ, as those sacrifices under the law did; and in respect of this sacrifice of the eucharist, the ancients have usually called those that offer it up, priests.—Fludyer’s Comm.

That it might not be doubted by whom the form of absolution may be pronounced, the rubric expressly informs us, that it is the priest who officiates. By priest, in Church language, is understood a person who is advanced in the ecclesiastical orders to the dignity of a presbyter; and no person, in any age of the Church, who was under this degree, did ever pretend, as of right, to pronounce absolution. The penitentiaries, in the ancient and more modern ages of the Church, were always of this degree. It was adopted into an axiom in the canon law, “ejus est absolvere cujus est ligare.” No one could pronounce absolution but he who had power to excommunicate. In the body of that law, absolutions of all kinds are reserved either to presbyters or bishops; and in our provincial constitutions it is strictly enjoined, “de pœnitentia præcipimus quod diaconi pœnitentias dare non presumant,” unless the priest be away when a man is dying.—Lyndwood. Our Church, in the last review of the liturgy, has chosen to put in the word priest instead of minister, (which was in King Edward VI.’s Second Book, and in Queen Elizabeth’s,) to the end that no one might pretend to pronounce this but one in priest’s orders; being sensible that some bold innovations have been made herein, by reason of some persons misunderstanding or misapplying the word minister. But the first compilers of the Common Prayer understood the same by minister as we do now by priest, that being the general acceptation of the word at that time. The compilers of the Second Book of Edward VI. (in which the Confession and Absolution were first inserted) put into the rubric, “to be pronounced by the minister” (or priest) “alone,” to avoid the imputation which the Papists had charged some of the reformed with, for permitting absolution to be pronounced by persons not of this order. For in the provincial Council of Sens, A. D. 1528, which was before that of Trent, and twenty years before the compiling our Common Prayer, we find the Protestants found fault with for affirming, that laics and women among them might pronounce absolution; which indeed was Luther’s opinion, but only so (as Chemnitius explains it) that in case of extreme necessity they might use it; which doctrine he had from the Papists themselves.—Nicholls; and see his long note on the subject, if necessary, in his “Commentary on the Common Prayer,” Evening Service.

In the diocese of Alexandria, the privilege of giving absolution to great criminals and scandalous offenders was reserved to the patriarch; as appears in the case of Lamponianus, an excommunicated presbyter. “Though,” says he, “he expressed his repentance with tears, and the people interceded for him, yet I refused to absolve him; only assuring this, that if he should be in manifest danger of death, any presbyter should receive him into communion by my order.” And in general, in the primitive Church, the granting absolution to reconcile penitents, was the bishop’s sole prerogative, and rarely committed to presbyters; but never to deacons, except in cases of extreme necessity, when neither bishop nor presbyter was at hand.—Bingham.

The privilege was also allowed in times of persecution, to martyrs and confessors in prison; but then they always signified what they had done to the bishop.—See Cave’s Prim. Ch.

At the last review of the Common Prayer Book, A. D. 1661, the Presbyterian divines requested that “as the word minister, and not priest or curate, is used in the Absolution, and in divers other places, it may throughout the whole book be so used, instead of those two words.” To which the Episcopalian commissioners replied, that “it is not reasonable the word minister should be only used in the liturgy. For since some parts of the liturgy may be performed by a deacon, and others, such as absolution and consecration, by none under the order of a priest, it is fit that some such word as priest should be used for those offices, and not minister, which signifies at large every one that ministers in that holy office, of what order soever he be.” Accordingly the word “priest,” in its exclusive sense, and in contradistinction to the word deacon, was inserted, and the sense of the Church of England on this subject, ascertained through the objection made by the Presbyterian divines, was adopted and ratified by the act of parliament.

In the primitive Church, the deacons were ranked among the “sacred orders;” and though their office has not always been so accurately defined as that of the presbyters, or priests, yet in the Church of England they are to most purposes considered as an inferior degree of “the priesthood.” Their duties are laid down in the office of “the Form and Manner of making Deacons;” and, “for the resolution of all doubts,” the preface to the Book of Common Prayer has wisely directed, that “the parties that so doubt, or diversely take anything, shall always resort to the bishop of the diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same; so that the same order be not contrary to anything contained in this book.”

It has generally been customary for deacons to substitute a prayer taken from the liturgy, which has been usually one of the collects in the conclusion of the Communion Service; and a pious commentator (Mr. Waldo) countenances this by saying, “a deacon, when he officiates, is never to use it, but is to offer up some short prayer in its stead.” But this is improperly said. For if a deacon, an officiating minister of the lowest order, may be considered at liberty to make this alteration in breach of the act for uniformity, where is the point at which he shall stop? What in this case he should do seems settled by the authorities referred to by Shepherd.

“If a deacon is neither to read the Absolution, nor to substitute a prayer in its room, what is he to do? The rule is plain, and leaves him no alternative. After the confession, he is to remain kneeling, and to proceed to the Lord’s Prayer. This always appeared to me to be the necessary and only conclusion to be drawn from the premises. Suspecting, however, the validity of my own arguments, I requested the opinion of a respectable divine, for whose modesty I have such regard, that I dare describe him only as having been, for many years, the confidential and intimate friend of Bishop Lowth. By his judgment, the opinion already given was sanctioned and confirmed. In consequence of further inquiry, I have since learned, that the heads of a cathedral church lately recommended the same practice. It is the business of priest vicars, I understand, in some cathedrals, to read morning and evening prayer; and it once happened, that a deacon was appointed a priest vicar. When it came to his turn to officiate, he was directed to omit the Absolution, and after the confession to say the Lord’s Prayer.”—Shepherd.

PRIEST’S INTENTION. (See Intention.)

PRIMATES, or METROPOLITANS. In the Christian hierarchy, or scheme of Church government, are such bishops of a province, as preside over the rest.

Some derive the original of primates or metropolitans from apostolical constitution.—Bingham, Orig. Eccles. b. ii. c. 16. But it may be doubted, whether the apostles made any such general settlement in every province; and the records of the original of most churches being lost, it can never be proved that they did. It is most probable, that this order of bishops commenced not long after the apostolic age, when sects and schisms began to break in apace, and controversies multiplying between particular bishops, it was found necessary to pitch upon one in every province, to whom the decision of cases might be referred, and by whom all common and public affairs might be directed. Or, it might take its rise from that common respect and deference, which was usually paid by the rest of the bishops to the bishop of the metropolis, or capital city, of each province: which advancing into a custom, was afterwards settled by a canon of the Council of Nice.—Conc. Nic. c. 6.

As to the offices and privileges of primates or metropolitans, they were as follows. First, they were to regulate the elections of all their provincial bishops, and either ordain, or authorize the ordination of them: and no election or ordination of bishops was valid without their approbation. Nor was this power at all infringed by setting up the patriarchs above them. For, though the metropolitans were to be ordained by the patriarchs, yet still the right of ordaining their own suffragans was preserved to them. It is to be observed, that this power was not arbitrary: for the primates had no negative voice in the matter, but were to be determined and concluded by the major part of a provincial synod.—Conc. Chalced. Act. 16.

Their next office was, to preside over the provincial bishops, and, if any controversies arose among them, to interpose their authority to end and decide them: also to hear the accusations of others, who complained of injury done to them by their own bishops, from whom there was always liberty of appeal to the metropolitan. But still there lay an appeal from the metropolitan to a provincial synod, of which he was only the president or moderator.

A third office of the metropolitans or primates was, to call provincial synods, and preside in them. To this end, their circular letters, called Synodicæ and Tractoriæ, were a legal summons, which no bishop of the province might disobey under pain of suspension, or other canonical censure, at the discretion of the metropolitan and council.

Fourthly, it belonged to the primates to publish and disperse such imperial laws and canons, as were made either by the emperors or the councils, for the common good of the Church. This gave them a right to visit, and inquire into neglects, abuses, and disorders, committed by any bishop throughout the whole province.

Fifthly, bishops, when they travelled into foreign countries on extraordinary occasions, used to consult the primate, and take his Formatæ, or letters of commendation. This was particularly required of the African bishops by the third Council of Carthage.

A sixth branch of the metropolitan office was, to take care of all vacant sees within their province, by administering the affairs of the Church, securing the revenues of the bishopric, and procuring a speedy election of a new bishop.

Seventhly, it belonged to the metropolitans, yearly to review the calculation of the time of Easter, and give notice to their suffragans of it. The care of composing the cycle was, indeed, by the Nicene fathers particularly committed to the bishop of Alexandria. But due care not being always taken in this matter, the metropolitan in every province was concerned to settle the time, and acquaint the whole province with it.

The primate of Alexandria was the greatest metropolitan in the world, both for the absoluteness of his power, and the extent of his jurisdiction. For he was not metropolitan of a single province, but of all the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, in which there were at least six large provinces, out of which above an hundred bishops were called to a provincial synod.

Besides an actual primacy of power, there was likewise a primacy of honour; that is, some bishops had the name and title of primates, but not the jurisdiction. Of these there were three sorts. First, the senior bishops in each province, next to the metropolitan. These primates had no power above others, except when the metropolitans were some way disabled, or disqualified for discharging their office, by irregularity or suspension. In this case, their power devolved on the senior bishop of the province.

The second sort of honorary primates were the titular metropolitans, or bishops of such cities as had the name and title of metropolis bestowed on them by some emperor, without the privileges, which were still continued to the ancient metropolis of the province. Of this sort were the cities of Chalcedon and Nice.

Thirdly, some bishops were honoured with the title of primates, in regard to the eminency of their see, being some mother-church, or particularly honoured by ancient prescription. This was the case of the bishop of Jerusalem, in consideration of its being the mother-church of the Christian world.

The division of England into two provinces, Canterbury and York, in 1152, gave occasion to the introducing primacies among us. Canterbury, which before was the metropolis, gives to its bishop the title of Primate of all England; York, only that of Primate of England. Accordingly, the former has some jurisdiction over all England, which the latter has only in his own province.

The archbishop of Armagh is primate of all Ireland; of Dublin, that of Ireland. Until the late mutilation of the Irish branch of the Church, the archbishop of Cashel was primate of Munster; of Tuam, primate of Connaught. The archbishop of St. Andrew’s was primate of Scotland. The archbishop of Rheims is primate of France; of Rouen, primate of Normandy; of Lyons, primate of Gaul; of Toledo, primate of Spain, &c.

PRIME. The service said at sunrising. (See Canonical Hours.)

PRIMER. (Primarius, Lat. A book of primary or elementary instruction.) Dr. Burton, in his preface to King Henry VIII.’s Three Primers, shows that the word was in use at least as far back as 1527, when a Primer of the Salisbury use was printed: and that it was “applied to a first or elementary book, which was put into the hands of children. The term was, perhaps, sometimes applied to a mere spelling-book, or to any book which was used for teaching children to read; but it seems generally to have conveyed the notion of religious instruction. The lessons were taken from the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Ave Maria, or from some other common formulary, with short and easy explanations, for the use of young beginners, or for private devotion. In course of time, the word came to have a still more limited meaning, as applied to offices of religion, and was analogous to the modern term Prayer Book, with the exception that a Primer was not confined to any one definite set of prayers, but contained different selections, according to the choice of the compiler; though the Creed, Pater Noster, and Ave Maria, always held a prominent place in the Primer.”

The earliest Primer printed by Dr. Burton was in Henry VIII.’s reign, in 1535: “A goodly Primer in English.” This was an improved edition of a former one, and was one of the first overt advances towards reformation, though containing much Romish doctrine. It contains, among a great many other things, an exposition of the Ten Commandments, and the Creed, and the Offices for the Seven Hours, mainly taken from the old offices. In 1537 appeared the Institution of a Christian Man, a still further advance; published by authority of convocation. In 1539 appeared a Primer by Bp. Hilsey of Rochester, the subject, though not the form, being much the same as in the first-mentioned Primer. In 1545 King Henry VIII.’s Primer appeared. The services for the Hours in this, formed the basis for all future Primers, and were much the same as in Queen Elizabeth’s of 1559. In Edward VI.’s reign appeared, in 1547, a reprint of Henry VIII.’s Primer. In 1549, 1551, 1552, improved editions, with omissions of the superstitious invocations of the Virgin Mary. Queen Elizabeth’s first Primer, 1559, was a reprint of King Edward’s of 1551, or rather, 1552. The next, in 1566, was altered a good deal from the form. A second edition was published in 1575. All these had the services of the Hours, besides Litanies, and other prayers. Some the catechism, some the penitential psalms, &c. A Latin Form of Prayer, like the Primer, was published by authority in 1560, and Preces Privatæ, a distinct, though similar publication, in 1564. The last Primer which appeared (though not under that name) was Dr. (afterwards Bp.) Cosin’s “Collection of Private Devotions: in the practice of the ancient Church, called the Hours of Prayer; as they were after this manner published by authority of Queen Elizabeth, 1560, &c.” This was published in 1627, by command of King Charles I. See Mr. Clay’s valuable edition of “Private Prayer,” &c., during the reign of Elizabeth, edited for the Parker Society; and Dr. Burton’s Three Primers.

PRIMICERIUS, or Primmicerius, defined by Suicer as “qui in primâ cerâ hæres scriptus,” one who is designated as the principal heir. Hence it came to signify one who presided over any particular department; the chief notary, for instance, was called πριμμικήριος νοταρίων: and so the chief reader, the chief chanter, &c., in great churches. It is the title of a dignitary in several Italian cathedrals, and is supposed to answer to our chancellor; a name not used in Italy as that of a cathedral officer. The precentor of Aberdeen cathedral was anciently called Primicerius, as Kennedy states in his Annals of Aberdeen.

PRIMITIVE CHURCH. (See Tradition.) The Church as it existed in the ages immediately after its first establishment. From its near connexion with the apostles and other inspired men, the primitive Church enjoyed many advantages, of which, at later periods, it was deprived. To the earliest ages we naturally look for illustrations of obscurities in the New Testament, for evidence and testimony of matter of fact, for sound interpretations of doctrine, for proofs of the efficacy of the gospel, and for examples of undaunted Christian heroism. Hence the value we are accustomed to attach to the writings which have come down to us from the first three centuries after Christ; and this value is considerably enhanced by the fervour, the beauty, and the surpassing eloquence which adorned the Church in that early day, and in the ages following. These were familiarly known to the Reformers of the Church of England; and, having taken the primitive Church as their model, and as the best witness of Catholic principles and usages, they transfused its spirit, not only into the liturgy, but into the whole framework and superstructure of that venerable fabric they aimed to restore. How well they succeeded, is evidenced in that fearless appeal which Catholics ever make, first to the Apostolic Church, then to those who drew their principles from it along with their infant breath, and flourished and died in an age when inspiration itself was scarcely extinct. That Church has nothing to dread which can lay its standards on the altar of antiquity, and return them to her bosom, signed with the glorious testimony of a Polycarp, an Ignatius, a Clement, and a “noble army of martyrs;” nothing has she to dread but the possibility of declension, and unfaithfulness to her sacred trust.

PRIOR. (See Monk.) The head or superior of a convent of monks, or the second person after the abbot, corresponding nearly to the dean in churches of secular canons.

PRIORY. (See Monastery.) A house occupied by a society of monks or nuns, the chief of whom was termed a prior or prioress; and of these there were two sorts: first, where the prior was chosen by the convent, and governed as independently as any abbot in his abbey; such were the cathedral priors, and most of those of the Augustine order. Secondly, where the priory was a cell subordinate to some great abbey, and the prior was placed or displaced at the will of the abbot. But there was a considerable difference in the regulation of these cells; for some were altogether subject to their respective abbots, who sent what officers and monks they pleased, and took their revenues into the common stock of the abbeys; whilst others consisted of a stated number of monks, under a prior sent to them from the superior abbey, and those priories paid a pension yearly, as an acknowledgment of their subjection, but acted in other matters as independent bodies, and had the rest of the revenues for their own use. The priories or cells were always of the same order as the abbeys on which they depended, though sometimes their inmates were of a different sex; it being usual, after the Norman Conquest, for the great abbeys to build nunneries on some of their manors, which should be subject to their visitation.

Alien priories were cells or small religious houses in our country, dependent on large foreign monasteries. When manors or tithes were given to distant religious houses, the monks, either to increase the authority of their own order, or perhaps rather to have faithful stewards of their revenues, built convenient houses for the reception of small fraternities of their body, who were deputed to reside at and govern those cells.

PRISCILLIANISTS. Certain heretics whose founder was Priscillian, a Spaniard of noble extraction, very wealthy, and endued with much wit, learning, and eloquence. Mark, an Egyptian heretic, having sown the errors of Gnosticism in Gaul, went into Spain, where carnal pleasure, which was the principal article of his doctrine, procured him quickly a great many disciples, the chief whereof was Priscillian, who covered his vanity under the appearance of a profound humility. He taught, besides the abominations of the Gnostics, that the soul was of the same substance with God, and that, descending to the earth, through seven heavens, and certain other degrees of principality, it fell into the hands of the evil one, who put it into the body, which he made to consist of twelve parts, over each of which presided a celestial sign. He condemned the eating of the flesh of animals, and marriage as an unlawful copulation, and separated women from their husbands without their consent; and, according to his doctrine, man’s will was subject to the power of the stars. He confounded the holy persons in the Trinity, like Sabellius, ordered his followers to fast on Sundays and Christmas day, because he believed Christ had not taken true flesh upon him. Lying, a most abominable vice, and so contrary to the God of truth, was a thing tolerated amongst his followers. There was a volume composed by them called Libra, because that in the twelve questions in it, as in twelve ounces, their whole doctrine was explained. Priscillian broached his heresy in the fourth century. He was put to death, with some of his followers, at Treves, in 385, by order of the usurper Maximus, contrary to the earnest instance of St. Martin, bishop of Tours. This was the first instance of the infliction of death for heresy, and at the time excited universal horror among Christians. St. Ambrose refused to communicate with the bishops who had taken part in it, and a synod at Turin excommunicated them.

PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST. As the Father is eternal, without beginning, so is the Son without beginning, the only begotten God of God, Light of light, being very God of very God: in like manner the Holy Ghost, without beginning, has proceeded from the Father and the Son. This is one of the mysteries which must be always incomprehensible, from our inability to comprehend an eternity a parte ante. In all discussions relating to these subjects, we may quote to the objector the wise words of Gregory Nazianzen: “Do you tell me how the Father is unbegotten, and I will then attempt to tell you how the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.”

We will first give the doctrine as stated in the Articles and Creed, and then give from Dr. Hey the history of the controversy which has long subsisted between the Eastern and the Western Church.

Of the Holy Ghost the fifth article says, “The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.”

The same doctrine is declared in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

In the Nicene Creed:

“I believe in the Holy Ghost, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son.”

In the Athanasian Creed:

“The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding.”

In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, various disputes took place with the followers of Macedonius with respect to the nature and procession of the Holy Ghost. It may be particularly mentioned, with a view to what followed, that so soon as the years 430 and 431, in the Councils of Alexandria and Ephesus, it was declared that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son as well as from the Father. In order to terminate these disputes, the Church in general made a sort of settlement or determination what should be accounted Catholic doctrine; and, to avoid further adjustings of formularies, agreed that nothing should from that time be added to those then under consideration. It is probable that, at that time, the question whether the Holy Ghost should be spoken of as proceeding from the Father and the Son, (Filioque is the famous word,) did not occur to men’s minds. Filioque was not in the creeds, though it was not new. The students in the Western Church seem ere long to have contracted an opinion, that it was proper for them to profess in a creed, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son; they, therefore, inserted (or, one might say, restored) Filioque, meaning, probably, no harm; and then the Eastern Church thought as little of complaining as the Western of offending. Afterwards, however, contentions for worldly grandeur produced contentions about theological truth. Rome and Constantinople were rivals, not only for imperial but for spiritual pre-eminence. The patriarch of Constantinople styled himself Episcopus Œcumenicus. Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, was more lowly in the title he assumed; he was “servus servorum” scilicet Dei; but in his pretensions to authority he was equally ambitious. The patriarch was at the head of the Eastern Church, the pope of the Western. This rivalship made the Churches seek occasions for blaming each other, and thus the insertion of Filioque came to be complained of as a breach of faith. It was defended by the Western Church, because the word contained right doctrine: this was enough to make the Eastern Church dispute the doctrine: they did so, and the dispute still subsists, and still causes a separation between the Eastern and Western Churches. One pope (Leo III.) did once, for the sake of peace, order Filioque to be put out of the creed, at the same time ratifying the doctrine which it comprehends; but he could only prevail in those churches which were under his immediate sanction, and that only for a time. The obstinate resistance of the Greek or Eastern Church to the insertion of Filioque, is the more likely to be owing to some worldly consideration, as several of the Greek fathers have the doctrine in their works clearly expressed.—Hey. (See Holy Ghost.)

PROCESSION. The formal march of the clergy and the people putting up prayer.

The first processions mentioned in ecclesiastical history are those begun at Constantinople by St. Chrysostom. The Arians of that city being forced to hold their meetings without the town, went thither night and morning, singing anthems. Chrysostom, to prevent their perverting the Catholics, set up counter-processions, in which the clergy and people marched by night, singing prayers and hymns, and carrying crosses and flambeaux. From this period, the custom of processions was introduced among the Greeks, and afterwards among the Latins; but they have subsisted longer, and been more frequently used, in the Western than in the Eastern Church. The name of Procession was formerly sometimes used for the Litany. (See Litany, Rogation Days.)

PROCTOR. (Procurator, Lat.) Proctors are officers established to represent, in judgment, the parties who empower them (by warrant under their hands, called a proxy) to appear for them to explain their rights, to manage and instruct their cause, and to demand judgment.

The representatives of the clergy in convocation are also called proctors.

The same name is given to university officers, whose business is to guard the morals and preserve the quiet of the university at Oxford and Cambridge; to present candidates in arts and music for their degrees; and (formerly in a more special manner than at present) to superintend their public exercises. The latter is now the prominent practice of the proctors in the university of Dublin: the senior proctor presiding at the Masters’ exercises, the junior at the Bachelors’. They are two in number, and chosen annually by the several colleges in cycle.

Procurators were officers in some of the ancient universities of Europe, as in Paris; they were then four in number, elected annually, each by one of the four nations into which the students were divided: and the rector, the deans of divinity, law, medicine, and the four proctors, formed the standing council of the university: somewhat analogous to the caput at Cambridge. The deans were the proctors of their respective faculties. Anciently the university of Oxford was divided into two “nations,” as they might be called, each of which was represented by a proctor.

PROCURATION. A pecuniary sum or composition by an incumbent to an ordinary or other ecclesiastical judge, to commute for the provision, or entertainment, which he was formerly expected to provide for such ordinary at the time of visitation. (See Synodal.)

PROFESSOR. A public teacher in a university.

PROPHECY. (From προφητεία.) The prediction of future things. (See Scripture, Inspiration of, and Miracles.)

PROPHESYINGS. Religious exercises of the clergy in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, instituted for the purpose of promoting knowledge and piety. The ministers of a particular division at a set time met together in some church of a market or other large town, and there each in order explained, according to their abilities, some portion of Scripture allotted to them before. This done, a moderator made his observations on what had been said, and determined the true sense of the place, a certain space of time being fixed for despatching the whole. These exercises being however abused, by irregularity, disputations, and divisions, were restrained.—Canon 72.

PROPHET. One who foretells future events. We have in the Old Testament the writings of sixteen prophets; that is, of four greater prophets, and twelve lesser prophets. The four greater prophets are, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. The Jews do not place Daniel among the prophets, because (they say) he lived in the splendour of temporal dignities, and a kind of life different from other prophets. The twelve lesser prophets are, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

PROPITIATION. (See Covenant of Redemption, Sacrifice, Atonement, Satisfaction, Jesus.) Propitiation is originally a Latin word, and signifies the appeasing of the wrath of God, or doing something whereby he may be rendered propitious, kind, or merciful, to us, notwithstanding that we have provoked him to anger by any sin or offence committed against him. And the original word, ἱλασμὸς, is used by the Greeks exactly in the same sense, as might easily be shown. But that we may fully understand the true notion of the word, as it is here used, our best way will be to consider how it is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, made long before St. John’s time; for he, writing to those who were generally accustomed to the words and phrases in that translation, it cannot be supposed but he useth this, as well as other words, in the same sense as it is used there: for otherwise they would not so well have understood him. Now there we find that ἱλάσκεσθαι and ἐξιλάσασθαι all along answer to the כפר, which signifies to appease, to pacify, to reconcile, a person offended, to atone or make him at one again with the offender. So both the Hebrew and the Greek words are used, where it is said, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death, but a wise man will pacify it.” And also where Jacob, having sent a present before him to his brother Esau, that was offended with him, saith, “I will appease him with the present that goeth before me.” He calls his present מנחה, a word commonly used for offerings to God. That was his propitiation, whereby his brother was reconciled to him. So were the sacrifices of the Levitical law: they were the Ιλασμοhὶ, the expiations, or propitiations, whereby God was atoned or appeased towards him which brought them; or, as it is there expressed, they were accepted for him, to make atonement for him. And when a man had thus brought his offering, and the priest had therewith made atonement for him, for the sin he had committed, then it was forgiven him, as we often read. In all which places, both the Hebrew and Greek words before mentioned are used; the first by Moses himself, the other by the Seventy which translated him. And therefore we cannot doubt but that the Greek word, coming from the same root, is here also used in the same sense for such a propitiation, or propitiatory sacrifice, whereby God is reconciled, or rendered propitious, to us, and our sins are forgiven us; God accepting, as it were, of that sacrifice, instead of the punishment which was due unto us for them.

The same appears also from several words derived from the same Hebrew root, as כפר, which the Seventy sometimes translate λύτρα, or λύτρον, which signifies a ransom, a price paid for the redemption of man’s life, that was forfeited by any capital crime, something given in recompence and satisfaction for the crime whereby it was done away; sometimes ἄλλαγμα, commutation or propitiation, as the vulgar Latin renders it: sometimes περικάθαρμα, “piaculum,” or a sacrifice offered for the purging or expiating some heinous crime; or for the diverting some heavy judgment from one to another, as in Prov. xxi. 18, where the wise man saith, “The wicked shall be a ransom (as we translate it) for the righteous;” that is, as he himself elsewhere explains it, “The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead.” Sometimes they translate it Ἰξίλασμα, propitiation, expiation. And so the Jews anciently used this word in their common discourse; for when one of them would show the greatest love he could to another, he would say, כפרי הנני, “Behold, let me be his expiation;” that is, as one of their most learned writers interprets it, “Let his iniquities be upon me, that I may bear the punishments of them,” which will give us great light into the true notion of the word, as we shall see anon.

Another word from the same Hebrew root is כפרים, which is commonly used likewise for a ransom, atonement, expiation, propitiation, or the like. As where we read of the כסף הכפרים, the atonement money, the Seventy render it τὸ ἀργύριον τῆς εἰσφορᾶς, the tribute money that every man was to give for the ransom of his life, when the people were numbered—the sin-offering of atonement, τῆς ἐξιλάσεως, of propitiation, as the Seventy translate it. The ram of the atonement, in the Greek, κριὸς τοῦ ἱλασμοὺ, the ram of propitiation. In all which places we see the word is used to denote something offered or laid down for the pardon of a man’s sins, and so for the redemption of his life that was forfeited by them. But that which is most observable in this case is, that the great day, when the two goats were chosen, the one for a sin-offering, with the blood whereof the high priest made atonement for the people in the most holy place; and the other for the scape-goat, upon the head whereof he confessed and laid the sins of the people, and then sent him away into the wilderness, never to be heard of more: this day, I say, is called יום הכפרים, the day of atonement, or, as the Seventy render it, ἡμέρα τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ, and, which is the same, τοῦ ἐξιλασμοῦ, the day of propitiation. To which we might also add, that the lid or cover of the ark where the law lay, is called כפרת, which the Seventy translate ἱλαστήριον, the propitiatory, we, the mercy-seat.

These things, I confess, may seem something too nice and critical, but I could not but take notice of them for the satisfaction of myself, and of all that understand the original languages, as being of great use to our finding out what the apostle here means by propitiation, according to the common notion of the word he useth in those days, and among those to whom he wrote; for hereby we may perceive, that, by the word propitiation here used, is meant such a sacrifice or offering made to God for the sins of men, which he is pleased to accept of as a sufficient atonement and satisfaction for the dishonour and injury that was done him by them, so as not to require the punishments which were due unto him for them, but to forgive them all, and to become again as kind and propitious to the persons that offended him as if he had never been offended by them. For he is now propitiated, he is pacified, and reconciled to them: he receives them into his love and favour again, and so into the same state they were in before he was displeased with them.—Beveridge.

PROPROCTORS. Two assistants of the proctors in the universities nominated by them.

PROSES. There are hymns in the Roman Church which are called Prosæ, Proses, a title given to composition in rhyme, in which the law of measure and quantity established by the ancient Greeks and Romans are neglected. These being sung after the Gradual or Tracts, were likewise called Sequentiæ. Of this kind is the beautiful Stabat Mater. (See Sequences.) The use of prosing began at the latter end of the ninth century.—See Burney’s History of Music. An uncharitable inference having been drawn from the epithet “beautiful” having been applied to the Stabat Mater, as if the idolatry of that composition, in spite of the contrary principles everywhere prevailing in this dictionary, had been approved, it is necessary to state that the epithet has reference only to the music.

PROTESTANT. The designation of Protestant is used in England as a general term to denote all who protest against Popery. Such, however, was neither the original acceptation of the word, nor is it the sense in which it is still applied on the Continent. It was originally given to those who protested against a certain decree issued by the emperor Charles V. and the Diet of Spires, in 1529.—Mosheim.

On the Continent it is applied as a term to distinguish the Lutheran communions. The Lutherans are called Protestants: the Calvinists, the Reformed. The use of the word among ourselves in a sense different from that adopted by our neighbours abroad, has sometimes led to curious mistakes. The late Mr. Canning, for instance, in his zeal to support the Romanists, and not being sufficiently well instructed in the principles of the Church of England, assumed it as if it were an indisputable fact, that, being Protestants, we must hold the doctrine of consubstantiation. Having consulted, probably, some foreign history of Protestantism, he found that one of the tenets which distinguishes the “Protestant,” i. e. the Lutheran, from the “Reformed,” i. e. the Calvinist, is that the former maintains, the latter denies, the dogma of consubstantiation.

It is evident that in our application of the word it is a mere term of negation. If a man says that he is a Protestant, he only tells us that he is not a Romanist; at the same time he may be, what is worse, a Socinian, or even an infidel, for these are all united under the common principle of protesting against Popery. The appellation is not given to us, as far as the writer knows, in any of our formularies, and has chiefly been employed in political warfare as a watchword to rally in one band all who, whatever may be their religious differences, are prepared to act politically against the aggressions of the Romanists. In this respect it was particularly useful at the time of the Revolution; and as politics intrude themselves into all the considerations of an Englishman, either directly or indirectly, the term is endeared to a powerful and influential party in the state. But on the very ground that it thus keeps out of view distinguishing and vital principles, and unites in apparent agreement those who essentially differ, many of our divines object to the use of the word. They contend, with good reason, that it is quite absurd to speak of the Protestant religion, since a religion must of course be distinguished, not by what it renounces, but by what it professes: they apprehend that it has occasioned a kind of sceptical habit, of inquiring not how much we ought to believe, but how much we may refuse to believe; of looking at what is negative instead of what is positive in our religion; of fearing to inquire after the truth, lest it should lead to something which is held by the Papists in common with ourselves, and which, therefore, as some persons seem to argue, no sound Protestant can hold; forgetting that on this principle we ought to renounce the liturgy, the sacraments, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Divinity and atonement of Christ,—nay, the very Bible itself. It is on these grounds that some writers have scrupled to use the word. But although it is certainly absurd to speak of the Protestant religion, i. e. a negative religion, yet there is no absurdity in speaking of the Church of England, or of the Church of America, as a Protestant Church; the word Church conveys a positive idea, and there can be no reason why we should not have also a negative appellation. If we admit that the Church of Rome is a true, though a corrupt Church, just as a felon is a man, though a bad man, it is well to have a term by which we may always declare that, while we hold in common with her all that she has which is catholic, scriptural, and pure, we protest for ever against her multiplied corruptions. Besides, the word, whether correctly or not, is in general use, and is in a certain sense applicable to the Church of England; it is surely, therefore, better to retain it, only with this understanding, that when we call ourselves Protestants, we mean no more to profess that we hold communion with all parties who are so styled, than the Church of England, when in her creeds and formularies she designates herself not as the Protestant, but as the Catholic Church of this country, intends to hold communion with those Catholic Churches abroad which have infused into their system the principles of the Council of Trent. Protestant is our negative, Catholic our definitive, name. We tell the Papist, that with respect to him we are Protestant; we tell the Protestant Dissenter, that with respect to him we are Catholic; and we may be called Protestant or Protesting Catholics, or, as some of our writers describe us, Anglo-Catholics.

PROTEVANGELION. The name of a book attributed to St. James the apostle, which treats of the birth of the blessed Virgin and of that of our Saviour. It was brought first from the East by Postulus in Greek, who translated it into Latin, affirming that it is publicly read in the Eastern Church, and formerly believed to have been written by St. James, first bishop of Jerusalem; but the fables, of which it is full, disprove this.

PROTHESIS. The place in a church on which the elements in the eucharist are placed, previously to their being laid as an oblation on the altar. Called also credence. The word prothesis προθεσις is derived from the temple service, in which the placing of the shewbread was called ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων, and the bread itself, οἱ ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως, i. e. the loaves set in order before the Lord.

PROTHONOTARY. A word that has a different signification in the Greek Church from what it has in the Latin; for in the first it is the name of one of the great officers of the Church of Constantinople, who takes place next to the patriarch, and writes all despatches he sends to the Grand Seignor; besides which he is empowered to have an inspection over the professors of the law, into purchases, wills, and the liberty given to slaves: but in the Roman Church they were formerly called prothonotaries who had the charge of writing the acts of the martyrs, and the circumstances of their death; a title of honour whereunto is ascribed many privileges, as legitimatizing bastards, making apostolic notaries, doctors of divinity, of the canon and civil law; they are twelve in number.

PROTOPAPAS; i. e. archpriest: the head of a cathedral in the Eastern Church, answering to our dean.

PROVERBS, THE. A canonical book of the Old Testament, containing the Proverbs, or wise sayings, of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel.

This collection is but a part of the proverbs of that prince: for we are told that “he spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five.” His name is prefixed to the whole work. In the twenty-fifth chapter it is observed, that the following Proverbs belong to him, but that they were collected by persons appointed by Hezekiah for that purpose. The thirtieth chapter is entitled, “The words of Agur, the son of Jakeh.” The last chapter is inscribed, “The words of king Lemuel.” From these different titles it is concluded, that the first twenty-four chapters are the genuine work of Solomon; that the five next are a collection of several of his Proverbs, made by order of King Hezekiah; and that the two last chapters were added, and belong to different, though unknown, authors.

The Jews are of opinion, that Solomon wrote the Canticles in his youth, the Proverbs in his manhood, and the Ecclesiastes in the latter end of his life. The Hebrews called this book Mische, which signifies a proverb, or allegory; the Greeks style it Παραβολαὶ, and the Latins, Proverbia; which may properly be rendered sentences or maxims. They contain rules for the conduct of all conditions of life; for kings, courtiers, masters, servants, fathers, mothers, children, &c. The Greek version of this book is often very different from the Hebrew, and adds a great many verses, that are not found in the original. In the ancient Latin editions several verses are added, which have been left out since the time of St. Jerome.

This proverbial manner of speaking and writing was in great use and esteem among the Hebrews, and in all the countries of the East. Hence it was, that the queen of Sheba came to prove Solomon with hard questions, or parables. Hiram, king of Tyre, they say, held a correspondence by letters with Solomon, and proposed enigmatical questions to him, and answered those that were proposed to him by Solomon.

PROVIDENCE. The superintendence which God exercises over creation. In the very notion of a Creator this power is implied. The work of a creature may continue after its author’s death: because the work of a creature does not depend upon him who was the author of it, but upon some pre-existing things which were not created by him, but merely combined. While the pre-existing things remain in combination, the work lasts; but when the pre-existing thing or things are removed, the work perishes. A house survives the architect and builder, because the pre-existing things, the stones for instance, and the mortar, remain in combination. But the works of God are not combinations; they are creations; things formed out of nothing. The pre-existing Being on whom they depend is God, and God only. If God be removed from them they must perish. His presence is their support. But when God is present, he is present as an acting and intelligent being. Therefore we say, that what in his wisdom he created, that by his providence he sustains.

The general providence of God is seen in the laws of Nature. The universe may be compared to a great machine, the whole of which has been put into motion by the Creator, who watches over his works, and prevents disorder and confusion. According to these laws, the earth proceeds in its annual course, the moon observes its regular changes, the seasons come round at their stated periods, and the tides, in all their variety, keep their courses.

But although, to a certain extent, we perceive that there is such regularity in the order of events, that Nature may be said to be bound by laws; yet, as a matter of fact, we find that there is an occasional and not unfrequent interference with those laws. This fact is expressed in every language in which words occur equivalent to our expressions of luck, chance, good or ill fortune. According to the laws of Nature, the harvest follows the seed-time; but the husbandman is sometimes disappointed in his just hopes: the race is to the swift, and the battle to the strong, according to the laws of Nature; but accidents so frequently occur, that we find that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. These deviations from the laws of Nature, the Scriptures teach us to refer to an interference on the part of God, and this interference with the laws of Nature we regard as his particular providence.

Relying on his general providence, we labour and adopt the best means for the furtherance of our ends: we plant, we sow, we endeavour to be swift or strong. Believing in his particular providence, we pray. (See Prayer.)

PROVINCE. The limits of an archbishop’s jurisdiction, as the diocese is the limits of the jurisdiction of a bishop: and so provincial constitutions, provincial courts, provincial synods, provincial canons, are the canons, synods, courts, and constitutions, which have authority within the rule of a single archbishop.

PROVISIONS. An oppressive invention of the bishops of Rome, whereby the right of patronage of ecclesiastical benefices was arbitrarily suspended by the Pope, that he might present his own creatures, and make provision in the Church of England for foreign ecclesiastics. This usurpation of the pope occasioned much discontent in the Church of England; and at one time the evil had become so intolerable, that it occasioned frightful disturbances. The pope (Gregory IX.) had granted a provision on the patronage of one Sir Robert Thwinge, a Yorkshire knight, who resented it so highly as to associate with himself some eighty others, who had received the like treatment, by whom the persons of foreign ecclesiastics were seized, and even the pope’s envoys murdered. The king, Henry III., set himself to restore peace; and Thwinge, betaking himself to Rome, was reconciled to the pope, and recovered his right of patronage; and the pope conceded that there should be in future no provisions, except in benefices in the patronage of ecclesiastical persons or bodies. These he had usually found more defenceless, and therefore over them he still exercised his usurped authority.

PROVOST. The designation of heads of some colleges in our universities. It was also the title given to the heads of several collegiate churches in England, suppressed at the Reformation, and was their usual designation in Scotland, except in cathedrals. In some foreign cathedrals the head of the chapter is the provost, though there be a dean besides; and in others the dean is head, the provost subordinate. The latter was formerly the case in five out of the six of the cathedrals in the province of Tuam: the name is still retained in some; in others it has been exchanged for that of precentor. Archdeacon Cotton, in his Fasti Ecclesiæ Hiberniæ, (part ii. 114,) says that the title answered to that of chancellor. This observation seems strengthened by the fact, that the dignity of chancellor did not anciently exist in the province of Tuam. Maillane, in his Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, says that the provost had the care of the temporals, the dean of the spirituals; that deans were established to take care of the discipline of the church, and, in many chapters, became in the course of time the first in rank. In Holland and elsewhere, before the Reformation, the provost was sometimes a kind of archdeacon.

PSALMODY. The art or act of singing psalms. Psalmody was always esteemed a considerable part of devotion, and usually performed in the standing posture; and, as to the manner of pronunciation, the plain song was sometimes used, being a gentle inflection of the voice, not much different from reading, like the chant in cathedrals; at other times more artificial compositions were used, like our anthems.—Bingham. The word is now usually limited to the singing of the metrical psalms, but properly it includes chanting also.

PSALMS. The Book of Hymns. Our word Psalm is the translation of two very different Hebrew words. The first, Tehillem, properly means praises, and is the title of the book. The other, Mizmor, means in strictness, a poem. Psalm is derived from a Greek verb, ψάλλω, which means to play or sing to an instrument, being very appropriate to these sacred songs, which we know from Holy Scripture were sung to harps, and other musical instruments. The Book of Psalms is a collection of hymns or sacred songs in praise of God, and consists of poems of various kinds. They are the production of different persons, but are generally called “the Psalms of David,” because a great part of them was composed by him, and David himself is distinguished by the name of the Psalmist. We cannot now ascertain all the psalms written by David, but their number probably exceeds seventy; and much less are we able to discover with any certainty the authors of the other psalms, or the occasions upon which they were composed; a few of them were written after the return from the Babylonian captivity. And the ninetieth psalm, as its title in the original in our Bible translation shows, is attributed to Moses. There is no subject upon which learned men are so much at variance as the authorship of the Psalms, and the meaning of their titles. It is clear, however, that they may be divided into the following classes: Psalms of David; Psalms or Songs of the Sons of Korah; Psalms of Asaph; Songs of Degrees; and again into Penitential Psalms, Hallelujah Psalms, and Historical Psalms.

The whole collection of psalms, usually divided into five books, is eminently prophetical of the Messiah. The first book begins with the 1st and ends with the 41st psalm, and the Hebrew word LeDavid, (of or concerning David, or by David,) occurs before almost every psalm. The 2nd book begins with the 42nd psalm, the 3rd with the 73rd psalm, the 4th with the 90th psalm, and is continued to the 106th. The 5th and last book opens with the 107th. The seven penitential psalms are, 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, 143. These are appointed to be read in our Church on Ash-Wednesday. For many ages they had been used in the Western churches in token of special humiliation. (See Alphabetical or Acrostical Psalm, and Songs of Degrees; Korah, Psalms of; Asaph, Psalms of; and Hallelujah.)

PSALTER. The word Psalter is often used by ancient writers for the Book of Psalms, considered as a separate book of Holy Scripture. It afterwards assumed a more technical meaning, as the book in which the Psalms are arranged for the service of the Church. The Roman Psalter, for instance, does not follow the course of the Psalms as in Scripture; they are arranged for the different services, in the several accompaniments, as antiphons, &c. In our Psalter, the notice of the divisions for the days of the month, and the pointing in the middle of each verse, are a part of the Psalter, though not of the Psalms; and some part of the Psalms unfit for recitation are omitted, as the titles, the words Selah, Higgaion, &c., and the Hallelujahs with which many psalms begin or end, or both. The division of the Psalms into daily portions, as given in our Prayer Books, has been done with a view to convenience. Something like this has long prevailed in the Church, but without its regularity and system. Thus in Egypt, at first, in some places, they read 60 psalms; in others, 50; and afterwards they all agreed to recite 12 only. Columbanus, in his rule, appointed the number of psalms to vary according to the seasons of the year, and the length of the nights; so that sometimes 75 were sung. In the monasteries of Armenia they repeat 99 psalms to the present day. In the Greek Church, the Psalms are divided into cathismata, or portions, so that the whole book is read through in a fortnight. Previously to the reform of our offices, the English Church prescribed 12 psalms for the nocturn; but at that period the number was reduced on an average to three, by the division of the 119th, and by reckoning some other long psalms as each more than one. Under the present arrangement the Psalms are divided into 60 portions, two of which are appointed for each day of the month. Selections are also set forth by the American Church, which may be used instead of the regularly appointed portions.

The Psalms are pointed as they are to be said or sung in churches; by which is meant the colon in the middle of each verse, indicating the pause to be made, not only in the chant, but also in the recitation, as the words clearly imply; a direction commonly neglected by readers, to the great prejudice of distinct enunciation.

The custom of repeating the psalms alternately, or verse by verse, between the minister and the people, is probably designed to supply the place of the ancient antiphon, or the responsive chanting of the psalms by two distinct choirs. This latter practice is still retained in the cathedrals of England, and is more primitive than the alternate reading now prevailing in parish churches.

The Psalter, properly speaking, is a separate book from that of Common Prayer; though bound up in the same volume, and equally subscribed to by all the clergy. The title page of the Prayer Book announces the Book of Common Prayer, &c., &c., together with the Psalter, &c. The Prayer Book and the Psalter were not included in the title page till the last review. It is remarkable, that the same causes have had the same effects in influencing the translation of the Psalter both in the Latin and the English Church. In the former, the old Italian translation had become so familiar to the people that St. Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew was never adopted; but the old version, corrected considerably by St. Jerome, was used; a less correct edition by the Roman, and a more carefully worded one by the Gallican Church. The latter was in the course of time adopted by all the Churches in communion with Rome with a few exceptions. In like manner, the English Psalter does not follow the last translation, (which is in the authorized version of the Bible,) but that of Coverdale’s Bible, corrected, which had become familiar to the people from constant use.

PUBLIC WORSHIP. (See Formulary, Liturgy.) The 90th Canon ordains: “The churchwardens or questmen of every parish, and two or three more discreet persons to be chosen for sidesmen or assistants, shall diligently see that all the parishioners duly resort to their church upon all Sundays and holy-days, and there continue the whole time of Divine service; and all such as shall be found slack or negligent in resorting to the church, (having no great or urgent cause of absence,) they shall earnestly call upon them; and after due monition, (if they amend not,) they shall present them to the ordinary of the place.”

Article 20. “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies” that are not “contrary to God’s word.”

Article 34. “It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners; so that nothing be ordained against God’s word. Whosoever through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offends against the common order of the Church, and hurts the authority of the magistrate, and wounds the consciences of weak brethren. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish the ceremonies or rites of the Church, ordained only by man’s authority; so that all things be done to edifying.”

Canon 6. “Whoever shall affirm, that the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England by law established are wicked, antichristian, or superstitious; or such as, being commanded by lawful authority, men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them, use them, or, as occasion requireth, subscribe unto them; let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored until he repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”

By Canon 80. “The churchwardens or questmen of every church and chapel shall, at the charge of the parish, provide the Book of Common Prayer, lately explained in some few points by his Majesty’s authority, according to the laws and his Highness’s prerogative in that behalf; and that with all convenient speed, but at the furthest within two months after the publishing of these our constitutions.”

Every dean, canon, and prebendary, of every cathedral or collegiate church, and all masters and other heads, fellows, chaplains, and tutors of or in any college, hall, house of learning, or hospital, and every public professor and reader in either of the universities, or in every college elsewhere, and every parson, vicar, curate, lecturer, and every other person in holy orders, and every schoolmaster keeping any public or private school, and every person instructing or teaching any youth in any house or private family, as tutor or schoolmaster, who shall be incumbent, or have possession of any deanery, canonry, prebend, mastership, headship, fellowship, professor’s place, or reader’s place, parsonage, vicarage, or any other ecclesiastical dignity or promotion, or of any curate’s place, lecture, or school, or shall instruct or teach any youth, as tutor or schoolmaster, shall at or before his admission to be incumbent, or having possession aforesaid, subscribe the declaration following: I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law established (13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4, s. 8; and 1 William, sess. 1, c. 8, s. 11). And no form or order of common prayers, administration of sacraments, rites, or ceremonies, shall be openly used in any church, chapel, or other place, other than that which is prescribed in the said books. (s. 17.)

By Canon 4. “Whosoever shall affirm, that the form of God’s worship in the Church of England, established by law, and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments, is a corrupt, superstitious, or unlawful worship of God, or containeth anything in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored but by the bishop of the place, or archbishop, after his repentance and public revocation of such his wicked errors.”

By Canon 38. “If any minister, after he hath subscribed to the Book of Common Prayer, shall omit to use the form of prayer, or any of the orders or ceremonies prescribed in the Communion Book, let him be suspended; and if after a month he do not reform and submit himself, let him be excommunicated; and then if he shall not submit himself within the space of another month, let him be deposed from the ministry.”

And by Canon 98. “After any judge ecclesiastical hath pronounced judicially against contemners of ceremonies, for not observing the rites and orders of the Church of England, or for contempt of public prayer, no judge ad quem shall allow of his appeal, unless the party appellant do first personally promise and avow, that he will faithfully keep and observe all the rights and ceremonies of the Church of England, as also the prescript form of Common Prayer, and do likewise subscribe to the same.”

By the 13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4. “In all places where the proper incumbent of any parsonage, or vicarage, or benefice with cure, doth reside on his living, and keep a curate, the incumbent himself in person (not having some lawful impediment to be allowed by the ordinary of the place) shall once at the least in every month openly and publicly read the Common Prayer and service in and by the said book prescribed, and (if there be occasion) administer each of the sacraments and other rites of the Church, in the parish church or chapel belonging to the same, in such order, manner, and form as in and by the said book is appointed, on pain of £5 to the use of the poor of the parish for every offence, upon conviction by confession or oath of two witnesses, before two justices of the peace; and, in default of payment within ten days, to be levied by distress and sale by warrant of the said justices, by the churchwardens or overseers of the poor of the said parish.” (s. 7.)

By the 2 & 3 Edward VI. c. 1, and 1 Elizabeth, c. 2, it is enacted as follows: “If any parson, vicar, or other whatsoever minister, that ought or should sing or say Common Prayer mentioned in the same book, or minister the sacraments, refuse to use the said Common Prayers, or to minister the sacraments in such cathedral or parish church, or other places, as he should use to minister the same in such order and form as may be mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall, wilfully or obstinately standing in the same, use any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of celebrating the Lord’s supper, openly or privily, or matins, even-song, administration of the sacraments, or other open prayer, than is mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall preach, declare, or speak anything in the derogation or depraving the said book, or anything therein contained, or of any part thereof; and shall be thereof lawfully convicted, according to the laws of this realm, by verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession, or by the notorious evidence of the fact, he shall forfeit to the king (if the prosecution is on the statute of the 2 & 3 Edward VI.) for his first offence, the profit of such one of his spiritual benefices or promotions as it shall please the king to appoint, coming or arising in one whole year after his conviction, and also be imprisoned for six months; and for his second offence be imprisoned for a year, and be deprived, ipso facto, of all his spiritual promotions, and the patron shall present to the same as if he were dead; and for the third offence shall be imprisoned during life.”

Canon 18. “No man shall cover his head in the church or chapel in the time of Divine service, except he have some infirmity; in which case let him wear a nightcap, or coif. All manner of persons then present shall reverently kneel upon their knees, when the general confession, Litany, or other prayers are read; and shall stand up at the saying of the Belief, according to the rules in that behalf prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. And likewise when in time of Divine service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed; testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures their inward humility, Christian resolution, and due acknowledgment that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promises of God to mankind, for this life and the life to come, are fully and wholly comprised. And none, either man, woman, or child, of what calling soever, shall be otherwise at such times busied in the church, than in quiet attendance to hear, mark, and understand that which is read, preached, or ministered; saying in their due places audibly with the minister the Confession, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Creed, and making such other answers to the public prayers as are appointed in the Book of Common Prayer: neither shall they disturb the service or sermon, by walking, or talking, or any other way; nor depart out of the church during the time of Divine service or sermon, without some urgent or reasonable cause.”

Canon 14. “The Common Prayer shall be said or sung distinctly and reverently, upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book of Common Prayer, and their eves, and at convenient and usual times of those days, and in such places of every church as the bishop of the diocese or ecclesiastical ordinary of the place shall think meet for the largeness or straitness of the same, so as the people may be most edified. All ministers likewise shall observe the orders, rites, and ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, as well in reading the Holy Scriptures and saying of prayers, as in administration of the sacraments, without either diminishing in regard of preaching, or in any other respect, or adding anything in the matter or form thereof.”

And by the preface to the Book of Common Prayer: “All priests and deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by sickness, or some other urgent cause. And the curate that ministereth in every parish church or chapel, being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say the same in the parish church or chapel where he ministereth; and shall cause a bell to be tolled thereunto, a convenient time before he begin, that the people may come to hear God’s word, and to pray with him.”

PULPIT. Sermons were originally delivered from the steps of the altar, which was sometimes called the Pulpitum, a term derived from the ancient theatres. The Ambones, or pulpits of the primitive Church, were used originally for reading the lessons only. In later times pulpits, or elevated desks, were erected sometimes in the choir, but generally in the nave, for the purpose of sermons. In our Church a raised desk, called a pulpit, is ordered in every church, from which the preacher addresses his flock. (See Canon 83.)

PURGATORY. A place in which souls are, by the Papists, supposed to be purged, whether by fire or otherwise, from carnal impurities, before they are received into heaven. The first authoritative decree concerning purgatory is to be found in the Council of Florence, (A. D. 1439,) in which council endeavours were made (and with momentary success) to persuade the representatives of the Greek Church to adopt the Roman innovations, and, amongst others, this of purgatory, which was so vague and undefined, that the former found it necessary to ask what it was that they meant by it. This inquiry produced the following synodical definition of it:

“Since you have demanded to have the faith of the Roman Church expressed concerning the truth of purgatory, we briefly reply in these writings, ‘that if any who truly repent depart from life before that by worthy fruits of repentance they have made satisfaction for their sins of commission and omission, their souls are purified after death, and to the relieving these pains, the suffrages of the faithful who are alive, to wit, the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other pious works, are profitable.’ ‘But whether purgatory is a fire, or a mist, or a whirlwind, or anything else, we do not dispute.’”

When first this error was broached by individuals it is not easy to determine; but in St. Augustine’s time, A. D. 398, it appears to have been new, as he speaks of it as a thing which “possibly may be found so, and possibly never;” and so our English Bede, “not altogether incredible.” Its novelty, as an article of faith, is well expressed by Fisher, bishop of Rochester: “For some time it was unknown; but lately known to the Catholic Church. Then it was believed by some persons, by little and little, partly from Scripture, and partly from revelations.” This is spoken of in our twenty-second Article as “a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded on no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.” What the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory is, cannot be better explained than by the Romish doctors themselves, who tell us in the Council of Trent, “If any one say, that, after the grace of justification received, the fault is so pardoned to every penitent sinner, and the guilt of temporal punishment is so blotted out, that there remains no guilt of temporal punishment to be done away in this world, or that which is to come in purgatory, before the passage can be opened into heaven, let him be accursed.” And elsewhere they say, “There is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the sacrifices of the acceptable altar.” So that, as Bellarmine saith, “Purgatory is a certain place, in which, as in a prison, the souls are purged after this life, which were not fully purged in this life, to wit, that so they may be able to enter into heaven, where no unclean thing enters in.” Thus we see, in a few words, what the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory is.

Now that this doctrine is a “fond thing” is plain, in that, by the confession of some of their own writers, there is little or no footing for it in the Scriptures. Nay, if we examine it by Scripture light, we shall find it so far from being grounded upon the Scriptures, that it is directly contrary to them. For the Scriptures say, “The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love and their hatred and their envy are now perished; neither have they any more a portion, for ever, in anything that is done under the sun.” (Eccles. ix. 5, 6.) Whereas this doctrine saith quite contrary, that, when they are dead, they have a part or portion in the prayers of the faithful, and the sacrifices of the altar. Again; the Scripture makes mention but of a two-fold receptacle of souls after death, the one of happiness, the other of misery. (1 Sam. xxv. 29; Matt. vii. 13, 14; viii. 11; Luke xvi. 22, 23.) Whereas this doctrine brings in a third, called purgatory, betwixt heaven and hell, half happiness and half misery. Again; the Scripture saith, “The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth [or purgeth] us from all sin” (1 John i. 7); but this doctrine would persuade us, there are some sins which are to be purged away by the prayers and good works of others. To name no more, the Scripture saith, “He that believeth shall not come into condemnation, but pass from death to life” (John v. 24); and therefore St. Paul saith, “I am in a strait between two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ.” (Phil. i. 23.) So that St. Paul reckoned verily upon it, that so soon as ever he was dead, he should be with Christ; no sooner “absent from the body” but “present with the Lord.” (2 Cor. v. 8.) Whereas this Romish doctrine about purgatory bids him not to be so hasty, for he might depart and yet not be with Christ neither; he might pass from death, and yet not to life; he might and must be absent from the body a good while before he be present with the Lord; he might go from earth, yet not to heaven, but to purgatory, a place St. Paul never dreamt of. So that this doctrine directly contradicts the Scripture. The Scriptures say, “We shall pass from death to life;” this doctrine saith, we shall not pass from death to life, but to purgatory: the Scriptures, that “when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord;” but this doctrine, when we are absent from the body we are not present with the Lord: the Scriptures, that “when we depart we shall be with Christ;” this doctrine, that when we depart we must be in purgatory: the Scriptures, that “we must go directly from earth to heaven;” but this doctrine saith, that we must go about by purgatory, first going from life to death, then from death to purgatory, and from purgatory to heaven.

And as this doctrine herein contradicts the Scriptures, so does it contradict the Fathers too. For Origen saith, “We, after the labours and strivings of this present life, hope to be in the highest heavens,” not in purgatory. And so Chrysostom, “For those that truly follow virtue, after they are changed from this life, they be truly freed from their fightings, and loosed from their bonds. For death, to such as live honestly, is a change from worse things to better, from this transitory to an eternal and immortal life that hath no end.” And Macarius, speaking of the faithful, “When,” saith he, “they go out of their bodies, the choirs of angels receive their souls into their proper places, to the pure world, and so lead them to the Lord.” Whence Athanasius saith, “To the righteous it is not death, but only a change, for they are changed from this world to an eternal rest. And as a man comes out of prison, so do the saints go from this troublesome life to the good things prepared for them.” Certainly these Fathers were no purgatorians, who so unanimously affirmed the souls of the saints to go directly from earth to heaven, never touching upon purgatory.

To these we may add Gennadius, who assures us, that “after the ascension of the Lord to heaven, the souls of all the saints are with Christ, and going out of the body go to Christ, excepting the resurrection of their body.” And to name no more in so plain a case, Prosper also tells us, “According to the language of the Holy Scripture, the whole life of man upon earth is a temptation or trial. Then is the temptation to be avoided when the fight is ended; and then is the fight to be ended, when after this life secure victory succeeds the fight, that all the soldiers of Christ, who, being helped by God, have to the end of this present life unwearily resisted their enemies, their wearisome travel being ended, they may reign happily in their country.” So that they do not go from one fight here to another in purgatory, but immediately from the Church militant on earth to the Church triumphant in heaven. From hence we may well conclude, that “the Romish doctrine about purgatory is a fond thing repugnant to Scripture,” yea, and Fathers too.—Bp. Beveridge.

PURIFICATION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. This holy-day is kept in memory of the presentation of Christ in the temple, and is observed in the Church of England on the second of February. It was a precept of the Mosaic law, that every first-born son should be holy unto the Lord, to attend the service of the temple or tabernacle, or else to be redeemed with an offering of money, or sacrifice. The mother, also, was obliged to separate herself forty days from the congregation, after the birth of a male, and eighty after that of a female; and then was to present a lamb, if in good circumstances, or a couple of pigeons, if she was poor. All this was exactly performed after the birth of our Saviour, who came to fulfil all righteousness; and was willing, in all particulars of his life, that a just obedience should be paid to the public ordinances of religion. The offering made in this case is an undesigned coincidence attesting the poverty of his parents. This feast is of considerable antiquity. St. Chrysostom mentions it as celebrated at his time in the Church. It is observed as one of the scarlet days in the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

PURITANS. A name assumed by the ultra-Protestants in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., who called themselves pure, though their doctrines were so impure as to lead them on to the murder of their archbishop and their king. A violent and popular outcry has often been raised against the Church, because, at the Restoration, those of the clergy who refused to conform were ejected from their benefices. But it will be well to see how the case really stands. Seven thousand English clergymen, having refused to take the covenant at the great Rebellion, were ejected from their livings, their places being supplied by dissenting teachers. This most honourable testimony to the clergy of the Church of England at that period ought never to be forgotten. At the Restoration it was required, that all those persons who had thus become possessed of the property of the English Church, should either conform to the regulations of the Church, or resign. Of all the Puritan clergy then in possession, only two thousand thought fit to resign rather than comply. And these two thousand were ejected from what? From their rights? No; but from their usurpations. Five thousand conformed, and still retained possession of the Church property, so that many of the previously ejected clergy of the Church of England who hoped, at the Restoration, to be restored to their own, were sorely disappointed and cruelly used. This treatment of the English clergy by the Puritans is worthy of notice, and is an instructive commentary on the spirituality of their pretensions, and the tenderness of their consciences.

“The taking of the covenant was now pressed close through all the parliament quarters, which brought a terrible persecution upon the loyal clergy. Those who refused to comply were turned out of their houses, and not suffered to compound either for personal or real estate. This rigour forced great numbers of the clergy to quit their benefices, and retire to places under the king’s protection. These vacancies were partly supplied by those Presbyterians who had formerly been lecturers or chaplains; partly by young unqualified students from the universities; to which we may add, some refugees from Scotland and New England, who came in for their share of preferment. And some of those Puritans, who had formerly declaimed so much against pluralities, were now reconciled to the holding two or three livings. As to the honest clergy, who refused to join the rebellion, or revolt from the Church, they were sequestered and imprisoned, and almost every way harassed and undone. From the year 1641 to six years forward, there were an hundred and fifteen clergymen turned out of their livings within the bills of mortality; most of these were plundered, and their wives and children turned out into the streets. By these barbarities in London, the reader may conjecture the greatness of the calamity in the rest of the kingdom. They had another way of reaching the orthodox clergy besides the covenant. Some of them were sequestered and ejected upon pretence of scandal and immorality. But, to show the iniquity of their proceeding upon this head, it may be observed, first, that some of the crimes charged upon them were capital; and, therefore, since the forfeiture of their lives was not taken, we may reasonably believe the proof was defective. Secondly, the depositions against them were seldom taken upon oath, but bare affirmation went for evidence. Thirdly, many of the complainants were apparently factious men, who had deserted the Church and professed an aversion to the hierarchy. Fourthly, many of these pretended criminals were ignorantly, if not maliciously, charged with delivering false doctrine: for instance, some were persecuted for preaching that baptism washed away original sin: and, lastly, many were ousted for malignancy; that is, for being true to their allegiance. In short, it is observed there were more turned out of their livings by the Presbyterians in three years, than were deprived by the Papists in Queen Mary’s reign; or had been silenced, suspended, or deprived by all the bishops from the first year of Queen Elizabeth to the time we are upon.”—Collier, ii. 828.

PYX. The box in which Romanists keep the Host.

QUADRAGESIMA. The Latin name for Lent. It was formerly given to the first Sunday in Lent, from the fact of its being forty days before Easter, in round numbers.

QUAKERS owe their origin to George Fox, in 1624. The following, according to Mr. Burder, are their principal articles of belief.

Every one who leads a moral life, and from the sincerity of his heart complies with the duties of natural religion, must be deemed an essentially good Christian. An historical faith and belief of some extraordinary facts, which the Christians own for truths, are the only real difference between a virtuous Pagan and a good Christian, and this faith is not necessary to salvation.

Christ is the true inward light, which enlightens all men. This is performed by an immediate inspiration, and not by the outward doctrine of the gospel, which Christ has preached to men as a rule of their belief and practice; which outward preaching of evangelical truths is not the usual and ordinary method used by God to enlighten mankind; but he sends to each person interior inspirations. This interior light is the true gospel; it is to be adored, as being Christ himself and God himself.

Scripture is not the true rule, the real guide of Christian faith and moral doctrine; this is a prerogative belonging only to the inward light, which each has within himself, or which breaks forth in the assemblies of the brethren or friends. The dead letter of the sacred writings is not of so great authority as the preaching of the authors of them: the particular books which make up the Scripture, were directed to private churches or persons, and we are not interested them.

The chief rule of our faith is the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, who interiorly teaches us; and the Scripture is only a rule subordinate to that Spirit. An immediate inspiration is as necessary to us as to the apostles: it teaches us whatever is necessary to salvation. The promise which Christ made to his apostles, to teach them all truth by his Spirit, and that the Holy Ghost should always remain with them, was not confined to the apostles only, it belongs to all the faithful; and it is said of them all, that the unction shall teach them all things.

All true ministers of Christ are as infallible in what they teach, as the prophets and apostles were; otherwise the Spirit of Christ would not be infallible. All those who are filled with the gifts of the Spirit are equally infallible, without which the infallibility of the Holy Ghost must be divided; there is no exterior way of teaching, which may help one to judge of the truth of the doctrine which he preaches. The immediate inspiration is sufficient to enable a minister to preach without Scripture, or any other exterior helps. Without this particular inspiration all those who pretend to argue upon or explain the words of Christ, are false prophets and deceivers. The Church ought to have no other ministers, but those who are called by an immediate inspiration, which is best proved by interior miracles, of which the outward signs were only a representation or figure. The Quakers do not preach a new gospel, and therefore need not work miracles to prove their doctrine; a visible succession of ministers, ordained or otherwise established, is likewise of no use. Whoever is inwardly called to the ministerial functions, is sufficiently qualified for that post; inward sanctity is as essentially requisite in a true minister, as in a true member of the Church.

Women may preach with as much authority as men, and be ministers of the Church; for in Christ there is no distinction of male and female, and the prophet Joel has foretold that women should have the gift of prophecy as well as men.

The Scripture nowhere says, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are three persons; there are three several manifestations; but three persons would in reality be three Gods. The Scripture being silent as to the manner of the unity and of the distinction in the Trinity, it is a great rashness in the Christian Churches to meddle with deciding such intricate points. The distinction of persons in the Godhead is a speculative subtlety, not calculated to mend our lives, and very prejudicial to Christian peace and charity. To draw up an exact profession of faith, it is necessary to adhere closely to the expressions used in Scripture.

The true Christ is he who existed before he was manifested in the flesh, and who has never been seen with the eyes of the flesh. Jesus Christ, as God, has a heavenly humanity, of which the earthly one is but the outward garment, the type or figure. Jesus Christ, the Word and Son of God, did not personally unite himself to our human nature; he only took it as a suit of clothes, which he was to put on for a while. This human nature was inspired, as other men, but in a superior and more particular degree. Christ could not be united to a corrupt nature; his interior birth within men, is a greater mystery than his outward nativity. The faith in and the knowledge of Christ, according to the flesh, and of his mysteries, were but the first elements fit for the infancy of Christianity, which being over, those rudiments become useless: we now have learned to be in Christ, to become new creatures, to let old things pass away in order to make room for the new.

The expiation of our sins has not been merited by the outward spilling of Christ’s blood, which was not more precious than that of any other saint: neither has the Church been redeemed by it; but by an inward and spiritual blood, which purifies our hearts and consciences, of which the Scripture says, it was spilt for our justification; lastly, of which Christ himself says, that he who does not drink his blood shall not have life in him.

The Scripture does not say that Christ satisfied the justice of God for our sins. As God may without any injustice forgive our sins without such a satisfaction, it was not necessary, neither can it be reconciled with the gratuitous remission of our sins: and moreover, God’s punishing his own Son, who was innocent, is contrary to Divine justice.

Christ did not go up to heaven with the body which he had on earth, which is not now in heaven at the right hand of God. It is an erroneous opinion to think or believe that the body of Christ, which is in heaven, occupies and fills any particular limited place: the body of Christ is wherever his Spirit is; and it cannot save us, if distance of place separates it from us: whoever preaches a doctrine opposite to these propositions, is a false minister, and deceitful teacher: the same gift of discernment in the examination of spirits, which was bestowed on the apostles, remains still in the Church.

Our sins being once forgiven, it is wholly unnecessary to repent of them any further, or to go on in asking forgiveness for them. We cannot become God’s servants unless we be first purified.

Outward baptism is not an ordinance of Christ, or at least not to be observed as a perpetual law. Whoever pretends that Christ’s order is to be understood of water baptism adds to the text, which does not mention water. The baptism enjoined by Christ is a baptism of spirit, not of water. The water baptism was St. John’s, and has been abolished. St. Paul says he was not sent to baptize, but to preach. Water baptism was used by the apostles only as a toleration for the weakness of the Jews, but it can do no good to the soul. Baptism by inspersion is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. Water baptism, and the spiritual baptism, are two entirely different baptisms. The inward baptism alone is the true baptism of Christ.

Children ought not to be baptized, since they are not capable of taking any engagement upon themselves, or of making a profession of faith, or of answering to God according to the testimony of a good conscience.

Taking or receiving the eucharist is not a perpetual obligation; it was instituted heretofore only for those who were newly converted to the Christian religion, or for weak Christians in the beginning of their Christianity.

Amongst the Quakers the spirit is what they call free, and does not submit to synods, nor to worldly learning, wisdom, or customs: this is one of the chief and most essential articles of their religion. All the members of the Church may and ought to concur to the general good of the body; all may have the same helps from the Holy Ghost, and feel the same impressions of his power; all are animated and fed, like our bodily members, by the same efficacy and in the same manner; all by consequence ought to give a helping hand to the edification of the mystical body, as natural members contribute to the welfare of human bodies. This they apply to the evangelical ministry: the Spirit, say the Quakers, notifies by its impulse what is wanting to the Church, and obliges those members, upon whom he makes that impulse, to give a speedy help to the mystical body. If it should happen that out of laziness, neglect, or distraction, the person so moved should not be sensible of the impulse, or not give a due attention to the defects of which the members of the mystical body are guilty, then they ought to rouse themselves with new fervour, and by a perfect recollection make a trial of the gifts and power of the Spirit of life. The call to pastoral functions essentially consists in this, it requires no pomp, no ceremony, no improvement of the mind, no preparation, no examination, nor any of the means used in other Christian societies, to provide churches with pastors and teachers. Yet if after this inward trial any one be moved and forcibly drawn by the Spirit to engage in the ministry, the ecclesiastical council must not omit the formality of examining whether the person so inspired be in reality fit for it, and ought to be admitted to that dignity; the importance of which, in regard to himself, and to the whole Church, is strongly represented to him, in a speech or exhortation made to that end. This ceremony is sometimes accompanied by the letters of other churches and societies of Quakers, recommending such or such to that office. When installed, they are maintained by voluntary contributions only, without any settlement, contract, or previous agreement. Each Quaker contributes freely, according to his power, and the minister is not to accept of their benevolence, further than is necessary for a sober and frugal maintenance; but if he be reduced to poverty for want of such contributions, it is lawful for him to leave the congregation which he served; he may even, according to their historian, shake the dust off his feet against that Church, as Christ ordered his apostles to do against those who would not receive them.

The Quakers apply equally to all governments, or pretended governments, and do not seem to make one title better than another; for, to use their own words, they do not dispute authority with any man, nor question forms of government, nor trouble their heads what becomes of the world. And, in consequence of this principle, they seem to make a kind of merit of their faithful obedience, under all the usurpations of the Rump Parliament, Cromwell, &c.

Robert Barclay, one of the most learned of their persuasion, in his second proposition affirms, that the light within, or the Divine inward revelation, is, like common principles, self-evident; and therefore it is not to be subjected either to the examination of the outward testimony of the Scriptures, or of the natural reason of man. In his third proposition he asserts, that the Scriptures are not the principal ground of all truth, nor the primary rule of faith and manners, they being only a secondary rule and subordinate to the Spirit; by the inward testimony of which Spirit, we do alone know them: so that, by this reasoning, the authority of the Scriptures must depend upon the inward testimony of the Spirit. He affirms further, that the depraved seed of original sin is not imputed to infants before actual transgression. (Prop. 4.) Those who have the gift of the light within, are sufficiently ordained to preach the gospel, though without any commission from churches, or any assistances from human learning; whereas those who want the authority of this Divine gift, how well qualified soever in other respects, are to be looked upon as deceivers, and not true ministers of the gospel. (Prop. 10.) All acceptable worship must be undertaken and performed by the immediate moving of the Holy Spirit, which is neither limited to places, times, nor persons; and therefore all outward significations of Divine worship, unmoved by secret inspiration, which man sets about in his own will, and can both begin and end at his pleasure, all acts of worship thus mis-qualified, consisting either in prayers, praises, or preaching, prescribed, premeditated, or extempore, are no better than superstitions, will-worship, and abominable idolatry in the sight of God. (Prop. 11.) The dominion of conscience belongs only to God, therefore it is not lawful for civil magistrates to punish their subjects, either in fortune, liberty, or person, upon the score of difference in worship or opinions: provided always that no man, under pretence of conscience, does any injury to his neighbour, relating either to life or estate. The Quakers are charged with other errors of a very bad complexion, drawn especially from the writings of those who were first of their persuasion; but these tenets the modern Quakers seem to disown, and appear very willing to explain and reconcile their authors to a more orthodox meaning: the truth is, they now far differ from what they were originally, not only in principle, but even their external demureness and rigidity seem to be abated.

The following is taken from the Report published in 1854 by the Registrar-general.

“The whole community of Friends is modelled somewhat on the Presbyterian system. Three gradations of meetings or synods,—monthly, quarterly, and yearly, administer the affairs of the Society, including in their supervision matters both of spiritual discipline and secular polity. The MONTHLY MEETINGS, composed of all the congregations within a definite circuit, judge of the fitness of new candidates for membership, supply certificates to such as move to other districts, choose fit persons to be Elders to watch over the ministry, attempt the reformation or pronounce the expulsion of all such as walk disorderly, and generally seek to stimulate their members to religious duty. They also make provision for the poor of the society, (none of whom are, consequently, ever known to require parochial relief,) and secure the education of their children. Overseers also are appointed to assist in the promotion of these objects. At monthly meetings, also, marriages are sanctioned previous to their solemnization at a meeting for worship.—Several monthly meetings compose a QUARTERLY MEETING, to which they forward general reports of their condition, and at which appeals are heard from their decisions.—The YEARLY MEETING holds the same relative position to the quarterly meetings as the latter do to the monthly meetings, and has the general superintendence of the Society in a particular country: that held in London comprehends the quarterly meetings of Great Britain, by all of which representatives are appointed and reports addressed to the yearly meeting. Representatives also attend from a yearly meeting for Ireland held in Dublin. It likewise issues annual epistles of advice and caution, appoints committees, and acts as a court of ultimate appeal from quarterly and monthly meetings.

“A similar series of meetings, under regulations framed by the men’s yearly meeting, and contained in the Book of Discipline, is held by the female members, whose proceedings are, however, mainly limited to mutual edification.

“Connected with the yearly meeting is a MEETING FOR SUFFERINGS, composed of ministers, elders, and members chosen by the quarterly meetings. Its original object was to prevail upon the government to grant relief from the many injuries to which the early Friends were constantly exposed. It has gradually had the sphere of its operations extended, and is now a standing committee representing the yearly meeting during its recess, and attending generally to all such matters as affect the welfare of the body.

“There are also meetings of preachers and elders for the purpose of mutual consultation and advice, and the preservation of a pure and orthodox ministry.

“In case of disputes among Friends, they are not to appeal to the ordinary courts of law, but to submit the matter to the arbitration of two or more of their fellow-members. If either party refuses to obey the award, the Monthly Meeting to which he belongs may proceed to expel him from the Society.

“From the period of the Revolution of 1688 the Friends have received the benefits of the Toleration Act. By the statutes of 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 34, and 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 49, their solemn affirmations are accepted in lieu of oaths; and the abrogation of the Test Act renders them eligible for public offices.

“The first assemblies of the Friends for separate public worship were held in Leicestershire in 1644. In 1652 the Society had extended itself throughout most of the northern counties, and before the Restoration, meetings were established in nearly all the English and Welsh counties, as well as in Ireland, Scotland, the West Indies, and the British provinces of North America. The Society in the United Kingdom is not now increasing its numbers. The Friends themselves account for this, in part, by the constant emigration of members to America, where the body is much more numerous than in England. But they do not hesitate to admit that much is attributable to the feebler endeavours now than formerly to gain proselytes. Since 1800 their number, if computed by the number of their meeting-houses, has diminished. In 1800 they possessed 413 meeting-houses, while the number returned to the Census in 1851 was only 371. They say, however, that this does not inevitably indicate a smaller number of professors; since, of late, there has been a considerable tendency amongst them to migrate from the rural districts, and to settle in the larger towns. Small communities are to be found in parts of France, Germany, Norway, and Australia.”

Though dissenters are frequently chosen as churchwardens, it appears by a decision of Dr. Phillimore, (1 Curteis, 447,) that a Quaker cannot be compelled to serve the office.

QUARE IMPEDIT, is a writ which lies where one has an advowson, and the parson dies, and another presents a clerk, or disturbs the rightful patron in his right to present.

QUARE INCUMBRAVIT, is a writ which lies where two are in plea for the advowson of a church, and the bishop admits the clerk of one of them within the six months; then the other shall have this writ against the bishop.

QUARE NON ADMISIT, is a writ which lies where a man has recovered an advowson, and sends his clerk to the bishop to be admitted, and the bishop will not receive him.

QUATRODECIMANI, or PASCHITES. A name given, in the second century, to some of the Christians, who would celebrate the feast of Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, on what day of the week soever it happened.

QUEEN ANNE’S BOUNTY. (See Annates.)

QUERISTER, or QUIRISTER. The same as Chorister, which see.

QUIETISTS. A Christian sect, that took its origin in the seventeenth century from Michael Molinos, a Spanish priest, who endeavoured to establish new doctrines in Italy; the chief of which was, that men ought to annihilate themselves, in order to be united to God, and remain afterwards in quietness of mind, without being troubled for what should happen to the body; and therefore his followers took the name of Quietists, from the word quies, rest. By that principle he pretended that no real act was either meritorious or criminal, because the soul and its faculties, being annihilated, had no part therein; and so this doctrine led people to transgress all laws, sacred and civil. The doctrine of Molinos in 1687 was by the inquisitors and pope declared false and pernicious, and his book burnt. He himself was imprisoned after he had recanted, and died in 1692. It is supposed there long remained many of this sect. Their doctrine also crept over the Alps into France; the “Maxims of the Saints explained,” written by Fénelon, Archbishop of Cambray, having some tendency that way, and having been therefore condemned by the pope in 1699.

QUINQUAGESIMA. A Sunday so called, because it is the fiftieth day before Easter, reckoned in the whole numbers: Shrove Sunday.

QUINQUARTICULAR CONTROVERSY. The controversy between the Arminians and the Calvinists on the Five Points. (See Five Points.)

QUIRE. (See Choir.)

QUOD PERMITTAT, is a writ granted to the successor of a parson, for the recovery of pasture, by the statute of the 13 Edward I. c. 24.

QUESTMEN. Persons appointed to help the churchwardens. In the ancient episcopal synods, the bishops were wont to summon divers men out of each parish to give information of the disorders of the clergy and people, and these in process of time became standing officers, called synod’s men, sidesmen, or questmen. The whole of the office of these persons seems by custom to have devolved on the churchwardens. (See Churchwardens.)

RANTERS. A denomination which arose in the year 1645. They set up the light of nature under the name of Christ in men. With regard to the Church, Scripture, ministry, &c., their sentiments were the same as the Seekers. The sect thus instituted is now extinct, and the name is given to the “Primitive Methodists,” as a branch of the Methodists are denominated.

RATE. (Church Rates.) The greater part of the property of this country has been bought and sold with an understanding that the church of the parish is to be kept and repaired by the owners of the property. Except for this liability, a larger sum would have been paid for the property. For those, therefore, who have thus profited by the existence of a church rate, to refuse that rate, and so appropriate to themselves what does not belong to them, is an act not only of profaneness but of dishonesty.

Rates for the repairs of the church are to be made by the churchwardens with the parishioners assembled, upon public notice given in the church.

The bishop cannot direct a commission to rate the parishioners, and appoint what each one shall pay: this must be done by the churchwardens and parishioners; and the spiritual court may inflict spiritual censures till they do. But if the rate be illegally imposed by such commission from the bishop, or otherwise, without the parishioners’ consent, yet if it be after assented to, and confirmed by the major part of the parishioners, that will make it good.

These levies are not chargeable upon the land, but upon the person in respect of the land, for the more equality and indifferency. And houses as well as lands are chargeable, and in some places houses only; as in cities and large towns, where there are only houses, and no lands to be charged.

A rate for the reparation of the fabric of the church is real, charging the land, and not the person: but a rate for ornaments is personal, upon the goods, and not upon the land.

And Sir Simon Degge saith thus: There hath been some question made, whether one that holds lands in one parish and resides in another, may be charged to the ornaments of the parish where he doth not reside; and some opinions have been, that foreigners were only chargeable to the shell of the church, but not to the bells, seats, or ornaments. But he says, he conceives the law to be clearly otherwise; and that the foreigner that holds lands in the parish, is as much obliged to pay towards the bells, seats, and ornaments, as to the repair of the church; otherwise there would be a great confusion in making several levies, the one for the repair of the church, the other for the ornaments, which he says he never observed to be practised within his knowledge. And it is possible that all, or the greatest part of the land in the parish, may be held by foreigners; and it were unreasonable in such case to lay the whole charge upon the inhabitants, which may be but a poor shepherd. The reason alleged against this charge upon the foreigners, is chiefly because the foreigner hath no benefit by the bells, seats, and ornaments; which receives an answer in Jeffrey’s case, (5 Co. 67,) for there it is resolved, that landholders that live in a foreign parish are in judgment of law inhabitants and parishioners, as well in the parish where they hold lands, as where they reside, and may come to the parish meetings, and have votes there as well as others. For authorities in the case, it is clear by the canon law, that all landholders, whether they live in the parish or out of it, are bound to contribute. And the practice, from its ease and convenience, seems now generally to go with this opinion.

Stratford. All persons, as well religious as others whatsoever, having possessions, farms, or rents, which are not of the glebe or endowment of the churches to be repaired, living within the parish or elsewhere, shall be bound to contribute with the rest of the parishioners of the aforesaid churches, as often as shall be needful, to all charges incumbent upon the parishioners concerning the church and the ornaments thereof, by law or custom, having respect unto the quantity of such possessions and rents. Whereupon, so often as shall be necessary, the ordinary shall compel them by ecclesiastical censures and other lawful means.

If a person inhabiteth in one parish, and hath land in another parish, which he occupieth himself there, he shall be charged for this land, for the reparation of the church of the parish in which the land lieth; because he may come there when he will, and he is to be charged in respect of the land. And such occupation of land maketh the person occupying a parishioner, and entitles him to come to the assemblies of the same parish, when they meet together for such purposes.

Where such lands are in farm, not the lessor, but the tenant, shall pay. For (as it was determined in Jeffrey’s case before cited) there is an inhabitant and parishioner who may be charged; and the receipt of the rent doth not make the lessor a parishioner.

It is said that the patron of a church, as in right of the founder, may prescribe, that, in respect of the foundation, he and his tenants have been freed from the charge of repairing the church.

The rectory, or vicarage, which is derived out of it, are not chargeable to the repair of the body of the church, steeple, public chapels, or ornaments; being at the whole charge of repairing the chancel.

But an impropriator of a rectory or parsonage, though bound to repair the chancel, is also bound to contribute to the reparations of the church, in case he hath lands in the parish which are not parcel of the rectory.

The inhabitants of a precinct where there is a chapel, though it is a parochial chapel, and though they do repair that chapel, are nevertheless of common right contributory to the repairs of the mother-church. If they have seats at the mother-church, to go thither when they please, or receive sacraments, or sacramentals, or marry, christen, or bury at it, there can be no pretence for a discharge. Nor can anything support that plea, but that they have time out of mind been discharged (which also is doubted whether it be of itself a full discharge); or that, in consideration thereof, they have paid so much to the repair of the church, or the wall of the churchyard, or the keeping of the bell, or the like compositions (which are clearly a discharge).

Every inhabitant, dwelling within the parish, is to be charged according to his ability, whether in land or living within the same parish, or for his goods there; that is to say, for the best of them, but not for both.

Every farmer dwelling out of the parish, and having lands and living within the said parish in his own occupation, is to be charged to the value of the same lands or living, or else to the value of the stock thereupon; that is, for the best, but not for both.

Every farmer dwelling out of the parish, and having lands and living within the parish, in the occupation of any farmer or farmers, is not to be charged; but the farmer or farmers thereof are to be charged; in particularity, every one according to the value of the land which he occupieth, or according to the stock thereupon; that is, for the best, but not for both.

Every inhabitant and farmer occupying arable land within the parish, and feeding his cattle out of the parish, is to be charged with the arable land within the parish, although his cattle be fed out of the parish.

Every farmer of any mill within the parish, is to be charged for that mill; and the owner thereof (if he be an inhabitant) is to be charged for his hability in the same parish, besides the mill.

Every owner of lands, tenements, copyholds, or other hereditaments, inhabiting within the parish, is to be taxed according to his wealth in regard of a parishioner, although he occupy none of them himself; and his farmer or farmers also are to be taxed for occupying only.

The assessors are not to tax themselves, but to leave the taxation of them to the residue of the parish.

The law as to the power of making and levying rates for church purposes cannot be said to be definitively settled at present, as there have been conflicting decisions, and some points of great importance are now sub judice, so far as regards the highest court of appeal in the kingdom. But at present the preponderance of authority is in favour of these two points: 1. That for the necessary repairs of the church the churchwardens may and ought to make and levy a rate, even though it be opposed by a majority of ratepayers in vestry assembled. 2. That any expense connected with the celebration of service in the church, even to the salaries of pew openers and organist, may be levied by rate from the whole parish, if a majority of ratepayers in vestry assembled have assented thereto.

RATIONALISM. To rationalize is to ask for reasons out of place; to ask improperly how we are to account for certain things, to be unwilling to believe them unless they can be accounted for, i. e. referred to something else as a cause, to some existing system as harmonizing with them, or taking them up into itself. Again; since whatever is assigned as the reason for the original fact canvassed, admits in turn of a like question being raised about itself, unless it be ascertainable by the senses, and be the subject of personal experience, Rationalism is bound properly to pursue onward its course of investigation on this principle, and not to stop, till it can directly or ultimately refer to self as a witness, whatever is offered to its acceptance. Thus it is characterized by two peculiarities; its love of systematizing, and its basing its system upon personal experience, on the evidence of sense. In both it stands opposed to what is commonly understood by the word faith, or belief in testimony; for which it deliberately substitutes system (or, what is popularly called reason) and sight. Rationalism is concerned with Anthropology, Faith with Theology.

READER. The office of reader is one of the five inferior orders in the Romish Church.

And in the Church of England, in churches or chapels where there is only a very small endowment, and no clergyman will take upon him the charge or cure thereof, it has been usual to admit readers, to the end that Divine service in such places might not altogether be neglected.

It is said, that readers were first appointed in the Church about the third century. In the Greek Church they were said to have been ordained by the imposition of hands: but whether this was the practice of all the Greek Churches has been much questioned. In the Latin Church it was certainly otherwise. The Council of Carthage speaks of no other ceremony, but the bishop’s putting the Bible into his hands in the presence of the people, with these words, “Take this book and be thou a reader of the word of God, which office if thou shalt faithfully and profitably perform, thou shalt have part with those that minister in the word of God.” And, in Cyprian’s time, they seem not to have had so much as this ceremony of delivering the Bible to them, but were made readers by the bishop’s commission and deputation only to such a station in the Church.—Bingham.

Upon the Reformation here, they were required to subscribe to the following injunctions:—“Imprimis,—I shall not preach or interpret, but only read that which is appointed by public authority:—I shall not minister the sacraments or other public rites of the Church, but bury the dead, and purify women after their child-birth:—I shall keep the register book according to the injunctions:—I shall use sobriety in apparel, and especially in the church at common prayer:—I shall move men to quiet and concord, and not give them cause of offence:—I shall bring in to my ordinary, testimony of my behaviour, from the honest of the parish where I dwell, within one half year next following:—I shall give place upon convenient warning so thought by the ordinary, if any learned minister shall be placed there at the suit of the patron of the parish:—I shall claim no more of the fruits sequestered of such cure where I shall serve, but as it shall be thought meet to the wisdom of the ordinary:—I shall daily at the least read one chapter of the Old Testament, and one other of the New, with good advisement, to the increase of my knowledge:—I shall not appoint in my room, by reason of my absence or sickness, any other man; but shall leave it to the suit of the parish to the ordinary, for assigning some other able man:—I shall not read but in poorer parishes destitute of incumbents, except in the time of sickness, or for other good considerations to be allowed by the ordinary:—I shall not openly intermeddle with any artificer’s occupations, as covetously to seek a gain thereby, having in ecclesiastical living the sum of twenty nobles or above by the year.”

This was resolved to be put to all readers and deacons by the respective bishops, and is signed by both the archbishops, together with the bishops of London, Winchester, Ely, Sarum, Carlisle, Chester, Exeter, Bath and Wells, and Gloucester.—Strype’s Annals.

By the foundation of divers hospitals, there are to be readers of prayers there, who are usually licensed by the bishop.

READING DESK. (See Pew.) The reading desk, or reading pew, appears to have been frequently erected at the same time as the pulpit, which was ordered by the canons of 1603 to be placed in every church not already provided with one. The reading desk is only once recognised in our Prayer Book, and that in the rubric prefixed to the Commination, and is there called a reading pew; and it is remarkable that the term was first introduced there at the last revision of the Prayer Book, in 1661: it is not found in any edition printed before that time. Bishop Sparrow tells us, that, previously to the time of Cromwell, the reading pew had one desk for the Bible, looking towards the people to the body of the Church; another for the Prayer Book, looking towards the east, or upper end of the chancel. And very reasonable was this usage: for, when the people were spoken to, it was fit to look towards them, but when God was spoken to, it was fit to turn from the people. And besides, if there be any part of the world more honourable in the esteem of men than another, it is fit to look that way when we pray to God in public, that the turning of our bodies to a more honourable place may mind us of the great honour and majesty of the person we speak to. And this reason St. Augustine gives of the Church’s ancient custom of turning to the east in their public prayers, because the east is the most honourable part of the world, being the region of light, whence the glorious sun arises.

READING IN. The ceremony of reading in, which is required of every incumbent on entering upon his cure, is best described in the memorandum to be signed by the churchwardens, or other inhabitants of the parish, of its having been performed. It is as follows:—

“Memorandum, that on Sunday, the —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord ——, the Reverend A. B., clerk, rector, or vicar of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, did read in his church of —— aforesaid, the articles of religion, commonly called the Thirty-nine Articles, agreed upon in convocation, in the year of our Lord 1562, and did declare his unfeigned assent and consent thereto; also, that he did publicly and openly, on the day and year aforesaid, in the time of Divine service, read a declaration in the following words, viz. ‘I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland, as it is now by law established,’ together with a certificate under the hand of the Right Reverend ——, by Divine permission Lord Bishop of ——, of his having made and subscribed the same before him; and also that the said A. B. did read, in his parish church aforesaid, publicly and solemnly, the Morning and Evening Prayer according to the form prescribed in and by the book, intituled ‘The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches, and the Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;’ and that immediately after reading the Evening Service, the said A. B. did, openly and publicly, before the congregation there assembled, declare his unfeigned assent and consent to all things therein contained and prescribed, in these words, viz. ‘I, A. B., do declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book, intituled the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches, and the Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.’ And these things we promise to testify upon our corporal oaths, if at any time we should be duly called upon so to do. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands, the day and year first above written.”

REAL PRESENCE. (See Transubstantiation, Communion, Lord’s Supper, Eucharist.) The Homily on the Sacrament expressly asserts, “Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony or bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent: but the communion of the body and blood of our Lord in a marvellous incorporation, which, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful.” In the order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, the elements are repeatedly designated as the body and blood of Christ, and after the reception of them we give thanks that God “doth vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body of [His] Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ.” In the exhortation of the same office, mention is made of “the holy communion of the body and blood of Christ.” “We spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood.”—Ibid. “Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body,” &c.—Prayer before Consecration. “Grant that we, receiving these thy creatures, of bread and wine, &c. ... may be partakers of his most precious body and blood.”—Consecration. The catechism, in agreement with this, defines the inward part of this sacrament to be “the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s supper.” The 28th Article asserts, with reference to the holy communion, that “to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.”

So speaks the Church of England, which expressly rejects the Romish figment of transubstantiation. Therefore, the Church of England distinguishes between the real presence, which she so strongly asserts, and the Romish error which has led to Romish heresy.

Bishop Ridley, our great reformer, who died because he would not accept the fable of transubstantiation, said, addressing his judge, “My lord, you know that where any equivocation, which is a word having two significations, is, except distinction be given, no direct answer can be made; for it is one of Aristotle’s fallacies, containing two questions under one, the which cannot be satisfied with one answer. For both you and I agree herein, that the sacrament is the very true and natural body and blood of Christ, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended into heaven, and which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, which shall come from thence to judge both the quick and the dead, only we differ in modo, in the way and manner of being; we confess all one thing to be in the sacrament, and dissent in the manner of being there. I, being fully by God’s word thereto persuaded, confess Christ’s natural body to be in the sacrament, indeed by spirit and grace, because whosoever receiveth worthily that bread and wine, receiveth effectually Christ’s body and drinketh his blood; that is, he is made effectually partaker of his passion; and you make a grosser kind of being, enclosing a natural, a lively, a moving body, under the shape or form of bread and wine. Now this difference considered, to the question I answer: that in the sacrament of the altar is the natural body and blood of Christ vere et realiter, indeed and in reality, if you take those terms, indeed and really, for spiritually by grace and efficacy; for so every worthy receiver receiveth the very true body of Christ: but if you mean really and indeed, so that thereby you include a lively and a moveable body under the forms of bread and wine, then, in that sense, is not Christ’s body in the sacrament, really and indeed.”—Wordsworth’s Biography, iii. 237. The difference is strongly pointed out by Gloucester Ridley. “With reference to Bishop Ridley’s opinions, he and those associated with him denied the presence of Christ’s body in the natural substance of his human and assumpt nature, but grant the presence of the same by grace; that is, they affirmed and said, that the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ is only remaining in heaven, and so shall be until the latter day, when he shall come again to judge the quick and the dead; but by grace the same body is present here with us, as we say of the sun, which in substance never removeth his place out of the heavens, is yet present here by his beams, light, and natural influence, when it shineth upon earth. For all grant that St. Paul’s words require, that the bread which we break should be the communion of the body of Christ, and that the cup of blessing should be the communion of the blood of Christ.”—Ridley.

That which is given by the priest in this sacrament is, as to its substance, bread and wine; as to its sacramental nature and signification, it is the figure or representation of Christ’s body and blood, which was broken and shed for us. The very body and blood of Christ, as yet, it is not; but, being with faith and piety received by the communicant, it becomes to him, by the blessing of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit, the very body and blood of Christ; as it entitles him to a part in the sacrifice of his death, and to the benefits thereby procured to all his faithful and obedient servants.—Abp. Wake.

These words (viz. “the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received”) are intended to show, that our Church as truly believes the strongest assertions of Scripture concerning this sacrament, as the Church of Rome doth, only takes more care to understand them in the right meaning: which is, that though, in one sense, all communicants equally partake of what Christ calls his body and blood, that is, the outward signs of them, yet in a much more important sense, “the faithful” only, the pious and virtuous receiver, eats his flesh and drinks his blood, shares in the life and strength derived to men from his incarnation and death, and, through faith in him, becomes, by a vital union, one with him; “a member,” as St. Paul expresses it, “of his flesh and of his bones” (Eph. v. 30); certainly not in a literal sense, which yet the Romanists might as well assert, as that we eat his flesh in a literal sense, but in a figurative and spiritual one. In appearance, the sacrament of Christ’s death is given to all alike; but “verily and indeed,” in its beneficial effects, to none besides the faithful. Even to the unworthy communicant he is present, as he is wherever we meet together in his name; but in a better and most gracious sense to the worthy soul, becoming, by the inward virtue of his Spirit, its food and sustenance.

This real presence of Christ in the sacrament, his Church hath always believed. But the monstrous notion of his bodily presence was started 700 years after his death; and arose chiefly from the indiscretion of preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who instead of explaining judiciously the lofty figures of Scripture language, heightened them, and went beyond them, till both it and they had their meaning mistaken most astonishingly. And when once an opinion had taken root, that seemed to exalt the holy sacrament so much, it easily grew and spread; and the more for its wonderful absurdity in those ignorant and superstitious ages: till at length, 500 years ago, and 1200 years after our Saviour’s birth, it was established for a gospel-truth, by the pretended authority of the Romish Church; and even this had been tolerable in comparison, if they had not added idolatrous practice to erroneous belief, worshipping, on their knees, a bit of bread for the Son of God. Nor are they content to do this themselves, but, with most unchristian cruelty, curse and murder those who refuse it.

It is true we also kneel at the sacrament as they do, but for a very different purpose; not to acknowledge “any corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood,” as our Church, to prevent all possibility of misconstruction, expressly declares, adding, that “his body is in heaven, and not here,” but to worship him who is everywhere present, the invisible God. And this posture of kneeling we by no means look upon as in itself necessary, but as a very becoming appointment, and very fit to accompany the prayers and praises which we offer up at the instant of receiving; and to express that inward spirit of piety and humility, on which our partaking worthily of this ordinance, and receiving benefit from it, depend.—Abp. Secker.

At the end of the whole office (of the Communion) is added a protestation concerning the gesture of kneeling at the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, and explaining the Church’s notion of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the same. This was first added in the Second Book of King Edward, in order to disclaim any adoration to be intended by that ceremony, either unto the sacramental bread or wine then bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being, of Christ’s natural flesh and blood. But upon Queen Elizabeth’s accession this was laid aside. It appears no more in any of our Common Prayers till the last review: at which time it was again added, with some little amendment of the expressions and transposal of the sentences; but exactly the same throughout as to the sense; excepting that the words real and essential presence were thought proper to be changed for corporal presence. For a real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, is what our Church frequently asserts in this very office of Communion, in her Articles, in her Homilies, and in her catechism [as quoted above]. This is the doctrine of our Church in relation to the real presence in the sacrament, entirely different from the doctrine of transubstantiation, which she here, as well as elsewhere, disclaims: a doctrine which requires so many ridiculous absurdities and notorious contradictions to support it, that it is needless to offer any confutation of it, in a Church, which allows her members the use of their senses, reason, Scripture, and antiquity.—Wheatly.

REALISTS. The Realists, who followed the doctrine of Aristotle with respect to universal ideas, were so called in opposition to the Nominalists, (see Nominalists,) who embraced the hypothesis of Zeno and the Stoics upon that perplexed and intricate subject. Aristotle held, against Plato, that, previous to, and independent of, matter, there were no universal ideas or essences; and that the ideas, or exemplars, which the latter supposed to have existed in the Divine mind, and to have been the models of all created things, had been eternally impressed upon matter, and were coeval with, and inherent in, their objects. Zeno and his followers, departing both from the Platonic and Aristotelian systems, maintained that these pretended universals had neither form nor essence, and were no more than mere terms and nominal representations of their particular objects. The doctrine of Aristotle prevailed until the eleventh century, when Roscelinus embraced the Stoical system, and founded the sect of the Nominalists, whose sentiments were propagated with great success by the famous Abelard. These two sects differed considerably among themselves, and explained, or rather obscured, their respective tenets in a variety of ways.

RECANTATION. (See Abjuration.)

RECTOR. (See Vicar.) A term applied to several persons whose offices are very different, as, 1. The rector of a parish is a clergyman who has the charge and care of a parish, and possesses all the tithes, &c. 2. The same name is also given to the head in some of our colleges, and also to the head-master of large schools. 3. Rector is also used in several convents for the superior officer who governs the house. The Jesuits gave this name to the superiors of such of their houses as were either seminaries or colleges.

RECUSANT. A Recusant, in general, signifies any person, whether Papist or other, who refuseth to go to church and to worship God after the manner of the Church of England: a Popish Recusant is a Papist who so refuseth; and a Popish Recusant convict is a Papist legally convicted of such offence.

REDEEMER, THE. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.” (Job xix. 25.) “The Redeemer shall come to Sion.” (Isa. lix. 20.) “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” (Gal. iii. 13.) “Redeemed with the precious blood of Christ.” (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) “Having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (Heb. ix. 12. See also Job xxxiii. 23, 24; Matt. xxvi. 28; Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7; Rev. v. 9.)

REDEMPTION denotes our recovery from sin and death, by the obedience and sacrifice of Christ, who on this account is called the “Redeemer.” (Isaiah lix. 20; Job xix. 25.)—(See Covenant of Redemption.)

REFORMATION. The rescue of our Church from the usurped dominion of the pope, and its restoration from the corruptions of Popery to a nearer approach to primitive purity, which took place in the 16th century, is called the Reformation. (See Church of England, and Lutheranism.) The same term is applied to the contemporaneous Protestant movement on the Continent, and in Scotland.

As regards the separation of the Church of England from the corrupt Church of Rome, it began in the reign of King Henry VIII., and was fully established in that of Queen Elizabeth.

King Henry VIII. was at first a great stickler for the see of Rome. No one discovered more zeal for it than he did in the beginning of his reign. He even wrote a book against Luther, entitled, “Of the Seven Sacraments;” and this gained him the new title of “Defender of the Faith,” which Pope Leo X. bestowed upon him by a bull, and which his successors have preserved ever since their separation from the Church of Rome. But this zeal for the see of Rome was greatly cooled, when that court refused to grant him the satisfaction he expected with regard to his intended divorce from Queen Catherine. This seems to have been Henry’s first motive of separation from that Church.

Cranmer, whom the king had raised to the see of Canterbury, in compliance with Henry’s desire, dissolved his marriage by a sentence pronounced May 23, 1533, without waiting for the sentence of the court of Rome. This step made way for another. For the parliament passed a bill, that for the future no person should appeal to the court of Rome, in any case whatever; but that they should all be judged within the realm by the prelates: that neither first-fruits, annates, or St. Peter’s pence should any more be paid; nor palls, or bulls for bishoprics, be any longer fetched from Rome: and that whoever infringed this statute should be severely punished.

Clement VII., at that time pope, threatened Henry with excommunication, in case he refused to acknowledge his fault, by restoring things to their former state, and taking back his queen. However Francis I., king of France, interposed, and, in the interview which he had with the pope at Marseilles, he prevailed with him to suspend the excommunication, till such time as he had employed his endeavours to make Henry return to the obedience of the holy see. To this purpose he sent John du Bellay, bishop of Paris, to King Henry, who gave him some hopes of his submission, provided the pope would delay the excommunication. Clement, though he could not refuse so just a request, yet limited the delay to so short a time, that, before Henry could come to any determinate resolution, the time was lapsed, and, no news coming from England, excommunication was pronounced at Rome, and set up in all the usual places.

The effects of this excommunication were very fatal to the see of Rome. The pope, who began to repent of his over-hasty proceedings, found it impossible to appease King Henry. For that monarch now threw off all restraint, and openly separated from the see of Rome. The parliament declared him supreme head of the Church of England, and granted him the annates and first-fruits, the tenths of the revenues of all benefices, and the power of nominating to all bishoprics. The parliament also passed another act, to deprive all persons charged with treason of the privilege of sanctuary. And thus ended the pope’s power in England, A. D. 1534.

The king met with little or no opposition, in the prosecution of his designs, from the laity, who had the utmost aversion and contempt for the clergy, and were extremely scandalized at the vicious and debauched lives of the monks. But these latter preached with great vehemence against these innovations, and the priests prevailed with the peasants in the North of England to rise. However the mutineers accepted of a general pardon, laid down their arms, and took them up again; but being defeated, and most of their leaders executed, they were obliged to submit. John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, who had been the king’s tutor, and the learned Sir Thomas More, lord chancellor, for refusing to acknowledge the king’s supremacy, were beheaded.

As to King Henry himself, though he abrogated the authority of the see of Rome in England, yet he constantly adhered to the doctrines and principles of that Church, and even caused some Protestants to be burned.

The ruin of the papal authority brought on a reformation in the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Church of England. All the monasteries were dissolved, and the monks set adrift. The Bible was printed in English, and set up by public authority in all the churches; and the ceremonies of the Church were greatly altered. But King Henry, dying in 1547, left the Reformation imperfect, and as it were in its infancy.

In the succeeding reign, Seymour, duke of Somerset, regent and protector during the minority of Edward VI., greatly forwarded the Reformation, in which the parliament supported him with all their power. For he abolished private masses, restored the cup to the laity, took away the images out of the churches, and caused the Book of Common Prayer to be revised and corrected. In this reign the Reformation was solemnly confirmed by the legislature, and had the sanction of an act of both houses of parliament. So many alterations occasioned great disorders in the kingdom. The common people having now not so easy an opportunity of getting a livelihood, because of the great number of monks, who being driven out of the suppressed monasteries were obliged to work; this fomented the discontent, insomuch that several counties of England took up arms. But the rebels, after having been defeated in several engagements, accepted of the general pardon that was offered them.

The Reformation met with a great interruption during the reign of Queen Mary, who, being a bigoted Roman Catholic, began her reign with setting at liberty the Papists, restoring the Popish prelates to their sees, and allowing a general liberty of conscience till the sitting of the parliament, in which an act was passed, prohibiting the exercise of any other religion but the Roman Catholic. Having strengthened herself by a marriage with Philip II., king of Spain, she called a new parliament, in which Philip and herself presided. Cardinal Pole made a fine speech in it; after which, both houses suppressed the reformed religion, and restored the Church to the same state it was in before the divorce of King Henry VIII. At the same time the above-mentioned cardinal reconciled the nation to the Church of Rome, after having absolved it from all ecclesiastical censures. Great numbers, however, still adhered to the profession of the reformed religion; whom Queen Mary punished with great severity, and burnt some hundreds of them, among whom were Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, and four other bishops.

The death of Queen Mary made way for the accession of Queen Elizabeth, and, during her reign, the reformation of the Church in these kingdoms was established.

REFUGE. (See Sanctuary.)

REFUGE, CITIES OF. In the Levitical law six cities were appointed by the command of God as cities of refuge for those who might by accident, and without malice, unhappily slay another. There they were to dwell till the death of the high priest; and if caught before they came thither, or afterwards away from the city, they might be slain by the avenger of blood. (Exod. xx. 13; Numb. xxxv. 11, &c.)

REGALE, in the French ecclesiastical law, is a right which the king had of enjoying the revenues of vacant bishoprics, till such time as the new prelate had taken and registered his oath of fidelity to the king; and of presenting to all benefices, dependent on the see, during the time of its vacancy.

Some of the French writers assert, that all the kings of France of the first race, and some of the second, have had the entire disposal of bishoprics throughout their dominions. This right, they say, was given to the kings of France, by way of recompence for their protecting the orthodox faith; and that this privilege was granted to Clovis, the first Christian king of France, after he had defeated Alaric, an Arian prince, by the first Council of Orleans. Other authors affirm, that this privilege is not founded upon grant, but comes from the right of patronage, which the king has over all the churches in his kingdom, from his feudal right over the temporalities of benefices, and from his right of protection of ecclesiastics and the goods of the Church. But, however the kings of France have desisted from the right of patronage over all the benefices of the kingdom, they still retain the right of appropriating to themselves the revenues of vacant bishoprics; and this is what they call the Regale.

This right takes place all over the kingdom, though some archbishoprics and bishoprics have pretended to an exemption from it. The abbeys were formerly subject thereto, but have been discharged.

REGENERATE. (See Conversion, Regeneration, Renovation.) Every baptized child is called regenerate. There have been some very unreasonable exceptions taken against this expression; as if all persons, who are baptized, were truly converted, whereas several of them prove afterwards very wicked. But this objection is grounded upon a modern notion of the word “regeneration,” which neither the ancient Fathers of the Church, nor the compilers of our liturgy, knew anything of. Indeed, some writers of the last [17th] century ran into this new-fangled phrase, to denote conversion, or a returning from a lapsed state, after a notorious violation of the baptismal covenant, to an habitual state of holiness. But no ancient writer, that I know of, ever expressed this by the word “regeneration.” Regeneration, as often as it is used in the Scripture books, signifies the baptismal regeneration. There is but one word which answers to this in the New Testament, and that is, παλιγγενεσία; and that παλιγγενεσία refers to baptism is plain, by having the word λουτρὸν joined with it: “According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration.” (Tit. iii. 5.) Our Saviour indeed made use of the like expression, before the apostle, to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John iii. 3.) But what he means by being born again he explains, ver. 5, by directing it positively to baptism, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” “Regeneration,” in the language of the Fathers, constantly signifies the participation of the sacrament of baptism. The Greeks have a variety of words to express regeneration by: not only ἀναγέννησις, which is an exact translation of it; but ἀνακαίνισμος, “renovation;” ἀνάκτισις, “recreation;” ἀνανέωσις, “renewing;” ἀνάστασις, “resurrection;” μεταβολὴ, the “change;” μεταποίησις, the “refitting;” παλιγγενεσία, the being “born again;” παλιντοκία, the “begetting again:” all which expressions are used of baptism, and seldom or never of the rise after a lapse. The language of the Latin Fathers is the same. The Latin translator of Irenæus, which undoubtedly is very ancient, expresses the Greek ἀναγέννησις by “regeneration:” “baptism which is a regeneration unto God:” and so likewise calls the ἀναγεννήμενοι, the baptized, “regenerati,” the “regenerate.” St. Ambrose, speaking of baptism, expresses himself thus: “By baptism we are renewed, by which also we are born again.” St. Austin, besides innumerable other passages, within the compass of a few lines has several expressions all to this purpose: he calls baptism “the spiritual regeneration;” he says the baptized person “is born again, because he is regenerated;” and lastly he calls baptism “the sacrament of regeneration.” And in another place he moves a question, whether the baptism of the schismatical Donatists does confer regeneration or not; but never doubted whether that of the Catholics did so. But, when any of the ancients have occasion to express a returning to God after a state of sin, the Greeks use the word μετάμελεια, μετάνοια, &c. &c.; the Latins, pœnitentia, conversio. The language of the schools is exactly that of the Latin Fathers in this point; they make the effect of baptism to be a “regeneration,” or a “generation to a spiritual life;” but the turning to God after a course of sin they call, either “penitence,” or “conversion to God.” The most eminent divines of the Reformation use these words in the ancient sense. Peter Martyr uses “regeneration” for baptism; and calls the turning to God, after a state of sin, the “conversion and change of a man.” Calvin, where he designs to speak with exactness, uses “regeneration” for the baptismal renovation, as in his catechism; though sometimes he uses it to signify conversion: but this is but seldom; he generally, with the ancient Latin writers, expressing this by “conversion.” When the Quinquarticular controversy arose, and long treatises were written about the methods of converting grace, the divines, who managed them, being willing sometimes to vary their expressions, to make these discourses, (dry enough in themselves,) thereby something more pleasant, began to use “regeneration” as a synonymous word with “conversion.” But in the Synod of Dort itself, though in some of the particular declarations of the divines of the several countries “regeneration” and “conversion” are used reciprocally, yet in the synodical resolutions the word “conversion” is always used. In the sermons and books written about the beginning of the late civil wars, “regeneration,” for “repentance” or “conversion,” became a very fashionable word; but sometimes oddly expressing it by “regeneration-work,” &c., they made sport for vain people. However, by frequent use, the word has come to obtain among grave and judicious writers, though the use of it was so very modern; insomuch that some divines, who had their education since the Quinquarticular controversy, and were concerned in the review of the liturgy at the Restoration, pretended to find fault with the Common Prayer Book for using the word “regeneration” in the ancient sense, which it had kept for 1600 years, in opposition to theirs, which was hardly sixty years old. And this is sufficient to justify the Common Prayer Book expression; and, I hope, to silence all objections upon this head.—Dr. Nicholls.

The sense of the Church in the office for Baptism is so plain, that no more would need to be added, but only that some with Nicodemus are apt to say, “How can these things be?” (John iii. 9;) judging it impossible that so great a matter as regeneration can be effected so soon, and by no mean an instrument as they account it: whereas the effect is to be ascribed to the Divine power of the author, not to the intrinsic efficacy of the outward means. Yet in regard we can never bless God heartily for a mercy, unless we believe he hath bestowed it, we must labour to remove these scruples by a fuller account of this baptismal regeneration, that we may not withhold the Divine praises, by our doubting and unbelief. The word “regeneration” is but twice, that I know of, used in Scripture: first, (Matt. xix. 28,) “Ye that have followed me in the regeneration:” where, though by altering the point, “Followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man,” &c., it may signify the resurrection; yet, as we read, it signifies the renewing of men by the gospel and baptism. Secondly, (Tit. iii. 5,) “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” which is a paraphrase upon that of our Saviour, (John iii.,) “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” (ver. 5).

And because persons, come to age before their conversion, are first taught and persuaded by the word of God, the language of holy writ enlarges the metaphor, and saith, such are “begotten through the gospel” (1 Cor. iv. 15); and then born again or regenerated in baptism. In like manner speak the Fathers, who do constantly and unanimously affirm, that we are regenerated in or by baptism. So that we must next inquire, wherein this regeneration doth consist?

And first, whereas both children and those of riper years are by nature dead in sin, so that they live under the guilt and power thereof, our gracious Father doth here in baptism seal a covenant with us, wherein he promises to pardon us; and, when this deadly load is removed, the soul receives, as it were, a new life, and takes new hopes and courage, being restored to the Divine favour, and being set free from the sad expectations of condemnation for former sin, original in infants, and both it and actual in those of riper years. Before this covenant we were dead in law, and by the pardon of our sins we are begotten again to a lively hope; and herein stands the first particular of our regeneration, namely, in the remission of sins: wherefore both Scripture and antiquity teach us, (Luke iii. 3; Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16,) that baptism is the means for remission of sin; and hence they join pardon and regeneration commonly together, because this forgiveness puts us into a new estate, and an excellent condition, in comparison of that which our natural birth had left us in.

Secondly: But further, by baptism we gain new relations, and old things being done away, all things become new. Hence the Jews called their proselytes “new-born children,” because they forsook all their heathen kindred; so we, although we do not renounce our earthly parents, because they also are Christians, yet we gain new alliances; for God hereby doth become our Father, and Jesus our Master, and all the saints both in heaven and earth our brethren; so that it is as if we were born over again, since baptism doth entitle us to this celestial kindred.

But this is not all. For, thirdly, our corrupt nature is changed in baptism, and there is a renovation effected thereby, both as to the mortification of the old affections, and the quickening of the new, by the Holy Spirit, which is hereby given to all that put no bar or impediment unto it. This was the ancients’ doctrine, who affirmed a real change to be wrought, and believed the Spirit to be therein bestowed, as God had promised, (Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26,) “That he would sprinkle clean water upon them, and they should be clean from all their filthiness, and then a new heart would he give them, and put a new spirit within them.” And it is manifest, that, in the first ages of the Church, there was abundance of gifts and graces miraculously bestowed upon Christians in their baptism; and no doubt, if the catechumens of our days, who are of age, would prepare themselves as strictly by repentance, fasting, and prayer, as they of old did, they should find incomparable effects of this sacred layer, if not in as miraculous measures, yet to as real purposes; that is, they should be truly regenerated, and their hearts changed by the influence of the Divine Spirit. But some may doubt whether infants be regenerated in this sense, because they are not capable of giving any evidences of their receiving the Spirit; nor doth there any immediate effect of their regeneration appear: hence the Pelagians denied it; but they are therefore condemned by the Milevitan Council, and confuted by St. Augustine. It is confessed they can show no visible signs of spiritual life in the operations thereof, no more can they of their having a rational soul, for some time; and yet we know they have the power of reason within them: and since all infants are alike, either all do here receive a principle of new life, or none receive it; wherefore I see no reason why we may not believe, as the ancients did, that God’s grace, which is dispensed according to the capacity of the suscipient, is here given to infants to heal their nature, and that he bestowed on them such measures of his Spirit as they can receive; for the malignant effects of the first Adam’s sin are not larger than the free gift obtained by the second Adam’s righteousness. (Rom. v. 15, 18.) And if it be asked, how it comes to pass then that so many children do afterwards fall off to all impurity? I answer, so do too many grown persons also; and neither infants, nor men, are so regenerated in this life, as absolutely to extinguish the concupiscence; for the flesh will still lust against the Spirit; but then God gives the Spirit also to lust against the flesh. (Gal. v. 17, 18.) He leaves the corruption to try and exercise us, but so that he engageth to enable us to get the better, through this new nature planted in us, if we will improve it, and follow the dictates of his Holy Spirit; but by neglect, or wilful complying with the flesh, we may lose this grace again; our gracious Father hath already done his part, and will do it more and more, as the child shall be capable and willing to receive it. And, if this seems strange to any whose opinions are taken up from later definitions of regeneration, let them dispute with holy Cyprian, not with me, who saith, “The grace of God is equally distributed in baptism, but it may either be diminished or increased afterward, by our acts and conversation.”

The sum is, that baptism doth seal a pardon to us for all former transgression, and begets us again to the hope of eternal life; that it restores us to the favour of God, and gives us a new relation to him; and finally it heals our nature by the Spirit hereby conveyed to us: and, though all this be upon condition of our keeping our part of the covenant, yet that makes not God’s mercy less, nor ought it to diminish any of our praises; but only it must make our prayers at present more earnest, and the child’s care more strict hereafter to make this its calling and election sure.

This is, I hope, the sense of our Church, as well as of the primitive; and if so, it will not be material to a judicious Christian for any to say, it doth not agree to some modern systems.—Dean Comber.

REGENERATION. (See Conversion and Renovation.) A Latin word signifying new birth, or being born again. We are taught in the catechism that “a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.” And we are taught also that the inward and spiritual grace given to us, which by means of baptism we receive, is “a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness; for being by nature born in sin and the children of wrath, we are hereby,” i. e. by baptism, “made children of grace.” Hence the catechism teaches every baptized child to speak of his baptism as that “wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” Hence, in perfect consistency with the catechism, the minister, immediately after the administration of this sacrament to a child, addresses the congregation thus: “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits; and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning.” And he returns thanks to our merciful Father, that it hath pleased him “to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit.” In the office of Private Baptism of Infants, the connexion between holy baptism and regeneration is, if possible, still more expressly asserted, for the priest, with reference to the baptism performed in private, is taught to say, on the receiving of the infant into the Church, “seeing now that this child is by baptism regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church.” In the office for the Baptism of such as are of Riper Years, the connexion between baptism and regeneration is as closely observed. To many persons this doctrine is very offensive. We believe that it is repudiated by all dissenters except the Romish, who, amidst their many errors, retain this evangelical truth. As an answer to the objections urged against this scriptural doctrine, we shall quote the words of the late Mr. Simeon, of Cambridge; we do so, because we have seldom seen the truth more briefly vindicated. The following passage is from his Works, vol. ii. p. 259.

“In the baptismal service, we thank God for having regenerated the baptized infant by his Holy Spirit. Now from hence it appears that, in the opinion of our reformers, regeneration and remission of sins did accompany baptism. But in what sense did they hold this sentiment? Did they maintain that there was no need for the seed then sown in the heart of the baptized person to grow up and to bring forth fruit; or that he could be saved in any other way than by a progressive renovation of his soul after the Divine image? Had they asserted any such doctrine as that, it would have been impossible for any enlightened person to concur with them. But nothing can be conceived more repugnant to their sentiments than such an idea as this; so far from harbouring such a thought, they have, and that too in this very prayer, taught us to look to God for that total change, both of heart and life, which long since their days has begun to be expressed by the term regeneration. After thanking God for regenerating the infant by his Holy Spirit, we are taught to pray, ‘that he, being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin;’ and then declaring the total change to be the necessary mean of his obtaining salvation, we add, ‘so that finally, with the residue of thy holy Church, he may be an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom.’ Is there (I would ask) any person that can require more? There are two things to be noticed in reference to this subject, the term regeneration and the thing. The term occurs but twice in the Scriptures; in one place it refers to baptism, and is distinguished from the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which, however, is represented as attendant on it; and, in the other place, it has a totally distinct meaning, unconnected with the subject. Now the term they use as the Scripture uses it, and the thing they require as strongly as any person can require it. They do not give us any reason to imagine that an adult person can be saved without experiencing all that modern divines [ultra-Protestant divines] have included in the term regeneration; on the contrary, they do, both there and in the liturgy, insist upon a radical change of both heart and life. Here, then, the only question is, not ‘whether a baptized person can be saved by that ordinance without sanctification,’ but whether God does always accompany the sign with the thing signified? Here is certainly room for difference of opinion, but it cannot be positively decided in the negative; because we cannot know, or even judge, respecting it, in any case whatever, except by the fruits that follow; and therefore, in all fairness, it may be considered only as a doubtful point; and if we appeal, as we ought to do, to the Holy Scriptures, they certainly do, in a very remarkable way, accord with the expressions in our liturgy. St. Paul says, ‘By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.’ And this he says of all the visible members of Christ’s body. (1 Cor. xii. 13, 27.) Again, speaking of the whole nation of Israel, infants as well as adults, he says, ‘They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ.’ (1 Cor. x. 1–4.) Yet, behold, in the very next verse he tells us that, ‘with many of them God was displeased, and overthrew them in the wilderness.’ In another place he speaks yet more strongly still: ‘As many of you,’ says he, ‘as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.’ Here we see what is meant by the same expression as that before mentioned, of the Israelites being ‘baptized into Moses (the preposition εἰς is used in both places): it includes all that had been initiated into his religion by the rite of baptism; and of them universally does the apostle say, ‘they have put on Christ.’ Now I ask, have not the persons who scruple the use of that prayer in the baptismal service, equal reason to scruple the use of these different expressions?

“Again; St. Peter says, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins.’ (Acts ii. 38.) And in another place, ‘Baptism doth now save us.’ (1 Pet. iii. 21.) And speaking elsewhere of baptized persons who are unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, he says, ‘He hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.’ (2 Pet. i. 9.) Does not this very strongly countenance the IDEA WHICH OUR REFORMERS ENTERTAINED, THAT THE REMISSION OF OUR SINS AND THE REGENERATION OF OUR SOULS, IS ATTENDANT ON THE BAPTISMAL RITE?”

The importance of holding this doctrine, besides its being scripturally true, must be at once apparent to those who reflect, that the whole moral education of a Christian people is altered, if instead of teaching them, as we ought to do, that God has given them a gift which they may use to their own salvation, but for losing which they will be awfully punished,—if instead of this we tell them to wait and to expect the gift of grace, before receiving which they cannot please God. The orthodox would preach to all baptized persons, telling them that they may and can serve God if they will: the heterodox would address baptized persons as heathens, and warn them that, until they have an effectual calling, they can do nothing. It is easy to trace much of the evil which disgraces the religion of the present day to the prevalence of the latter notion.

At the Savoy Commission, 1661, the following are among the answers of the bishops to the exceptions of ministers.

“Receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration.” Most proper, for baptism is our spiritual regeneration, (John iii. 5,) “Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit,” &c. And by this is received remission of sins, (Acts ii. 38,) “Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins.” So the Creed: “our baptism for the remission of sins.”

Seeing that God’s sacraments have their effects, where the receiver doth not “ponere obicem,” put any bar against them (which children cannot do); we may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it is regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit; and the denial of it tends to Anabaptism, and the contempt of this holy sacrament, as nothing worthy, nor material whether it be administered to children or no.

[The form of Confirmation] supposeth, and that truly, that all children were at their baptism regenerate by water and the Holy Ghost, and had given unto them forgiveness of all their sins; and it is charitably presumed, that notwithstanding the frailties and slips of their childhood, they have not totally lost what was in baptism conferred upon them.—Cardwell’s Hist. of Conferences, pp. 356, 358.

REGISTER. The keeping of a church book for registering the age of those that should be born and christened in the parish began in the thirtieth year of Henry VIII.

By Canon 70. “In every parish church and chapel within this realm shall be provided one parchment book at the charge of the parish, wherein shall be written the day and year of every christening, wedding, and burial, which have been in the parish since the time that the law was first made in that behalf, so far as the ancient books thereof can be procured, but especially since the beginning of the reign of the late queen. And for the safe keeping of the said book, the churchwardens, at the charge of the parish, shall provide one sure coffer, and three locks and keys; whereof one to remain with the minister, and the other two with the churchwardens severally; so that neither the minister without the two churchwardens, nor the churchwardens without the minister, shall at any time take that book out of the said coffer. And henceforth upon every sabbath day immediately after morning or evening prayer, the minister and the churchwardens shall take the said parchment book out of the said coffer, and the minister in the presence of the churchwardens shall write and record in the said book the names of all persons christened, together with the names and surnames of their parents, and also the names of all persons married and buried in that parish in the week before, and the day and year of every such christening, marriage, and burial; and that done, they shall lay up the book in the coffer as before. And the minister and churchwardens, unto every page of that book, when it shall be filled with such inscriptions, shall subscribe their names. And the churchwardens shall once every year, within one month after the five and twentieth day of March, transmit unto the bishop of the diocese, or his chancellor, a true copy of the names of all persons christened, married, or buried in their parish in the year before, (ended the said five and twentieth day of March,) and the certain days and months in which every christening, marriage, and burial was had, to be subscribed to with the hands of the said minister and churchwardens, to the end the same may faithfully be preserved in the registry of the said bishop; which certificate shall be received without fee. And if the minister and churchwardens shall be negligent in performance of anything herein contained, it shall be lawful for the bishop, or his chancellor, to convent them, and proceed against every of them as contemners of this our constitution.”

The Act 52 Geo. III. c. 146, (A. D. 1812,) directs that “registers of public and private baptisms, marriages, and burials, solemnized according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland ... shall be made and kept by the rector, vicar, curate, or officiating minister of every parish (or of any chapelry) where the ceremonies of baptism, marriage, and burial, have been usually, and may according to law be, performed for the time being, in books of parchment, or of good and durable paper, to be provided by his Majesty’s printer as occasion may require, at the expense of the respective parishes or chapelries; whereon shall be printed, upon each side of every leaf, the heads of information herein required to be entered in the registers” (agreeably to schedules annexed to the act). Such registers should be kept in separate books, and every minister shall enter the baptism, or burial, as soon as possible, and shall sign the same; “and in no case, unless prevented by sickness, or other unavoidable impediment, later than within seven days after the ceremony of any such baptism, or burial, shall have taken place.” (Sect. 3.)

“Whenever the ceremony of baptism, or burial, shall be performed in any other place than the parish church, or churchyard of any parish, (or the chapel, or chapel-yard of any chapelry, providing its own distinct registers,) and such ceremony shall be performed by any minister not being the rector, vicar, minister, or curate of any such parish or chapelry, the minister who shall perform such ceremony of baptism or burial shall, on the same, or on the next day, transmit to the rector, vicar, or other minister of such parish or chapelry, or his curate, a certificate of such baptism or burial in the form contained in the schedule (D.) to this act annexed, and the rector, vicar, minister, or curate of such parish or chapelry, shall thereupon enter such baptism or burial according to such certificate in the book kept pursuant to this act for such purpose; and shall add to such entry the following words, ‘According to the certificate of the Reverend ——, transmitted to me on the —— day of ——.’”

“I do hereby certify, that I did on the —— day of —— baptize, according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland, ——, son [or “daughter”] of —— and ——, his wife, by the name of ——.”

To the Rector [or, as the case may be,] of ——.

“‘I do hereby certify, that on the —— day of —— A. B. of ——, aged ——, was buried in [stating the place of burial], and that the ceremony of burial was performed according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland, by me, ——.

To the Rector [or, as the case may be,] of ——.’” (Sect. 4.)

Sect. 5 directs, that the new registers, and also those previously existing, shall be kept by the minister of the parish, “in a dry, well-painted, iron chest, to be provided, and repaired as occasion may require, at the cost of the parish; which chest shall be constantly kept locked in some dry, safe, and secure place within the usual place of residence of such minister, or in the parish church or chapel.”

Sect. 6 directs, that within two months after the expiration of every year, four copies of the registers for the preceding year shall be made on parchment by the clergyman, “or by the churchwardens, chapelwardens, clerk, or other person duly appointed for the purpose, under, and by the direction of, such rector, vicar, curate, or other resident or officiating minister.” The copies are to be verified and signed by the clergyman in a prescribed form, and his signature is to be attested by the churchwardens or chapelwardens, or one of them. These copies are to be sent by post to the diocesan registrars. (Sect. 7.) In case of the minister’s neglecting to verify the copies, the churchwardens shall certify his default to the registrar, by whom it shall be reported to the bishop. (Sect. 9.) Any person convicted of falsifying a register, or allowing it to be falsified, shall be subject to transportation for fourteen years. (Sect. 14.)

Sect. 16 provides, that the act shall not affect the fees payable to any minister for giving extracts of registers, &c.

The act of 52 Geo. III. is still in force as regards the registration of baptisms and burials by clergymen. But as to marriages, an alteration has been made by the acts 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 80, and 7 Will. IV., and 1 Vic. c. 22. By the former of these acts the general civil registry was instituted. Sect. 30 orders, that the Registrar-general shall, at the expense of the parish or chapelry, furnish the rector, vicar, or curate, of every church and chapel in which marriages may lawfully be solemnized, duplicate register books and forms for certified copies thereof. Sect. 31, that every clergyman, immediately after every office of matrimony solemnized by him, shall register in duplicate the several particulars relating to that marriage, according to a new form, annexed in a schedule to the act. Sect. 33, (explained by 7 Will. IV., and 1 Vic. c. 22,) that the clergyman of every church or chapel shall, in the months of April, July, October, and January respectively, make and deliver to the registrar of his district a true copy, certified by him under his hand, of all the entries of marriages in the register book kept by him for the three months preceding, to the last days of March, June, September, and December respectively; and if there shall have been no marriage since the last certificate, shall certify the fact under his hand; and that one copy of each duplicate register book shall, when filled, be delivered to the superintendent-registrar of the district. Sect. 27 of the act of 1 Vic. provides, that for every entry in the quarterly certified copies the clergyman shall receive sixpence from the registrar, which sum is to be repaid to the registrar by the guardians or overseers of his district.

By the act of 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 86, sect. 42, 43, any person who shall refuse, or without reasonable cause omit, to register any marriage solemnized by him, or which he ought to register, and every person having the custody of any register book, who shall carelessly lose or injure the same, or carelessly allow the same to be injured while in his keeping, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding £50 for every such offence; and any person who shall wilfully destroy, injure, or in any way falsify any register book, or shall wilfully give any false certificate or extract, shall be guilty of felony.

REGIUM DONUM MONEY. Money allowed by government to the Dissenters. The origin of it was in the year 1723. As the Dissenters approved themselves strong friends to the House of Brunswick, they enjoyed favour; and, being excluded all lucrative preferment in the Church, the prime minister wished to reward them for their loyalty, and, by a retaining fee, to preserve them steadfast. A considerable sum, therefore, was annually lodged with the heads of the Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, to be distributed among the necessitous ministers of their congregations.

REGULAR. In the continental churches those persons are called regulars who profess to follow a certain rule (regula) of life, and observe the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; in contradistinction to the seculars, who live comparatively in the world. The canons of the non-monastic cathedrals were called seculars.

RELICS. In the Roman Church, the remains of the bodies or clothes of saints or martyrs, and the instruments by which they were put to death, are devoutly preserved, in honour of their memory; kissed, revered, and carried in procession. The respect which was justly due to the martyrs and teachers of the Christian faith, in a few ages, increased almost to adoration; and at length adoration was really paid both to departed saints, and to relics of holy men or holy things. The abuses of the Church of Rome with respect to relics are very great and flagrant, and are justly censured in our 22nd Article.

In the early ages of the gospel, when its professors were exposed to every species of danger and persecution, it was natural for Christians to show every mark of respect, both to the bodies and to the memory of those who had suffered death in its cause. They collected their remains and buried them, not only with decency, but with all the solemnity and honour which circumstances would allow. It was also the custom for Christians to hold their religious meetings at the places where their martyrs were buried, by which they seemed as it were, united with them; and to display their attachment to their departed brethren by such rites, as were dictated by the fervour of their devout affection, and were consistent with the principles of their religion. It does not appear that this boundary was ever transgressed in the three first centuries; but in the fourth century, when the pure and simple worship of the gospel begun to be debased by superstitious practices, we find strong proofs of an excessive love for everything which had belonged to those who had distinguished themselves by their exertions or their sufferings for the truth of Christianity, and especially for any part of their garments, hair, or bones. Augustine in Africa, and Vigilantius in Spain, complained loudly of this culpable fondness for relics, which they speak of as a new corruption, then first appearing in the Christian world; but the warm disposition of Jerome led him to stand forward in their defence with more zeal than discretion. However, this learned Father, even while he leans to the opinion that miracles were sometimes wrought by relics, explicitly disclaims all idea of offering them worship. But, when superstition has once made its way into the minds of men, it gradually gains ground; and it is difficult to set limits to it, particularly when there is a set of persons, respected for their piety, who are studious to encourage it. Monks carried about relics; and with great ease, and no small advantage to themselves, persuaded that ignorant age of their value and importance. Under their recommendation and patronage, they were soon considered as the best preservatives against every possible evil of soul and body; and when the worshipping of images came to be established, the enshrining of relics was a natural consequence of that doctrine. This led the way to absolute worship of relics, which was now preached by the Romish clergy as a Christian duty. Every one thought it necessary to possess a relic of some saint or martyr, as the effectual means of securing his care and protection; and fraud and imposition did not fail to furnish a supply proportionable to the demand. The discovery of the catacombs at Rome was an inexhaustible source of relics; and thus the popes themselves became directly interested in maintaining this superstitious worship. The Council of Trent authorized the adoration of relics; and they continue in high esteem among the Papists of the present day. What has been already said is amply sufficient to point out the absurdity of worshipping relics. It is a doctrine manifestly “grounded upon no warranty of Scripture:” it is “a fond thing,” that is, foolish and trifling, in the extreme; directly contrary to the practice of the primitive Christians, and utterly irreconcileable with common sense.—Bp. Tomline.

RELIGIOUS. This was the term given in our Church before the Reformation to persons engaged by solemn vows to the monastic life. It is still used in this sense on the Continent, and among the Popish Recusants.

REMONSTRANTS. (See Arminians.) This name was given to the Arminians, because in 1610 they presented a remonstrance to the states-general of Holland and West Friesland, specifying their grievances.

RENOVATION. Regeneration is the joint work of water and the Spirit, or, to speak more properly, of the Spirit only; renovation is the joint work of the Spirit and the man. Regeneration comes only once, in or through baptism. Renovation exists before, in, and after baptism, and may be often repeated. Regeneration, being a single act, can have no parts, and is incapable of increase. Renovation is, in its very nature, progressive. Regeneration, though suspended as to its effects and benefits, cannot be totally lost in the present life. Renovation may be often repeated and totally lost. Dr. Waterland distinguishes between regeneration and renovation thus:—

1. Grown persons coming to baptism properly qualified, receive at once the grace of regeneration; but, however well prepared, they are not regenerate without baptism. Afterwards renovation grows more and more within them by the indwelling of the Spirit.

2. As to infants, their innocence and incapacity are to them instead of repentance, which they do not want, and of actual faith, which they cannot have: and they are capable of being born again, and adopted by God, because they bring no obstacle. They stipulate, and the Holy Spirit translates them out of a state of nature into a state of grace, favour, and acceptance. In their case, regeneration precedes, and renovation follows after, and they are the temple of the Spirit till they defile themselves with sin.

3. As to those who fall off after regeneration, their covenant state abides, but without any saving effect, because without present renovation: but this saving effect may be repaired and recovered by repentance.

4. With respect to those who receive baptism in a state of hypocrisy or impenitency, though this sacrament can only increase their condemnation, still pardon and grace are conditionally made over to them, and the saving virtue of regeneration, which had been hitherto suspended, takes effect, when they truly repent and unfeignedly believe the gospel.

RENUNCIATION. In holy baptism, the persons baptized, or in the case of infants their sponsors in their name, are asked, “Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?” And their answer is, “I renounce them all.” This renunciation is of very great antiquity, so great indeed that its beginning cannot be traced, nor any time mentioned when it was not used; so that it is probably of apostolic origin.

REPAIRS OF CHURCHES. Anciently the bishops had the whole tithes of the diocese; a fourth part of which, in every parish, was to be applied to the repairs of the church; but, upon a release of this interest to the rectors, they were consequently acquitted of the repairs of the churches.

And by the canon law, the repair of the church belongeth to him who receiveth this fourth part; that is, to the rector, and not to the parishioners.

But custom (that is, the common law) transferreth the burden of reparation, at least of the nave of the church, upon the parishioners; and likewise sometimes of the chancel, as particularly in the city of London in many churches there.

But, generally, the parson is bound to repair the chancel. Not because the freehold is in him, for so is the freehold of the church; but by the custom of England, which hath allotted the repairs of the chancel to the parson, and the repairs of the church to the parishioners: yet so, that if the custom hath been for the parish, or the estate of a particular person, to repair the chancel, that custom shall be good.

As to the vicars, it is ordained by a constitution of Archbishop Winchelsea, that the chancel shall be repaired by the rectors and vicars, or others to whom such repair belongeth. Whereupon Lyndwood observes, that where there is both rector and vicar in the same church, they shall contribute in proportion to their benefice; which is to be understood where there is not a certain direction, order, or custom, unto which of them such reparation shall appertain.

And as rectors or spiritual persons, so also impropriators, are bound of common right to repair the chancels. This doctrine (under the limitations expressed in the foregoing paragraphs) is clear and uncontested: the only difficulty hath been in what manner they shall be compelled to do it; whether by spiritual censures only, in like manner as the parishioners are compelled to contribute to the repairs of the church, since impropriations are now become lay fees; or whether by sequestrations (as incumbents, and, as it should seem, spiritual impropriators of all kinds, may be compelled).

As to this, it is said to have been the opinion of the court of Common Pleas, that the Spiritual Court may grant sequestration upon an impropriate parsonage, for not repairing the chancel (M. 29. C. 2. 3 Keb. 829); yet by another book it is said, that the court of Common Pleas did incline that there could be no sequestration; for, being made a lay fee, the impropriation was out of the jurisdiction of the court Christian, and they were only to proceed against the person, as against another layman, for not repairing the church. (T. 22. C. 2. 2 Vent. 35.) And by the same case as reported, (2 Mod. 157,) it is said that the whole court, except Judge Atkins, were of that opinion.

On the contrary, Dr. Gibson observes, that impropriations, before they became lay fees, were undoubtedly liable to sequestration; that the king was to enjoy them in the same manner as the religious had done, and nothing was conveyed to the king at the dissolution of monasteries, but what the religious had conveyed; that is, the profits over and above the finding of Divine service, and the repairing of the chancel, and other ecclesiastical burdens: and the general saving (he says) in the 31 Henry VIII. c. 13, may be well extended to a saving of the right of the ordinary in this particular, which right he undoubtedly had by the law and the practice of the Church, which said right is not abrogated by any statute whatsoever. And he observes further these things: 1. That although (as was expressly alleged in the two cases above referred to) this power had been frequently exercised by the spiritual courts, yet no instances do appear, before these, of any opposition made. 2. That, in both the said instances, judgment was given, not upon the matter or point in hand, but upon errors found in the pleadings. 3. That one argument against the allowing the ordinary such jurisdiction was ab inconvenienti, that such allowance would be a step towards giving ordinaries a power to augment vicarages, as they might have done, and frequently did, before the dissolution.

Where there are more impropriators than one, (as is frequently the case,) and the prosecution is to be carried on by the churchwardens to compel them to repair, it seemeth advisable for the churchwardens first to call a vestry, and there (after having made a rate for the repair of the church, and other expenses necessary in the execution of their office) that the vestry make an order for the churchwardens to prosecute the impropriators, at the parish expense; in which prosecution the court will not settle the proportion amongst the impropriators, but admonish all who are made parties to the suit, to repair the chancel, under pain of excommunication. Nor will it be necessary to make every impropriator a party, but only to prove that the parties prosecuted have received tithes or other profits belonging to the rectory, sufficient to repair it; and they must settle the proportion among themselves: for it is not a suit against them for a sum of money, but for a neglect of the duty which is incumbent on all of them; though it may be advisable to make as many of them parties as can be come at with certainty.

Repairing of the chancel is a discharge from contributing to the repairs of the church. This is supposed to be the known law of the Church, in the gloss of John de Athon upon a constitution of Othobon, (hereafter mentioned,) for the reparation of chancels; and is also evident from the ground of the respective obligations upon parson and parishioners to repair, the first the chancel, the second the church, which was evidently a division of the burden, and by consequence a mutual disengaging of each from that part which the other took. And therefore as it was declared in Serjeant Davie’s case, (2 Roll’s Rep. 211,) that there could be no doubt but the impropriator was rateable to the church, for lands which were not parcel of the parsonage, notwithstanding his obligation as parson to repair the chancel; so, when this plea of the farmer of an impropriation, (2 Keb. 730, 742,) to be exempt from the parish rate because he repaired the chancel, was refused in the spiritual court, it must probably have been a plea offered to exempt other possessions also from church rates.—Gibs. 199, 200.

If there be a chapel of ease within a parish, and some part of the parish have used time out of mind, alone, without others of the parishioners, to repair the chapel of ease, and there to hear service, and to marry, and all the other things, but only they bury at the mother-church, yet they shall not be discharged of the reparation of the mother-church, but ought to contribute thereto; for the chapel was ordained only for their ease.

So in the said case, if the inhabitants who have used to repair the chapel prescribe that they have time out of mind used to repair the chapel, and by reason thereof have been discharged of the reparation of the mother-church, yet this shall not discharge them of the reparation of the mother-church, for that is not any direct prescription to be discharged thereof, but it is, by reason thereof, a prescription for the reparation of the chapel.

If the chapel be three miles distant from the mother-church, and the inhabitants who have used to come to the chapel, have used always to repair the chapel, and there marry and bury, and have never within sixty years been charged to the repair of the mother-church, yet this is not any cause to have a prohibition; but they ought to show in the spiritual court their exemption, if they have any, upon the endowment.

But if the inhabitants of a chapelry prescribe to be discharged time out of mind of the reparation of the mother-church, and they are sued for the reparation of the mother-church, a prohibition lieth upon this surmise.

If two churches be united, the repairs of the several churches shall be made as they were before the union.

Othobon. The archdeacon shall cause chancels to be repaired by those who are bound thereunto.—Ath. 112.

Reynolds. We enjoin the archdeacons and their officials, that, in the visitation of churches, they have a diligent regard to the fabric of the church, and especially of the chancel, to see if they want repair; and if they find any defects of that kind, they shall limit a certain time under a penalty, within which they shall be repaired. Also, they shall inquire by themselves or their officials in the parish where they visit, if there be aught in things or persons which wanteth to be corrected: and if they shall find any such, they shall correct the same, either then, or in the next chapter.—Lyndw.

The fabric of the church consisteth of the walls, windows, and covering.—Lyndw.

Where the penalty is not limited, the same is arbitrary (saith Lyndwood): but this cannot intend here (he says) the penalty of excommunication; inasmuch as it concerneth the parishioners ut universos, as a body or whole society, who are bound to the fabric of the body of the church: for the pain of excommunication is not inflicted upon a whole body together, although it may be inflicted upon every person severally who shall be culpable in this behalf. And the same may be observed as to the penalty of suspension which cannot fall upon the parishioners as a community or collective body. Yet the archdeacon in this case, if the defect be enormous, may enjoin a penalty, that, after the limited time shall be expired, Divine service shall not be performed in the church, until competent reparation shall be made; so that the parishioners may be punished by suspension or interdict of the place. But if there are any particular persons who are bound to contribute towards the repair, and although they be able, are not willing, or do neglect the same, such persons may be compelled by a monition to such contribution, under pain of excommunication, that so the church may not continue for a long time unrepaired, through their default.—Lyndw.

But this was before the time that churchwardens had the special charge of the repairs of the church; and it seemeth now that the process shall issue against the churchwardens, and that they may be excommunicated for disobedience.

Stratford. Forasmuch as archdeacons and other ordinaries in their visitations, finding defects as well in the churches as in the ornaments thereof, and the fences of the churchyard, and in the houses of the incumbents, do command them to be repaired under pecuniary penalties; and from those that do not obey do exact the same penalties by censures, wherewith the said defects ought to be repaired, and thereby enrich their own purses to the damage of the poor people; therefore that there be no occasion of complaint against the archdeacons and other ordinaries and their ministers by reason of such penal exactions, and that it becometh not ecclesiastical persons to gape after or enrich themselves with dishonest and penal acquisitions; we ordain, that such penalties, so often as they shall be exacted, shall be converted to the use of such repairs, under pain of suspension ab officio which they shall ipso facto incur, until they shall effectually assign what was so received to the reparation of the said defects.—Lyndw.

By Canon 86. “Every dean, dean and chapter, archdeacon, and others which have authority to hold ecclesiastical visitations by composition, law, or prescription, shall survey the churches of his or their jurisdiction once in every three years, in his own person, or cause the same to be done.”

And by the said canon they were required, from time to time, to certify the high commissioners for causes ecclesiastical, every year, of such defects in any of the said churches as he or they should find to remain unrepaired, and the names and surnames of the parties faulty therein. Upon which certificate the high commissioners were desired by the said canon, ex officio mero, to send for such parties, and compel them to obey the just and lawful decrees of the ecclesiastical ordinaries making such certificates. But by the 16 Car. I. c. 11, the High Commission Court was abolished; so that the cognizance thereof now resteth solely upon the ecclesiastical judge.

By the statute of Circumspecte agatis, (13 Edward I. st. iv.,) “If prelates do punish for that the church is uncovered, or not conveniently decked, the spiritual judge shall have power to take knowledge, notwithstanding the king’s prohibition.”

“The Church.” This is intended not only of the body of the church, which is parochial, but also of any public chapel annexed to it; but it extendeth not to the private chapel of any, though it be fixed to the church, for that must be repaired by him that hath the proper use of it, for he that hath the profit ought to bear the burden.

Canon 85. “The churchwardens or questmen shall take care and provide, that the churches be well and sufficiently repaired, and so from time to time kept and maintained, that the windows be well glazed, and that the floors be kept paved, plain, and even.”

If the churchwardens erect or add anything new in the church, as a new gallery where there was none before, they must have the consent of the major part of the parishioners, and also a licence of the ordinary.

But as to the common reparations of the fabric or ornaments of the church, where nothing new is added or done, it doth not appear that any consent of the major part of the parishioners is necessary; for to this the churchwardens are bound by their office, and they are punishable if they do it not. (See however Rate.)

If the major part of the parishioners of a parish, where there are four bells, agree that there shall be made a fifth bell, and this is made accordingly, and they make a rate for paying the same, this shall bind the lesser part of the parishioners, although they agree not to it: for otherwise any obstinate persons may hinder anything intended to be done for the ornament of the church.

And although churchwardens are not charged with the repairs of the chancel, yet they are charged with the supervisal thereof, to see that it be not permitted to dilapidate and fall into decay; and when any such dilapidations shall happen, if no care be taken to repair the same, they are to make presentment thereof at the next visitation.

If a church be so much out of repair, that it is necessary to pull it down; or so small, that it needs to be enlarged; the major part of the parishioners, having first obtained the consent of the ordinary to do what is needful, and meeting upon due notice, may make a rate for new building, or enlarging, as there shall be occasion. This was declared in the 29 Car. II. by all the three courts successively, notwithstanding the cause was much laboured by a great number of Quakers, who opposed the rate.

And the proper method of proceeding in such case seems to be thus: namely, that the churchwardens first of all take care that public notice be given in the church for a general vestry of the whole parish for that purpose; which notice ought to be attested and carefully preserved, as being the foundation of all the subsequent proceedings. At the time and place of meeting, the minister and churchwardens ought to attend; and when the parishioners are assembled, the minister is proper to preside; and he, or one of the churchwardens, or such person as shall be appointed by them, ought to enter the orders of the vestry, and then have them read and signed. And agreeable thereunto, a petition to the ordinary for a faculty (setting forth the particulars) should be drawn up and signed by the minister, churchwardens, and parishioners present, and approving thereof. Whereupon the ordinary will issue a monition to cite all persons concerned to show cause why a faculty should not be granted. Upon the return of which citation, if no cause, or not sufficient cause, is showed, the ordinary will proceed to grant a faculty as is desired, and as to him shall seem good.

REPENTANCE (see Penitence, Penance) signifies a sincere sorrow for all past transgressions of God’s laws, an unfeigned disposition of mind to perform the will of God better for the future, and an actual avoiding and resisting of those temptations to sin by which we have been overpowered.

REREDOS. A screen behind an altar. In large conventual churches, where there is a space behind the high altar, this was the universal termination of the ritual presbytery; and sometimes, as at Winchester, St. Alban’s, and Durham, this screen was of extreme magnificence. In smaller churches, where the reredos was not required, the altar being at the extreme east, it is seldom found, though an arcade, or other enrichment of the space beneath and at the sides of the east window, sometimes occurs.

RESIDENCE. 1. Otho. The bishop shall provide, that in every church there shall be one resident, who shall take care of the cure of souls, and exercise himself profitably and honestly in performing Divine service and administration of the sacraments.—Athon 36.

The rule of the ancient canon law was, that if a clergyman deserted his church or prebend, without just and necessary cause, and especially without the consent of the diocesan, he should be deprived. And agreeable hereunto was the practice in this realm; for though sometimes the bishop proceeded only to sequestration, or other censures of an inferior nature, yet the more frequent punishment was deprivation.—Gibson, 827.

2. Regularly, personal residence is required of ecclesiastical persons upon their cures; and to that end, by the common law, if he that hath a benefice with cure be chosen to an office of bailiff, or beadle, or the like secular office, he may have the king’s writ for his discharge.—2 Inst. 625.

For the intendment of the common law is, that a clerk is resident upon his cure; insomuch that in an action of debt brought against J. S., rector of D., the defendant pleading that he was demurrant and conversant at B. in another county, the plea was overruled; for, since the defendant denied not that he was rector of the church of D., he shall be deemed by law to be demurrant and conversant there for the cure of souls.—2 Inst.

3. By the statute of the Articuli cleri, (9 Edw. II. st. i. c. 8,) in the articles exhibited by the clergy, one is as follows: Also barons of the king’s Exchequer, claiming by their privilege, that they ought to make answer to no complainant out of the same place, do extend the same privilege unto clerks abiding there, called to orders or unto residence, and inhibit ordinaries that by no means, or for any cause, so long as they be in the Exchequer, or in the king’s services, they shall not call them to judgment. “Unto which it is answered,” It pleaseth our lord the king, that such clerks as attend in his service, if they offend, shall be correct by their ordinaries, like as other; but so long as they are occupied about the Exchequer, they shall not be bound to keep residence in their churches. And this is added of new by the king’s council: “The king and his ancestors, since time out of mind, have used that clerks which are employed in his service, during such time as they are in service, shall not be compelled to keep residence at their benefices; and such things as be thought necessary for the king and commonwealth, ought not to be said to be prejudicial to the liberty of the Church.”

By the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13, commonly called the statute of Non-residence: As well every spiritual person, now being promoted to any archdeaconry, deanery, or dignity in any monastery, or cathedral church, or other church conventual or collegiate, or being beneficed with any parsonage or vicarage; as all and every spiritual person and persons, which hereafter shall be promoted to any of the said dignities or benefices, with any parsonage or vicarage, shall be personally resident and abiding in, at, and upon his said dignity, prebend, or benefice, or at any one of them at the least; and in case he shall not keep residence at one of them as aforesaid, but absent himself wilfully by the space of one month together, or by the space of two months to be at several times in any one year, and make his residence and abiding in any other places by such time, he shall forfeit for every such default £10, half to the king, and half to him that will sue for the same in any of the king’s courts by original writ of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in which action and suit the defendant shall not wage his law, nor have any essoin or protection allowed. (S. 26.)

And if any person or persons shall procure at the court of Rome, or elsewhere, any licence or dispensation to be non-resident at their said dignities, prebends, or benefices, contrary to this act; every such person, putting in execution any such dispensation or licence for himself, shall incur the penalty of £20 for every time so doing, to be forfeited and recovered as aforesaid, and such licence or dispensation shall be void. (S. 27.)

Provided that this act of non-residence shall not extend nor be prejudicial to any such spiritual person as shall chance to be in the king’s service beyond the sea, nor to any person going to any pilgrimage or holy place beyond the sea, during the time that they shall so be in the king’s service, or in the pilgrimage going and returning home; nor to any scholar or scholars being conversant and abiding for study, without fraud or covin, at any university within this realm or without; nor to any of the chaplains of the king or queen, daily or quarterly attending and abiding in the king’s or queen’s most honourable household; nor to any of the chaplains of the prince or princess, or any of the king’s or queen’s children, brethren, or sisters, attending daily in their honourable households, during so long as they shall attend in any of their households; nor to any chaplain of any archbishop or bishop, or of any spiritual or temporal lords of the parliament, daily attending, abiding, and remaining in any of their honourable households; nor to any chaplain of any duchess, marquess, countess, viscountess, or baroness, attending daily and abiding in any of their honourable households; nor to any chaplain of the lord chancellor, or treasurer of England, the king’s chamberlain, or steward of his household for the time being, the treasurer and comptroller of the king’s most honourable household for the time being, attending daily in any of their honourable households; nor to any chaplain of any of the knights of the honourable order of the Garter, or of the chief justice of the King’s Bench, warden of the ports, or of the master of the rolls, nor to any chaplain of the king’s secretary, dean of the chapel, amner for the time being, daily attending and dwelling in any of their households, during the time that they shall so abide and dwell without fraud or covin, in any of the said honourable households; nor to the master of the rolls, or dean of the arches, nor to any chancellor or commissary of any archbishop or bishop, nor to as many of the twelve masters of the chancery and twelve advocates of the arches as shall be spiritual men, during so long time as they shall occupy their said rooms and offices; nor to any such spiritual persons as shall happen by injunction of the lord chancellor, or the king’s council, to be bound to any daily appearance and attendance to answer to the law, during the time of such injunction. (S. 28.)

Provided also, that it shall be lawful to the king to give licence to every of his own chaplains, for non-residence upon their benefices; anything in this act to the contrary notwithstanding. (S. 29.)

Provided also, that every duchess, marquess, countess, baroness, widows, which shall take any husbands under the degree of a baron, may take such number of chaplains as they might have done being widows; and that every such chaplain may have like liberty of non-residence, as they might have had if their said ladies and mistresses had kept themselves widows. (S. 33.) [This statute is abstracted from Burn in order to show the history of the law regarding residence, but it was repealed by the 57 Geo. III. c. 99, and that act also was repealed, and the whole question resettled, in 1838, by 1 & 2 Vic. c. 106, which is abstracted towards the end of this article.]

By the 25 Hen. VIII. c. 16. Whereas by the statute of the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13, it was ordained, that certain honourable persons, as well spiritual as temporal, shall have chaplains beneficed with cure to serve them in their honourable houses, which chaplains shall not incur the danger of any penalty or forfeiture made or declared in the same parliament, for non-residence upon their said benefices; in which act no provision was made for any of the king’s judges of his high courts, commonly called the King’s Bench and the Common Pleas, except only for the chief judge of the King’s Bench, nor for the chancellor nor the chief baron of the king’s Exchequer, nor for any other inferior persons being of the king’s most honourable council: It is therefore enacted, that as well every judge of the said high courts, and the chancellor and chief baron of the Exchequer, the king’s general attorney and general solicitor, for the time that shall be, shall and may retain and have in his house, or attendant to his person, one chaplain having one benefice with cure of souls, which may be absent from his said benefice, and not resident upon the same; the said statute made in the said one and twentieth year, or any other statute, act, or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding.

By the 28 Hen. VIII. c. 13. Whereas divers persons, under colour of the proviso in the act of the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13., which exempteth persons conversant in the universities for study, from the penalty of non-residence, contained in the said act, do resort to the universities, where, under pretence of study, they live dissolutely, nothing profiting themselves by study at all, but consume the time in idleness and other pastimes: It is enacted, that all persons who shall be to any benefice or benefices promoted, as is aforesaid, being above the age of forty years, the chancellor, vice-chancellor, commissary of the said universities, wardens, deans, provosts, presidents, rectors, masters, principals, and other head rulers of colleges, halls, and other houses or places corporate within the said universities, doctors of the chair, (readers of divinity in the common schools of divinity in the said universities only excepted,) shall be resident and abiding at and upon one of their said benefices, according to the intent and true meaning of the said former act, upon such pain and penalties as be contained in the said former act, made and appointed for such beneficed persons for their non-residence; and that none of the said beneficed persons, being above the age aforesaid, except before except, shall be excused of their non-residence upon the said benefices, for that they be students or resiants within the said universities; any proviso, or any other clause or sentence, contained in the said former act of non-residence, or any other thing to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding.

And further, that all and singular such beneficed persons, being under the age of forty years, resident and abiding within the said universities, shall not enjoy the privilege and liberty of non-residence, contained in the proviso of the said former act, unless he or they be present at the ordinary lecture and lectures, as well at home in their houses, as in the common school or schools, and in their proper person keep sophisms, problems, disputations, and other exercises of learning, and be opponent and respondent in the same, according to the ordinance and statutes of the said universities; anything contained in the said proviso, or former act, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Provided always, that nothing in this act shall extend to any person who shall be reader of any public or common lecture in divinity, law civil, physic, philosophy, humanity, or any of the liberal sciences, or public or common interpreter or teacher of the Hebrew tongue, Chaldee, or Greek; nor to any persons above the age of forty years, who shall resort to any of the said universities to proceed doctors in divinity, law civil, or physic, for the time of their said proceedings, and executing of such sermons, disputations, or lectures, which they be bound by the statutes of the universities there to do for the said degrees so obtained.

By the 33 Hen. VIII. c. 28. Whereas by the act of the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13, it was ordained, that certain honourable persons, and other of the king’s counsellors and officers, as well spiritual as temporal, should and might have chaplains beneficed with cure, to serve and attend upon them in their houses, which chaplains shall not incur the danger of any penalty or forfeiture made or declared in the said act for non-residence upon their said benefices; in which act no provision is made for any of the head officers of the king’s courts of the duchy of Lancaster, the courts of augmentations of the revenues of the Crown, the first-fruits and tenths, the master of his Majesty’s wards and liveries, the general surveyors of his lands, and other his Majesty’s court: It is therefore enacted, that the chancellor of the said court of the duchy of Lancaster, the chancellor of the court of augmentations, the chancellor of the court of first-fruits and tenths, the master of his Majesty’s wards and liveries, and every of the king’s general surveyors of his lands, the treasurer of his chamber, and the groom of the stole, and every of them, shall and may retain in his house, or attendant unto his person, one chaplain having one benefice with cure of souls, which may be absent from the said benefice, and non-resident upon the same; the said statute made in the said twenty-first year of his Majesty’s reign, or any other statute, act, or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding.

Provided always, that every of the said chaplains so being beneficed as aforesaid, and dwelling with any the officers aforenamed, shall repair twice a year at the least to his said benefice and cure, and there abide for eight days at every such time at the least, to visit and instruct his said cure; on pain of forty shillings for every time so failing, half to the king, and half to him that will sue for the same in any of the king’s courts of record, in which suit no essoin, protection, or wager of law shall be allowed.

And here the question comes to be reconsidered, How far these statutes, taken together, do supersede the canon law, so as to take away the power which the ordinary had before, of enjoining residence to the clergy of his diocese? It seems to be clear, that, before these statutes, the bishops of this realm had and exercised a power of calling their clergy to residence: but more frequently they did not exert this power, which so far forth was to the clergy a virtual dispensation for non-residence. But this not exerting of their power was in them not always voluntary; for they were under the controlling influence of the pope, who granted dispensations of non-residence to as many as would purchase them, and disposed of abundance of ecclesiastical preferments to foreigners who never resided here at all. The king also, as appears, had a power to require the service of clergymen; and consequently in such case to dispense with them for non-residence upon their benefices. This power of the king is reserved to him by the aforesaid act of the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13. But it is the power of dispensation in the two former cases which is intended to be taken away, namely, by the bishop and by the pope; and by the said act residence is enjoined to the clergy under the penalty therein mentioned, notwithstanding any dispensation to the contrary, from the court of Rome or elsewhere; with a proviso nevertheless, that the said act shall not extend nor be prejudicial to the chaplains and others therein specially excepted. It is argued, that this act being made to rectify what had been insufficient or ineffectual in the canon law, and inflicting a temporal penalty to enforce the obligation of residence, the parliament intended that the said act should be from thenceforth, if not the sole, yet the principal, rule of proceeding in this particular; and consequently, that the persons excepted in the act need no other exemption than what is given to them by the act for their non-residence. Unto this it is answered, that the intention of the act was not to take away any power which the bishop had of enjoining residence, but the contrary; namely, it was to take away that power which the bishop or pope exercised, of granting dispensations for non-residence; that is to say, the act left to them that power which was beneficial, and only took from them that which tended to the detriment of the Church; and consequently, that the bishop may enjoin residence to the clergy as he might before, only he may not dispense with them as he did before for non-residence. And indeed, from anything that appears upon the face of the act, the contrary supposition seemeth to bear somewhat hard against the rule, which hath generally been adhered to in the construction of acts of parliament, that an act of parliament in the affirmative doth not take away the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that the same shall not be taken away in any act of parliament but by express words. It is, therefore, further urged, that the three subsequent acts do explain this act, and by the express words thereof do establish the aforegoing interpretation. In the first of the three it is said, that the persons therein mentioned may retain one chaplain, which may be absent from his benefice, and not resident upon the same; in the second it is said, that persons above forty years of age residing in the universities shall not be excused of their non-residence; and again, that persons under forty years of age shall not enjoy the privilege of non-residence, contained in the proviso of the said former act, unless they perform the common exercises there, and the like, which implies, that, if they do this, they shall enjoy such privilege; and in the third it is said, that the persons therein mentioned may retain one chaplain, which may be absent from his benefice, and non-resident upon the same; and it is not to be supposed, that the parliament intended a greater privilege to the chaplains of the inferior officers mentioned in the said last act, than to the chaplains of the royal family and principal nobility mentioned in the first act. Unto this the most apposite answer seemeth to be, that it is not expressed absolutely in any of the said three acts, that the chaplains or others therein mentioned shall enjoy the privilege of non-residence, or may be absent from their benefices, and not resident upon the same; but only this, that they may be absent or non-resident as aforesaid, the said statute made in the said twenty-first year, or any other statute or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding. So that they are only exempted thereby from the restraints introduced by the statute law, but in other respects are left as they were before. But concerning this, although it is a case likely enough to happen every day, there hath been no adjudication.

Peccham. We do decree, that rectors who do not make personal residence in their churches, and who have no vicars, shall exhibit the grace of hospitality by their stewards according to the ability of the church; so that at least the extreme necessity of the poor parishioners be relieved; and they who come there, and in their passage preach the word of God, may receive necessary sustenance, that the churches be not justly forsaken of the preachers through the violence of want; for the workman is worthy of his meat, and no man is obliged to warfare at his own cost.

By the 13 Eliz. c. 20. That the livings appointed for ecclesiastical ministers may not by corrupt and indirect dealings be transferred to other uses, it is enacted, that no lease to be made of any benefice or ecclesiastical promotion with cure, or any part thereof, and not being impropriated, shall endure any longer than while the lessor shall be ordinarily resident, and serving the cure of such benefice, without absence, above fourscore days in any one year; but every such lease, immediately upon such absence, shall cease and be void; and the incumbent so offending shall for the same lose one year’s profit of his said benefice, to be distributed by the ordinary among the poor of the parish: and all chargings of such benefices with cure with any pension, or with any profit out of the same to be yielded or taken, other than rents reserved upon leases, shall be void. (S. 1.)

Provided, that every parson, by the laws of this realm allowed to have two benefices, may demise the one of them, upon which he shall not then be most ordinarily resident, to his curate only that shall serve the cure for him; but such lease shall endure no longer than during such curate’s residence without absence above forty days in any one year. (S. 2.)

H. 1724. Mills and Etheridge. Bill by the lessee of Matthew Hawes, clerk, setting forth his lease dated Feb. 4, 1723, of the tithes for 1724 and 1725, in the parish of Simpson, in the county of Buckingham. The defendant pleaded, that it appears by the plaintiff’s bill, that his lease was dated Feb. 4, 1723; then pleads the statute of the 13 Eliz. c. 20, and avers, that Matthew Hawes the lessor was absent from his benefice eighty days and more in one year since the lease, and before the filing of the bill; that the church of Simpson is not impropriate; and that it is a benefice or ecclesiastical promotion with cure; and therefore, by such non-residence, and by virtue of the said act, that the lease was void. And the plea was allowed: and it was determined that, there is no necessity to aver that the absence was voluntary, (for if it was otherwise, it lay upon the plaintiff to show it,) or to aver that the absence was eighty days together.—Bunb. 210.

The same plea came on E., 1726, in the case of Quilter and Lowndes, and allowed by the whole court.—Bunb. 211.

But, query, says the reporter, if this is a good plea if the rector and lessee join; for by non-residence before sentence he only forfeits his lease and rent, not his tithes.—Atkinson and Prodgers v. Peasley, Bunb. 211.

Bishops are not punishable by the statute of the 21 Hen. VIII. for non-residence upon their bishoprics; but although an archbishop or bishop be not tied to be resident upon his bishopric by the statute, yet they are thereto obliged by the ecclesiastical law, and may be compelled to keep residence by ecclesiastical censures.—Watson, c. 37.

Thus, by a constitution of Archbishop Langton, bishops shall be careful to reside in their cathedrals, on some of the greater feasts, and at least in some part of Lent, as they shall see to be expedient for the welfare of their souls.—Lynd. 130.

And by a constitution of Otho: What is incumbent upon the venerable fathers, the archbishops and bishops, by their office to be done, their name of dignity, which is that of bishop (episcopus) or superintendent, evidently expresseth. For it properly concerns them (according to the gospel expression) to watch over their flock by night. And since they ought to be a pattern by which they who are subject to them ought to reform themselves, which cannot be done unless they show them an example, we exhort them in the Lord, and admonish them, that, residing at their cathedral churches, they celebrate proper masses on the principal feast days, and in Lent, and in Advent. And they shall go about their dioceses at proper seasons, correcting and reforming the churches, consecrating and sowing the word of life in the Lord’s field. For the better performance of all which they shall twice in the year, to wit, in Advent and in Lent, cause to be read unto them the profession which they made at their consecration.—Athon, 55.

And by a constitution of Othobon: Although bishops know themselves bound, as well by Divine as ecclesiastical precepts, to personal residence with the flock of God committed to them, yet because there are some who do not seem to attend hereunto, therefore we, pursuing the monition of Otho the legate, do earnestly exhort them in the Lord, and admonish them in virtue of their holy obedience, and under attestation of the Divine judgments, that, out of care to their flock, and for the solace of the churches espoused to them, they be duly present, especially on solemn days, in Lent and in Advent, unless their absence on such days shall be required for just cause by their superiors.—Athon, 118.

Canon 42. “Every dean, master, or warden, or chief governor of any cathedral or collegiate church, shall be resident in the same fourscore and ten days conjunctim or divisim in every year at the least, and then shall continue there in preaching the word of God, and keeping good hospitality, except he shall be otherwise let with weighty and urgent causes, to be approved by the bishop of the diocese, or in any other lawful sort dispensed with.”

“To be approved by the bishop.”—By the ancient canon law, personal attendance on the bishop, or study in the university, was a just cause of non-residence; and as such, notwithstanding the non-residence, entitled them to all profits, except quotidians.—Gibson, 172.

Canon 44. “No prebendaries nor canons in cathedral or collegiate churches, having one or more benefices with cure, (and not being residentiaries in the same cathedral or collegiate churches,) shall, under colour of their said prebends, absent themselves from their benefices with cure above the space of one month in the year, unless it be for some urgent cause, and certain time to be allowed by the bishop of the diocese. And such of the said canons and prebendaries, as by the ordinances of the cathedral or collegiate churches do stand bound to be resident in the same, shall so among themselves sort and proportion the times of the year, concerning residence to be kept in the said churches, as that some of them always shall be personally resident there; and all those who be, or shall be, residentiaries in any cathedral or collegiate church, shall, after the days of their residency appointed by their local statutes or custom expired, presently repair to their benefices, or some one of them, or to some other charge where the law requireth their presence, there to discharge their duties according to the laws in that case provided. And the bishop of the diocese shall see the same to be duly performed and put in execution.”

So that, besides the general laws directing the residence of other clergymen, these dignitaries have another law peculiar to themselves, namely, the local statutes of their respective foundations, the validity of which local statutes this canon supposeth and affirmeth. And with respect to the new foundations in particular, the act of parliament of the 6 Anne, c. 21, enacteth, that their local statutes shall be in force, so far as they are not contrary to the constitution of the Church of England, or the laws of the land. This canon is undoubtedly a part of the constitution of the Church; so that if the canon interfereth in any respect with the said local statutes, the canon is to be preferred, and the local statutes to be in force only so far forth as they are modified and regulated by the canon.

There doth not appear to be any difference, either by the ecclesiastical or temporal laws of this kingdom, between the case of a rector and of a vicar concerning residence; except only that the vicar is sworn to reside, (with a proviso, unless he shall be otherwise dispensed withal by his diocesan,) and the rector is not sworn. And the reason of this difference was this: in the Council of Lateran, held under Alexander III., and in another Lateran council held under Innocent III., there were very strict canons made against pluralities: by the first of these councils, pluralities are restrained, and every person admitted ad ecclesiam, vel ecclesiasticum ministerium, is bound to reside there, and personally serve the cure; by the second of these councils, if any person, having one benefice with cure of souls, accepts of a second, his first is declared void ipso jure. These canons were received in England, and are still part of our ecclesiastical law. At the first appearance of these canons, there was no doubt made but they obliged all rectors; for they, according to the language of the law, had churches in title, and had beneficium ecclesiasticum: and of such the canons spoke. But vicars did not then look upon themselves to be bound by these canons, for they, as the gloss upon the decretals speaks, had not ecclesiam quoad titulum; and the text of the law describes them not as having benefices, but as bound personis et ecclesiis deservire; that is, as assistant to the rector in his church.

Upon this notion practice was founded and prevailed in England, which eluded the canons made against pluralities. A man beneficed in one church could not accept another, without avoiding the first; but a man possessed of a benefice could accept a vicarage under the rector in another church, for that was no benefice in law, and therefore not within the letter of the canon, which forbids any man holding two benefices.

The way then of taking a second living in fraud of the canon was this: a friend was presented, who took the institution, and had the church quoad titulum: as soon as he was possessed, he constituted the person vicar for whose benefit he took the living, and by consent of the diocesan allotted the whole profit of the living for the vicar’s portion, except a small matter reserved to himself.

This vicar went and resided upon his first living, for the canon reached him where he had the benefice; but having no benefice where he had only a vicarage, he thought himself secure against the said canons requiring residence.

This piece of management gave occasion to several papal decrees, and to the following constitution of Archbishop Langton, viz. “No ordinary shall admit any one to a vicarage, who will not personally officiate there.”—Lyndwood, 64.

And to another constitution of the same archbishop, by which it is enjoined, that vicars who will be non-resident shall be deprived.—Lyndwood, 131.

But the abuse still continued, and therefore Otho, in his legatine constitutions, applied a stronger remedy, ordaining, that none shall be admitted to a vicarage, but who, renouncing all other benefices (if he hath any) with cure of souls, shall swear that he will make residence there, and shall constantly so reside: otherwise his institution shall be null, and the vicarage shall be given to another.—Athon, 24.

And it is upon the authority of this constitution that the oath of residence is administered to vicars to this day. And this obligation of vicars to residence was further enforced by a constitution of Othobon, as followeth: If any shall detain a vicarage contrary to the aforesaid constitution of Otho, he shall not appropriate to himself the profits thereof, but shall restore the same; one moiety whereof shall be applied to the use of that church, and the other moiety shall be distributed half to the poor of the parish and half to the archdeacon. And the archdeacon shall make diligent inquiry every year, and cause this constitution to be strictly observed. And if he shall find that any one detaineth a vicarage contrary to the premises, he shall forthwith notify to the ordinary that such vicarage is vacant, who shall do what to him belongeth in the premises; and if the ordinary shall delay to institute another into such vicarage, he shall be suspended from collation, institution, or presentation to any benefices until he shall comply. And if any one shall strive to detain a vicarage contrary to the premises, and persist in his obstinacy for a month; he shall, besides the penalties aforesaid, be ipso facto deprived of his other benefices (if he have any); and shall be disabled for ever to hold such vicarage which he hath so vexatiously detained, and from obtaining any other benefice for three years. And if the archdeacon shall be remiss in the premises, he shall be deprived of the share of the aforesaid penalty assigned to him, and be suspended from the entrance of the church until he shall perform his duty.—Athon, 95.

So that, upon the whole, the doubt was not, whether rectors were obliged to residence; the only question was, whether vicars were also obliged; and to enforce the residence of vicars, in like manner as of rectors, the aforesaid constitutions were ordained.—Sherl. ibid. 20–22.

Canon 47. “Every beneficed man licensed by the laws of this realm, upon urgent occasions of other service, not to reside upon his benefice, shall cause his cure to be supplied by a curate that is a sufficient and licensed preacher, if the worth of the benefice will bear it. But whosoever hath two benefices, shall maintain a preacher licensed in the benefice where he doth not reside, except he preach himself at both of them usually.”

And by the last article of Archbishop Wake’s directions it is required, that the bishop shall take care, as much as possible, that whosoever is admitted to serve any cure, do reside in the parish where he is to serve, especially in livings that are able to support a resident curate; and where that cannot be done, that they do at least reside so near to the place, that they may conveniently perform all their duties, both in the church and parish.

By the faculty of dispensation, a pluralist is required, in that benefice from which he shall happen to be most absent, to preach thirteen sermons every year; and to exercise hospitality for two months yearly; and, as much as in him lieth, to support and relieve the inhabitants of that parish, especially the poor and needy.

By the 1 Will. & Mar. c. 26. If any person presented or nominated by either of the universities to a popish benefice with cure, shall be absent from the same above the space of sixty days in any one year; in such case, the said benefice shall become void.—Abridged from Burn.

The 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106 repeals the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13, and the 57 Geo. III. c. 99, relating to residence, and provides (s. 32) that every spiritual person holding any benefice shall keep residence on his benefice, and in the house of residence (if any) belonging thereto; and if any such person shall without any such licence or exemption, as is in this act allowed for that purpose, or unless he shall be resident at some other benefice of which he may be possessed, absent himself from such benefice, or from such house of residence, if any, for any period exceeding the space of three months together, or to be accounted at several times in any one year, he shall, when such absence shall exceed three months, and not exceed six months, forfeit one third part of the annual value of the benefice from which he shall so absent himself; and when such absence shall exceed six months, and not exceed eight months, one half part of such annual value; and when such absence shall exceed eight months, two third parts of such annual value; and when such absence shall have been for the whole year, three fourth parts of such annual value.

By sect. 33, the bishop may give licence to reside out of the usual house if it be unfit, or, if there be no house, in some convenient house, although not within such benefice.

By sect. 34, houses purchased by governors of Queen Anne’s bounty, to be deemed the lawful houses of residence.

By sect. 41, the incumbent is bound to keep in repair the house of residence, whether he reside in it or not. And for neglect of this he is to be subject to all the penalties of non-residence. For various exceptional cases, in which non-residence may be permitted, see sections 37, 38, 43, 44, &c.

By sect. 53, it is enacted, that in every year the bishop of every diocese is to make a return to her Majesty in council of the name of every benefice within his diocese, and the names of the several spiritual persons holding the same respectively, distinguishing those who are resident and those who are not resident, and stating whether they have exemption or not.

Sect. 59 contains strong provisions for the punishment of any one who holds a residence belonging to a benefice which has been let to him, and refuses to vacate after the incumbent is ordered to reside, and for enabling the incumbent to obtain possession of his residence by summary means.

Sect. 76 provides, that the curate under certain circumstances shall be required to reside.

This statute contains many provisions for enabling the ordinary to provide a residence where none exists.

RESIDENTIARY. The capitular members of cathedrals, who are bound to reside at the cathedral church, to perform the ordinary duties there, and to attend more immediately to its concerns. In England, all cathedrals of the old foundations have residentiaries, (canons residentiary, as they are usually called,) the great majority of prebendaries being nonresidentiary. Till the late parliamentary alterations, the greatest number of residentiaries was nine, the smallest four, the dean being always one. The following account of residentiaries is abridged from Churton’s admirable and instructive Life of Dean Nowell, (pp. 313, et seq.)

We learn from the ancient statutes of St. Paul’s, that it was customary in early days for all the canons or prebendaries to reside, being thirty in number; and when, in process of time, many, by mutual connivance, withdrew themselves to their cures or avocations elsewhere, the remaining few bound themselves by a new oath, to reside, and attend the duties of the Church.... At length the residentiaries were reduced to two only.... Bishop Braybrooke, to remedy this abuse, having interposed his authority, the matter was referred to arbitration of the Crown, by whom, in 1399, an order was made that residence should thereafter be kept according to the form of the Sarum Missal.... In Dean Colet’s time the statutes were revised, and it was ordered, that as the burdens of St. Paul’s were heavy, and the patrimony slender, there should in future be, under the dean as head, four, and only four, canons resident; eligible, as before, out of the senior prebendaries, offering themselves and protesting their residence, as formerly, at one of the quarterly feasts; when, if none came forward, some one should be invited to accept the office, and in case of refusal, be amerced by some pecuniary fine. The residentiaries of St. Paul’s, (p. 312,) though, in point of form, they are elective by the dean and chapter, are virtually, however, as is well known, in the patronage of the Crown; and upon every vacancy that occurs, a letter missive from his Majesty recommending some clerk, who is previously a prebendary by the collation of the bishop of London, is as certain in its operation, as the congè d’élire for the election of a bishop: by resistance, in one case, as well as the other, a præmunire would be incurred. Archdeacon Churton adds, (p. 316,) that “in the cathedral of Lincoln, the custom, in ancient times, was similar to what appears to have been the rule in St. Paul’s. Of the numerous body of prebendaries, members of that church, any one who chose it, used to protest in chapter his intention to become a residentiary, and they were obliged to admit him accordingly, upon taking the usual oath. A practice so variable and uncertain as this, being found inconvenient in many respects, it was settled and agreed in a general chapter, about three hundred years ago, with the concurrence of the bishops, that the number of residentiaries should be limited to four, who were to be the four principal persons (see Persona) of the church, as the dean, precentor, chancellor, and subdean. An alteration not very dissimilar took place at a later period, 1697, in the church of York; when, in consequence of a representation from the dean and chapter, the number of residentiaries was reduced, under a writ of privy seal, from six to four, now, as formerly, in the nomination of the dean.”

To these observations of Archdeacon Churton may be added, that at Chichester, the chapter called on whom they pleased to reside, generally observing seniority. The same rule prevailed at Hereford, where the residentiaries are still elected by the chapter. In most cathedrals residence was protested (as stated above) at one of the great chapters. Forty days’ notice was given at Lichfield. (See Dugdale’s Monasticon, ed. 1830, and Dugdale’s St. Paul’s.) The present number of residentiaries at Exeter was fixed by Bishop Ward, in 1663.

From the ancient documents appended to Dugdale’s History of St. Paul’s, it appears by more than one explicit declaration, that all the residentiaries were required to reside together, not merely dividing the year between them, according to the present most reprehensible arrangement. They were allowed to serve no other church whatever. They were required to be all present together at all services on Sundays and greater holidays, and so to manage between themselves on ordinary week days, that one at least should be present at each one of them [and it must be remembered that the daily services were then more numerous than now]. And if they neglected this perpetual residence, from which only occasional absence, as to parish clergymen from their cures, was permitted, they were not considered as entitled to their emoluments; and their neglect is censured in the old records, in terms of the strongest reprobation.

RESIGNATION. 1. A resignation is, where a parson, vicar, or other beneficed clergyman, voluntarily gives up and surrenders his charge and preferment to those from whom he received the same.—Deg. p. i. c. 14.

2. That ordinary who hath the power of institution, hath power also to accept of a resignation made of the same church to which he may institute; and therefore the respective bishop, or other person who, either by patent under him, or by privilege or prescription, hath the power of institution, are the proper persons to whom a resignation ought to be made. And yet a resignation of a deanery in the king’s gift may be made to the king; as of the deanery of Wells. And some hold, that the resignation may well be made to the king of a prebend that is no donative: but others, on the contrary, have held, that a resignation of a prebend ought to be made only to the ordinary of the diocese, and not to the king as supreme ordinary; because the king is not bound to give notice to the patron (as the ordinary is) of the resignation; nor can the king make a collation by himself without presenting to the bishop, notwithstanding his supremacy.—2 Roll’s Abr. 358. Watson, c. 4.

And resignation can only be made to a superior: this is a maxim in the temporal law, and is applied by Lord Coke to the ecclesiastical law, when he says, that therefore a bishop cannot resign to the dean and chapter, but it must be to the metropolitan from whom he received confirmation and consecration.—Gibson, 822.

And it must be made to the next immediate superior, and not to the mediate; as of a church presentative to the bishop, and not to the metropolitan.—2 Roll’s Abr. 358.

But donatives are not resignable to the ordinary; but to the patron, who hath power to admit.—Gibson, 822.

And if there be two patrons of a donative and the incumbent resign to one of them, it is good for the whole.—Deg. p. i. c. 14.

3. Regularly resignation must be made in person, and not by proxy. There is indeed a writ in the register, entitled, litera procuratoria ad resignandum, by which the person constituted proctor was enabled to do all things necessary to be done in order to an exchange; and, of these things, resignation was one. And Lyndwood supposeth, that any resignation may be made by proctor. But in practice there is no way (as it seemeth) of resigning, but either to do it by personal appearance before the ordinary, or at least to do it elsewhere before a public notary, by an instrument directed immediately to the ordinary, and attested by the said notary; in order to be presented to the ordinary, by such proper hand as may pray his acceptance. In which case the person presenting the instrument to the ordinary doth not resign nomine procuratorio, as proctors do; but only presents the resignation of the person already made.—Gibson, 822. Deg. p. i. c. 14. Watson, c. 4.

4. A collateral condition may not be annexed to the resignation, no more than an ordinary may admit upon condition, or a judgment be confessed upon condition, which are judicial acts.—Watson, c. 4.

For the words of resignation have always been, pure, sponte, absolute, et simpliciter; to exclude all indirect bargains, not only for money, but for other considerations. And therefore, in Gayton’s case, E. 24 Eliz., where the resignation was to the use of two persons therein named, and further limited with this condition, that if one of the two was not admitted to the benefice resigned within six months, the resignation should be void and of none effect; such resignation, by reason of the condition, was declared to be absolutely void.—God. 277. Gibs. 821. 1 Still. 334.

But where the resignation is made for the sake of exchange only, there it admits of this condition, viz. if the exchange shall take full effect, and not otherwise; as appears by the form of resignation, which is in the register.—Gibson, 821.

By a constitution of Othobon: Whereas sometimes a man resigneth his benefices that he may obtain a vacant see; and bargaineth with the collator, that if he be not elected to the bishopric, he shall have his benefices again; we do decree, that they shall not be restored to him, but shall be conferred upon others, as lawfully void. And if they be restored to him, the same shall be of no effect; and he who shall so restore him, after they have been resigned into his hands, or shall institute the resigner into them again, if he is a bishop, he shall be supended from the use of his dalmatic and pontificals; and if he is an inferior prelate, he shall be suspended from his office until he shall think fit to revoke the same.—Athon, 134.

5. No resignation can be valid till accepted by the proper ordinary; that is, no person appointed to a cure of souls can quit that cure, or discharge himself of it, but upon good motives, to be approved by the superior who committed it to him; for it may be he would quit it for money, or to live idly, or the like. And this is the law temporal, as well as spiritual; as appears by that plain resolution which hath been given, that all presentations made to benefices resigned, before such acceptance, are void. And there is no pretence to say, that the ordinary is obliged to accept; since the law hath appointed no known remedy if he will not accept, any more than if he will not ordain.—Gibs. 822. 1 Still. 334.

Lyndwood makes a distinction in this case, between a cure of souls and a sinecure. The resignation of a sinecure, he thinks, is good immediately, without the superior’s consent; because none but he that resigneth hath interest in that case. But where there is a cure of souls it is otherwise; because not he only hath interest but others also unto whom he is bound to preach the word of God; wherefore in this case it is necessary, that there be the ratification of the bishop, or of such other person as hath power by right or custom to admit such resignation.—Gibson, 823.

Thus in the case of the Marchioness of Rockingham and Griffith, Mar. 22, 1755, Dr. Griffith being possessed of the two rectories of Leythley and Thurnsco, in order that he might be capacitated to accept another living which became vacant, to wit, the rectory of Handsworth, executed an instrument of resignation of the rectory of Leythley aforesaid, before a notary public, which was tendered to and left with the archbishop of York, the ordinary of the place within which Leythley is situate. It was objected, that here doth not appear to have been any acceptance of the resignation by the archbishop, and that without his acceptance the said rectory of Leythley could not become void. And it was held by the lord chancellor clearly, that the ordinary’s acceptance of the resignation is absolutely necessary to make an avoidance. But whether in this case there was a proper resignation and acceptance thereof, he reserved for further consideration; and in the mean time recommended it to the archbishop, to produce the resignation in court. Afterwards, on the 17th of April, 1755, the cause came on again to be heard, and the resignation was then produced. But the counsel for the executors of the late marquis declaring that they did not intend to make any further opposition, the lord chancellor gave no opinion upon the resignation, or the effect of it; but in the course of the former argument he held, that the acceptance of a resignation by the ordinary is necessary to make it effectual, and that it is in the power of the ordinary to accept or refuse a resignation.

And in the case of Hesket and Grey, H. 28 Geo. II., where a general bond of resignation was put in suit, and the defendant pleaded that he offered to resign, but the ordinary would not accept the resignation; the court of King’s Bench were unanimously of opinion, that the ordinary is a judicial officer, and is intrusted with a judicial power to accept or refuse a resignation as he thinks proper; and judgment was given for the plaintiff.

6. After acceptance of the resignation, lapse shall not run but from the time of notice given: it is true the church is void immediately upon acceptance, and the patron may present if he please; but as to lapse, the general rule that is here laid down is the unanimous doctrine of all the books. Insomuch that if the bishop who accepted the resignation dies before notice given, the six months shall not commence till notice is given, by the guardian of the spiritualities, or by the succeeding bishop; with whom the act of resignation is presumed to remain.—Gibson, 823.

7. By the 31 Eliz. c. 6, s. 8. If any incumbent of any benefice with cure of souls shall corruptly resign the same; or corruptly take for or in respect of the resigning the same, directly or indirectly, any pension, sum of money, or other benefit whatsoever, as well the giver as the taker of any such pension, sum of money, or other benefit corruptly, shall lose double the value of the sum so given, taken, or had; half to the queen, and half to him that shall sue for the same in any of her Majesty’s courts of record.—Abridged from Burn.

On the subject of general bonds of resignation, see Simony.

The following are the forms of resignation now in use:—

No. 1.

Act of Resignation to be executed before a Notary Public and credible Witnesses.

In the name of God, Amen. Before you, a notary public, and credible witnesses here present, I ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, for certain just and lawful causes me thereunto especially moving, without compulsion, fraud, or deceit, do purely, simply, and absolutely resign and give up my said ——, and parish church of ——, with all their rights, members, and appurtenances, into the hands of the Right Reverend Father in God ——, by Divine permission lord bishop ——, or of any other whomsoever, having or that shall have power to admit this my resignation. And I totally renounce my right, title, and possession of, in, and to the same, with all their rights, members, and appurtenances heretofore had, and hitherto belonging to me; I quit them, and expressly recede from them by these presents. And that this my resignation may have its full effect, I do hereby nominate and appoint ——, jointly and severally my proctors or substitutes, to exhibit this my resignation to the said right reverend father, and in my name to pray that his lordship would graciously vouchsafe to accept thereof, and to pronounce, decree, and declare the —— of ——, aforesaid, void and to be void of my person to all intents of law that may follow thereupon: and to decree, if requisite, that intimation of the said avoidance may be issued to the patron thereof. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 185—.

Witnesses present, ——

No. 2.

Attestation of the Notary Public.

On the —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 185—, the Rev. ——, clerk, —— of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, appeared personally before me, the under-written notary public, and resigned, gave up, and surrendered his said ——, and appointed —— his proctors, jointly and severally to exhibit his resignation, hereunto annexed, to the Right Reverend Father in God ——, lord bishop of ——, and did and performed all other things as in his said resignation, hereunto annexed, is particularly specified and set forth, in the presence of witnesses attesting the same.

Which I attest, ——

Notary Public.

No. 3.

Acceptation by the Ordinary of the Resignation.

We accept the resignation of the ——, in the county of ——, and our diocese of ——, as it is exhibited to us by ——, one of the proctors therein named, and we do declare the said —— void, and to be void of the person of the within named ——, the party resigning, to all intents of law that may follow thereupon, and do decree that an intimation of such avoidance, if requisite, be issued to the patron thereof.

Dated this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 185—.

No. 4.

Copy of Letter to be sent to the Patron of the Benefice resigned, if it is not in the Patronage of the Bishop himself.

185—.

I am desired by the Lord Bishop of —— to inform you, that his lordship accepted the Rev. —— resignation of the —— of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, on the —— of ——, and declared the same void.

Please to acknowledge the receipt of this notice.

I have the honour to be,

Your most obedient servant,

——

Secretary.

RESPOND. Before the Reformation a short anthem was so called, which was sung after reading three or four verses of a chapter; after which the chapter proceeded.

RESPOND. A half pillar attached to a wall, to support one side of an arch, of which the other side rests on a pillar. It has its name from responding or answering to a pillar.

RESPONSE. In the Church service, an answer made by the people speaking alternately with the minister. The use of responses is not to be viewed as a mere incidental peculiarity of liturgical services, but rather as a fundamental characteristic of Divine worship. Responses were not made for liturgies, but liturgies for responses. Many of the psalms are constructed on the responsive model, because this was a prior trait of the worship of the sanctuary; and it is an error to suppose that responses were introduced because these psalms happened to be in alternate verses. God’s worship is an act in which both minister and people are concerned. This worship the Church requires to be both mental and vocal, and has ordered her ritual accordingly,—not degrading the priest to a proxy, nor the congregation to an audience; but providing for supplications and thanksgivings, which, like herself, shall be strong because united. It should be deemed a high privilege by the churchman, that he is permitted to lift up his voice in prayer, as well as in praise, “in the congregation of the saints;” that he may openly profess his confidence in the Father of all, and his trust in the “Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world;” that he may join aloud in the “solemn litany,” and cry for grace whereby he may keep God’s holy law for the time to come. In ages past the privilege was prized. Men were not ashamed, in primitive days, to confess Christ before the world, and, as it were, to rend the heavens with their fervent appeals. Neither was it by an ecclesiastical fiction, but in solemn reality, that they sung, “Therefore with angels and archangels, and with all the company of heaven, WE LAUD AND MAGNIFY THY GLORIOUS NAME.” May the time come when such devotion shall again adorn the “spacious courts” of Zion; when the vague murmur of confession, and the languid tones of penitence, the silent creed, and the smothered prayer, shall give place to the earnest and nervous expression of spiritual concern, and the animating testimony of devout gratitude!

It was a very ancient practice of the Jews to recite their public hymns and prayers by course, and many of the Fathers assure us that the primitive Christians imitated them therein; so that there is no old liturgy which does not contain such short and devout sentences as these, wherein the people answer the priest, and which are therefore called “responses.” This primitive usage, which is now excluded not only from Popish assemblies by their praying in an unknown tongue, but also from those of our Protestant Dissenters by the device of a long extempore prayer, is still maintained in the Church of England; which allows the people their ancient right of bearing part in the service for these good reasons: First, hereby the consent of the congregation to what we pray for is declared; and it is this unity of mind and voice, and this agreement in prayer, which hath the promise of prevailing. (Rom. xv. 6; Matt. xviii. 19.) Secondly, this grateful variety and different manner of address serves to quicken the people’s devotion. Thirdly, it engages their attention, which is apt to wander, especially in sacred things; and, since they have a duty to perform, causes them to be expectant and ready to perform it. Let all those, then, who attend the public service, gratefully embrace the privilege which the Church allows them, and make their responses gravely and with an audible voice.—Dean Comber.

But it must be remembered, both here and elsewhere, when our prayers to God are divided into such small portions as we call “versicles,” that the people are to join mentally in that part which the minister utters, as well as in that which they are directed to pronounce themselves. And so the minister, in like manner, must join in what the people utter, as well as in his own part. For otherwise they do not join in prayer. Besides, if this be not done, we shall frequently offer to God that which has but an imperfect sense. For instance, in this place, these words, “and our mouth shall show forth thy praise,” do so manifestly depend upon what the minister spake just before, that the sense of the one is not perfect without the other. It is true the Church requires, that the minister shall say the one, and the people the other portion; that is, the one portion shall be vocally uttered by the minister, and the other portion shall be vocally uttered by the people, alternately and by way of responses; but yet both the minister and the people ought mentally to offer, and to speak to God, what is vocally offered and spoken by the other party respectively, for the reasons already given. And, that both the minister and the congregation may be the better able to do this, they should respectively take care, that they do not confound and disturb each other by beginning their several portions too soon. The minister’s first versicle should be finished, before the people utter a word of the second; and the people should have time enough to finish the second, before the minister begins the third, &c.: so that both the minister and people may have time enough deliberately to offer every portion, and make, all of them together, one continued act of devotion. The same rule must be observed in all those psalms and hymns which are used alternately.—Dr. Bennet. (See Versicle.)

The Responses, or Responsals, as some writers call them, may be said to be of four kinds: First, those which consist of Amen after the prayers: Secondly, those which follow the versicles or suffrages: Thirdly, those which are repetitions of what the minister has said, as in the confession, some parts of the Litany, &c.: and Fourthly, the short prayers or anthems, interposed between each commandment in the Communion Service.

RESPONSORIES, or RESPONDS. These, in the unreformed ritual, are short verses from Scripture, repeated as verse and response, after the lessons at matins. Hence perhaps it is that the hymns after our lessons have sometimes incorrectly been called responses; a term, however, which in this sense seems nearly obsolete. It is to these responsories that allusion is made in the Preface “concerning the Service of the Church,” in our Prayer Book. “For this cause he cut off Anthems, Responds, Invitations, and such like things as did break the continual course of the reading of the Scriptures.” Here is not meant responses per se; for these our reformers most carefully retained; not anthems per se, as these are prescribed in their proper places; but the ancient custom was corrected, which after every three or four verses of a lesson interposed a respond, &c., so as to interrupt the service; the sequel being taken up when the respond was finished.—Jebb.

RESTORATION. The name generally given to the happy return of the Church of England to the divinely appointed ecclesiastical polity, and to their allegiance to the lawful prince, Charles II., which took place in 1660; a happy event, for which Christian people cannot be too thankful, and of which, and all the dreadful evils from which it delivered them, they cannot be too often reminded. It has been accordingly appointed by authority, that the 29th of May, in every year, shall be kept with prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God for these unspeakable mercies.

RESURRECTION. There are many passages in the Old Testament, which either obscurely hint at the resurrection, or immediately refer to it. (Job xix. 23–27; Dan. xii. 2; Isa. xxv. 8; xxvi. 19; Hosea vi. 2; xiii. 14; Ezek. xxxvii. 1–14.) It follows, indeed, from an acceptance of the promise of a redeemer. A redeemer was promised as a blessing to Adam and the patriarchs; but when Adam and the first patriarchs died, how was the coming of the Redeemer to be a blessing to them? The answer is given by Job: “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that at the latter day he shall stand upon the earth; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold;” i. e. by being raised from the dead. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is one of the great articles of the Christian faith. We believe that Jesus died and rose again; we also believe, for so we are taught in the New Testament, that “them which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him,” that “Christ by his rising became the first-fruits of them that slept,” that “the dead shall be raised incorruptible,” that “the grave and the sea shall give up their dead,” that at this resurrection “the dead in Christ shall rise first,” that the Lord Jesus Christ will change “our vile body, and fashion it like unto his glorious body, according to the working of that mighty power whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.” (1 Thess. iv. 14–16; 1 Cor. xv. 20–52; Rev. xx. 13; Phil. iii. 21.)

As Christ, the “first-fruits of them that sleep,” (1 Cor. xv. 20,) arose from the dead, so shall there be also a general RESURRECTION OF THE BODY; for he “that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken our mortal bodies.” (Rom. viii. 11.) A seeming difficulty, however, attends the latter case, which does not the former. The body of Christ did not “see corruption;” but we know that in our case, “after the skin worms shall destroy the body itself,” and that “yet in our flesh shall we see God.” (Job xix. 26.) We must, therefore, believe that this resurrection, however apparently difficult, is not impossible, for with him by whom we are to be raised “all things are possible.” We know that by him “the very hairs of the head are all numbered;” and he “who measures the waters in the hollow of his hand,” and “comprehends the dust of the earth,” (Isa. xl. 12,) whose “eyes” could “see our substance,” “made in secret,” and “yet being imperfect” (Ps. cxxxix. 15, 16,) can be at no loss to distinguish the different particles of every different body, whether it be crumbled into dust, or dissipated into air, or sublimated by fire. He, too, the artificer of the body so “fearfully and wonderfully made,” (Ps. cxxxix. 14,) can be at no loss to reunite the innumerable and widely scattered atoms; for these shall not perish; and with equal ease reform the man, as he originally made him.

The union of the immortal soul to the companion made for it, (then become more pure and glorified,) after they have existed together in this transitory life, is also highly probable; nor is it less so, that this should be the case as man is an accountable agent, intended to enjoy eternal happiness, or suffer eternal misery—decreed to “receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” (2 Cor. v. 10.) It is also typified by many things around us: the constant succession of death and revivification—the night is followed by a new day—the winter, the death of the year, is followed by the spring, and the renewal of vegetation; the “grain” sown is not requickened except it first “die,” and is buried in the ground and brought to corruption.

By this is Reason prepared to assent to Revelation; and therefore, as it has been prophesied that, notwithstanding this destruction of the body, yet in our “flesh” shall we “see God,” and our “eyes shall behold him” (Job xix. 26); that the “dead men shall live,” and with the “dead body, arise;” for “the earth shall cast out the dead,” (Isa. xxvi. 19,) and that they that “sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,” (Dan. xii. 2,) so shall it be accomplished: “there shall be a resurrection of the dead” (Acts xxiv. 15); “the hour is coming when the dead—all that are in the grave—shall hear the voice of the Son of God,” and “shall come forth;” the “sea” and “death and hell” (or the grave) “shall deliver up the dead which are in them” (Rev. xx. 13).

This our Lord, who calls himself “the Resurrection and the Life,” (John xi. 25,) proved to the Sadducees from the Old Testament; since he who was then the God of their fathers “is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Matt. xxii. 32.) St. Paul, too, confirms the doctrine by most powerful reasoning; declaring, that if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is “Christ not risen;” and then is their “faith” vain; and he shows, in answer to cavillers, that, as Christ is risen, “the first-fruits,”—so shall “all be made alive,” exemplifying the probability and the manner of this by a familiar illustration. (1 Cor. XV. 12–23, 35–49.)

It shall be, too, a resurrection of the body, every one his own body as it “hath pleased” God to give him: although the “natural body,” “sown in corruption,—in dishonour,—and in weakness,” shall be “raised a spiritual body,—in incorruption, in glory, and in power.” The “earthly house” shall have “a building of God” (2 Cor. v. 1); the “corruptible” shall “put on incorruption;” and the “mortal, immortality.” Those that do “not sleep” shall “be changed,”—“caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord.” (1 Thess. iv. 17.)

We believe in this article, as the great truth it contains is for the glory of God’s eternal government, “the hand of the Lord shall be known towards his servants, and his indignation towards his enemies” (Isa. lxvi. 14); as it proves the value of the “gospel,” which has “brought life and immortality to light” (2 Tim. i. 10); as it consoles us under “afflictions,” which are “but for a moment:” since we know that our “Redeemer liveth;” and that we “sorrow not,” therefore, “as others which have no hope” (1 Thess. iv. 13, with 14–18); and excites us “to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men” (Acts xxiv. 16, with 15); since “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!” (Heb. x. 31)—of “him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell!” (Matt. x. 28.) Therefore should we be “always abounding in the work of the Lord; forasmuch as we know that our labour in the Lord is not in vain.” (1 Cor. xv. 58.)

REVELATION. (1.) The Divine communication of the sacred truths of religion. (See Bible, Scripture.)

(2.) The Apocalypse, or prophecy of St. John, revealing future things. This is the last book of Holy Scripture, and it contains the revelations made to St. John at Patmos. It is quoted as an inspired book by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and other fathers of the first three centuries. Its authenticity and genuineness were never disputed until a prejudice was excited against it by the follies of certain Millenarians, who thought to support their conclusions by its authority. But the Church never doubted of its being a portion of Scripture, or of its Divine origin. Indeed, few books of the New Testament have more complete evidence of canonical authority than the Book of Revelation. It treats, 1. “Of the things which were then,” (i. 19,) i. e. of the state of the Church in the time of St. John; and, 2. “Of things which should be hereafter,” or of the history of the Church, its propagation, corruption, reformation, and triumph.

REVEREND. Venerable, deserving awe and respect. It is the title given to ecclesiastics of the second and third orders, the archbishops, and the bishop of Meath, being styled most reverend, and the bishops right reverend. Deans are very reverend. In foreign churches, where females are ordained to offices in the Church, abbesses and prioresses are called reverend mothers. It was so in our own Church before the Reformation, but, since that time, the custom of consecrating females to the service of God, except so far as all lay persons are so consecrated at holy baptism and at confirmation, has ceased. The more zealous Protestants at the time of the Reformation, and especially during the Great Rebellion, very strongly objected to the title of reverend, as implying too much to be given to a mere creature, and because of God only it may be said with propriety, “Holy and reverend is his name.” But dissenting preachers are in these days ambitious of the title, and few clergymen refuse it. The title of reverend was frequently given, so late as the 17th century, to the judges of England.

RIGHTEOUSNESS, JUSTICE, HOLINESS. (See Justification and Sanctification.)

RING, in holy matrimony. Immediately after the mutual promises or stipulations in the office of matrimony, the very ancient ceremony occurs of placing a ring on the finger of the woman. The object of this is stated in the prayer following, to be “a token and pledge” of the vow and covenant just made by the parties. Ritualists have supposed, that the ring was also a pledge or earnest of that honourable maintenance and participation in “worldly goods,” which are promised in that part of the office where the ceremony takes place. It has also been considered as a sign or seal of admittance of the wife to “the nearest friendship and highest trust,” which it was in the husband’s power to give. It is probable that there is weight in all these opinions, though the former seems to be the prominent one in the view of the Church.

Various analogies and figurative applications have sprung from the ceremony of the ring, some of which are thus stated by Dean Comber and Wheatly. The matter of which this ring is made is gold, to signify how noble and durable our affection is; the form is round, to imply that our respect shall never have an end; the place of it is on the fourth finger of the left hand, where the ancients thought was a vein which came directly from the heart, and where it may be always in view; and, being a finger least used, where it may be least subject to be worn out. But the main end is to be a visible and lasting token and remembrance of this covenant, which must never be forgotten; and if in ordinary bargains we have some lasting thing delivered as an earnest or pledge and memorial, much more is it needful here; and to scruple a thing so prudent and well designed, so anciently and universally used, does not deserve our serious consideration. Indeed, although the use of the ring in marriage used to be regarded as a remnant of Popery by ultra-Protestants, it seems now to be universally tolerated.

Besides the pledge of our truth, there is a visible pledge also, namely, the ring, which being anciently the seal by which all orders were signed, and all choice things secured, the delivery of this was a sign that the party to whom it was given was admitted into the nearest friendship and the highest trust, so as to be invested with our authority, and allowed to manage our treasure and other concerns, (Gen. xli. 42,) and hence it came to be a token of love (Luke xv. 22); and was used in matrimony, not only among the Jews and Gentiles, but the Christians also; who, in Clemens Alexandrinus’s time, gave their spouse a ring, to declare her worthy of the government of the family; and thus it hath been used ever since.—Dean Comber.

The ring is, by positive institution, “a token and pledge of the covenant made” by the parties contracting marriage; and, as it is a permanent monument of the vows and promises then reciprocally made, so it ought to be a perpetual monitor, that these vows be religiously observed, and these promises faithfully performed.—Shepherd.

RING, in investitures. A ring was anciently given to bishops on their consecration, with these words, “Accipe annulum, discretionis et honoris, fidei signum; ut quæ signanda, signes; et quæ aperienda sunt, aperias; quæ liganda sunt, liges; quæ solvenda sunt, solvas.” It was worn on different fingers, most frequently on the middle finger of the right hand; and was a sign of the bridegroom’s espousal of the Church in her representative, the bishop.

Investiture with the ring and staff, which signified a spiritual character and office, was always claimed by the Church, though sometimes unjustly usurped by temporal princes.

RITES. (Lat. ritus.) Religious observances prescribed by competent authority.

It is very visible, that in the Gospels and Epistles there are but few rules laid down as to ritual matters. In the Epistles there are some general rules given, that must apply in a great many cases; such as, “Let all things be done to edification, to order, and to peace” (Rom. xiv. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 40): and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus many rules are given in such general words, as, “Lay hands suddenly on no man,” that, in order to the guiding of particular cases by them, many distinctions and specialities were to be interposed, to making them practicable and useful. In matters that are merely ritual, the state of mankind in different climates and ages is apt to vary; and the same things, that in one scene of human nature may look grave, and seem fit for any society, may in another age look light, and dissipate men’s thoughts. It is also evident, that there is not a system of rules given in the New Testament about all these; and yet a due method in them is necessary, to maintain the order and decency that become Divine things. This seems to be a part of the gospel “liberty,” that it is not “a law of ordinances” (Gal. ii. 4; iv. 9; v. 1); these things being left to be varied according to the diversities of mankind. (See Article 34.)

The Jewish religion was delivered to one nation, and the main parts of it were to be performed in one place: they were also to be limited in rituals, lest they might have taken some practices from their neighbours round about them, and so by the use of their rites have rendered idolatrous practices more familiar and acceptable to them. And yet they had many rites among them in our Saviour’s time, which are not mentioned in any part of the Old Testament: such was the whole constitution of their synagogues, with all the service and officers that belonged to them; they had a baptism among them, besides several rites added to the paschal service. Our Saviour reproved them for none of these: he went to their synagogues: and, though he reproved them for overvaluing their rites, for preferring them to the laws of God, and making these void by their traditions, yet he does not condemn them for the use of them. And, while of the greater precepts he says, “these things ye ought to have done,” he adds, concerning their rites and lesser matters, “and not to have left the other undone.” (Matt. xxiii. 23.)

If then such a liberty was allowed in so limited a religion, it seems highly suitable to the sublimer state of the Christian liberty, that there should be room left for such appointments and alterations as the different state of times and places should require. In such rules we ought to acquiesce. Nor can we assign any other bounds to our submission in this case, than those which the gospel has limited. “We must obey God rather than man” (Acts v. 29); and we must in the first place “render to God the things that are God’s,” and then “give to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.” (Matt. xxii. 21.) So that if either Church or State have power to make rules and laws in such matters, they must have this extent given them—that, till they break in upon the laws of God and the gospel, we must be bound to obey them. A mean cannot be put here; either they have no power at all, or they have a power that must go to everything that is not forbid by any law of God. This is the only measure that can be given in this matter.—Bp. Burnet. (See Ceremonies.)

RITUAL. A book or manual in which is given the order and forms to be observed in the celebration of Divine service, the administration of the sacraments, and, in general, all matters connected with external order, in the performance of sacred offices.

Palmer says, the English ritual resembles that of the Eastern Church in the circumstance of combining all the offices of the Church in one volume. The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greeks, now comprises the offices for morning and evening prayer, the liturgy or eucharist, baptism, litany, orders, &c. The Western Churches have more commonly divided these offices into at least four parts, entitled, the breviary, the missal or liturgical book, the ritual, and the pontifical. The ritual and pontifical correspond to that part of the English ritual which begins with the Office of Baptism. The ritual, (termed in the English churches of Salisbury and York, and elsewhere, manual,) comprised all those occasional offices of the Church which a presbyter could administer. The pontifical contained those only which a bishop could perform.

The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greek Church, illustrated with notes by Goar, is well known and easily accessible, and furnishes abundant information with regard to all the rites of the Catholic Church in the East. The baptismal and some other occasional offices of the Jacobites or Monophysites of Alexandria, Antioch, and Armenia, and of the Nestorians, have been published by Assemani in his “Codex Liturgicus.” Many of the Oriental offices for ordination, as well as all the Western, are to be found in the learned treatise of Morinus, “De Ordinationibus.” The most valuable collection of records relative to the occasional offices of the Western Churches has been published by Martene, in his work, “De antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus.” This author, with indefatigable industry, transcribed and edited a multitude of ancient manuscripts, and collected whatever had previously been published. So that there is scarcely any branch of ritual knowledge which he has not greatly elucidated.

ROCHET. A linen garment worn by bishops under the chimere. It was their ordinary garment in public during the middle ages. The word rochet, however, is not of any great antiquity, and perhaps cannot be traced further back than the thirteenth century. The chief difference between this garment and the surplice was, that it was of finer material, and that its sleeves were narrower than those of the latter; for we do not perceive in any of the ancient pictures of English bishops those very wide and full lawn sleeves which are now used, which sleeves are now improperly attached to the chimere or black satin robe.

Palmer says, the rochette is spoken of in the old “Ordo Romanus,” under the title of linea; and has, no doubt, been very anciently used by bishops in the Western Church. During the middle ages it was their ordinary garment in public.

Dr. Hody says, that in the reign of Henry VIII., our bishops wore a scarlet garment under the rochette; and that, in the time of Edward VI., they wore a scarlet chimere, like the doctors’ dress at Oxford, over the rochette; which, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was changed for the black satin chimere used at present.—History of Convocations, p. 141. (See Chimere.)

The chimere seems to resemble the garment used by bishops during the middle ages, and called mantelletum; which was a sort of cope, with apertures for the arms to pass through. (See Du Cange’s Glossary.)

In some foreign cathedrals, the canons wore rochets, as well as other episcopal ornaments.

ROGATION DAYS. (So called from rogare, “to beseech.”) They are three days immediately before the festival of Ascension. These litanic or Rogation days were first instituted by Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, in the fifth century. Mamertus was not the originator of litanical supplications, but was the first institutor of the Rogation fast, and the first who applied the use of litanies on these days, accompanied with public processions, which continued till the æra of the Reformation. In the Church of England it has been thought fit to continue the observance of these days as private fasts. There is no office, or order of prayer, or even single collect, appointed for the Rogation days in the Prayer Book; but among the homilies there is one designed for the improvement of these days. (See Perambulation.) The requisitions of the Church are “abstinence” and “extraordinary acts and exercises of devotion.” Perambulations were in many parishes observed in the Rogation days. (See Perambulation.)

ROMANISM. (See Pope and Popery, Church of Rome, Council of Trent.) Romanism consists of the addition of certain anti-scriptural propositions to the articles of the ancient catholic faith.

In addition to what is said in the other articles referred to, we may state the tenets of Romanism in the words of Morgan, in his interesting work on the “Verities of the Church.”

1. The spiritual, and, by the Ultramontane party, the temporal, autocracy of the Bishop of Rome.

2. The compulsory celibacy of the priesthood.

3. Solitary priestly communion, or private mass.

4. The denial of the chalice, or the cup of the blood of our Lord, to the laity.

5. Compulsory auricular confession.

6. Mariolatry, or the adoration of the Blessed Virgin.

7. Hagiolatry, or the adoration of canonized saints.

8. Transubstantiation.

9. The invention of purgatory.

10. The doctrine of supererogatory merits.

11. Limitation of the Catholic Church of Christ to one episcopate.

12. The image and relic system.

13. The doctrines of papal pardons, indulgences, and dispensations.

14. The interpolation of the Apocrypha into the rule of faith.

15. Interdiction of the reading of the Scriptures, except by special permission.

(For the form of reconciling Roman Catholics to the Catholic Church of England, see Abjuration.)

ROMAN CATHOLICS. Those Christians who follow the doctrines and discipline of the Church of Rome.

The doctrine of that Church may be seen in Pope Pius’s Creed, and its discipline under various articles relating to the Christians. (See Church of Rome, Baptism, Eucharist, &c., Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, &c., &c., &c.)

We shall here unite in one point of view the several errors of the Romish Church, and its deviations from the practice of the primitive Church. These are:

1. The granting absolution before penance is performed.

2. The worship of angels, saints, relics, images, the cross, and the host in the eucharist.

3. Appeals to the bishop of Rome.

4. Admitting uncanonical books into the Scripture.

5. The absolute necessity of baptism; and the baptizing of bells.

6. The celibacy of the clergy, and their exemption from the power of the civil magistrate.

7. The exemption of children from the power of their parents.

8. Auricular confession, and confirmation made a sacrament.

9. The administering the eucharist in one kind only.

10. The abuse of excommunication, in deposing kings, and depriving magistrates of their civil rights, and burning heretics under pretence of discipline.

11. The consecration of the eucharist by muttering privately, Hoc est corpus meum, instead of public and audible prayer.

12. The use of interdicts and indulgences.

13. Offering of a lamb at Easter.

14. Original of Lent, and changing the manner of fasting.

15. Exemption of monks from the jurisdiction of the bishops.

16. Allowing of mendicants.

17. Disannulling the marriage of monks.

18. Forbidding the marriage of spiritual relations.

19. Making the marriage of cousin-germans to be incest.

20. Private and solitary mass.

21. Making the mass a sacrifice for the quick and dead.

22. Purgatory, and canonical purgation.

23. Prelatical and sacerdotal power.

24. Ordination of boys, and bishops, without a title.

25. Commutation of penance.

20. Allowing sanctuary for the worst of criminals.

27. Keeping the Scriptures and Divine service in an unknown tongue.

28. Swearing by the creatures.

29. The doctrine of transubstantiation.

30. Using unleavened bread and wafers in the eucharist.

31. Necessity of a visible head, and subjection to the pope of Rome.

The following is the return regarding Roman Catholics made in the Registrar-general’s Report of 1854.

“The Toleration Act of 1688, by which the Protestant Dissenters were relieved from many of the disabilities that previously attached to them, procured no change in the position of the Roman Catholics. They still remained subjected to the penalties inflicted by the various statutes which, since Elizabeth’s accession, had been passed for their discouragement. These were exceedingly severe. Apart from the punishments awarded for the semi-political offence of denying, or refusing to admit, the sovereign’s supremacy, the Acts of Recusancy (1 Eliz. c. 2, and 23 Eliz. c. 1) exposed them to considerable fines for non-attendance at the service of the Established Church; and by other statutes they were not permitted to establish schools in England, nor to send their children to be taught abroad—they were excluded from all civil and military offices, from seats in either house of parliament, and from the practice of the law,—they were not allowed to vote at parliamentary elections,—proselytes to Popery, and those who were the means of their conversion, were subjected to the penalties of treason,—and, by various oaths and tests, as well as by express provision, they were hindered in the exercise of their religious worship, and prevented from promulgating their doctrines. Their condition was, in fact, deteriorated in the reign of William III.—some enactments of especial rigour being sanctioned.

“Whether from the effect of these enactments, or from the natural progress of the principles of Protestantism, it is certain that at this time the number of professing Roman Catholics in England, who, in the reign of Elizabeth, were, according to Mr. Butler, a majority, or, according to Mr. Hallam, a third of the population, had considerably declined. A Report presented to William, divides the freeholders of England and Wales, as follows—

Conformists | 2,477,254
Nonconformists | 108,676
Papists | 13,856

| 2,599,786

And the number of persons of the Roman Catholic faith is said to be only 27,696. This statement, allowing for all probable deficiencies, sufficiently exhibits the great diminution which, from various causes, had occurred since the period of the Reformation.

“Not much alteration in the position of the Roman Catholics took place for nearly a century after the Revolution. As the temper of the times grew milder, many of the penal laws were not enforced; though, while the throne remained exposed to the pretensions of the Stuart family, the laws themselves continued on the Statute Book: indeed, some further measures were enacted during the agitations consequent upon the Roman Catholic Rebellion of 1715. When, however, in the person of George III., the Brunswick dynasty was firmly settled on the throne, a course of mitigating legislation was commenced, which gradually relieved the Roman Catholics from all restraints upon their worship, and from nearly all the incapacities attached to their religion. In 1778, the first remedial act was passed, repealing the provision in the 10th and 12th of William III., by which the Roman Catholics were disabled from taking lands by descent. The Gordon riots of 1780 rather aided than retarded the advance of public sentiment towards additional relief; and, in 1791, Mr. Pitt, (having obtained from the chief continental universities, unanimous opinions that the pope possessed no civil authority in England, that he cannot absolve the subjects of a sovereign from their allegiance, and that the principles of the Roman Catholic faith do not excuse or justify a breach of faith with heretics,) procured the passing of another bill, by which, upon taking a form of oath prescribed, the Roman Catholics were secured against most of the penalties pronounced by former acts. They were left, however, still subjected to the Test and Corporation Acts, by which they were excluded from all civil and military offices, were prohibited from sitting in either house of parliament, and were disabled from presenting to advowsons. The removal of the chief of these remaining disabilities was zealously urged upon the parliament for many years successively. In 1813 an important measure, framed with this intention, was defeated in the Commons by a majority of only four: while, in 1821, a bill to the same effect passed through the lower House, but was rejected by the Peers. At length, in 1828, the Test and Corporation Acts were abrogated, and in 1829 the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act bestowed on Roman Catholics substantially the same amount of toleration which was granted to the Protestant Dissenters.

“The number of chapels from which returns have been received at the Census Office is 570; with sittings (after an allowance for 48 chapels making no return upon this point) for 186,111. The number of attendants on the Census Sunday (making an estimated addition for 27 chapels the returns from which were silent on this point) was: Morning, 252,783; Afternoon, 53,967; Evening, 76,880. It will be observed, that in the morning the number of attendants was more than the number of sittings: this is explained by the fact, that in many Roman Catholic chapels there is more than one morning service, attended by different individuals.”

ROOD LOFT. A gallery running along the top of the rood screen, which in parish churches usually crossed the chancel arch, on which the rood (i. e. the figure of our Blessed Lord on the cross) was placed, and on either side the Blessed Virgin and St. John. In large cross churches, the rood loft with its screen was usually of stone, and sometimes contained a chapel and altar within it. These more substantial rood lofts have been almost universally converted into organ lofts.

ROOD SCREEN. A screen separating the chancel from the nave, on which was formerly the rood loft.

ROOF. The following are the principal terms which occur in the description of a timber roof.

Beam.—A horizontal piece connecting the principals of each truss, and stiffening and tying them together. According to its position, it is either a tie-beam, extending from wall to wall; a collar-beam, connecting the principals near the ridge; or a hammer-beam, extending horizontally from the wall, (and sometimes again from the principal rafters,) but cut off before it reaches the opposite side. It is only by its combination with other timbers, as braces, principal, and collar, that the hammer-beam serves the purpose of a beam in mechanical construction.

King-post. The middle post of each truss, resting upon the beam, and rising to the ridge.

Rafters. Timbers rising from the wall, and inclined towards each other till they meet at the ridge. The principal rafters are let into the beam at their lower end, and into the king-post at their upper, and together with beam, post, and braces, where they occur, form the truss, which is the whole complication of carpentry, bearing the vertical weight of the roof, and delivering it upon the wall.

Purlin. A longitudinal piece extending from truss to truss, resting on the principal, and bearing the common rafters.

Braces. Curved pieces tenoned into the main timbers in various places and directions, and serving to stiffen and tie them together.

Wall-plate. A longitudinal piece laid on the top of the wall to receive the beams.

Wall-piece. The upright piece connecting the braces beneath a hammer-beam with the wall. This subject should be studied in the very valuable work of Mr. Brandon, “On the Open Timber Roofs of the Middle Ages.”

ROSARY, among the Roman Catholics, is a pretended instrument or help to piety, being a chaplet, consisting of five, or fifteen, decads or tens of beads, to direct the reciting so many Ave Marias in honour of the Blessed Virgin.

Before a person repeats his rosary, he must cross himself with it: then he must repeat the Apostles’ Creed, and say a Pater and three Aves, on account of the three relations which the Virgin bears to the three persons in the Trinity. After these preliminaries to devotion, he passes on to his decads, and must observe to let himself into the mysteries of each ten by a prayer, which he will find in the books treating of the devotion of the rosary.

Some attribute the institution of the rosary to Dominic: but it was in use in the year 1100; and, therefore, Dominic could only make it more celebrated. Others ascribe it to Paulus Libycus, others to St. Benedict, others to Venerable Bede, and others to Peter the Hermit.

ROSECRUCIANS. A sect of philosophers in the early part of the seventeenth century, who combined much religious error and mysticism with their philosophical notions of transmutations, and of the chemical constitution of things. Their name is derived from ros, “dew,” which they held to be the most powerful solvent of gold; and crux, the “cross,” which in the chemical style signifies light, because the figure of the cross exhibits at the same time the three letters in the word lux. Now light, according to this sect, and in their absurd jargon, is the menstruum of the red dragon, i. e. the substance out of which gold is produced. The Rosecrucians then were alchemists, who sought for the philosopher’s stone by the intervention of dew and of light. These absurdities were associated with others in their system which it would be in vain to collect; but the ruling principle of their society seems to have been the imposing mystery in which they wrapped up everything which they knew, or pretended to know, as if the secrets of nature were made known to them, for the very purpose of being kept secret from all others. Of their leaders and religious fancies Mosheim gives the following summary:

At the head of the fanatics were Robert Fludd, a native of England, and a man of surprising genius; Jacob Behmen, a shoemaker, who lived at Goslitz; and Michael Mayer.

These leaders of the sect were followed by John Baptist Helmont, and his son Francis Christian Knorrius de Rosenroth, Kuhlman, Nollius, Sperber, and many others of various fame. An uniformity of opinion, and a spirit of concord, seemed scarcely possible in such a society as this; for as a great part of its doctrine is derived from certain internal feelings and flights of imagination, which can neither be comprehended nor defined, and is supported by testimonies of the external senses, whose reports are illusory and changeable, so it is remarkable that, among the more eminent writers of this sect, there are scarcely any two who adopt the same tenets and sentiments. There are, nevertheless, some common principles that are generally embraced, and which serve as a centre of union to the society. They maintain, that the dissolution of bodies, by the power of fire, is the only way through which men can arrive at true wisdom, and come to discern the first principle of things. They all acknowledge a certain analogy and harmony between the powers of nature and the doctrines of religion, and believe that the Deity governs the kingdom of grace by the same laws with which he rules the kingdom of nature; and hence it is that they employ chemical denominations to express the truths of religion. They all hold that there is a sort of divine energy, or soul, diffused through the frame of the universe, which some call Archæus, others Universal Spirit, and which others mention under different appellations. They all talk in the most obscure and superstitious manner of what they call the signatures of things, of the power of the stars over all corporeal beings, and their particular influence over the human race, of the efficacy of magic, and the various species and classes of demons. In fine, they all agree in throwing out the most crude, incomprehensible notions and ideas, in the most obscure, quaint, and unusual expressions.

RUBRICS. Rules and orders directing how, when, and where all things in Divine service are to be performed, which were formerly printed in a red character, (as now generally in an Italic,) and therefore called Rubrics, from the Latin rubrica (pro ruberica, à rubra, subaud. terra, red earth; thence any red colour). All the clergy of England solemnly pledge themselves to observe the rubrics.

The rubric, to which we here bind ourselves by express consent and promise, is upon a different footing from all other ecclesiastical laws. For without considering it as statute, and, as such, only upon the level with several other subsequent acts of parliament relating to our occasional ministrations, we are under this peculiar circumstance of obligation to observe it, that we have, by our subscriptions at both ordinations, by one of our vows at the altar for the order of priesthood, by our subscriptions and declarations of conformity before our ordinary, and repetition of them in the church before our congregations, and likewise by our declarations of assent and consent, as prescribed by the Act of Uniformity; I say, we have in all these several ways tied ourselves down to a regular, constant, conscientious performance of all and everything prescribed in and by the Book of Common Prayer, according to the usage of the Church of England. And seeing it hath been the wisdom of our Church to lay us under these engagements, in order to preserve exact uniformity in the public worship and all the liturgic offices; nay, since it hath been judged proper to carry us through a train of these stipulations before we can get possession of any benefice; and to make us renew them again and again, as often as we change our preferment, or obtain any new promotion; and seeing that we have entered (as we have professed) ex animo into this covenant with the Church, and have deliberately renewed it as often as there hath been occasion; how frivolous is it for any of us to say, that the connivance, or the presumed consent, of our ordinary, or the private conveniency of ourselves or families, or the obliging of any of our parishioners, or the apparent inexpediency of adhering to the letter in some few cases, will dissolve this our obligation to conformity? Surely we must know, that these and the like allegations are quite out of the case; that, however our Church governors may dispense with our breaches of the rubric, however our people may acquiesce in them or approve of them, yet the question is, how far we are at liberty to dispense with ourselves on account of the forementioned engagements, to which God and the Church are made witnesses in as solemn a manner as they are to our personal stipulations at confirmation or matrimony; or whether we have not in this case precluded ourselves from all benefit of such exemption or dispensation, as might perhaps be reasonably alleged in several other merely statutable or canonical matters?

This indeed we must always take along with us, that our obligations to observe the rubric, how indispensable soever, are subject to this proviso; namely, that the rule prescribed be a thing practicable; which perhaps cannot be said of all rubrics in all churches, or in all places of the kingdom; nay, that it be a thing which falls within the minister’s power, so that he be not deprived of his liberty in acting, or restrained in it by the previous acts of other people, whereby that which would be practicable in itself is rendered not practicable by him. I will not positively say, that no other proviso is to be allowed of or admitted; because this cannot be determined absolutely, or otherwise than by a particular consideration of each rule or injunction under several different circumstances. But we may affirm in general, that we are under higher obligations to observe the rubric than any other ecclesiastical law whatsoever; that excepting a very few cases, or under some necessary limitations and reservations, we are bound to adhere to it literally, punctually, and perpetually; and that, whosoever among the clergy either adds to it, or diminishes from it, or useth any other rule instead of it, as he is in the eye of the law so far a nonconformist, so it behoves him to consider with himself, whether, in point of conscience, he be not a breaker of his word and trust, and an eluder of his engagements to the Church.—Archdeacon Sharpe.

RURAL DEANS. The office of rural dean is an ancient office of the Church, which is mentioned as early as the time of Edward the Confessor, in one of whose laws mention is made of the dean of the bishop.

The proper authority and jurisdiction of rural deans, perhaps, may be best understood from the oath of office which in some dioceses was anciently administered to them; which was this: “I, A. B., do swear, diligently and faithfully to execute the office of dean rural within the deanery of D. First, I will diligently and faithfully execute, or cause to be executed, all such processes as shall be directed unto me from my Lord Bishop of C., or his officers or ministers by his authority. Item, I will give diligent attendance, by myself or my deputy, at every consistory court, to be holden by the said reverend father in God, or his chancellor, as well to return such processes as shall be by me or my deputy executed; as also to receive others, then unto me to be directed. Item, I will from time to time, during my said office, diligently inquire, and true information give unto the said reverend father in God, or his chancellor, of all the names of all such persons within the said deanery of D. as shall be openly and publicly noted and defamed, or vehemently suspected of any such crime or offence, as is to be punished or reformed by the authority of the said court. Item, I will diligently inquire, and true information give, of all such persons and their names, as do administer any dead man’s goods, before they have proved the will of the testator, or taken letters of administration of the deceased intestates. Item, I will be obedient to the right reverend father in God J., bishop of C., and his chancellor, in all honest and lawful commands; neither will I attempt, do, or procure to be done or attempted, anything that shall be prejudicial to his jurisdiction, but will preserve and maintain the same to the uttermost of my power.”—God. Append.

From whence it appears, that besides their duty concerning the execution of the bishop’s processes, their office was to inspect the lives and manners of the clergy and people within their district, and to report the same to the bishop; to which end, that they might have knowledge of the state and condition of their respective deaneries, they had a power to convene rural chapters.—Gibson.

Which chapters were made up of all the instituted clergy, or their curates as proxies of them, and the dean as president or prolocutor. These were convened either upon more frequent and ordinary occasions, or at more solemn seasons for the greater and more weighty affairs. Those of the former sort were held at first every three weeks, in imitation of the courts baron, which run generally in this form, from three weeks to three weeks; but afterwards they were most commonly held once a month, at the beginning of the month, and were for this reason called kalendæ, or monthly meetings. But their most solemn and principal chapters were assembled once a quarter, in which there was to be a more full house, and matters of greater import were to be here alone transacted. All rectors and vicars, or their capellanes, were bound to attend these chapters, and to bring information of all irregularities committed in their respective parishes. If the deans were by sickness or urgent business detained from there appearing and presiding in such convocations, they had power to constitute their subdeans or vicegerents. The place of holding these chapters was at first in any one church within the district where the minister of the place was to procure for, that is, to entertain, the dean and his immediate officers. But because, in parishes that were small and unfrequented, there was no fit accommodation to be had for so great a concourse of people, therefore, in a council at London, under Archbishop Stratford, in the year 1342, it was ordained that such chapters should not be held in any obscure village, but in the larger or more eminent parishes.—Kennedy.

And one special reason why they seemed to have been formed in this realm after the manner of the courts baron is, because we find nothing of rural chapters in the ancient canon law.—Gibson.

In pursuance of which institution of holding rural chapters, and of the office of rural deans in inspecting the manners of clergy and people, and executing the bishop’s processes for the reformation thereof, we find a constitution of Archbishop Peccham, by which it is required, that the priests, on every Sunday immediately following the holding of the rural chapter, shall expound to the people the sentence of excommunication.

And in these chapters continually presided the rural deans, until that Otho, the pope’s legate, required the archdeacons to be frequently present at them; who being superior to the rural deans, did in effect take the presidency out of their hands: insomuch that, in Edward the First’s reign, John of Athon gives this account of it: “Rural chapters,” says he, “at this day are holden by the archdeacon’s officials, and sometimes by the rural deans.” From which constitution of Otho we may date the decay of rural chapters; not only as it was a discouragement to the rural dean, whose peculiar care the holding of them had been; but also, as it was natural for the archdeacon and his official to draw the business that had been usually transacted there, to their own visitation, or, as it is styled in a constitution of Archbishop Langton, to their own chapter.—Gibson.

And this office of inspecting and reporting the manners of the clergy and people rendered the rural deans necessary attendants on the episcopal synod or general visitation, which was held for the same end of inspecting, in order to reformation. In which synods (or general visitation of the whole diocese by the bishop) the rural deans were the standing representatives of the rest of the clergy, and were there to deliver information of abuses committed within their knowledge, and to propose and consult the best methods of reformation. For the ancient episcopal synods (which were commonly held once a year) were composed of the bishop as president and the deans-cathedral or archipresbyters in the name of their collegiate body of presbyters or priests, and the archdeacons or deputies of the inferior order of deacons, and the urban and rural deans in the name of the parish ministers within their division; who were to have their expenses allowed to them according to the time of their attendance, by those whom they represented, as the practice obtained for the representatives of the people in the civil synods or parliament. But this part of their duty, which related to the information of scandals and offences, in progress of time devolved upon the churchwardens; and their other office of being convened to sit as members of provincial and episcopal synods, was transferred to two proctors or representatives of the parochial clergy in every diocese to assemble in convocation, where the cathedral deans and archdeacons still keep their ancient right, whilst the rural deans have given place to an election of two only for every diocese, instead of one by-standing place for every deanery.—Kennedy.

At the Reformation, in the “Reformatio Legum,” it was proposed to invest rural deans with certain legal powers, but nothing was done in this respect. In the provincial synod of convocation, held in London, April 3, 1571, it was ordained, that “the archdeacon, when he hath finished his visitation, shall signify to the bishop what clergymen he hath found in every deanery so well endowed with learning and judgment, as to be worthy to instruct the people in sermons, and to rule and preside over others; out of these the bishop may choose such as he will have to be rural deans.”

But the office was not much used till of late years, when in most dioceses it has been revived, and decanal chapters have in many places been held with much apparent advantage.

In many foreign churches, archpresbyters, or provosts, seem to have discharged much the same function as the rural deans. The title of Dean however, as employed in this case, is very common in Europe. In most dioceses of Ireland the office has been immemorially operative.

RUTH, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament.

This book is a kind of appendix to the Book of Judges, and an introduction to the Books of Samuel, and is therefore properly placed between them. It has its title from the person whose story is here principally related. The Jews make but one book of this and the Book of Judges, and probably the same person was the author of both. It was certainly written at a time when the government by judges had ceased, since the author of it begins with observing, that the fact came to pass in the days when the judges ruled: and he ends his book with a genealogy, which he carries down to David. Probably it was composed in that king’s time, before he was advanced to the throne.

The history recorded in this book, is that of Ruth, a Moabitish woman, who, coming to Bethlehem, and being married to Boaz her kinsman, bare to him Obed, who was the grandfather of David. In this story are observable the ancient rights of kindred and redemption, and the manner of buying the inheritance of the deceased; with other particulars of great note and antiquity.

It is difficult to determine under what judge the history of Ruth happened. Some place it in the government of Ehud or Shamgar; and others about the beginning of the time when Eli judged Israel.

SABAOTH. A Hebrew word, signifying hosts or armies. Jehovah Sabaoth is the Lord of Hosts. “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth.”

SABBATARIANS, are so called from their keeping the seventh day of the week as the sabbath; whilst Christians in general keep the first day of the week, or Sunday, in memory of our Saviour’s having risen that day from the dead. On the continent they are generally, but improperly, called Israelites. It is uncertain when they first made their appearance; but we learn from Fuller that there were Sabbatarians in 1633.

They object to the reasons which are generally alleged for keeping the first day; and they insist that the change of the sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, did not take place till the beginning of the fourth century, when it was effected by the emperor Constantine, on his conversion to Christianity. A summary of their principles, as to this article of the sabbath, by which they stand distinguished, is contained in the three following propositions:—1. That God has required the observance of the seventh, or last, day of every week, to be observed by mankind universally for the weekly sabbath. 2. That this command of God is perpetually binding on man till time shall be no more. And 3. That this sacred rest of the seventh day sabbath, is not changed by Divine authority, from the seventh and last to the first day of the week; or, that the Scripture nowhere requires the observance of any other day of the week for the weekly sabbath, but the seventh day only, which is still kept by the Jews, to whom the law on this subject was given. These are much more consistent in their rejection of all the subsidiary helps of antiquity in interpreting the Scriptures, than those Protestants who observe the first day of the week with Judaical strictness.

SABBATH, REST. Sabbath day, the day of rest. The sabbath day, strictly speaking, is Saturday, the observance of which is not considered obligatory by Christians. But the term is sometimes applied to the Lord’s day, which is regarded as a feast by the Church universal. (See Lord’s Day.)

SABELLIANS, were so called from Sabellius, a presbyter, or, according to others, a bishop of Libya, who was the founder of the sect.

Sabellius flourished early in the third century, and his doctrine seems to have had many followers for a short time. Its growth, however, was soon checked by the opposition made to it by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon its author by Pope Dionysius, in a council held at Rome, A. D. 263.

Sabellius taught that there was but one person in the Godhead; and, in confirmation of this doctrine, he made use of this comparison: as a man, though composed of body and soul, is but one person, so God, though he is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is but one person. Hence the Sabellians reduced the three persons in the Trinity to three characters or relations, and maintained that the Word and Holy Spirit are only virtues, emanations, or functions of the Deity; that he who is in heaven is the Father of all things; that he descended into the Virgin, became a child, and was born of her as a son; and that, having accomplished the mystery of our redemption, he diffused himself upon the apostles in tongues of fire, and was then denominated the Holy Ghost.

Between the system of Sabellianism and what is termed the indwelling scheme, there appears to be a considerable resemblance, if it be not precisely the same, differently explained. The indwelling scheme is chiefly founded on a false and unauthorized sense of that passage in the New Testament, where the apostle, speaking of Christ, says, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Dr. Watts, towards the close of his life, introduced the Sabellian heresy, and wrote several pieces in its defence. His sentiments on the Trinity appear to have been, that “the Godhead, the Deity itself, personally distinguished as the Father, was united to the man Christ Jesus, in consequence of which union or indwelling of the Godhead he became properly God.” Mr. Palmer observes that Dr. Watts conceived this union to have subsisted before the Saviour’s appearance in the flesh, and that the human soul of Christ existed with the Father from before the foundation of the world; on which ground he maintains the real descent of Christ from heaven to earth, and the whole scene of his humiliation, which he thought incompatible with the common opinion concerning him. Dr. Doddridge is supposed to have entertained the same sentiments.

SACRAMENT. (See Seven Sacraments.) In classical writers, observes Bishop Kaye, in his learned treatise on Tertullian, the word sacramentum means an oath or promise ratified by a sacred or religious ceremony: thus, the oath taken by the military was called sacramentum. In strict conformity with this, its original signification, it is used to express the promise made by Christians in baptism. From the oath the transition was easy to the ceremony by which it was ratified. Thus sacramentum came to signify any religious ordinance, and in general to stand for that which in Greek is expressed by the word μυστήριον (mystery), any emblematical notion of a sacred import, any external act having an internal or secret meaning. If the word is understood in this extended sense, the Romanists are clearly wrong in confining the title to only seven rites or ordinances. The first who did this was probably the celebrated Master of the Sentences [Peter Lombard, in the twelfth century]. Certain it is that the number of seven sacraments was first decreed by Eugenius in the fifteenth century, that the first provincial council which confirmed the decree was one convened in the sixteenth century, and that the first council, even pretending to be general, that adopted it with an anathema was the Council of Trent.

This is, in fact, our dispute on this point with Rome. If the Romanists take the word sacrament in its enlarged sense, then they ought not to confine it, as they do, to seven rites; if they take it in its strict sense, then they ought to confine it to two, baptism and the supper of the Lord. Taking the word in its general sense, the Church of England directs the clergy to speak to the people of matrimony as a sacrament. “By the like holy promise the sacrament of matrimony knitteth man and wife in perpetual love,” &c.—Homily on Swearing, part i. The Church of England in this sense acknowledges other rites to be sacraments besides baptism and the eucharist. (See below, the extract from the Homily, Of Common Prayer and Sacraments.) This is a very important distinction: “Let it be clearly understood,” says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, “it is none of the doctrine of the Church of England that there are two sacraments only, but that of those rituals commanded in Scripture, which ecclesiastical use calls sacraments, by a word of art, two only are generally necessary to salvation.”—Taylor’s Dissuasive, p. 240. In like manner Archbishop Secker says, “As the word sacrament is not a Scripture one, and hath at different times been differently understood, our catechism doth not require it to be said absolutely that the sacraments are two only, but two only necessary to salvation; leaving persons at liberty to comprehend more things under the name if they please, provided they insist not on the necessity of them, and of dignifying them with this title.”—Secker’s Lectures, xxxv. Of Baptism. It will be seen that this is in accordance with the answer in the catechism to the question, How many sacraments has Christ ordained in his Church? the answer being not simply two, but “two only as generally necessary to salvation.”

We have said that the distinction is important, for it enables us to take high ground on this doctrine. It is not by depressing the other ordinances of the Church which Cranmer and Taylor call sacramentals, but by placing baptism and the eucharist in their proper place and dignity, that we best defend the English Church on this point. If, with the latitudinarians, we depress the proper sacraments and make baptism a mere ceremony, and the eucharist only a more solemn form of self-dedication or worship, our controversy becomes a childish dispute about words. Not so if we distinguish, with the Church of England, baptism and the eucharist from all other ordinances, because they are, what the others are not, necessary for salvation to all men, wherever they can be had. Other ordinances may confer grace, but baptism and the eucharist alone unite with Christ himself. “By baptism we receive Christ Jesus, and from him the saving grace which is proper to baptism; by the eucharist we receive him also imparting therein himself, and that grace which the eucharist properly bestows.” Again; baptism and the eucharist are what none of the other ordinances are, federal rites, the one for initiating, the other for renewing the covenant of grace, instituted for a reciprocal communion between God and man, of blessings on the one part and duty on the other; they are not merely a means to an end, but they are actually a part of our moral and Christian holiness, piety, and perfection; “as much a part of virtue,” says Dr. Waterland, “as the performance of any moral duty is, as much as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked,” &c.

From what has been said it will be seen,

1. That, in the large acceptation of the word sacrament, there are many more sacraments than seven.

2. That, in the strict definition of the word, there are only two, baptism and the eucharist.

But we may sum up the whole in the words which the Church of England uses in one of the homilies: “You shall hear how many sacraments there be, that were instituted by our Saviour Christ, and are to be continued, and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such purpose as our Saviour Christ willed them to be received. And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness, and joining in Christ, there be but two, namely, baptism and the supper of the Lord. For, although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin, yet by the express word of the New Testament it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in absolution, as the visible sign in baptism and the Lord’s supper are; and therefore absolution is no such sacrament as baptism and the communion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath this visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin as all other sacraments besides the two above-named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as baptism and the communion are. But in a general acceptation, the name of a sacrament may be attributed to anything; whereby an holy thing is signified. In which understanding of the word, the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments, but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like, not meaning thereby to repute them as sacraments, in the same signification that the two forenamed sacraments are. And therefore St. Augustine, weighing the true signification and exact meaning of the word, writing to Januarius, and also in the third book of Christian doctrine, affirmeth, that the sacraments of the Christians, as they are most excellent in signification, so are they most few in number, and in both places maketh mention expressly of two, the sacrament of baptism and the supper of the Lord. And although there are retained by order of the Church of England, besides these two, certain other rites and ceremonies about the institution of ministers in the Church, matrimony, confirmation of children, by examining them of their knowledge in the articles of the faith, and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them, and likewise for the visitation of the sick; yet no man ought to take these for sacraments in such signification and meaning as the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper are.”—Homily of Common Prayer and Sacraments.

A sacrament is defined in the catechism, in the strict sense, as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.”

1. There must be an outward and visible sign, the solemn application of some bodily and sensible thing or action to a meaning and purpose which in its own nature it hath not. In common life, we have many other signs to express our meanings, on occasions of great consequence, besides words. And no wonder then if, in religion, we have some of the same kind.

2. In a sacrament, the outward and visible sign must denote “an inward and spiritual grace given unto us;” that is, some favour freely bestowed on us from heaven, by which our inward and spiritual condition, the state of our souls, is made better. Most of the significative actions that we use in religion express only our duty to God. Thus, kneeling in prayer is used to show our reverence towards him to whom we pray. And signing a child with the cross, after it is baptized, declares our obligation not to be ashamed of the cross of Christ. But a sacrament, besides expressing on our part duty to God, expresses on his part some grace or favour towards us.

3. In order to entitle anything to the name of sacrament, a further requisite is, that it be “ordained by Christ himself.” We may indeed use, on the foot of human authority alone, actions that set forth either our sense of any duty, or our belief in God’s grace. For it is certainly as lawful to express a good meaning by any other proper sign as by words. But then, such marks as these, which we commonly call ceremonies, as they are taken up at pleasure, may be laid aside again at pleasure; and ought to be laid aside whenever they grow too numerous, or abuses are made of them which cannot easily be reformed; and this hath frequently been the case. But sacraments are of perpetual obligation, for they stand on the authority of Christ, who hath certainly appointed nothing to be for ever observed in his Church but what he saw would be for ever useful.

Nor doth every appointment of Christ, though it be of perpetual obligation, deserve the name of a sacrament, but those, and no other, which are, 4. Not only signs of grace, but means also, whereby we receive the same. None but our blessed Lord could appoint such means; and which of his ordinances should be such, and which not, none but himself could determine. From his word, therefore, we are to learn it; and then, as we hope to attain the end, we must use the means. But when it is said that the sacraments are means of grace, we are not to understand either that the performance of the mere outward action doth, by its own virtue, produce a spiritual effect in us, or that God hath annexed any such effect to that alone; but that he will accompany the action with his blessing, provided it be done as it ought, with those qualifications which he requires. And therefore, unless we fulfil the condition, we must not expect the benefit.

Further, calling the sacraments means of grace, doth not signify them to be means by which we merit grace; for nothing but the sufferings of our blessed Saviour can do that for us; but means by which what he hath merited is conveyed to us.

Nor yet are they the only means of conveying grace; for reading, and hearing, and meditating upon the word of God, are part of the things which he hath appointed for this end; and prayer is another part, accompanied with an express promise, that, if we “ask, we shall receive.” (John xvi. 24.) But these, not being such actions as figure out and represent the benefits which they derive to us, though they are means of grace, are not signs of it, and therefore do not come under the notion of sacraments.

But, 5. A sacrament is not only a sign or representation of some heavenly favour, and a means whereby we receive it, but also “a pledge to assure us thereof.” Not that anything can give us a greater assurance, in point of reason, of any blessing from God, than his bare promise can do; but that such observances, appointed in token of his promises, affect our imaginations with a stronger sense of them, and make a deeper and more lasting, and therefore more useful, impression on our minds. For this cause, in all nations of the world, representations by action have ever been used, as well as words, upon solemn occasions; especially upon entering into and renewing treaties and covenants with each other. And therefore, in condescension to a practice which, being so universal among men, appears to be founded in the nature of man, God hath graciously added to his covenant also the solemnity of certain outward instructive performances, by which he declares to us, that, as surely as our bodies are washed by water, and nourished by bread broken and wine poured forth and received, so surely are our souls purified from sin by the baptism of repentance, and strengthened in all goodness by partaking of that mercy which the wounding of the body of Christ and the shedding of his blood hath obtained for us. And thus these religious actions, so far as they are performed by God’s minister, in pursuance of his appointment, are an earnest or pledge on his part, which was one ancient signification of the word sacrament; and, so far as we join in them, they are an obligation, binding like an oath on our part, which was the other primitive meaning of the word.—Abp. Secker.

SACRAMENTALS. (See Sacrament.) A name conveniently given to those rites which are of a sacramental character,—such as confirmation and matrimony,—but are not sacraments in the proper and strict sense, as baptism and the holy eucharist.

SACRAMENTARY. In the Romish Church, a book containing the collects, together with the canon, i. e. that part of the Communion Office which is invariable, whatever changes might occur in the other portions of the service.

SACRIFICE. (See Mass, the Sacrifice of.) An offering made to God. In strictness of speech, there has been but one sacrifice, once offered, and never to be repeated, the sacrifice of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. He suffered death upon the cross for our redemption, and there, by the one oblation of himself, once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world, was once made, and once for all. (See Covenant of Redemption.) But, figuratively speaking, all Divine worship was anciently called a sacrifice—a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; but more especially has this term been applied to the celebration of the eucharist. Justin Martyr, says Dr. Waterland, is the first we meet with who speaks of the eucharist under the name of sacrifice or sacrifices. But he does it so often, and so familiarly, that one cannot but conceive that it had been in common use for some time before; and it is the more likely to have been so, because oblation (which is near akin to it) certainly was.

Irenæus, of the same [the second] century, mentions the sacrifice of the eucharist more than once, either directly or obliquely. Tertullian, not many years later, does the like. Cyprian also speaks of the sacrifice in the eucharist, understanding it in one particular passage of the lay-oblation. This is not the place to examine critically what the ancients meant by the sacrifice or sacrifices of the eucharist. But, as oblation anciently was understood sometimes of the lay-offering, the same may be observed of sacrifice; and it is plain from Cyprian. Besides that notion of sacrifice, there was another, and a principal one, which was conceived to go along with the eucharistical service, and that was the notion of spiritual sacrifice, consisting of many particulars, and it was on the account of one, or both, that the eucharist had the name of sacrifice for the two first centuries. But by the middle of the third century, if not sooner, it began to be called a sacrifice, on account of the grand sacrifice represented and commemorated in it; the sign, as such, now adopting the name of the thing signified. In short, the memorial at length came to be called a sacrifice, as well as an oblation: and it had a double claim to be so called; partly as it was in itself a spiritual service or sacrifice, and partly as it was a representation and commemoration of the high tremendous sacrifice of Christ God-man. This last view of it, being of all the most awful and most endearing, came by degrees to be the most prevailing acceptation of the Christian sacrifice, as held forth in the eucharist. But those who styled the eucharist a sacrifice on that account took care, as often as need was, to explain it off to a memorial of a sacrifice, rather than a strict or proper sacrifice, in that precise view. Cyprian is the first who plainly and directly styles the eucharist a sacrifice in the commemorative view, and as representing the grand sacrifice. Not that there was anything new in the doctrine, but there was a new application of an old name, which had at the first been brought in upon other accounts.—Waterland.

Bishop Burnet remarks, that Christian writers called the eucharist an unbloody sacrifice, as being a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; and adds, “In two other respects it may be also more strictly called a sacrifice: one is, because there is an oblation of bread and wine made in it, which being sanctified, are consumed in an act of religion: to this many passages in the writings of the Fathers do relate. Another respect in which the eucharist is called a sacrifice is, because it is a commemoration and a representation to God, of the sacrifice that Christ offered for us on the cross; in which we lay claim to that as to our expiation, and feast upon it as our peace-offering, according to that ancient notion, that covenants were by a sacrifice, and were concluded in a feast on the sacrifice. Upon these accounts we do not deny, but that the eucharist may be well called a sacrifice; but still it is a commemorative sacrifice, and not propitiatory,” &c.—Burnet.

The ancients, says Bishop Cosin, called the whole communion “the sacrifice of praise,” as our Church doth: whereas the Romanists only call it a sacrifice, without any other addition. But it is not the sacrifice of Christ which we here speak of; for that is always pleasing to God, and was absolutely perfect: but it is our own peace-offering, in commemoration thereof, in which there have been many failings, and therefore we desire and beg that it may be accepted in mercy.—Dean Comber. In this regard, and in divers others also, the eucharist may, by allusion and analogy, be fitly called “a sacrifice,” and the Lord’s table “an altar;” the one relating to the other, though neither of them can be strictly and properly so termed. It is the custom of Scripture to describe the service of God under the New Testament, be it either internal or external, by the terms which otherwise belonged to the Old: as, immolation, offering, sacrifice, and altar. So the evangelical prophet Isaiah, foretelling the glory and amplitude of the Christian Church, speaketh of God’s altar which shall be there, upon which “an acceptable offering shall be made.” (See also Rom. xv. 16; Phil. ii. 17; Heb. xiii. 10.) And indeed the sacrament of the eucharist carries the name of a sacrifice, and the table, whereon it is celebrated, an altar of oblation, in a far higher sense than any of their former sacrifices did, which were but the types and figures of those services that are performed in recognition and memory of Christ’s one sacrifice, once offered upon the altar of his cross. The prophecy of Malachi concerning the Church under the New Testament, (see Mal. i. 10,) applied by the doctors of the Roman Church to their proper sacrifice, as they call it, of the mass, is interpreted and applied by the ancient Fathers, sometimes in general to all the acts of our Christian religion, and sometimes in particular to the eucharist: that is, the act of our prayers and thanksgiving for the sacrifice of Christ once made for us upon the cross, as here we use in the Church of England. The Church of England therefore herein followeth the Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers. (See also Heb. xiii. 16; Rev. viii 3; Ps. cxli. 2.)—Bp. Cosin.

Under which name of the Christian sacrifice, says Joseph Mede, first know, that the ancient Church understood not, as many suppose, the mere sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, but the whole sacred action or solemn service of the Church assembled, whereof this sacred mystery was then a prime and principal part, and, as it were, the pearl or jewel of this ring, no public service of the Church being without it. This observed and remembered, I define the Christian sacrifice, ex mente antiquæ ecclesiæ, in this manner: An oblation of thanksgiving and prayer to God the Father through Jesus Christ, and his sacrifice commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith God had first been agnized. So that this sacrifice, as you see, hath a double object, or matter; first, praise and prayer, which you may call sacrificium quod. Secondly, the commemoration Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, which is sacrificium quo, the sacrifice whereby the other is accepted. For all the prayers, thanksgivings, and devotions of a Christian are tendered up unto God in the name of Jesus Christ crucified. According whereunto we are wont to conclude our prayers with “through Jesus Christ our Lord.” And this is the specification, whereby the worship of a Christian is distinguished from that of the Jew. Now that which we, in all our prayers and thanksgivings, do vocally, when we say per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum, the ancient Church, in her public and solemn service, did visibly by representing him, according as he commanded, in the symbols of his body and blood: for there he is commemorated and received by us for the same end for which he was given and suffered for us; that through him, we receiving forgiveness of our sins, God our Father might accept our service and hear our prayers we make unto him.

What time then so fit and seasonable to commend our devotions unto God, as when the Lamb of God lies slain upon the holy table, and we receive visibly, though mystically, those gracious pledges of his blessed body and blood. This was that sacrifice of the ancient Church, which the Fathers so much ring in our ears. The sacrifice of praise and prayer through Jesus Christ, mystically represented in the creatures of bread and wine.

But yet there is one thing more my definition intimates, when I say, “through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith God had first been agnized.” The body and blood of Christ were not made of common bread and common wine, but of bread and wine first sanctified by being offered and set before God as a present, to agnize him the Lord and giver of all: according to that, Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus: and “let no man appear before the Lord empty.” Therefore, as this sacrifice consisted of two parts, as I told you, of praise and prayer, which, in respect of the other, I call sacrificium quod; and of the commemoration of Christ crucified, which I call sacrificium quo; so the symbols of bread and wine traversed both, being first presented as symbols of praise and thanksgiving to agnize God the Lord of the creature in the sacrificium quod; then, by invocation of the Holy Ghost, made the symbols of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrificium quo. So that the whole service throughout consisted of a reasonable part and of a material part, as of a soul and a body; of which I shall speak more fully hereafter, when I come to prove this, I have said, by the testimonies of the ancients.

Again, the Lord’s supper is a sacrifice, according to the style of the ancient Church.

It is one thing to say, that the Lord’s supper is a sacrifice, and another to say, that Christ is properly sacrificed therein. These are not the same; for there may be a sacrifice, which is a representation of another, and yet a sacrifice too: and such is this of the New Testament, a sacrifice wherein another sacrifice, that of Christ’s death upon the cross, is commemorated: thus the Papists gain nothing by this notion of antiquity, and our asserting the same; for their tenet is, that Christ in this sacrifice is really and properly sacrificed, which we shall show in due time that the ancients never meant.

To begin with this: as in the Old Testament the name of sacrifice was otherwhile given to the whole action in which the rite was used; sometimes to the rite alone; so in the notion and language of the ancient Church, sometimes the whole action of Christian service (wherein the Lord’s supper was a part) is comprehended under that name; sometimes the rite of the sacred supper itself is so termed, and truly, as you shall now hear.

The resolution of this point depends altogether upon the true definition of a sacrifice, as it is distinguished from all other offerings. Which, though it be so necessary, that all disputation without it is vain, yet shall we not find, that either party interested in this question hath been so exact therein as were to be wished. This appears by the differing definitions, given and confuted by divines on both sides; the reason of which defect is, because neither are deduced from the notion of Scripture, but built upon other conceptions: let us see, therefore, if it may be learned out of Scripture, what that is which the Scripture, in a strict and special sense, calls a sacrifice.

Every sacrifice is an oblation or offering: but every offering is not a sacrifice, in that strict and proper acceptation we seek. For tithes, first-fruits, heave-offerings in the law, and whatsoever indeed is consecrated unto God, are oblations or offerings; but none of them sacrifices, nor ever so called in the Old Testament. What offerings are then called so? I answer, burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and peace-offerings. These, and no other, are called by that name.

Out of these, therefore, must we pick the true and proper ratio of a sacrifice: it is true, indeed, that these sacrifices were offerings of beasts, of beeves, of sheep, of goats, of fowls: but the ratio of anything consists not in the matter thereof; as the gowns we wear are still the same kind of apparel, though made of differing stuffs; these sacrifices also were slain, and offered by fire and incense: but neither is the modus of anything the ratio or essential form thereof. That therefore may have the nature and formale of a sacrifice which consists of another matter, and is offered after another and differing manner: those we call sacraments of the Old Testament, circumcision and the passover, were by effusion of blood; ours are not, and yet we esteem them nevertheless true sacraments; and so it may be here.

To hold you, therefore, no longer in suspense, a sacrifice, I think, should be defined thus: an offering, whereby the offerer is made partaker of his God’s table, in token of covenant and friendship with him, &c.: more explicately thus: an offering unto the Divine Majesty, of that which is given for the food of man; that the offerer, partaking thereof, might, as by way of pledge, be certified of his acceptation into covenant, and fellowship with his God, by eating and drinking at his table. St. Augustine comes toward this notion, when he defines a sacrifice (though in a larger sense) opus quod Deo nuncupamus, reddimus, et dedicamus, hoc fine, ut sanctâ societate ipsi adhæreamus: for to have society and fellowship with God, what is it else but to be in league and covenant with him?

In a word, a sacrifice is oblatio fæderalis.—Joseph Mede.

SACRIFICATI. Christians who, to avoid condemnation before a heathen tribunal, offered sacrifice to an idol. When such persons, after the persecution was over, returned to the profession of Christ, they were obliged to undergo a very rigid penance before they could be re-admitted into the Church. It must be observed that Sacrificati is their denomination as penitents, after their return to the faith. Those who continued in idolatry were simply apostates. (See Libellatici and Thurificati.)

SACRILEGE. The act of violating sacred things, or subjecting them to profanation; or the desecration of objects consecrated to God. Thus the robbing of churches or of graves, the abuse of sacred vessels and altars, by employing them for unhallowed purposes, the plundering and misappropriation of alms and donations, &c., are acts of sacrilege which, in the ancient Church, were punished with great severity.

SACRISTAN. The person to whose charge the sacred vestments, &c., in a church, are committed; now corrupted to sexton, which see. The sacristan is a dignitary in some foreign cathedrals, as was formerly the case at Glasgow, and the Chapel Royal of Stirling, in Scotland; in both of which places there were treasurers also. In most of the old cathedrals, however, the sacrist was the treasurer’s deputy, and a vicar choral. In those of the new foundation the sacrist is a minor canon, and has often the special cure of souls within the precinct. In Ireland the sacrist at Elphin was a dignitary, now usually styled Treasurer.—Jebb.

SACRISTY. The place in which sacred vestments, &c. are kept, answering to the modern vestry.

SADDUCEES. A famous sect among the Jews; so called, it is said, from their founder, Sadoc. It began in the time of Antigonus, of Socho, president of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and teacher of the law in the principal divinity school of that city. Antigonus, having often in his lectures inculcated to his scholars that they ought not to serve God in a servile manner, but only out of filial love and fear, two of his scholars, Sadoc and Baithus, thence inferred that there were no rewards at all after this life; and, therefore, separating from the school of their master, they thought there was no resurrection nor future state, neither angel nor spirit. (Matt. xxii. 23; Acts xxiii. 8.) They seem to agree greatly with the Epicureans; differing however in this, that though they denied a future state, yet they allowed the power of God to create the world; whereas the followers of Epicurus denied it. It is said, also, that they rejected the Bible, except the Pentateuch; denied predestination, and taught that God had made man absolute master of all his actions, without assistance to good, or restraint from evil.

SAINT. (See Communion of Saints, Invocation of Saints.) A person either in the flesh or out of it, who is made holy by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The apostles in their Epistles use this word simply for baptized believers, that is, for all Christians.

The word saints is of the same meaning with the word holy; and, therefore, comprehends all Christians in the same manner as has been already explained. Having communion, is being entitled to partake of benefits and kindnesses, and bound to make suitable returns for them. And thus Christians, or saints, have communion or “fellowship” with “the Father, from whom cometh down every good and perfect gift;” with his Son Jesus Christ, (1 John i. 3; James i. 17,) through whom forgiveness and mercy is conveyed to us; with the Holy Ghost, whose sanctifying graces are conferred on such as duly qualify their hearts for the reception of them. And for these blessings we owe all thankfulness and all duty, in thought, word, and deed. Christians have also communion with the holy angels, as these “are ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14): and undoubtedly we ought to think of what they do for us, with an inward sense of gratitude and love. But, as we are unacquainted with particulars, we can make no particular acknowledgments: nor ought we to make any general ones, by outward expressions of respect; since “worshipping God alone” is commanded, (Matt. iv. 10,) and worshipping angels condemned, in Scripture. (Col. ii. 18.)

With respect to those of our own nature, we are bound so far to hold communion even with the worst of unbelievers, as not only to do them every kind of justice, but sincerely to wish, and, if occasion offer, heartily endeavour, their good, both in body and soul. But to all “who have obtained the like precious faith with ourselves,” (2 Pet. i. 1,) we bear a still nearer relation; as being, in a peculiar sense, children of the same Father, disciples of the same Master, animated by the same Spirit, members of the same body. And these things oblige us to the utmost care of preserving, by prudent order and mutual forbearance, as much unity in the Church as we possibly can.

Such, indeed, as obstinately deny the fundamental doctrines, or transgress the fundamental precepts of Christianity, ought to be rejected from Christian communion. But to renounce communicating with any others, who are willing to admit us to it on lawful terms, is the way to cut off ourselves, not them, from the body of Christ; who yet, we doubt not, will allow those on both sides to belong to his Church, who, through pardonable passions or mistakes, will not allow one another to do so.

And, as we should maintain communion with all proper persons, we should show our disposition to it in all proper ways: attend on the public instructions, join in the public worship, sacraments, and discipline, which our Lord hath appointed, and keep the whole of them pure from all forbidden or suspicious alterations or mixtures; avoid, with great care, both giving and taking needless offence, in respect to these or any matters; and by all fit means “edify one another in love” (Rom. xiv. 19; Eph. iv. 16): “obeying those who are set over us;” condescending to those who are beneath us; esteeming and honouring the wise and virtuous; teaching and admonishing the ignorant and faulty; bearing with the weak, relieving the poor, and comforting the afflicted.

Nor have we communion only with the saints on earth, but are of one city and one family with such as are already got safe to heaven. Doubtless, they exercise that communion towards us by loving and praying for the brethren whom they have left behind them. And we are to exercise it towards them, not by addressing petitions to them, which we are neither authorized to offer, nor have any grounds to think they can hear; but by rejoicing in their happiness; thanking God for the grace which he hath bestowed on them, and the examples which they have left us; holding their memories in honour, imitating their virtues, and beseeching the Disposer of all things, that, having followed them in holiness here, we may meet them in happiness hereafter; and become, in the fullest sense, “fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph. ii. 19); “having, with all those that are departed in the true faith of his holy name, our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in his eternal and everlasting glory, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.” (See Burial Office.)—Abp. Secker.

SAINTS’ DAYS. (See Feasts.) Two of the most ancient monuments of ecclesiastical history that we possess, except the New Testament, are the accounts of the martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples of St. John, written, at the time of their suffering, by the Churches of Antioch and Smyrna, of which they were bishops: and in those they mention, as of course, their purpose of celebrating yearly the festival of their birthdays, of their entrance into a better life, for the commemoration of their excellent graces, and the incitement of others to imitate them. Thus did they provide that the “righteous should be in everlasting remembrance,” (Ps. cxii. 6,) and observed the more particular direction given to that intent in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “Remember them which have (had) the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering the end,” the event, “of their conversation.” (Heb. xiii. 7.) The rest of the primitive Churches appear to have followed the same rule; and each to have honoured the more eminent of their own martyrs, who had been usually their teachers also, by anniversary assemblies for preserving the reverence due to their characters, and offering up thanks to God for their examples.

But the increase of their numbers, and the adoption of the sufferers of one Church into the liturgies of another, and the admission of eminently good persons, who had “not resisted unto blood,” (Heb. xii. 4,) and the frequent grants which in subsequent ages were made, of so high a distinction, with little care of previous inquiry, multiplied the returns of these solemnities very improperly and inconveniently. Then, besides, a still greater evil was, that praises and panegyrics too soon grew to be immoderate, and afterwards impious. In the vehemence of national encomiums and exclamations, the saint was called upon as present, until at length he was thought so; and what at first was merely a bold and moving figure of speech, became at length in good earnest a prayer: which requested of a dead man, who was not able to hear it, not only that he would intercede with God on behalf of his fellow-servants, but that he would himself bestow such blessings upon them, as no creature hath in his power. Things being found in this condition at the Reformation, it was necessary both to abolish entirely these unlawful addresses, and to limit the original sort of commemorations to a moderate list of persons, indisputably worthy of them. Accordingly no day is appointed by our Church for the celebration of any other than the principal saints mentioned in the New Testament, it being hard to stop, if more were added. And amongst these, St. Stephen is the only one who stands solely on the foot of being a martyr; as indeed it was fit that the foremost, the leader, of that “noble army” should be distinguished, and chosen, as it were, to represent the rest.—Abp. Secker.

When a Sunday and a saint’s day coincide, on the question what service shall be used, see the extracts from Shepherd and Bishop Cosin in the article Lessons.

SALUTATION. Having all repeated our creed together, and thereby given good proof that we are members of the Catholic Church, and such as have a right to join in the prayers thereof, we now prepare ourselves to pray. And since salutations have ever been the expressions and badges of that mutual charity, without which we are not fit to pray, therefore we begin with an ancient form of salutation, taken out of Holy Scripture: the minister commencing, salutes the people with “The Lord be with you,” (Ruth ii. 4; Ps. cxxii. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 16,) and they return it with a like prayer, “And with thy spirit,” (2 Tim. iv. 22,) which words have been of early use in the Christian liturgies; and indeed the phrase is the very words of St. Paul; and St. John forbids us to say to any heretic “God speed.” (2 John, ver. 10, 11.) But when the minister hath heard every one in the congregation repeat his faith, and seen, by their standing up at it, a testimony of their assent to it, he can now safely salute them all as brethren and members of the true Church; and surely, as difference in religion creates great animosities, so agreement in one faith is an excellent means to beget charity, and to make minister and people heartily pray for one another: the people are going to pray, which they cannot do without God’s help, and therefore the minister prays that “the Lord may be with them,” to assist them in the duty, according to that gracious promise of our Saviour, that when two or three are met to pray, he will be with them. (Matt, xviii. 20.) And since the minister prays for all the people, and is their mouth to God, they desire he may, heartily and devoutly, offer up these prayers in their behalf, saying, “The Lord be with thy spirit.”—Dean Comber.

By a man’s spirit in Scripture phrase is frequently meant the man himself. So that the people do in reality answer thus: May God be with thee, as thou desirest he may be with us, in the oblation of our joint prayers. In this sense the word is used in the place whence this form is borrowed. (2 Tim. iv. 22.)—Dr. Bennet.

Till every person has finished the repetition of the creed, and there is silence in the whole congregation, the minister should not pronounce the words, “The Lord be with you.” These words ought also to be pronounced by the minister in a standing posture, they being addressed to the people. And after the people have returned their answer, the minister should still stand and pronounce these words, “Let us pray;” and then give the people time enough to kneel down, that there may not be the least noise, and every person may be perfectly composed, and ready to join, when the minister begins the prayers.

And because these words, “The Lord be with you,” and the reply of the people, “And with thy spirit;” and those also, “Let us pray,” are all of them directed and spoken, not to Almighty God, but only to men; namely, by the minister and people alternately to each other; therefore care should be taken that a difference be made in the tone of voice between these short forms of mutual compellation, and the prayers themselves.—Dr. Bennet.

In the Romish Church the angelical salutation, as they call it, consists of the angel’s salutation, and that of Elizabeth. It runs thus: Ave Maria, gratiæ plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui. Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ. Amen.

The latter clause, Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, was added, they tell us, in the fifth century; but the last words, nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ, were inserted by order of Pope Pius V.

Urban II. ordered a bell to be tolled three times a day to put the people in mind of repeating this salutation, that God might prosper the Christian arms in the recovery of the Holy Land; which custom, having continued about 134 years, fell at length into neglect; till Gregory IX. revived it, with the addition of a constant noon-bell.

The repeating of this salutation at the beginning of the sermon was first enjoined by St. Dominic, or, as some will have it, by Vincent Ferrerius. (See Idolatry and Mariolatry.)

SALVATION (see Covenant of Redemption) is taken in Scripture, 1. For deliverance or victory over outward dangers and enemies. (Exod. xiv. 13; 1 Sam. xiv. 45.) 2. For remission of sins, true faith, repentance, and obedience, and other saving graces of the Spirit, which are the way to salvation. (Luke xix. 9.) “This day is salvation come to this house.” 3. For eternal happiness hereafter, which is the object of our hopes and desires. Thus it is said, “to give knowledge of salvation to his people.” (Luke i. 77.) “Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation.” (2 Cor. vii. 10.) And the gospel is called, the “gospel of salvation,” (Eph. i. 13,) because it brings the good news that salvation is to be had; it offers salvation to lost sinners; it shows upon what terms it may be had, and the way how to attain it; it also fits for salvation, and at last brings to it. 4. For the author of salvation. (Ps. xxvii. 1.) “The Lord is my light and my salvation,” he is my counsellor in all my difficulties, and my comforter and deliverer in all my distresses. 5. For the person who is the Saviour of sinners. (Luke ii. 30.) “Mine eyes have seen thy salvation,” says Simeon; I have seen him whom thou hast sent into the world, to be the author and procurer of salvation to lost sinners. 6. For the praise and benediction that is given to God. (Rev. xix. 1.) “Alleluia, salvation and glory and honour and power unto the Lord our God.” The Hebrews but rarely made use of concrete terms as they are called; but often of abstracted. Thus, instead of saying, God saves men, and protects them, they say, that God is their salvation. Thus the word of salvation, the joy of salvation, the rock of salvation, the shield of salvation, the horn of salvation, &c., is as much as to say, The word that declares deliverance; the joys that attend the escaping a great danger; a rock where any one takes refuge, and where he may be in safety from his enemy; a buckler, that secures him from the arm of the enemy; a horn or ray of light, of happiness and salvation, &c.—Cruden’s Concord.

SAMARITANS. These were a mixed people, inhabiting the parts of Palestine between Galilee and Judea. They were in part descended from the remnant of the ten tribes, most of whom had been carried away by the Assyrians, blended with other distant nations, and settled in the same district with their conquerors. These different people, Babylonians, Cutheans, and other idolaters, for some time retained their respective forms of worship; but finding the country ravaged by wild beasts, they thought to propitiate the god of the country by restoring his worship; and one of the priests, whom they had carried away from Samaria, came and “dwelt at Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the Lord.” (2 Kings xvii. 28.) After this, they were delivered from the plague of wild beasts, and embraced the law of Moses, with which they mixed a great part of their ancient idolatry. Upon the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, it appears that they had entirely quitted the worship of their idols. But though they were united in religion, they were not so in affection, with the Jews; for they employed various calumnies and stratagems to hinder their rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem; and when they could not prevail; they erected a temple on Mount Gerizim, in opposition to that of Jerusalem. (Ezra iv., v., vi.) The Samaritans at present are few in number, but pretend to great strictness in their observation of the law of Moses. They are said to be scattered, some at Damascus, some at Gaza, and some at Grand Cairo in Egypt.

SAMUEL, THE BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so called, because they are usually ascribed to the prophet Samuel.

These two books are styled Reigns in the Greek version, and in the vulgar Latin, Kings; but in the Hebrew they are styled the Books of Samuel. But, since the first twenty-four chapters contain all that relates to the history of Samuel, and that the latter part of the First Book, and all the Second, include the relation of events that happened after the death of that prophet, it has been supposed that Samuel was author only of the first twenty-four chapters, and that the prophets Gad and Nathan finished the work. This is the opinion of the Talmudists, founded upon the following text of the Chronicles: “Now the acts of David, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer.”

The Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are a continued history of the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah; for which reason, the Books of Samuel are likewise styled the First and Second Books of Kings; and the two Books of Kings are also called the Third and Fourth Books of Kings.

The First Book of Samuel, otherwise called the First Book of Kings, comprehends the transactions under the government of Eli and Samuel, and under Saul the first king; as also the acts of David whilst he lived under Saul; and is supposed to include the space of about 101 years. Here we read, how the republic of Israel was changed into a monarchy, and what great evils they suffered in consequence thereof. We have here an account of the deposition of their first king, Saul, on account of his profane sacrificing, and his wilful disobedience to the commands of God, in relation to the destruction of the Amalekites; his treachery to David, and cruel pursuits of him; and, lastly, the tragical death of himself, and his son Jonathan, on Mount Gilboa.

The Second Book of Samuel, otherwise called the Second Book of Kings, contains the history of about forty years, and is wholly spent in relating the transactions of King David’s reign; the military exploits of that prince, and his administration both of the Church and of the State. With these are mixed the great failings and miscarriages of David, and, in consequence thereof, the many distresses he met with, and the various judgments and plagues inflicted upon him and his people by God.

SANCTE BELL. A small bell which was rung when the “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus, Deus Sabaoth” was said, to prepare the people for the elevation of the host.

Mr. Todd, in his additions to Johnson’s Dictionary, quotes from Warton’s History of Kiddington, as follows: “It was usually placed where it might be heard farthest, in a lantern at the springing of the steeple, or in a turret at the angle of the tower; and sometimes, for the convenience of its being more readily and exactly rung, within a pediment, or arcade, between the church and the chancel; the rope, in this situation, falling down into the choir, not far from the altar.” Thus in Walton’s Life of George Herbert: “And some of the meaner sort of his parish did so love and reverence Mr. Herbert, that they would let their plough rest when Mr. Herbert’s Saints’ bell rung to prayers, that they might also offer their devotions to God with him; and would then return back to their plough.” The small bell at Canterbury rung before service, is hung high in the central tower, and seems to answer to the ancient Saints’ bell. Mr. Todd adds, that “the little bell, which now rings immediately before the service begins, is corruptly called, in many places, Saucebell, or Sauncebell.”

SANCTIFICATION. (See Justification.) The progressive conformity of the heart and life to the will of God, or our inherent righteousness, as distinguished from the righteousness of justification. To say that we detract from the necessity of inherent righteousness, or what is called the righteousness of sanctification, because we exclude it from the office of justification, and thus demolish the whole fabric of human merit, is about as reasonable as to say, that because we receive food by the mouth, and not by the ear or the eye, the eye and the ear are unnecessary members in the human frame, and that no other bodily functions are requisite to the life of man. The man will die if, by tetanus, he is unable to open his mouth; but he will also die if, having received food into his mouth, he is unable to digest it; and yet the digestion of food, and its mastication, are processes entirely distinct, while the food itself is a gift from without. It is one thing to assert that a Christian must have inherent righteousness, and another to assert that his inherent righteousness is the ground of his acceptance with a righteous God.

We may refer to Hooker for a clear exposition of the case: “Concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent; we grant that, unless we work, we have it not; only we distinguish it as a thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification: we are righteous the one way, by the faith of Abraham; the other way, except we do the works of Abraham, we are not righteous. Of the one, St. Paul, ‘To him that worketh not, but believeth, faith is counted for righteousness.’ Of the other, St. John, ‘He is righteous which worketh righteousness.’ Of the one, St. Paul doth prove by Abraham’s example, that we have it of faith without works. Of the other, St. James, by Abraham’s example, that by works we have it, and not only by faith.

“St. Paul doth plainly sever these two parts of Christian righteousness one from the other. For in the sixth to the Romans thus he writeth: Being freed from sin, and made servants to God, ye have your fruit in holiness, and the end everlasting life.

“‘Ye are made free from sin, and made servants unto God;’ this is the righteousness of justification.

“‘Ye have your fruit in holiness;’ this is the righteousness of sanctification.

“By the one we are interested in the right of inheriting; by the other we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss; and so the end of both is everlasting life.”

In another passage of the same discourse Hooker says: “It is a childish cavil wherewith, in the matter of justification, our adversaries do so greatly please themselves, exclaiming, that we tread all Christian virtues under our feet, and require nothing in Christians but faith; because we teach that faith alone justifieth: whereas, by this speech, we never meant to exclude either hope or charity from being always joined as inseparable mates with faith in the man that is justified; or works from being added as necessary duties, required at the hands of every justified man: but to show that faith is the only hand which putteth on Christ unto justification; and Christ the only garment, which, being so put on, covereth the shame of our defiled natures, hideth the imperfection of our works, preserveth us blameless in the sight of God, before whom otherwise the weakness of our faith were cause sufficient to make us culpable, yea, to shut us from the kingdom of heaven, where nothing that is not absolute can enter.”

“It is not the question,” says Bishop Andrewes, “whether we have an inherent righteousness or no, or whether God will accept or reward it; but whether that must be our righteousness coram rege justo judicium faciente, which is a point very material, and by no means to be forgotten; for, without this, if we compare ourselves with ourselves, what heretofore we have been, or if we compare ourselves with others, as did the Pharisees, we may take a fancy, perhaps, and have some good conceit of our inherent righteousness. Yea, if we be to deal in schools by argument or disputation, we may, peradventure, argue for it, and make some show in the matter. But let us once be brought and arraigned coram rege justo sedente in solio, let us set ourselves there, we shall then see that all our former conceit shall vanish straight, and righteousness in that sense (that is, an inherent righteousness) will not abide the trial.”

“The Homilies of our Church,” as Dr. Waterland, adopting their doctrine, observes, “describe and limit the doctrine thus: ‘Faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified: but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying;’ that is to say, from the office of accepting or receiving it; for as to the office of justifying in the active sense, that belongs to God only, as the same homily elsewhere declares. The doctrine is there further explained thus: ‘Because faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins, and that, by faith given us of God, we embrace the promise of God’s mercy, and of the remission of our sins, (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly doth,) therefore the Scripture useth to say, that faith without works doth justify.’”

It is observed by Faber “that, in the progress of a Christian man from his original justification to his final salvation, these several states or conditions of righteousness successively appertain to him.

“First in order comes the forensic righteousness of justification; a righteousness reputatively his, through faith, and on account of the perfect meritoriousness of Christ.

“Next in order comes the inherent righteousness of sanctification; a righteousness infused into him by the Holy Spirit after he has been justified.

“And last in order comes the complete righteousness of glorification; a righteousness acquired by him, when this corruptible puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality.

“The first righteousness, being the righteousness of Christ, is perfect, but not inherent.

“The second righteousness, being the subsequently infused righteousness of a justified Christian man, is inherent, but not perfect.

“The third righteousness, being the acquired righteousness of a departed Christian man in his glorified state hereafter, is both perfect and inherent.”

SANCTIFY. (See Sanctification.) To make holy, to treat as holy, or to set apart for holy services. (Exod. xix. 10, 22, 23; xxx. 29; Deut. v. 13; Isa. viii. 13; xxix. 23; Eph. v. 26; 1 Thess. v. 23.)

SANCTUARY. The holy of holies (Lev. iv. 6); the temple at large (2 Chron. xx. 8); the one place of national worship for the Israelites (Deut. xii. 5); also the place within the Septurn, or rails, where the altar stands in the Christian church.

By sanctuary is also meant the privilege of criminals who have fled to certain sacred places, to have their freedom from arrest and punishment, except ecclesiastical discipline, so long as they remain therein. This custom of sanctuary, which is now almost everywhere done away with, for the abuse to which it gave rise, was derived from the Levitical law of refuge, by which, at God’s express appointment, six cities were made cities of refuge for the involuntary manslayer: and the altar of burnt-offerings was also a place of refuge for persons who had undesignedly committed smaller offences. (Deut. xix. 11, 12; Joshua xx.) In this Divine law the object seems to have been to mark God’s hatred of sin, by showing that even accidental and unpremeditated offences were forgiven only by an especial exercise of his mercy. The corrupt custom of sanctuary in the middle ages was extended to the protection of those who knowingly and willingly committed the most heinous offences. (See Asylum.)

SANCTUS. (See Tersanctus.)

SANDEMANIANS, or GLASSITES. A dissenting community, which had its origin in the preaching and deposition of one John Glas, presbyterian minister of the parish of Tealing, near Dundee, in 1730. His pupil, Robert Sandeman, brought his doctrine into England, and also into America, and from him the sect derives its name, though in Scotland it is still designated after its first founder. The Sandemanians are not a numerous sect.

The following is the account of the Sandemanians in the Registrar-general’s Return.

“The Sandemanians—sometimes called Glassites, both appellations being derived from the names of the founders of the sect—first came into notice in Scotland about 1728 or 1729; when Mr. Glass, a minister of the Scottish National Church, avowed opinions on Church government approaching very nearly those maintained by Congregationalists. Robert Sandeman appeared in advocacy of the same opinions about 1757, and formed a congregation in London in 1762.

“The prominent doctrine of the Sandemanians, on which they differ from most other Churches, relates to the nature of justifying faith, which Sandeman maintained to be ‘no more than a simple assent to the Divine testimony, passively received by the understanding.’

“Sandemanians, also, observe certain peculiar practices, supposed by them to have been prevalent amongst the primitive Christians, such as weekly sacraments, love feasts, mutual exhortation, washing each other’s feet, plurality of elders, the use of the lot, &c.

“The number of Sandemanian congregations in England reported by the Census officers was six; the number of sittings (after an estimate for two chapels where the information was not given) was 956; and the number of attendants on the Census Sunday was: Morning, 439; Afternoon, 256; Evening, 61.

SANHEDRIM, or SENATE. A corrupted word, from the Greek, συνέδριον. (See St. Mark xiv. 55; xv. 1; St. Luke xxii. 66, where mention is made of the Synedrion: St. John xi. 47; Acts iv. 15.) The origin of the Sanhedrim is not without obscurity; for the council of the seventy elders established by Moses was not what the Hebrews understood by the name of Sanhedrim. Nor can we perceive this establishment under Joshua, the Judges, or the Kings. We find nothing of it after the captivity till the time of Judas Maccabeus. The tribunals established by Gabinius were very different from the Sanhedrim. This was the only court of its kind, and fixed at Jerusalem; whereas, Gabinius established five tribunals at five different cities, which tribunals do not appear to have been subordinate one to another. Lastly, it is certain that this senate was in being in time of Jesus Christ. (Vide supra.) But the Jews inform us themselves, that they then had not the power of life and death. (St. John xviii. 31.)—Calmet, ed. Taylor. The chief council of the Jewish nation, composed of seventy or seventy-two judges, and said to have taken its rise from the seventy elders appointed to assist Moses.

SARUM. (See Use.)

SATAN. A Hebrew word, שטן, signifying an adversary, an enemy, an accuser. It is often translated adversary in our translation of the Bible, as also in the Septuagint and Vulgate. For example, (1 Sam. xxix. 4,) the princes of the Philistines say to Achish, “Send back David, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us, and turn his arm against us.” The Lord stirred up adversaries to Solomon in the persons of Hadad and Rezon. (1 Kings xi. 14, 23, &c.) Sometimes Satan is put for the Devil; for example, Satan presented himself among the sons of God, and the Lord said unto Satan, “Whence comest thou?” (Job i. 6, 7, &c.) And in Psalm cix. 6, it is said, “Let Satan stand at his right hand;” and in Zech. iii. 1, 2, it is said, “Satan standing at his right hand; and the Lord said unto Satan, ‘The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.’” In the books of the New Testament, the word Satan is taken both in the sense of an adversary, and also for the Devil; for example, Christ says to Peter, (Matt. xvi. 23,) “Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me;” that is, Begone, O mine adversary, you that withstand what I most desire, and what I came into the world about. But most commonly Satan is taken for the Devil. (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23.) “If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself.” And in the Revelation, (xx. 2,) “He laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.” (See the article Devil.)

SATAN, KINGDOM OF. In the Gospel, (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23, and Luke xi. 18,) our blessed Lord represents Satan to us as a monarch, who has other subordinate devils obedient to him. Beelzebub is, as it were, their king. “If Beelzebub,” says he, “drives out devils, his kingdom is divided against itself; he labours for his own ruin; which is by no means credible; it is therefore false that I drive out devils in the name of Beelzebub.” St. Paul acknowledges in the Acts, (xxvi. 18,) that all those which are not in the religion of Jesus Christ, are under the empire and power of Satan. St. John (Rev. xx. 7) says, that, after a thousand years, Satan should be unbound, should come forth from hell, and subdue the nations.

To be delivered up to Satan is to be excommunicated, and surrendered to the Devil for a season, who visibly possessed this sort of people, that had deserved this punishment for their crimes or errors. St. Paul delivered up to Satan Hymeneus and Alexander, (1 Tim. i. 20,) that they might not learn to blaspheme. He also surrendered up to him the incestuous person of Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5,) “For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

When Christ sent forth his disciples to preach in the cities and villages of Judea, they returned back with great joy, and told him, saying, “Lord, even the devils are subject to us through thy name.” (Luke x. 17, 18.) Jesus tells them, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven;” where he seems to allude to that passage of Isaiah, (xiv. 12,) “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning;” and by which he insinuates that the kingdom of the Devil was coming to a period; that Satan should soon lose his power and dominion in the world, by the preaching and miracles of the apostles; and in Luke xxii. 31, he says, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:” showing thereby what vain efforts the Devil would make to destroy the infant Church.

SATISFACTION. (See Atonement, Covenant of Redemption, Jesus, Propitiation.) Whatever that is, which being done or suffered by an offending creature himself, or by another person for him, shall secure the favour of the Divine government, in bestowing upon the offender pardon and happiness, may be properly called a satisfaction or atonement made to God for him. In saying this, it is not intended to assert that it is in the power of any creature to satisfy for his own sins, for this is impossible; but only to show what we mean when we speak of his doing it.

Such a sense of the word satisfaction, though not in strict propriety of speech amounting to the payment of a debt, is agreeable to the use of the word in the Roman law; where it signifies to content a person aggrieved, and is put for some valuable consideration, substituted instead of what is a proper payment, and consistent with a remission of that debt or offence for which such supposed satisfaction is made: which is a circumstance to be carefully observed, in order to vindicate the doctrine we are about to establish, and to maintain the consistency between different parts of the Christian scheme.

Christ has made satisfaction for the sins of all those who repent of their sins, and return to God in the way of sincere, though imperfect, obedience.

1. Although Christ was innocent, nevertheless he endured very grievous sufferings, both in body and mind (Isa. liii. 3; Matt. xxvi. 38); and he did this spontaneously. (Heb. x. 7, 9.)

2. It is expressly asserted in Scripture, that these sufferings were brought upon Christ for the sake of sinful men, in whose stead he is also said to have suffered. (Isa. liii. 5, 6, 10; Matt. xx. 28; Rom. iii. 25; v. 6, 8; 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13; Eph. v. 2; Heb. vii. 27; ix. 26; x. 12; 1 Pet. ii. 24; iii. 18.)

3. The offers of pardon and eternal salvation are made in Scripture to those that repent and return to God, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered: in whom they are therefore declared to be accepted by God, and to whom they are hereupon taught to ascribe the glory of their salvation. (John iii. 14–17; Acts x. 35, 36, 43; ii. 38; iii. 18, 19; Rom. iv. 25; Col. i. 20–22; 2 Cor. v. 18, 20; Eph. i. 5, 7; Heb. ii. 3; ix. 14; x. 4, 10, 14; Rev. i. 5, 6; v. 9, 10; vii. 13, 14.)

4. It is evident that, according to the gospel institution, pardon and life were to be offered to all to whom the preaching of the gospel came, without any exception. (Mark xvi. 15, 16; Acts xiii. 38, 39; 1 John ii. 1, 2; Isa. liii. 6; John i. 29.)

5. It is plain, from the whole tenor of the epistolary part of the New Testament, as well as from some particular passages of it, that there was a remainder of imperfection, generally at least, to be found even in the best Christians; notwithstanding which they are encouraged to rejoice in the hope of salvation by Christ. (Phil. iii. 13; Gal. v. 17; James iii. 2; 1 John i. 8, 10; ii. 1, 2.)

6. Whereas, so far as we can judge, the remission of sin, without any satisfaction at all, might have laid a foundation for men’s thinking lightly of the law of God, it is certain that, by the obedience and sufferings of Christ, a very great honour is done to it; and mercy communicated to us as the purchase of his blood, comes in so awful as well as so endearing a manner, as may have the best tendency to engage those who embrace the gospel to a life of holy obedience.

SATISFACTION, ROMISH. This lies at the bottom of much of the Romish heresy. It directly opposes the doctrine of justification by faith only, and is closely connected with the Romish notion of the merits of good works. The following is the eighth chapter of the Council of Trent upon the subject.

“Lastly, as concerns satisfaction, which of all the parts of repentance, as it has been at all times recommended by our fathers to the Christian people, so now, in our time, is chiefly impugned, under the highest pretence of piety, by those who teach a form of godliness, but have denied the power thereof; the holy synod declares that it is altogether false, and contrary to the word of God, to say that sin is never remitted by the Lord, but the entire punishment is also pardoned. For, besides Divine tradition, clear and illustrious examples are found in the holy books, by which this error is most plainly refuted. In truth, even the principle of Divine justice seems to demand that they who have sinned through ignorance before baptism should be received by him into grace, after a different manner from those who, having been once freed from the bondage of sin and Satan, and having received the gift of the Holy Ghost, have not been afraid knowingly to violate the temple of God, and to grieve the Holy Spirit: and it becometh the Divine mercy that our sins should not be so remitted without any satisfaction, lest we take occasion to think lightly of our sins, and so, injuring and insulting the Holy Spirit, we fall into worse, treasuring up unto ourselves wrath against the day of wrath. For, beyond all doubt, these punishments of satisfaction recall the penitents very much from sin, and restrain them, as it were, with a bit, and make them more cautious and watchful for the future. They cure also the remains of sins, and by actions of opposite virtues, destroy vicious habits acquired by evil living. Nor, in truth, was there ever any way considered in the Church more sure for the removal of the impending punishment of God, than that men, with real grief of mind, should accustom themselves to these works of repentance. To this may be added, that while we suffer by making satisfaction for sins, we are made like unto Christ Jesus, who made satisfaction for our sins, from whom all our sufficiency is derived; and having hence, also, a most sure covenant, that, if we suffer with him, we shall be also glorified together. Nor, in truth, is this satisfaction which we pay for our sins in such sort ours, that it should not be through Christ Jesus; for we who of ourselves can do nothing as of ourselves, can do all things by the assistance of him who comforteth us; so that a man hath not whereof he may boast; but all our boasting is in Christ, in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we make satisfaction; doing worthy fruits of repentance, which have their virtue from him, by him are offered to the Father, and through him accepted of the Father. The priests of the Lord therefore ought, according to the suggestions of the Spirit and their own prudence, to enjoin wholesome and suitable satisfaction, proportioned to the quality of the crimes, and the means of the penitents: lest, haply, they become partakers in other men’s sins, if they connive at sin, and deal too tenderly with the penitents, enjoining trifling works for the most grievous crimes. Let them have also before their eyes, that the satisfaction which they impose is not only for a defence of the new life, and a remedy for infirmity, but also a revenge and punishment for past sins: for the ancient Fathers believe and teach that the keys of the priests were given not only for loosing but also for binding. Nor did they therefore think that the sacrament of repentance is the tribunal of anger and punishments; just as no Catholic has ever thought that, by our satisfactions of this kind, the force of the merit and satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ was either obscured or lessened in any degree: which, while our innovators are unwilling to understand, they teach that a new life is the best repentance, that they may destroy altogether the virtue and use of satisfaction.”

This, says Perceval in his “Romish Schism,” is a remarkable chapter. The repeated expressions of reference to our blessed Lord, “in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we make satisfaction when we perform worthy fruits of repentance, which from them have power, by him are offered to the Father, and through him are accepted of the Father,” plainly show how keenly alive the Tridentine Fathers were to the danger of men considering their own penances as irrespective of our Lord’s death and mediation, against which error they thus endeavour to guard. But the other error of making God, or God’s ministers in his behalf, through vengeance of past sins, and not merely for the correction of the offence, insist upon penal satisfactions from those who, with true repentance, and with faith in Christ, have forsaken their sins, as though the vicarial punishment inflicted upon the Son of God were not sufficient to satisfy the Divine vengeance, is left, and must needs be left, untouched. But how great injury this does to the full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice of our Lord, and how great injury also to the character of our heavenly Father, there need no arguments to prove. The passages cited by the publishers of the Tridentine decrees, (Gen. iii., 2 Sam. xii., Num. xii. and xx.,) being all taken from the old dispensation, cannot be pressed, because the analogy of God’s dealings before and after the sufferings of our Lord will not altogether hold: besides, they all relate to cases of open sin, in which, for the edification of others, temporal punishment was inflicted, from which no argument whatever can be adduced in behalf of vindictive penalties for secret sins, which have been repented of, confessed, and forsaken, with faith in Christ. It would seem from certain expressions, that they consider the practice of the virtues most opposed to the sins committed among the vindictive penalties for sin. A strange and most unhappy light in which to regard what the Scriptures would have us consider our highest privileges and our choicest happiness. That the practice of the Church of Rome is in accordance with this is placed beyond all doubt, when it is known that the repeating a certain number of prayers is often enjoined as a penance or punishment for sin.

SAVIOUR. (See Jesus.) One who delivers from danger and misery; as God does by his providential care (Psalm cvi. 21; Isa. xlv. 15, 21; lxiii. 8; Jer. xiv. 8; 1 Tim. iv. 10); and as does our Lord Jesus Christ (Luke ii. 11; John iv. 42; Acts v. 31; xiii. 23; Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20). He saves from sin (Matt. i. 21); from the thraldom of Satan (Heb. ii. 14; 1 John iii. 8); from the world (Gal. i. 4); from the sting of death (1 Cor. xv. 55, 57); from the grave (1 Cor. xv. 22, 23; Phil. iii. 20, 21); from hell (1 Thess. i. 10); and brings to the enjoyment of eternal bliss in heaven (Matt. xxv. 34; 1 Pet. i. 3, 4; 2 Pet. i. 11). Christ is able to save to the uttermost (Heb. vii. 25); and he is willing to save all who come to him (Matt. xi. 28; John vi. 37).

SAVOY CONFERENCE. A conference held at the Savoy, in London, in 1661, between the Catholic divines of the Church of England and the Presbyterians; of which the following is a brief account: The object was to ascertain what concessions with respect to the liturgy could conciliate the Presbyterians, or Low Church party of that day. The representatives of that body demanded the discontinuance of all responses and similar divisions in the Litany; an abolition of saints’ days; an introduction of extemporaneous prayer; a change as to several of the Epistles and Gospels, which, remaining in the old version, contained various errors; the lengthening of the collects; the rejection of the Apocrypha; a removal from the baptismal office of the word regenerated, as applied to all baptized persons; and a similar rejection of the giving thanks for brethren taken by God to himself, as embracing all alike who were interred, both these phrases being held incompatible with the commination. They would have the liturgy be more particular, and the catechism more explicit. They consented to give up the Assembly’s Catechism for the Thirty-nine Articles somewhat altered; and they wound up their expectations with the old request, that the cross, ring, surplice, and kneeling at the sacrament should be left indifferent.

On the contrary, the Church commissioners maintained that bishops already performed ordination with the assistance of presbyters; that it was expedient to retain a certain number of holy-days for the reasonable recreation of the labouring classes; that the surplice was a decent emblem of that purity which became the ministers of God; that its high antiquity was shown by St. Chrysostom in one of his homilies; and that it received a sanction from several passages in the Revelation (ch. iii. 4, 5). They affirmed that Christ himself kept the feast of dedication, a festival of human appointment; that the sign of the cross had been always used “in immortali lavacro;” that kneeling was an ancient and decent usage, and that the high antiquity of liturgies in the Church is indisputable. To the demand that the answers of the people should be confined to “Amen,” they replied, that Dissenters say more in their psalms and hymns; if then in poetry, why not in prose? if in the Psalms of Hopkins, why not in those of David? and if in a Psalter, why not in a Litany? That Scripture contained all which is needful for salvation, they deemed no more an objection to the Apocrypha than to preaching. To read the Communion Service at the communion table was maintained to be an ancient custom, and “let ancient customs be observed, unless reason demands their abolition,” was the golden rule of the Council of Nice.

They could see no real advantage in compromise and concession. What had the former alternate preaching of regular incumbents and puritanical lecturers ever effected but the sowing of perpetual dissensions in every parish, the aspersion of the characters and defeating of the usefulness of regular pastors, and a distraction of the people’s minds with different winds of doctrine, till they knew not what to believe? In truth, it was certain that whatever concessions might be made, so long as the love of novelty, the pride of argumentation, the passion for holding forth, and the zeal for proselytizing, continued to be principles in the human heart, no concession would ever abolish sects in religion; while the Church of England, by departing from her ancient practice, would only compromise her dignity, and forfeit her title to due reverence. Yet, since some fondly conceived that all parties, tired of dissension and disturbance, were now eager to coalesce; and that to concede the minor points of difference to the Presbyterian ministers would afford them a plausible excuse for maintaining harmony without violating their principles; they would not object to a revision of the liturgy, they would even give up the ceremonies, if any shadow of objection could be brought forward on the score of their sinfulness or impropriety. Their antagonists, however, refused to accept this challenge, since admitting them to be neither sinful nor improper, they deemed it sufficient to show that a positive obligation should not be imposed with respect to things indifferent. On this question, which was in fact the point at issue, as the parties could come to no agreement, the conference, like the former, terminated in mutual dissatisfaction.—See Cardwell’s History of the Conferences.

The object aimed at by those who would have lowered the terms of conformity, was, in itself, inexpressibly inviting. It was their hope to see the great body of professing Christians in England united in one communion: so to annihilate that schism, which, in the judgment of both parties, had been the great blemish of the English Church, from almost the earliest stage of the Reformation. But, allowing every merit to the intention, can we, at this day, refuse the praise of deeper foresight to their opponents; who argued, that if some things were changed, in order to please the party then applying, successive parties might arise, making fresh demands, and inventing as good reasons for the second and third concessions, as had been urged for the first?... If such an ecclesiastical modification as was wished for by Judge Hale and his associates had been adopted, general pacification could not, even then, have been attained; and the discovery of new grounds of dissent would have made the prospect more and more hopeless. In the mean time, the English Church establishment would have parted with some of its most distinguishing characteristics; those features, in particular, which are derived from the ancient Church, would have been, in a great measure, defaced; and of course, the principle of adhering, on all doubtful points, to the concurrence of Christian antiquity, could have been insisted on no longer. Had the Church of England thus deserted her ancient ground, where, we cannot but ask, should alteration have stopped? A practice once originated is repeated without difficulty. Can we, then, entertain a doubt, that the successive endeavours which have been used, at one time, to new-modify the forms of our worship; at another, to abate the strictness of our doctrinal creed; would have been as successful as, in our actual circumstances, they have proved abortive? To nothing, under heaven, can we so reasonably ascribe the defeat of all such efforts, as to the dread of disturbing what had remained so long substantially unaltered. Had there been no room for this feeling, other considerations might not have been available, against the apparent plausibility of what was asked, or the persevering ardour of the applicants. Had the work of demolition once begun, its progress would have been both certain and illimitable; each successive change would have been the precedent for another, yet more substantial and vital.—Alexander Knox, Pref. to 2nd Ed. of Burnet’s Lives.

SAXON. The earliest development of Romanesque, as applied to ecclesiastical architecture in England, is so called. Historically this style ought to extend from the coming of St. Augustine to the Conquest (1066); but the intercourse of England with Normandy was so constant before that time, that there can be no doubt we had already much Norman architecture. It is scarcely less to be doubted that many more ante-Conquest buildings yet remain, than are usually accounted Saxon. The characters most relied on to determine Saxon work are the long and short work, triangular headed doors and windows, the splaying of the windows externally as well as internally, and the occurrence of baluster shafts in the windows. These, however, are not constant in well-authenticated Saxon buildings, nor do they invariably indicate a Saxon date.

SAYING AND SINGING. The parts of the service directed to be said or sung, or sung or said, are, the Venite, the Psalms, (in the title page of the Prayer Book,) the Te Deum, (and by inference and analogy,) the Canticles; the Apostles’ Creed, the Litany, the Athanasian Creed, the Easter Anthem, the Nicene Creed, the Sanctus, the Gloria in Excelsis, the psalm in the Matrimonial Service, the commencing sentences and two anthems in the Burial Service, the Communion Service, the communion service in the Ordination of Deacons and Priests, and the Veni Creator in the Ordination of Priests and Bishops. These two phrases have no difference in meaning, since the Apostles’ Creed is directed to be sung or said, in the Morning Service; to be said or sung, in the Evening. It appears that the ecclesiastical use of the word say is two-fold: (1.) As a general term, including all methods of recitation, with or without note, or musical inflection. In this sense it is used in our Prayer Book, when employed alone. (2.) As a more technical and restricted term, used in contradistinction to singing; and yet not to singing in the general sense, but in one or more of its restricted senses.

For the word sing, as is well known, has more than one ecclesiastical sense; since it includes, (1.) all that is recited, in whatever way, in a musical tone; in which sense it is not used in the Prayer Book; (2.) that which is chanted, like the Psalms, Athanasian Creed, and Litany; (3.) that which is sung anthem-wise, like the Anthems, Canticles, Hymns, and Nicene Creed. In these two last senses it is contradistinguished from say in the Prayer Book.

The phrase sung or said specifies those parts of the service only, in which, when said, the minister has a distinctive part, whether (1.) leading or preceding the people in each clause; or (2.) reciting alternate verses with them; or (3.) reciting the passage alone; but which, when sung, are sung by the minister and people, or choir, all together, without any distinctive part being assigned to him. And it may be added, these parts may be, and usually are, sung to the organ. The phrase never applies to those parts of the service which are always to be repeated by the minister alone in the versicle, and by the people in the response.

The instance given above of the communion service in the Ordination of Priests and Bishops, is the only direction to which this rule does not appear exactly applicable. But here, from the nature of the case, the Communion Service is spoken of in a general way; and we are, of course, referred to its special rubrics in their proper places. All that is meant is this, that the service shall be performed chorally or parochially, according as circumstances may allow or require.

With respect to the Apostles’ Creed, that is the only instance in which the permission or injunction of the rubric to sing this part of the service, (that is, to sing it anthem-wise, or to the organ,) has never been acted on. This rubric was altered to its present form at the last review; as before it had merely been directed to be said. The words “or sung” seem to have been inserted in order to preserve the analogy between this creed and the Nicene, which it resembles in its construction.

But this is only apparent. For the Litany may seem an exception to the rule. When said, it is repeated alternately, as verse and response, by the minister and people. But the regular choral usage is, not that the minister, or a priest, but two chanters should sing together those parts which the minister reads in a parish church, and which in some old choral books are here called versicles, as far as the Lord’s Prayer exclusive. And this, not with the common intonation and inflection used in prayers and versicles, (which have come under the denomination of singing,) but with the modulation of a regular chant; which in some parts of the Litany (the invocation e. g.) these two chanters sing throughout; while in others they form the first part of the chant, the response of the choir forming the second. This particular service has often been set to artificial music, both before and after the last review. No notice of Minister (or Priest) and Answer are prefixed to the former part of the Litany; while in the latter part, when there are such notices, the suffrages are always recited by one minister, and answered by the choir or people.

Now if in a choir the minister were to read, or simply intone, the versicles of the first part of the Litany, that service would then not be sung, but said, according to the meaning of the rubric, even though the responses were chanted; the word singing including the whole portion of the service then specified, not a part only. And this is probably the reason why the ancient harmonized Litanies by various composers are generally set to music in the former part only; the supplications, or latter part, being customarily sung in choirs to the ordinary chant.

But the rubrics by no means interfere with, and indeed do not allude to, the chanting of prayers and responses immemorially used in choirs; the singing which the rubrics specify being a different thing from choral or responsional recitation. The responses were, and are still, frequently sung to the organ. But singing (as used in the Prayer Book) never has reference to a mere response. In fact, the word answer is an ecclesiastical term, which in choirs always implies singing, (in its common and general sense,) as attention to the older documents on which our Prayer Book was based will show.—Jebb.

SCARF. A piece of silk or other stuff which hangs from the neck, and is worn over the rochet or surplice. It is not mentioned in the rubric of the English ritual, but is worn by our bishops and dignitaries of the Church. It is used from long custom, and may be referred to the ancient practice of the Church, according to which presbyters and bishops wore a scarf or stole in the administration of the sacraments, and on some other occasions. The stole has been used from the most primitive ages by the Christian clergy. It was fastened on one shoulder of the deacon’s alb, and hung down before and behind. The priest had it over both shoulders, and the ends of it hung down in front. Thus simply were the dresses of the priests and deacons distinguished from each other in primitive times.

SCEPTICS. (From the Greek word σκέπτομαι, to look about, to deliberate.) This word was applied to an ancient sect of philosophers founded by Pyrrho, who denied the real existence of all qualities in bodies except those which are essential to primary atoms, and referred everything else to the perceptions of the mind produced by external objects; in other words, to appearance and opinion. In modern times, the word has been applied to Deists, or those who doubt of the truth and authenticity of the sacred Scriptures.

SCHISM, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, is a breaking off from communion with the Church, on account of some disagreement in matters of faith or discipline. The word is of Greek original, and signifies a fissure or rent.

We shall easily learn what the ancients meant by the unity of the Church and schism, if we consider the following particulars:—1. That there were different degrees of unity and schism, according to the proportion of which a man was said to be more or less united to the Church, or divided from it. 2. That they who retained faith and baptism, and the common form of Christian worship, were in those respects at unity with the Church; though, in other respects, in which their schism consisted, they might be divided from her. 3. That to give a man the denomination of a true Catholic Christian, absolutely speaking, it was necessary that he should in all respects, and in every kind of unity, be in perfect and full communion with the Church; but to denominate a man a schismatic, it was sufficient to break the unity of the Church in any one respect; though the malignity of the schism was to be interpreted, more or less, according to the degrees of separation he made from her. Because the Church could not ordinarily judge of men’s hearts, or of the motives that engaged them in error and schism, therefore she was forced to proceed by another rule, and judge of their unity with her by their external communion and professions.

And as the Church made a distinction between the degrees of schism, so did she between the censures inflicted on schismatics; for these were proportioned to the quality and heinousness of the offence. Such as absented themselves from church for a short time (which was reckoned the lowest degree of separation) were punished with a few weeks’ suspension. Others, who attended only some part of the service, and voluntarily withdrew when the eucharist was to be administered: these, as greater criminals, were denied the privilege of making any oblations, and excluded for some time from all the other holy offices of the Church. But the third sort of separatists, who are most properly called schismatics, being those who withdrew totally and universally from the communion of the Church, and endeavoured to justify the separation; against these the Church proceeded more severely, using the highest censure, that of excommunication, as against the professed enemies and destroyers of her peace and unity.

Ecclesiastical history presents us with a view of several considerable schisms, in which whole bodies of men separated from the communion of the Catholic Church. Such were, in the fourth century, the schisms of the Donatists, and the many heretics that sprung up in the Church, as the Arians, Photinians, Apollinarians, &c.; the schism of the Church of Antioch, occasioned by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, in Sardinia; in the fifth century, the schism of the Church of Rome, between Laurentius and Symmachus; in the ninth century, the separation of the Greek Church from the Latin; but, particularly, the grand schism of the popes of Rome and Avignon, in the fourteenth century, which lasted till the end of the Council of Pisa, 1409.—Bingham.

It is a causeless separation from such governors in the Church as have received their authority and commission from Jesus Christ. If there be a sufficient cause, then there may be a separation, but no schism. But if there be no sufficient ground for the separation, it is schism, that is, a culpable separation, which was always reckoned a sin of a very heinous nature. For St. Paul charges the Ephesians to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, because there is but one God, one faith, one baptism, and one body of Christ. The same doctrine is taught in the writings of the first Fathers of the Church, particularly St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian; and schism was reputed a great sin by them, even before the Church and State were united, and when the meetings of the schismatics were as much tolerated by the State as the assemblies of the Catholics. For toleration does not alter the nature of schism. Such laws only exempt the persons of schismatics from any penal prosecution. Donatism and Novatianism were counted as damnable schisms, under the reigns of those emperors who granted toleration to them, as under the reigns of those who made laws against them.—Nelson.

SCHOOLS. The word was anciently of larger application than at present, and signified places of instruction not only for children, but for those of more advanced age. It was applied generally to what are now called universities. Thus Shakspeare, in Hamlet, speaks of being at school at Wittenberg, that is, at the university. The places in the universities where exercises for degrees are performed, and lectures read, are still called schools, both in England, and at least in the older universities of Europe: and academical degrees were often called degrees of school.

But taking the term in its usual modern acceptation, as places of education for the young, it may be convenient in these days to have a concise history of schools. The following, therefore, is given from Dr. Burn and other writers of authority:—

The determinations in the courts of law relative to schools at the time Dr. Burn wrote, had not been delivered with that precision which was usual in other cases. And indeed, excepting in an instance or two in the court of Chancery, the general law concerning schools did not seem to have been considered as yet upon full and solemn arguments. And, therefore, he says, a liberty of animadversion is taken in some of the following particulars, which would not be allowable in matters which had been finally adjudged and settled.

By the 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 37. Whereas it would be a great hinderance to learning and other good and charitable works, if persons well inclined may not be permitted to found schools for the encouragement of learning or to augment the revenues of schools already founded, it shall be lawful for the king to grant licences to aliene, and to purchase and hold in mortmain.

But, by the 9 Geo. II. c. 36, after June 24, 1736, no manors, lands, tenements, rents, advowsons, or other hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, nor any sum of money, goods, chattels, stocks in the public funds, securities for money, or any other personal estate whatsoever, to be laid out or disposed of in the purchase of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, shall be given or any ways conveyed or settled, (unless it be bona fide for full and valuable consideration,) to or upon any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, or otherwise, for any estate or interest whatsoever, or any ways charged or encumbered, in trust or for the benefit of any charitable uses whatsoever; unless such appointment of lands, or of money, or other personal estate, (other than stocks in the public funds,) be made by deed indented, sealed, and delivered in the presence of two witnesses, twelve calendar months at least before the death of the donor, and be enrolled in Chancery within six calendar months next after the execution thereof; and unless such stock in the public funds be transferred in the public books usually kept for the transfer of stocks, six calendar months at least before the death of the donor; and unless the same be made to take effect in possession for the charitable use intended, immediately from the making thereof, and be without power of revocation. And any assurance otherwise made shall be void.

By Canon 77. “No man shall teach either in public school or private house, but such as shall be allowed by the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place, under his hand and seal; being found meet, as well for his learning and dexterity in teaching, as for sober and honest conversation, and also for right understanding of God’s true religion; and also except he first subscribe simply to the first and third articles in the 36th canon, concerning the king’s supremacy, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and to the two first clauses of the second article, concerning the Book of Common Prayer, viz. that it containeth nothing contrary to the word of God, and may lawfully be used.”

And in the case of Cory and Pepper, T. 30 Car. II., a consultation was granted in the court of King’s Bench, against one who taught without licence in contempt of the canons; and (the reporter says) the reason given by the court was, that the canons of 1603 are good by the statute of the 25 Hen. VIII., so long as they do not impugn the common law, or the prerogative royal.—2 Lev. 222. Gibs. 995.

But this is unchronological and absurd; and as the office of a schoolmaster is a lay-office (for where it is supplied by a clergyman, that is only accidental, and not of any necessity at all); it is clear enough, that the canon by its own strength in this case is not obligatory.

Therefore we must seek out some other foundation of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and there are many quotations for this purpose fetched out of the ancient canon law, (Gibs. 1099,) which, although perhaps not perfectly decisive, yet it must be owned they bear that way.

The argument in Cox’s case seems to contain the substance of what has been alleged on both sides in this matter, and concludes in favour of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; which was thus: M. 1700. In the Chancery: Cox was libelled against in the spiritual court at Exeter, for teaching school without licence from the bishop: And on motion before the lord chancellor an order was made, that cause should be shown why a prohibition should not go, and that in the mean time all things should stay. On showing cause, it was moved to discharge the said order, alleging, that before the Reformation this was certainly of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: Wright, lord keeper, decided that both courts may have a concurrent jurisdiction; and a crime may be punishable both in the one and in the other: The canons of a convocation do not bind the laity without an act of parliament: But I always was, and still am of opinion, that keeping of school is by the old laws of England of ecclesiastical cognizance: and therefore let the order for a prohibition be discharged. Whereupon it was moved, that this libel was for teaching school generally, without showing what kind of school; and the court Christian could not have jurisdiction of writing schools, reading schools, dancing schools, or such like; to which the lord keeper assented; and thereupon granted a prohibition as to the teaching of all schools, except grammar schools, which he thought to be of ecclesiastical cognizance.

By act of parliament the case stands thus: By the 23 Eliz. c. 1. If any person or persons, body politic or corporate, shall keep or maintain any schoolmaster which shall not repair to some church, chapel, or usual place of common prayer, or be allowed by the bishop or ordinary of the diocese where such schoolmaster shall be so kept, he shall, upon conviction in the courts at Westminster, or at the assizes, or quarter sessions of the peace, forfeit for every month so keeping him £10; one-third to the king, one-third to the poor, and one-third to him that shall sue: and such schoolmaster or teacher, presuming to teach contrary to this act, and being thereof lawfully convict, shall be disabled to be a teacher of youth, and suffer imprisonment without bail or mainprise for one year.

By the 1 Jac. I. c. 4, s. 9. No person shall keep any school, or be a schoolmaster, out of any of the universities or colleges of this realm, except it be in some public or free grammar school, or in some such nobleman’s or gentleman’s house as are not recusants, or where the same schoolmaster shall be specially licensed thereunto by the archbishop, bishop, or guardian of the spiritualities of that diocese; upon pain that, as well the schoolmaster, as also the party that shall retain or maintain any such schoolmaster, shall forfeit each of them for every day so wittingly offending 40s.; half to the king, and half to him that shall sue.

And by the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4. Every schoolmaster keeping any public or private school, and every person instructing or teaching any youth in any house or private family as a tutor or schoolmaster, shall, before his admission, subscribe the declaration following, viz. “I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law established.” Which shall be subscribed before the archbishop, bishop, or ordinary of the diocese; on pain that every person so failing in such subscription shall forfeit his school, and be utterly disabled, and ipso facto deprived of the same, and the said school shall be void as if such person so failing were naturally dead.

And if any schoolmaster, or other person, instructing or teaching youth in any private house or family as a tutor or schoolmaster, shall instruct or teach any youth as a tutor or schoolmaster before licence obtained from the archbishop, bishop, or ordinary of the diocese, according to the laws and statutes of this realm, (for which he shall pay 12d. only,) and before such subscription as aforesaid, he shall for the first offence suffer three months’ imprisonment, without bail; and, for every second and other such offence, shall suffer three months’ imprisonment, without bail, and also forfeit to the king the sum of £5. (S. 8, 9, 10, 1.)

M. 9 G. II. The King against the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. A mandamus issued to the bishop to grant a licence to Rushworth a clergyman, who was nominated usher of a free grammar school within his diocese. To which he returned, that a caveat had been entered by some of the principal inhabitants of the place, with articles annexed, accusing him of drunkenness, incontinency, and neglect of preaching and reading prayers; and that the caveat being warned, he was proceeding to inquire into the truth of these things when the mandamus came; and therefore he had suspended the licensing him. And without entering much into the arguments, whether the bishop hath the power of licensing, the court held, that the return should be allowed as a temporary excuse; for though the act of the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, obligeth them only to assent to and subscribe the declaration, yet it adds, “according to the laws and statutes of this realm;” which presupposeth some necessary qualifications, which it is reasonable should be examined into.

And by Canon 137. “Every schoolmaster shall, at the bishop’s first visitation, or at the next visitation after his admission, exhibit his licence, to be by the said bishop either allowed, or (if there be just cause) disallowed and rejected.”

By the 11 & 12 Will. III. c. 4. If any Papist, or person making profession of the Popish religion, shall keep school, or take upon himself the education or government or boarding of youth, he shall be adjudged to perpetual imprisonment in such place within this kingdom as the king by advice of his privy council shall appoint.

In Bales’s case, M. 21 Car. II., it was held, that where the patronage of a school is not in the ordinary, but in feoffees or other patrons, the ordinary cannot put a man out; and a prohibition was granted; the suggestion for which was, that he came in by election, and that it was his freehold.

Upon which Dr. Gibson justly observes, that if this be any bar to his being deprived by ordinary authority, the presentation to a benefice by a lay patron, and the parson’s freehold in that benefice, would be as good a plea against the deprivation of the parson by the like authority. And yet this plea hath been always rejected by the temporal courts. And in one circumstance at least, the being deprived of a school, notwithstanding the notion of a freehold, is more naturally supposed, than deprivation of a benefice; because the licence to a school is only during pleasure, whereas the institution to a benefice is absolute and unlimited.—Gibson, 1110.

By Canon 78. “In what parish church or chapel soever there is a curate, which is a master of arts, or bachelor of arts, or is otherwise well able to teach youth, and will willingly so do, for the better increase of his living, and training up of children in principles of true religion, we will and ordain that a licence to teach youth of the parish where he serveth be granted to none by the ordinary of that place, but only to the said curate: provided always, that this constitution shall not extend to any parish or chapel in country towns, where there is a public school founded already; in which case we think it not meet to allow any to teach grammar, but only him that is allowed for the said public school.”

By Canon 79. “All schoolmasters shall teach in English or Latin, as the children are able to bear, the larger or shorter catechism, heretofore by public authority set forth. And as often as any sermon shall be upon holy and festival days, within the parish where they teach, they shall bring their scholars to the church where such sermons shall be made, and there see them quietly and soberly behave themselves, and shall examine them at times convenient after their return, what they have borne away of such sermons. Upon other days, and at other times, they shall train them up with such sentences of Holy Scriptures, as shall be most expedient to induce them to all godliness. And they shall teach the grammar set forth by King Henry VIII., and continued in the times of King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth of noble memory, and none other. And if any schoolmaster, being licensed, and having subscribed as is aforesaid, shall offend in any of the premises, or either speak, write, or teach against anything whereunto he hath formerly subscribed, if upon admonition by the ordinary he do not amend and reform himself, let him be suspended from teaching school any longer.

“The larger or shorter catechism.”—The shorter is that in the Book of Common Prayer; the larger was a catechism set forth by King Edward VI., which he by his letters patents commanded to be taught in all schools; which was examined, reviewed, and corrected in the convocation of 1562, and published with those improvements in 1570, to be a guide to the younger clergy in the study of divinity, as containing the sum and substance of our reformed religion.—Gibson, 374.

“Shall bring their scholars to the church.”—E. 10 & 11 W. Betcham, and Barnardiston. The chief question was, whether a schoolmaster might be prosecuted in the ecclesiastical court for not bringing his scholars to church, contrary to this canon. And it was the opinion of the court that the schoolmaster, being a layman, was not bound by the canons.

“Grammar.”—Compiled and set forth by William Lily and others specially appointed by his Majesty; in the preface to which book it is declared, that, “as for the diversity of grammars, it is well and profitably taken away by the king’s Majesty’s wisdom; who foreseeing the inconvenience, and favourably providing the remedy, caused one kind of grammar by sundry learned men to be diligently drawn, and so to be set out only; everywhere to be taught for the use of learners, and for avoiding the hurt in changing of schoolmasters.”

By the 43 Eliz. c. 4. Where lands, rents, annuities, goods, or money, given for maintenance of free schools or schools of learning, have been misapplied, and there are no special visitors or governors appointed by the founder, the lord chancellor may award commissions under the great seal, to inquire and take order therein.

Whether a mandamus lieth for restoring a schoolmaster or usher, when in fact they have been deprived by the local visitors, is doubtfully spoken of in the books of common law; and the pleadings upon them seem not to touch the present point, but to turn chiefly upon this, whether they are to be accounted offices of a public or private nature.—Gibson, 1110.

Thus, in the case of The King against the Bailiff’s of Morpeth, a mandamus was granted, to restore a man to the office of under-schoolmaster of a grammar school at Morpeth, founded by King Edward VI. The same being of a public nature, being derived from the Crown.

And the distinction seems to be this: If they shall be deemed of a public nature, as constituted for public government, they shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the king’s courts of common law; but if they be judged matters only of private charity, then they are subject to the rules and statutes which the founder ordains, and to the visitor whom he appoints, and to no other.

In the case of colleges in the universities, whether founded by the king or by any other, it seemeth now to be settled that they are to be considered as private establishments, subject only to the founder and to the visitor whom he appointeth; and it doth not seem easy to discern any difference between schools and colleges in this respect.

H. 1725. Eden and Foster. The free grammar school of Birmingham was founded by King Edward VI., who endowed the said school, and by his letters patent appointed perpetual governors thereof, who were thereby enabled to make laws and ordinances for the better government of the said school, but by the letters patent no express visitor was appointed, and the legal estate of the endowment was vested in these governors. After a commission had issued under the great seal to inspect the management of the governors, and all the exceptions being already heard and overruled, it was now objected to this commission that the king, having appointed governors, had by implication made them visitors likewise: the consequence of which was, that the Crown could not issue a commission to visit or inspect the conduct of these governors. The matter first came on before Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, and afterwards before Lord King, who desired the assistance of Lord Chief Justice Eyre and Lord Chief Baron Gilbert; and accordingly the opinion of the court was now delivered seriatim, that the commission was good. 1. It was laid down as a rule, that where the king is founder, in that case his Majesty and his successors are visitors; but where a private person is founder, there such private person and his heirs are by implication of law visitors. 2. That though this visitatorial power did result to the founder and his heirs, yet the founder might vest or substitute such visitatorial right in any other person or his heirs. 3. They conceived it to be unreasonable, that where governors are appointed, these by construction of law and without any more should be visitors, and should have an absolute power, and remain exempt from being visited themselves. And, therefore, 4. That in those cases where the governors or visitors are said not to be accountable, it must be intended, where such governors have the power of government only, and not where they have the legal estate and are intrusted with the receipt of the rents and profits (as in the present case); for it would be of the most pernicious consequence, that any persons intrusted with the receipt of the rents and profits, and especially for a charity, though they misemploy never so much these rents and profits, should yet not be accountable for their receipts: this would be such a privilege, as might of itself be a temptation to a breach of trust. 5. That the word governor did not of itself imply visitor; and to make such a construction of a word, against the common and natural meaning of it, and when such a strained construction could not be for the benefit, but rather to the great prejudice, of the charity, would be very unreasonable; besides, it would be making the king’s charter operate to a double intent, which ought not to be. And the commission under the great seal was resolved to be well issued.—2 P. Will. 325.

The following case relates particularly to a church; but is equally applicable to, and far more frequently happeneth in, the case of schools. It is that of Waltham church, H. 1716. Edward Denny, earl of Norwich, being seized by grant from King Edward VI., of the site and demesnes of the dissolved monastery of Waltham Holy Cross, and of the manor of Waltham, and of the patronage of the church of Waltham, and of the right of nominating a minister to officiate in the said church, it being a donative, the abbey being of royal foundation by his will in 1636, amongst other things the said earl devised a house in Waltham, and a rent-charge of £100 a year, and ten loads of wood to be annually taken out of the forest of Waltham, and his right of nominating a minister to officiate in the said church, to six trustees and their heirs, of which Sir Robert Atkins was one, in trust for the perpetual maintenance of the minister, to be from time to time nominated by the trustees; and directed that when the trustees were reduced to the number of three, they should choose others. It so fell out, that all the trustees, except Sir Robert Atkins, were dead; and he alone took upon him to enfeoff others to fill up the number; and now the surviving trustees (of the said Sir Robert’s appointment) did nominate Lapthorn to officiate; and the Lady Floyer and Campion, who were owners of the dissolved monastery and of the manor, claimed the right of nomination to the donative, and had nominated Cowper to officiate there, and he was got into possession. The bill was, that Lapthorn might be admitted to officiate there, and to be quieted in the possession, and to have an account of the profits. By the defendants it was amongst other things insisted, that the trustees having neglected to convey over to others, when they were reduced to the number of three, and the legal estate coming only to one single trustee, he had not power to elect others; but by that means the right of nomination resulted back to the grantor, and belonged to the defendants, who had the estate, and stood in his place; or at least the court ought to appoint such trustees as should be thought proper. By Cowper, Lord Chancellor: It is only directory to the trustees, that when reduced to three, they should fill up the number of trustees; and, therefore, although they neglected so to do, that would not extinguish or determine their right; and Sir Robert Atkins, the only surviving trustee, had a better right than any one else could pretend to, and might well convey over to other trustees; it was but what he ought to have done: and it was decreed for the plaintiff with costs, and an account of profits; but the master to allow a reasonable salary to Cowper, whilst he officiated there.

By the 43 Eliz. c. 2, all lands within the parish are to be assessed to the poor rate. But by the annual acts for the land tax it is provided, that the same shall not extend to charge any masters or ushers of any schools, for or in respect of any stipend, wages, rents, or profits, arising or growing due to them, in respect of their said places or employments.

Provided that nothing herein shall extend to discharge any tenant of any the houses or lands belonging to the said schools, who by their leases or other contracts are obliged to pay all rates, taxes, and impositions whatsoever; but that they shall be rated and pay all such rates, taxes, and impositions. And in general it is provided, that all such lands, revenues, or rents, settled to any charitable or pious use, as were assessed in the fourth year of William and Mary, shall be liable to be charged; and that no other lands, tenements or hereditaments, revenues, or rents whatsoever, then settled to any charitable or pious uses as aforesaid, shall be charged.—Burn.

The 4 & 5 Vict. c. 38, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 49, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. 24, facilitate the granting of land as sites for schools.

From the year 1818, owing to the inquiries of the commissioners appointed to examine into public charities, much was done with respect to schools founded for the benefit of particular localities. At length, in 1840, was passed the statute of 3 t& 4 Vict. c. 77, of which the preamble states the facts as they then stood. It is as follows:—“Whereas there are in England and Wales many endowed schools, both of royal and private foundation, for the education of boys or youth wholly or principally in grammar; and the term ‘grammar’ has been understood by courts of equity as having reference only to the dead languages, that is to say, Greek and Latin: and whereas such education, at the period when such schools, or the greater part, were founded, was supposed, not only to be sufficient to qualify boys or youth for admission to the universities, with a view to the learned professions, but was also necessary for preparing them for the superior trades and mercantile business: and whereas, from the change of times, and other causes, such education, without instruction in other branches of literature and science, is now of less value to those who are entitled to avail themselves of such charitable foundations, whereby such schools have, in many instances, ceased to afford a substantial fulfilment of the intentions of the founders, and the system of education in such grammar schools ought, therefore, to be extended and rendered more generally beneficial, in order to afford such fulfilment; but the patrons, visitors, and governors thereof are generally unable, of their own authority, to establish any other system of education than is expressly provided for by the foundation, and her Majesty’s courts of law and equity are frequently unable to give adequate relief, and in no case but with considerable expense; and whereas, in consequence of changes which have taken place in the population of particular districts, it is necessary, for the purpose aforesaid, that in some cases the advantages of such grammar schools should be extended to boys other than those to whom by the terms of the foundation, or the existing statutes, the same is now limited, and that in other cases some restriction should be imposed, either with reference to the total number to be admitted into the school, or as regards their proficiency at the time when they may demand admission; but in this respect also the said patrons, visitors, and governors, and the courts of equity, are frequently without sufficient authority to make such extension or restriction: and whereas it is expedient that in certain cases grammar schools in the same place should be united.” The act, having recited these circumstances, proceeds to enable her Majesty’s courts of equity, when questions relating to these schools come before them, upon information or petition, or in other proceedings, to establish schemes for the application of the revenues of these schools, having regard to the intention of the founder.

The 24th section, however, provides that nothing in the act shall prejudice the rights of the ordinary; and it also exempts the universities, and the more important public schools, such as Eton, Winchester, Harrow, Rugby, &c., from the operation of the act.

The following succinct and lucid history of public education for the poor in England was given by the bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in his visitation charge of 1847:—

“The system of mutual instruction was first promulgated in this island by Dr. Andrew Bell, exactly half a century from the present time; and that invention, when generally known, drew people’s minds to the subject of schools for the children of the poor; for it was thought, that a method by which one person could inspect the instruction of great numbers would reduce so materially the expense, as to render it no longer hopeless to procure some education for all the inhabitants of the country. In the early years of the nineteenth century, this became the subject of earnest discussion and controversy: and with good reason; for it seemed an obvious consequence, that a machinery by which large numbers could be instructed together, would place in the hands of those who directed that instruction a powerful moral engine to affect the minds of the rising generation. The sectaries were not slow in availing themselves of that engine; and as the religious differences of dissenting parents were, by some, considered a reason against their children using the catechism of the Church, it was maintained by them, that nothing should be taught in those large seminaries except such truths as all Christians, of every complexion and denomination, could agree to accept. Many faithful ministers of the Church felt that they would not be justified before God or man in abdicating one of their most essential functions, that of watching the instruction of their young parishioners, and they recoiled from any proposal of compromising Divine truths; accordingly, they were found strenuously to resist that scheme. With the view of directing the education of the poor in the principles of the National Church, in the year 1812 was established the National Society, an institution which has ever since, by various methods, assisted our schools—by contributions towards their erection—by training teachers—by imparting advice and information—and by maintaining consistency and efficiency in an extensive and rather complicated system. It was, I believe, about thirty years ago that this momentous subject acquired increased importance in the public eye, by the reports of an Education Committee of the House of Commons; and it was then first suggested, that an object of such vast consequence as national education claimed the direct assistance of the State, and that nothing less than aid from the public purse could ever compass the great object of universal instruction. But it was not until the year 1833, that the least assistance was rendered by the government or parliament towards that work. Schools had indeed increased in number, and the public mind had become more and more favourable to the undertaking. But the countenance then first given to popular education by parliament, seems to have originated in political considerations. The population of the country had increased with surprising rapidity; and the vast numbers of poor congregated in towns, particularly in the manufacturing and mining districts, left far behind them all the efforts of private benevolence. At the same time, a fearful increase was observed in the amount of crime; and an examination of the unhappy inmates of prisons proved that a great majority were destitute of every kind of instruction: on the other hand, of the educated part of the poorer classes, very few were discovered in the criminal ranks. Such considerations showed the extreme danger of suffering masses of the people to grow up in ignorance of moral and religious duties, and weighed with parliament to make a grant towards building school rooms. The amount was indeed trifling, compared with the demand, being only £20,000 for England and Wales: but the like sum was repeated for five successive years; and, niggardly as these grants have been generally called, it would be ungrateful not to acknowledge that they did cause a great extent of good throughout the country. The money granted by the treasury being proportioned to the sums advanced by private subscriptions, was effectual in stimulating a large amount of individual charity, and thus called into being a multitude of schools that could not otherwise have had existence. The treasury grants being conveyed through the National Society to Church schools, and through the British and Foreign Society to Dissenting schools, to meet the sums respectively subscribed, the result was, that no less than five-sixths of the whole were allotted to the former; thereby giving a signal proof of the greater zeal in the cause of education which animated Churchmen.

“However, the experience of so many years too plainly showed that the education, if such it could be called, which was given to the poor, was inadequate and unsatisfactory. The system of mutual instruction, though to a certain extent useful when judiciously directed, was found not to be capable of those wonderful effects upon which sanguine minds had calculated. Besides, the early age at which children were generally deprived of school instruction, through the necessities or the cupidity of their parents, perpetually disappointed the hopes of their intellectual proficiency. But, above all, the inadequate qualification of the masters and mistresses of National Schools precluded all prospect of such an education as might elevate the mind. The smallness of their salaries, mainly depending upon precarious subscriptions, almost excluded persons of ability and energy from situations in which those qualities are peculiarly required. Frequently the instructors of the rising generation were persons who had been unsuccessful in their endeavours to obtain a livelihood in other lines of life, who had never turned their attention to the subject of education, and were destitute of the temper, discernment, and love of the profession, which should be combined in a good teacher; and a few weeks’ attendance in the central school (when funds could be found for that purpose) was seldom sufficient to remedy previous inaptitude, or to confer appropriate habits and address. Against these difficulties, the clergy, feeling that upon them the responsibility was cast, long struggled with exemplary zeal and patience; a state of things which still continues. Many are the cases where the whole pecuniary support of a school, beyond the weekly pence of the children, rests with the minister; and whatever is of any value in the teaching, proceeds from himself, or the members of his family.

“From observation of these and other defects in our system, and from a deep sense of the duty of a Christian nation to bring up its people in Christian principles, the National Society promulgated a new and comprehensive plan, the object of which was to establish, in every diocese, training schools for teachers, to combine them with seminaries for the children of the middle classes, (who had before been unaccountably overlooked in our schemes of national education,) and to give permanence to these institutions by connecting them with the cathedral establishments; while it was hoped, that all Churchmen of influence and education might be interested in the care and promotion of the system, by the formation of diocesan boards of education. This important movement took place in the year 1838; and though the results, as far as it has operated, have been beneficial to the cause of education, yet it must be confessed, that the success of the scheme has not equalled the anticipations of its benevolent and enlightened projectors. The pecuniary support which it has met with has not been hitherto sufficient to carry into execution the contemplated objects to the required extent: the effect, however, has, on the whole, been considerable; and the conviction universally produced on the public mind seems to be, that without an appropriate education to be given to the teachers, qualifying them to conduct the moral culture of the youthful mind, all efforts at useful instruction of the poor will be illusory; and that this is an object which must, at all risks and all cost, be kept in view. Nevertheless, no one can fail to see the difficulty which the circumstances of this country cast in the way of any training system: in particular, the acquirements of the pupils being of such a nature as will qualify them for many other employments better remunerated than the mastership of a charity school, it is always to be feared that the best and ablest proficients may be tempted to desert the profession for which they have been educated, to embark in one more lucrative and alluring.

“In the following year the government made an attempt to take into their own hands the guidance of national education. This was to have been effected by various steps, by the establishment of a model school, and of a school for instructors, (or normal school, as it was termed,) under the authority and direction of a Committee of the Privy Council, who were constituted a board of education, with a great latitude of discretion. The former rule of appropriating grants of public money in a just proportion to voluntary donations was to be no longer observed; but a centralized system of government inspection of schools and of the course of instruction was announced. As these measures were proposed by statesmen who had always avowed themselves advocates and supporters of what is termed the British and Foreign system, as they opened a door to the introduction of a course of education in which religion might have little or no share, and as they were joyfully hailed by that party in the country which avowed hostility to the Church, there could be little doubt on the mind of anybody as to their tendency. Though the operation might have been gradual, yet no long time would have passed before the Church was deposed from one of its most important functions, and that upon which its ulterior usefulness among the poorer classes mainly depends—the early instruction of their youth. This must be regarded as the great crisis of the education question, in which the sentiments of all who had thought or interested themselves in the matter found expression. The government plan was upheld by those who wished for schools in which instruction might be confined, as in those of France, to secular knowledge—as well as by those who advocated the notion of dividing religious instruction into general and special, and wished to communicate the former in schools, but to exclude the latter, as bringing into collision conflicting opinions. The prevailing judgment of the public was indicated by petitions to parliament, of which about 3000 were against the proposals, and about 100 in their favour. The measure was only carried in the House of Commons, with all the weight of ministerial influence, by a majority of two, while in the Upper House resolutions condemnatory of it were voted by a majority of no less than 111; and an address was carried up to the throne by the whole House, praying her Majesty not to enforce a system which interfered with the province of the Established Church. It rarely happens that upon any question the preponderance of public opinion throughout all classes has been expressed so decidedly, and at the same time so deliberately. Its first result was of a very remarkable character. The distinguished and eloquent statesman, the founder of the British and Foreign School Society, who had signalized the whole of his public life by a zealous and energetic advocacy of the comprehensive system of education, was so convinced of the hopelessness of overcoming the prevalent feeling in favour of the Church as general instructress, that he published a pamphlet, to persuade those who had co-operated with him for thirty years in that course to acquiesce in the decision which public opinion, as well as parliament, had pronounced against them; and urged, with his usual force of argument, that they would best show themselves the sincere and patriotic advocates for the diffusion of knowledge, by agreeing at once to a ‘Church Education Bill.’

“It is gratifying to contemplate the moderation with which the Church used the triumph of opinion declared in her favour, and the substantial proof which she gave of the sincerity of her zeal for intellectual improvement. The deplorable ignorance in which multitudes were suffered to grow up in the populous manufacturing and mining districts, and the inadequacy of any voluntary efforts in their favour, had been used as the great argument for devolving all care of them and their instruction upon the State; accordingly, a special fund was immediately subscribed, and intrusted to the National Society, for maintaining schools in those populous districts, amounting to not less than £150,000, five times the sum voted at the time by parliament for the whole kingdom. A disposition was likewise shown to meet, as far as possible, the views of the government in regard to schools whose erection had been aided by parliamentary grants; it being agreed that they should be open to government inspection, on condition that the inspectors of Church schools were to be persons recommended by the archbishops of the respective provinces.

“During the last seven years the system of inspection has been in progress, and, I think, with singular benefit to the cause of education. The examination of a number of schools by able and intelligent observers (and such qualifications the inspectors eminently display) has thrown much light upon a subject in which there must ever be some practical difficulty. Through a comparison of different cases, it becomes evident what methods are most successful in practice; and it can be satisfactorily ascertained in which instances failure is attributable to the plan, and in which to the execution. The inspectors’ reports, comprising a mine of valuable information, will be found in the volumes of the Committee of Council, which also communicate a variety of plans for schoolrooms and school-houses, directions useful for building and conducting schools, improvements introduced from time to time, and a large body of economics conducive to the improvement of humble education. Among all the truths which have been established upon this interesting subject, the most important is, that the instructor should himself have received early training, not merely that he may be qualified to conduct the mechanical process of a school, but may have such acquaintance with the tempers and characters of children, and such skill in managing them, as experience alone can confer. Above all, it is necessary that he should himself be thoroughly imbued with religious principles, without which there is little chance of his imparting that tone of Christian discipline which should pervade the whole of his intercourse with the scholars. That there may not be wanting a supply of fit and able persons to fill these stations, it is particularly desirable that, whenever a boy is distinguished in a national school for ability and good disposition, he should be retained beyond the usual age, both for his own improvement and for the service of the school; and if means can be found to constitute him a stipendiary monitor, the real benefits of the monitorial system will be perceived, without the objections to which it has been found liable. Such a pupil may have further instruction after school hours, and, if his manners and conduct correspond with his ability, may become an apprentice teacher; he will then be qualified as a recipient of the higher instruction communicated at a training establishment for schoolmasters, or, as it is the fashion to call it, a normal school.”

Mr. Johnston, in his “England in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century,” published 1851, after quoting this, proceeds to say, “The hopes which the good bishop entertained of a continued cordiality of co-operation between the National Society, as the organ of the Church, and the Committee of Privy Council as the educational department of the civil government, have not been quite fulfilled. The parliamentary grants of public money in support of education were indeed increased, having been, from 1839 to 1842, £30,000 a-year; in 1843 and 1844, £40,000 a-year; in 1845, £75,000; in 1846, £100,000; and in 1847 and 1848, £125,000 a-year; but in 1846 the Committee of Privy Council began to insist upon certain conditions of management in the Church of England schools assisted with public money, which led to a correspondence with the National Society, extending over a period of three years, and terminating in a resolution of the Society not to recommend to promoters of schools to accept the management clauses insisted upon by the Committee of Privy Council. The correspondence on both sides is distinguished by considerable caution and much courtesy. In several points the Committee of Privy Council readily conceded what was required by the National Society, but in the main points of imposing more restriction upon the promoters of schools than the National Society thought desirable, and in refusing to allow the bishop to exercise authority over the Church of England schools, except in what concerned directly the religious instruction of the pupils, the Committee of Privy Council continued to oppose the views of the Church. The actual and officially recognised difference between the state of affairs as regards this subject, at the time the Bishop of Gloucester delivered his charge and at the present time (1850), is this,—that whereas the Committee of the National Society in 1846 and 1847 agreed with the Committee of Privy Council jointly to recommend certain management clauses to promoters of schools, they now have declined to recommend such clauses, and this they have done on the following grounds:—In times past the Committee of the National Society never interfered with the constitution of schools, but left them to be determined by the promoters. It was found, however, that in very numerous instances the constitution chosen by the promoters was defective. At the time mentioned the Committee of Privy Council asked the National Society to recommend certain clauses, to which the Society assented, with this proviso—that promoters of schools should have the same liberty of choice as had hitherto been conceded to them by the Committee of Privy Council and the National Society. The Society, however, found, in the beginning of 1848, that by recommendation the Committee of Privy Council meant enforcement, and that no new school would be aided by the Committee of Privy Council in the building, which would not receive one of the four management clauses; and not only that, but the one particular clause out of the four which the Committee of Privy Council thought best for that particular school. Upon this the Committee of the National Society remonstrated against what they considered an infringement of reasonable liberty, and they also remarked upon several points in the clauses which in their opinion would be made better by alteration. On most of these points the Committee of Privy Council gave way; but on the question of liberty, that Committee would not give way, and they still continue to enforce one of these management clauses where public money is granted, and that one selected by themselves. Therefore the Committee of the National Society declined to continue to recommend the clauses; but they have not ceased to give the same proportion of aid out of their funds to all cases of school building, whether aided by the Committee of Council or not; and therefore whether adopting one of the management clauses or not. The actual and formal breach between the National Society and the Committee of Privy Council has not gone beyond this. In respect to general matters the same interchange of communication as heretofore goes on between the government department and the National Society. The training institutions supported by the Society are, as in times past, examined by her Majesty’s inspectors of schools, and certificates of merit awarded to the pupils therein. Payments are also made to these institutions out of the parliamentary grant in pursuance of such certificates, and the annual grant of £1000 towards the support of those institutions is still paid by the Committee of Council.”

Thus matters stood until 1852, when the sum granted by parliament to be applied in aid of schools by the Committee of Council was £160,000 for the year. At the same time the lords of the council made an alteration in the minutes governing the appropriation of aid to the building or enlarging of Church of England schools; leaving it optional with founders who petitioned for aid, either to take it upon such conditions as previously existed, or upon certain new conditions. These new conditions give the clergyman of the parish or district more direct authority over the religious and moral instruction of the pupils than was expressed in the previous conditions, and they enable him to prohibit, (on religious or moral grounds,) the use of any book, and to suspend the teacher from his functions, pending the decision of the question by the bishop of the diocese, whose decision is to be final.

The new minutes of 1852 were not maintained by the succeeding government. The grant for public education in 1853 was £260,000, and in 1854, £263,000, exclusive of the grant for Ireland. In 1852, by the 15 & 16 Vic. c. 49, the acts referred to in this article relating to sites of schools, were extended ta sites for theological training colleges.

SCHOOLMEN. The title given to a class of learned theologians who flourished in the middle ages. They derive their name from the schools attached to the cathedrals or universities in which they lectured. Some make Lanfranc (William the Conqueror’s archbishop of Canterbury) the first author of scholastic theology; others, the famous Abelard; others, his master Roscelinus; and others again his pupil Peter Lombard. But the most distinguished of the Schoolmen lived in the next century. The scholastic theology was the first attempt at forming a systematic theology. Their first step towards a systematic theology was to collect the sentences of the Fathers; the next step was to harmonize them by reducing them to principles. This could only be done by the application of philosophy to divinity, for philosophy unfolds the principles of reasoning. The Schoolmen, therefore, had recourse to the reigning philosophy, that of Aristotle; and Thomas Aquinas, in his Secunda Secundæ, i. e. the second part of the second division of the “Sum of Theology,” has given the best and clearest exposition of Aristotle’s Ethics to be met with out of Aristotle himself. The great error of the Schoolmen, which has occasioned the ruin of their theology, was this, that, instead of taking the Bible only for their basis, they took the Church for their first authority, and made the Bible only a part of the Church’s teaching.

The doctrine of the Schoolmen, of our deserving grace of congruity, is censured in our 13th Article.

The Schoolmen were:

1. Albertus Magnus, a Dominican friar, born in Suabia. He was educated in the university of Paris, and was Thomas Aquinas’s master. Pope Alexander IV. sent for him to Rome, where he officiated as master of the sacred palace: and Urban IV. forced him to accept of the bishopric of Ratisbon. He died at Cologne, in the year 1280. Albert wrote a great number of books; and, in those days of ignorance, was accused of magic, and of having a brazen head, which gave him answers.

2. Bonaventure, surnamed the Seraphic Doctor, born at Bagnarea, a city of Tuscany, in 1221. He entered into the order of the Minims, in 1233, and followed his studies in the university of Paris, where he afterwards taught divinity, and took his doctor’s degree with St. Thomas Aquinas in 1255. Next year he was elected general of his order; and Gregory X. made him a cardinal in 1272. He assisted at the first sessions of the General Council of Lyons, held in 1279, and died before it was ended. His works are very numerous, and equally replete with piety and learning.

3. Thomas Aquinas, surnamed the Angelical Doctor, was descended of the kings of Sicily and Aragon, and was born in the year 1224, in the castle of Aquin, which is in the territory of Laboré in Italy. After having been educated in the monastery of Mount Cassino, he was sent to Naples, where he studied Humanity and Philosophy. In 1244, he went to Cologne to study under Albertus Magnus. From thence he went to Paris, where he took his doctor’s degree in 1255. He returned into Italy in 1263; and, after having taught Scholastic Divinity in most of the universities of that country, he settled at last at Naples. In 1274, being sent for by Gregory X., to assist in the Council of Lyons, he fell sick on the road, and died in the monastery of Fossanova, near Terracina. Among the great number of his works, which make seventeen volumes in folio, his Summa is the most famous, being a large collection of theological questions.

4. Scotus, or John Duns Scotus, surnamed the Subtile Doctor, was a Scotchman by birth, and came to Paris about the year 1300, where he took his degrees, and taught in that city. He particularly taught the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin. From Paris he went to Boulogne, where he died soon after, in 1303. According to the custom of the times, he wrote many philosophical and theological works, in which he valued himself upon maintaining opinions contrary to those of Thomas Aquinas. This gave rise to the opposite sects of the Scotists and Thomists.

5. William Ocham, surnamed the Singular Doctor, was born in a village of that name, in the county of Surrey, in England. He was the head of the sect called the Nominalists. He flourished in the university of Paris, in the beginning of the fourteenth century, and wrote a book concerning the power of the Church and of the State, to defend Philip the Fair against Pope Boniface VIII. He was one of the grand adversaries of Pope John XXII., who excommunicated him for taking part with the anti-pope Peter of Corbario. He ended his days at Munich, the court of the Elector of Bavaria, who had received him kindly.

6. Raymond Lully, descended of an illustrious family in Catalonia, was born in the island of Majorca in 1236. He was of the order of the Minims, and had acquired a great knowledge of the Oriental languages. He invented a new method of reasoning, but could not obtain leave from Honorius IV. to teach it at Rome. Then he resolved to execute the design he had long formed of endeavouring the conversion of the Mohammedans. Having gone to Tunis, he had a conference with the Saracens, in which he run the risk of his life, and escaped only upon condition he would go out of Africa. He came to Naples, where he taught his method till the year 1290. At Genoa he wrote several books. From thence he went to Paris, where he taught his art. After several travels and adventures, he returned to Majorca, from whence he went over into Africa, where he was imprisoned by the Saracens, and so ill-treated, that he died of his wounds. He had found out the secret of making a jargon proper to discourse of everything, without learning anything in particular, by ranging certain general terms under different classes.

7. Durandus, surnamed the Most resolving Doctor, was of St. Pourcain, a village in the diocese of Clermont, in Auvergne, and flourished in the university of Paris from 1313 to 1318, in which year he was named by the pope, bishop of Puy, from whence he was transferred to the bishopric of Meaux, which he governed to the time of his death.

8. To these may be added, Giles, archbishop of Bourges, surnamed the Doctor who had a good Foundation; Peter Aureolus, archbishop of Aix, styled the Eloquent Doctor; Augustin Triumphus, of Ancona, who wrote the Milleloquium of St. Augustin; Albert of Padua; Francis Mairon, of Digne in Provence; Robert Holkot, an English divine; Thomas Bradwardin, an Englishman, surnamed the Profound Doctor, author of a treatise de Causa Dei against Pelagius; and Gregory of Rimini, author of two commentaries on the First and Second Books of Sentences.

SCOTLAND. (See Church in Scotland.)

SCREEN. Any separation of one part of a church from another, generally of light construction, tabernacle work, open arcading, or wood tracery. The screens separating side chapels from the chancel, nave, or transept, are usually called parcloses. (See Rood-loft and Reredos.)

SCRIPTURE. (See Bible.) “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

“Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.

Genesis.

Exodus.

Leviticus.

Numbers.

Deuteronomy.

Joshua.

Judges.

Ruth.

The First Book of Samuel.

The Second Book of Samuel.

The First Book of Kings.

The Second Book of Kings.

The First Book of Chronicles.

The Second Book of Chronicles.

The First Book of Esdras.

The Second Book of Esdras.

The Book of Esther.

The Book of Job.

The Psalms.

The Proverbs.

Ecclesiastes, or Preacher.

Cantica, or Songs of Solomon.

Four Prophets the Greater.

Twelve Prophets the Less.

“And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life, and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine: such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras.

The Fourth Book of Esdras.

The Book of Tobias.

The Book of Judith.

The rest of the Book of Esther.

The Book of Wisdom.

Jesus, the Son of Sirach.

Baruch the Prophet.

The Song of the Three Children.

The Story of Susanna.

Of Bel and the Dragon.

The Prayer of Manasses.

The First Book of Maccabees.

The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical.”—Article VI.

The Jews acknowledge the Books of the Old Testament only, which both Jews and Christians agree were collected into one body, except the Book of Malachi, by Ezra. They had been preserved during the Babylonish captivity, and the collection was made by him on the return from it. He divided the Bible, (מקרה) mikra, lesson, lecture, or Scripture, Βίβλος, (the Book,) into three parts: 1. The Law, containing the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses; 2. The Prophets, containing thirteen books; and 3. The Hagiographa, four books, making in the whole twenty-two, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, but which the Jews now make twenty-four.

The first (the Law) was divided into fifty-four sections, for the several sabbaths, (with the intercalated month,) and these sections into verses. The division into chapters, which were originally subdivided by letters, not figures as now, is of late date, and was done to facilitate the use of concordances.

Some Books are cited in the Old Testament which are now lost, unless the same as others, under different names; as, 1. “The Book of Jasher” (Josh. x. 13; 2 Sam. i. 18); 2. “The Book of the Wars of the Lord” (Numb. xxi. 14); 3. “The Book of Chronicles or Days,” containing the annals of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, frequently cited in the Books of Kings and Chronicles; 4. The remainder of Solomon’s “three thousand proverbs,” and “a thousand and five songs,” and the whole of his writings on natural history, “of trees,” “of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes” (1 Kings iv. 32, 33); and 5. Probably the Lamentations of Jeremiah on the death of Josiah, as this subject seems not included in the book now extant. Some think that the first, the Book of Jasher, is the same as the second; others, the Books of Moses; and others think the first three are the same, and were public records deposited in the house of God. It is very probable that the references to these books, from the sense of them, were subsequent introductions.

Hebrew was the language of the Old Testament generally, but Ezra, ch. iv., from verse 8 to ch. vi. verse 19, and ch. vii., from verse 12 to 27, Jeremiah, ch. x. verse 11, and Daniel, from ch. ii. verse 4, to end of ch. vii., are in Chaldee. The Books of the New Testament were written in Greek, except, only, it has been questioned whether St. Matthew did not write in Hebrew, or Syriac, the language then spoken in Judea; and St. Mark in Latin; and whether the Epistle to the Hebrews was not first written in Hebrew.

Whether the art of writing had its origin in the communication of God with Moses on Mount Sinai, is doubtful. Some imagine that the passage, Gen. xxiii. 17, is an actual abridgment of the conveyance of the field of Ephron made to Abraham. It is certainly not improbable that the patriarchs might have compiled records of their time, and that by inspiration; and that Moses might collect these, as Ezra did in after-times. And this is argued by some from a supposed difference of style. Moses himself was expressly directed to write by way of record; a custom which continued under the Judges and the Kings, some of the latter of whom collected and arranged the books then existing; as it is clear Hezekiah did the proverbs of Solomon. The prophecies of Jeremiah, we know, were publicly read; and when Ezra made his collection, the number of copies was great, and the difference existing between them is supposed to form the marginal readings, amounting in all to 840. It was after his time that translations began to be made.

The preservation of the sacred Scriptures, and of the genuineness and integrity of the text, seems almost miraculous. It was in order to this that the Masora was composed, by which was ascertained, with stupendous labour, the number of verses, of words, and even of letters, contained in the twenty-four books of the Old Testament, and in every section and subdivision; and also the words supposed to be changed, superfluous letters, repetitions of verses and words, significations different or analogous, mute letters, and various other particulars and mysteries.

The Targum (explanation) is the Chaldee Paraphrase; being this rather than literal translations of the books of the Old Testament, and by which, when the Hebrew text was read in the synagogue, it was explained to the people. The first Targum was that of Jonathan, about thirty years before Christ, on the greater and lesser Prophets. The next is that of Onkelos, nearly contemporary, or something later, on the Books of Moses only, short and simple, and the most esteemed. The Targum of Joseph the Blind, on the Hagiographa, is more modern, in a corrupt Chaldee, and less regarded. The Targum of Jerusalem, on the Pentateuch only, is very imperfect, and supposed by some to be only a fragment. Besides these there is a Targum falsely ascribed to Jonathan, on the Pentateuch, evidently not older than the 7th century: the Targums on Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Ruth, Esther: three Targums on Esther, and a Targum on the Chronicles, discovered in 1680: all these are of late date, not earlier than the 6th century. On Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, there is no Targum.

Most of the MSS. of the Hebrew Bible at present in existence were collated by and for Dr. Kennicott, 250 by himself, and 350 by another, being from 480 to 800 years old. Since this more than 400 others, of the 7th or 8th century, have been discovered. Dr. Rossi followed up Dr. Kennicott’s work.

The first printed edition of the whole Bible was in 1488; the first Latin translation was by Munster, in 1534. The Septuagint was probably the first Greek version; to which followed those of Symmachus and Theodotion, with three others by unknown authors. The Septuagint, (a translation supposed to have been by seventy-two Jews,) called for conciseness “the Seventy,” was made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 277, at an expense of above £136,000. There are four principal modern editions: the Complutensian, A. D. 1514–1517; the Aldine, 1518; the Roman of Sixtus V., 1587; and Grabe’s, printed at Oxford, 1707–1720. In 1798, Dr. Holmes began publishing an edition at Oxford, carried on since his death by Mr. Parsons, on the plan of Kennicott’s Hebrew Bible with the various readings in the margin.

The first edition of the New Testament in Greek was the Complutensian, 1514–1517, though not published till 1522. Next that of Erasmus, in 1516. The editions of the Stephenses (1546–1550) are admirable for their beauty. The editions of Beza, 1565–1598, and Elzevir, 1624, are also to be noticed. The celebrated edition, with various readings, of the Rev. John Mill, was published at Oxford in 1707, after the labour of thirty years, and the readings amounted to 30,000! That of Wetstein, at Amsterdam, in 1751, with a far greater number; and that of Griesbach, at Halle, in 1775–1777, with a select collection of these readings.

With this great number of various readings may be mentioned the increase of parallel passages, in the English editions of the Bible; being, from the edition 1611, when they were first introduced, to Bishop Wilson’s Bible, A. D. 1785, from 8980 to 66,955. And these in the “Concordance of Parallels,” published afterwards by the Rev. C. Cruttwell, the editor of this last Bible, are probably three or four times the number.

SCRIPTURE, CANON OF. The present canon of the Roman Church was made in the fourth session of the Council of Trent, at which, besides cardinals, there were present no more than four archbishops and thirty-three bishops; of which number all but eight were Italians.

These men, who were as ill qualified by their learning as by their numbers to rule so great a question, were not even unanimous in the conclusion which they adopted. Some contended that the books ought to be placed in separate classes, the one to be used for piety, the other for the establishment of doctrine, which is the rule of the English Church. Seripando, the most learned of the cardinals present, even wrote a book to maintain this view; while nearly half the members of the council were opposed to the anathema by which the decree is enforced.

The main authority which has been urged in favour of the Roman canon, is that of the Council of Carthage. It is not however agreed when this synod was held; and, whatever date may be assigned, its decrees have no authority beyond the province of Africa, having never been incorporated in the universal code. To use the words of Bishop Cosin, “the question is, whether ever any Church or ancient author, during these first ages, can be showed to have professedly made such a catalogue of the true and authentic books of Scripture, as the Council of Trent hath lately addressed and obtruded upon the world: which will never be done. In the mean while they all speak so perspicuously for our Church canon, that there can be no denial of their agreement herein with us.”

The Apostolical Constitutions, which some writers assign to Clement, bishop of Rome, and which were undoubtedly written very early, do not admit in the canon those books which we call apocryphal. In the second century we find that Justin Martyr never cites them for Scripture. Origen and Tertullian, in the third, agree in rejecting them. In the fourth, we have a multitude of the greatest writers, who are clearly against the Church of Rome on this point; such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and Jerome; besides the Council of Nice at the beginning of the century, and towards the close of it the Council of Laodicea, whose canons were incorporated among those of the universal Church. The great Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria, of Antioch and Constantinople, pronounced on the same side; and even in the Roman Church itself we have the same testimony from Gregory I., as well as of many others who are held to be its chief authorities. Cardinal Caietan, who died only a few years before the meeting of the council, following St. Jerome, maintained the distinction between the canonical and apocryphal books, and the influence of his opinion was very considerable, even at Trent. But the use of the Apocrypha was well known to be indispensable to Roman theologians, and if it were not admitted to form part of Scripture, no Divine sanction could be pleaded for purgatory, the canonization of saints, or the worship of images and relics. In this, as well as many other instances, the Roman Church has not scrupled to violate primitive tradition, in order to maintain its uncatholic doctrines and practices.

SCRIPTURES, INSPIRATION OF. (See Bible, Revelation.) “All Scripture,” we are told, “is given by inspiration of God.” To understand which expression we would remark, that Divine inspiration, or the supernatural influence of God upon the mind, to form it for intellectual improvement, may be, 1. An inspiration of superintendency, by which God preserves a writer commissioned by him to communicate his will, from error in those points which relate to his commission. It does not follow that the writer shall be preserved from error in what relates to grammar, or natural philosophy; but he is preserved from error in all that God has commissioned him to reveal. 2. An inspiration of suggestion, which precedes the former, and takes place when God doth, as it were, speak directly to the mind of the inspired person, making such discoveries to it as it could not but by miracle obtain. This has been done in various ways, by immediate impression on the mind, by dreams and visions represented to the imagination; at other times by sounds formed in the air, or by visible appearances.

The New Testament was written by a superintendent inspiration. The apostles were, according to Christ’s promise, furnished with all necessary powers for the discharge of their office, by an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Spirit upon them at the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 4, &c.); and a second time (Acts iv. 31).

We may assure ourselves that they were hereby competently furnished for all those services which were of great importance for the spread and edification of the Church, and of so great difficulty as to need supernatural assistance.

Considering how uncertain a thing oral tradition is, and how soon the most public and notorious facts are corrupted by it, it was impossible that the Christian religion could be preserved in any tolerable degree of purity, without a written account of the facts and doctrines preached, by the apostles; and yet, on the other hand, we can hardly suppose that God would suffer a doctrine introduced in so extraordinary a manner to be corrupted and lost.

The discourses of Christ were several of them so long, and some likewise of so curious and delicate a nature, that it is not to be imagined the apostles should have been able exactly to record them, especially so many years after they were delivered, and amidst such a variety of cares and dangers, without such extraordinary Divine assistance, or without an inspiration of superintendency.

Many of the doctrines which the apostles delivered in their writings were so sublime and so new, that as they could not have been known at first otherwise than by an inspiration of suggestion, so they would need an inspiration of superintendency in delivering an accurate account of them.

There is reason to believe, from the promise of Christ, that such parts of the New Testament as were written by the apostles were written by an inspiration of superintendency.

It is not to be thought that persons, so eminent for humility, piety, humanity, and other virtues, as the apostles were, would have spoken of their writings as the words and the commands of the Lord as the test of truth and falsehood, and gloried so much in being under the direction of the Spirit, if they had not certainly known themselves to be so in their writings, as well as in their preaching; and the force of this argument is greatly illustrated, by recollecting the extraordinary miraculous powers with which they were honoured, while making exhortations and pretensions of this kind, as was hinted above.

There was an ancient tradition that St. Mark and St. Luke were in the number of the seventy disciples who were furnished with extraordinary powers from Christ, and received from him promises of assistance much resembling those made to the apostles (compare Luke x. 9, 16, 19); and if it were so, as the arguments used to prove both the understanding and integrity of the apostles may be in great measure applied to them, we may, on the principles laid down, conclude that they also had some inspiration of superintendency. But there is much reason to regard that received and ancient tradition in the Christian Church, that St. Mark wrote his Gospel instructed by St. Peter, and St. Luke his by St. Paul’s assistance; which, if it be allowed, their writings will stand nearly on the same footing with those of Peter and Paul.

It may not be improper here just to mention the internal marks of a Divine original in Scripture. The excellence of its doctrines, the spirituality and elevation of its design, the majesty and simplicity of its style, the agreement of its parts, and its efficacy upon the hearts and consciences of men, concur to give us a high idea of it, and corroborate the external arguments for its being written by a superintendent inspiration at least.

There has been in the Christian Church, from its earliest ages, a constant tradition, that these books were written by the extraordinary assistance of the Spirit, which must at least amount to superintendent inspiration.

With respect to the Old Testament, the books we have inherited from the Jews were always regarded by them as authentic and inspired. And our blessed Lord and his apostles were so far from accusing the Jews of superstition, in the regard which they paid to the writings of the Old Testament, or from charging the scribes and Pharisees (whom Christ, on all proper occasions, censured so freely) with having introduced into the sacred volume mere human compositions, that, on the contrary, they not only recommend the diligent and constant perusal of them, as of the greatest importance to men’s eternal happiness, but speak of them as Divine oracles, and as written by an extraordinary influence of the Divine Spirit upon the minds of the authors. (Vide John v. 39; x. 35; Mark xii. 24; Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10; v. 17, 18; xxi. 42; xxii. 29, 31, 43; xxiv. 15; xxvi. 54, 56; Luke i. 67, 69, 70; x. 26, 27; xvi. 31; Acts iv. 25; xvii. 11; xviii. 24–28; Rom. iii. 2; xv. 4; xvi. 26; Gal. iii. 8; 1 Tim. v. 17, 18; 2 Tim. iii. 14–17; James ii. 8; iv. 5; 1 Pet. i. 10–12; 2 Pet. i. 19–21.) To this list may be added many other places,—on the whole, more than five hundred,—in which the sacred writers of the New Testament quote and argue from those of the Old, in such a manner as they would surely not have done, if they had apprehended there were room to allege that it contained at least a mixture of what was spurious and of no authority.—Lowth on Inspiration. Tillotson’s Sermons. Doddridge’s Lectures.

The argument of the Divine inspiration of Scripture as an induction from its adaptation to the nature of man—even as regards those parts of the Old Testament which have been most obnoxious to cavil—is ably maintained in the Bampton Lectures of 1817, preached by the Rev. John Miller, from which the following is extracted:—“Although Scripture presents the most humiliating portraiture of human nature, and that intentionally, to lead man into a knowledge of himself, as the subject of its operation; it should be added that the Bible does not exhibit an unmixed image of evil, inasmuch as, if it did, it would not be that exact resemblance of the character of man, which it is now affirmed to be. Nor do I, in subjoining this qualification, feel a consciousness either of having carried the main proposition unreasonably far, to countenance a partial construction, or of now adding any such inconsistent exception as may neutralize or destroy its force.

“The representation of evil was intended, and is necessary, for the analysis of doctrine. We hold the opinion, that a man is a being, ‘very far gone from an original righteousness,’ in which he was created. And it is maintained that the whole substance of Scripture so fully justifies this doctrine as to be quite inexplicable, and therefore, as a record of Divine wisdom, inadmissible, without it.

“It is, however, contended also, that with this doctrine, found to be involved in the substance of its histories, and harmonizing with the end of its great provisions, Scripture commends itself, in a peculiar manner, to our belief and acceptation, as a record which, while it extends to the very root of our disease, and so alone points out the true method of recovery from it, falls in thereby with the observations of our own personal experience.

“But such involvement of a general truth by no means necessarily fixes or defines the measure or degree of sin in individuals acting in various stages of moral responsibility, and subject to the influences, not only of rational motives, but (as would seem, more or less even from the beginning) to those of an infused grace! And it may confidently be maintained, that the two several propositions now affirmed of Holy Writ, viz. that it gives a most humiliating view of man, and yet not one of unmixed evil, are not only not inconsistent, but explanatory one of the other. The one is specially profitable for ‘doctrine,’ the other for ‘instruction in righteousness.’ For Scripture not to have discovered a full and intimate acquaintance with the extent and quality of evil itself, would have substracted from our sure persuasion of its perfect insight into truth. Upon the other hand, to have displayed the operation of that evil otherwise than as it is seen practically existing in its effects, would not have been to give that real likeness of ourselves, which we have a claim to look for in a record offering itself to be our faithful guide. Hence, in the first case, without the darker lineaments of the Bible, how could we rightly have arrived at that true doctrinal statement, which now affirms the general existence of an extreme unsoundness in the constitution of human nature, if that which is in man can only be developed adequately, or inferred correctly, through scrutiny of the worst deeds which man has done? How, in the second—while we consent entirely to the truth of this broad abstract statement of the nature of man—could we consent with willing minds to take our sole or only chief instruction in the ways of righteousness, from guidance which should represent us all as being just alike, at any or at every moment of our lives, when we are certain that the practical appearances of evil show very many gradations, and put on very different aspects, in the condition of different individuals? * * * If Scripture does indeed thus show us to ourselves, and we cannot deny the truth of the resemblance; if it neither conceals deformity to tempt us, nor yet drives us into extremity, so as to overwhelm us; if it neither threatens nor promises too much, could it have proceeded either from one that did not know us, or from one that did not love us?”

SEALED BOOKS. By the Act 13 & 14 Car. II. (which ratified the last revision of the Prayer Book,) c. 4, sect. 28, it was enacted that the dean and chapter of every cathedral and collegiate church, should obtain under the great seal of England a true and perfect printed copy of the above-mentioned Act and Prayer Book, to be kept by them in safety for ever, and to be produced in any court of record when required; and that like copies should be delivered into the respective courts of Westminster, and the Tower of London: which books so to be exemplified under the great seal, were to be examined by persons appointed by the king, and compared with the original book annexed to the Act: these persons having power to correct and amend in writing any error; certifying the examination and collation under their hands and seals: “which said books, and every one of them, shall be taken, adjudged, and expounded to be good, and available in the law to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and shall be accounted as good records as this book itself heretofore annexed,” &c.

Mr. Stephens, in his late edition of the Common Prayer Book, with notes, has given a fac-simile text of the original black letter Prayer Books, published after the last Review, with all the corrections of the commissioners carefully marked. The sealed books which he collated for this purpose, are those for the Chancery, Queen’s Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, St. Paul’s, Christ Church Oxford, Ely, and the Tower of London.

SECONDARIES. A general name for the inferior members of cathedrals, as vicars choral, &c.: the clerici secundæ formæ, that is, of the second or lower range of stalls, called the bas chœur in France. The priest vicars and minor canons were sometimes included in the superior form. Some of the lay singers at Exeter are so called. Sometimes the term was applied to the assistant priest in course, even though not of the second form. At Hereford the second vicar who assists in chanting the Litany is the “secondary.”

SECT. (From seco, Lat., to cut; being analogous to the word schism, derived from the Greek σχίζω, which has the same meaning.) A religious community following some particular master, instead of adhering to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus Calvinists are the sect following Calvin; Wesleyans the sect following Wesley. We are to remember that we are expressly forbidden in Scripture thus to call any man master: one is our master, Jesus Christ, the righteous.

SECULAR CLERGY. In those Churches in which there are monasteries, the clergy attached to those monasteries are called Regulars, the other clergy are styled Seculars. In our Church, before the Reformation, the number of Regulars was very great; but, since the Reformation, we have only had Secular clergy. The canons of such cathedrals of the old foundation as were not monastic, were called Secular.

SEDILIA. Seats near an altar, almost universally on the south side, for the ministers officiating at the holy eucharist. They are generally three in number, for the celebrant, epistoler, and gospeller, but vary from one to five.

SEE. (Latin, sedes.) The seat of episcopal dignity and jurisdiction where the bishop has his throne, or cathedra.

SELAH. An untranslated Hebrew word, recurring several times in the Psalms, and in Habakkuk iii., on the meaning of which there are many opinions. It is most probably a direction to raise the voice, or make some change in the instrumental performance at certain passages, and is merely a musical notation, connected however, as all proper musical expression must be, with the sense.

SEMI-ARIANS. The Arian sect was divided into two principal parties: the one of which adhering more closely to the opinion of their master, maintained that the Son of God was unlike the Father, Ἀνόμοιας, and of this party was Eunomius: the other party refused to receive the word consubstantial, yet acknowledged the Son of God Ὁμοιούσιος, of a like substance or essence with the Father, and therefore were called Semi-Arians, that is, half Arians; this party made the majority in the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia.

SEMI-PELAGIANS, or MASSILIENSES. A sect of heretics, who endeavoured to find a medium betwixt the Pelagians and the orthodox; they had their origin about 430 in France, (hence the name Massiliens, from Massilia, now Marseilles). Their principal favourers were Cassianus, a disciple of Chrysostom; Faustus, abbot of Lirinum; Vincentius, a Gallic writer, whom St. Prosper answered, &c. Their agreement with the Pelagians was in the power of free-will, at least as to the beginning of faith and conversion, and to the co-operation of God and man, grace and nature, as to predestination, from foreknowledge and universal grace, and the possibility of the apostasy of the saints. Some of them also would modify those opinions, and maintained only the predestination of infants from a foreknowledge of the life they would lead. The great opposers of this heresy were St. Augustine, Fulgentius, &c. The original of the predestinarian heresy in this age is denied by Jansenius and others, as well as Protestants, and looked upon as a fiction of the Semi-Pelagians.

SEMI-PREBENDARIES. (See Demi-Prebendaries.)

SEMINARIES, in Popish countries, are certain colleges, appointed for the instruction and education of young persons, destined for the sacred ministry. The first institution of such places is ascribed to St. Augustine. And the Council of Trent decrees, that children, exceeding twelve years of age, shall be brought up, and instructed in common, to qualify them for the ecclesiastical state; and that there shall be a seminary of such belonging to each cathedral, under the direction of the bishop.

In the seminaries of France none are taken in but young persons, ready to study theology, and to be ordained. And for the maintenance of these seminaries certain benefices are allotted, or else the clergy of the diocese are obliged to maintain them. These colleges are furnished with halls for the public exercises, and little chambers or cells, where each student retires, studies, and prays apart. Such is the seminary of St. Sulpicius at Paris.

In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Roman Catholics projected the founding English seminaries abroad, that from thence they might be furnished with missionaries to perpetuate and increase their communion. Accordingly the college of Douay was founded in 1569, at the expense of Philip II., king of Spain; and Dr. William Allen, an Englishman, was made head of it. In the year 1579, a college was founded at Rome for the same purpose, by Gregory XIII., who settled 4000 crowns per annum for the subsistence of the society. The famous Robert Parsons, an English Jesuit, was rector of this college. King Philip founded another of these nurseries at Valladolid in the year 1589, and one at Seville in 1593. The same prince founded St. Omers in Artois, A. D. 1596. In the next century more seminaries were established, at Madrid, Louvain, Liege, and Ghent.

The two colleges of Douay and Rome received such great encouragement, that some hundreds of priests were sent off from thence into England. And to engage the members of these societies more firmly, they obliged them, at their admission, to take the following oath: “I, A. B., one bred in this English college, considering how great benefits God hath bestowed upon me, but then especially when he brought me out of my own country, so infected with heresy, and made me a member of the Catholic Church; as also desiring with a thankful heart to improve so great a mercy of God; have resolved to offer myself wholly up to Divine service, as much as I may, to fulfil the end for which this our college was founded. I promise, therefore, and swear, in the presence of Almighty God, that I am prepared from mine heart, with the assistance of Divine grace, in due time to receive holy orders, and to return to England, to convert the souls of my countrymen and kindred, when, and as often as, it shall seem good to the superior of this college.” As a further encouragement, Pope Pius V. sent his brief to the students of these colleges, for undertaking the mission into England. And that they might act without clashing, and with the better harmony, he put them all under the direction of Dr. Allen, afterwards Cardinal.

By a statute of Queen Elizabeth it is made a præmunire to contribute to the maintenance of a Popish seminary. And by one of King James I., no persons are to go, or be sent, to Popish seminaries, to be instructed or educated, under divers penalties and disabilities mentioned in the statute.

The houses of the society De Propagandâ Fide, established for the preparing ecclesiastics for missionaries among infidels and heretics, are also called seminaries. The principal of these is that at Rome, called the Apostolic College or Seminary, or the seminary De Propagandâ Fide.

SEPTUAGESIMA. The Sunday which in round numbers is 70 days before Easter: hence the name. There being exactly 50 days between the Sunday next before Lent and Easter day inclusive, that Sunday is termed Quinquagesima, i. e. the 50th. And the two immediately preceding are called from the next round numbers, Sexagesima and Septuagesima, 60th and 70th. The Church thus early begins to look forward to Easter, the queen of festivals. She would call back our minds from the rejoicing season of Christmas, and, by reflections on the humiliating necessity there was for Messiah’s advent, prepare us for that solemn season in Lent; in which, if with deep contrition and lively faith we follow Christ in his sufferings, we may rejoice with him here, and humbly hope to reign with him hereafter in his glory. The observance of these days and the weeks following, appears to be as ancient as the time of Gregory the Great. Some of the more devout Christians observed the whole time from the first of these Sundays to Easter, as a season of humiliation and fasting, though the ordinary custom was to commence fasting on Ash-Wednesday.

SEPTUAGINT. The Greek version of Scripture, which was received both by the Jews and the primitive Christians. The first account which we have of the origin of the Septuagint, is that which is given us by Aristeas. It is to this effect. Ptolemy Philadelphus, by the advice of Demetrius Phalereus, having determined to enrich his library at Alexandria with a translation of the books of the Jewish law, sent Aristeas, his minister, accompanied by Andrew, a person of celebrity, to Eleazar the high priest of the Jews, that he might obtain both a copy of the original, and persons duly qualified to render it into Greek. The request was complied with. A copy of the Mosaic law written in golden letters was sent, with seventy-two men, six from each tribe, to translate it. The translators, persons skilled both in Hebrew and Greek, were honourably received by the king of Egypt, and by him were sent to the isle of Pharos; and there, in the space of seventy-two days, they completed their work, mutually assisting each other, and dictating their translation to Demetrius. This version was afterwards read in an assembly consisting of Jewish priests and other learned men, and being stamped by their approbation, was placed in the library of Alexandria.

This account, given us by Aristeas, is sometimes appended to the editions of Josephus, and is also edited separately. It is worthy of remark, that in this description nothing of the marvellous is introduced, and it would clearly seem that the reference is to the Pentateuch, and to that only.

Josephus, in the twelfth book, s. 1, of his “Antiquities,” for the most part agrees with this account by Aristeas. But in the life of Moses, by Philo-Judæus, we find both variations and additions. Agreeing with Aristeas in his assertion, that certain learned Jews were sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria to translate the books of Moses, and that they were lodged by Ptolemy in the isle of Pharos, he tells us in addition, that all the translators were kept apart from each other; but that, notwithstanding this, their translations, upon comparison, were found exactly to correspond, as it were, by Divine inspiration. From Justin Martyr we find, that in his time the story was that the seventy-two translators were shut up each in a separate cell, where no intercourse could possibly take place; but that the translations, when produced, were found to agree not only in sense but verbally, not varying even in a single syllable. Here we certainly find a miracle implied; and in the time of Justin the story must have been well established, since he mentions his having seen the cells himself. With respect to the number of the cells, however, there must have been, as there easily might be, some uncertainty, for Epiphanius mentions only thirty-six. But the story had been made to shape itself according to the fact; and it was reported in his time, that, instead of a cell being allotted to each translator, two were shut up in each cell, who having been employed from sunrise till the evening, translated in order, not merely the Pentateuch, but each of the books of the Old Testament, and they so completed their work, that there was not to be found the slightest difference in any of the thirty-six versions; an astonishing harmony, in which a singular miracle of Divine providence could not fail to be traced.

Now, if to these statements implicit credit be given, the question is decided as to the miraculous origin and consequent inspiration of the Septuagint. But to these stories there are several obvious objections. We do not for a moment assent to the principle of that objection which is urged by the learned and candid Dupin, who, among the Romanists, is almost singular in opposing the Divine origin of the LXX., when he asks why there should be seventy-two translators when twelve would have sufficed? For this is the very spirit of rationalism: “I do not see why such should have been the case; and therefore it was not the case.” To such an objection the answer of the equally learned Dr. Brett, among Protestants the chief vindicator of the Divine origin of the Septuagint, is more than sufficient, when he urges that we might as well deny that, on our authorized English version, fifty-two persons were employed, when by twelve, or even by two, the work might have been accomplished. Nor would he insist, with Dean Prideaux, that the stories must be rejected, because the Septuagint is written in the Alexandrian dialect; and that, therefore, it could not have been effected, according to the supposition, by Jews sent from Judea; for there is no reason to suppose that the Greek spoken in Palestine was much different from that used in Egypt, that language having been introduced into both countries only about fifty years before by the same people—the Macedonians. Indeed, a comparison of the language of the New Testament with that of the Septuagint will disarm this objection of its force. We may, indeed, afford to give up another objection, which has very plausibly been urged, though its character is rationalistic, viz. that to collect six learned men from each tribe would have been difficult, if not impossible, the ten tribes having been dispersed after the taking of Samaria; for we know that many individuals belonging to these tribes were incorporated with the Jews, and there may have been means still left for distinguishing them. But, after all these allowances, there is strong internal evidence against these stories, arising from the difference of the manner and the style in which the several books are translated. In some the Hebraisms are said to preserved, in others not; some books (the Pentateuch for instance, the Proverbs, Ezekiel, Amos, Judges, Kings, and many of the Psalms) are well executed, while the translation of Isaiah is bad, and that of Daniel was so decidedly incorrect, that it was rejected by Origen, and its place supplied by the version of Theodotion. Now, is it probable that, if the Septuagint had been, according to the accounts already given, the work of the same men, at the same time, and acting under a miraculous inspiration, such very material difference should exist between the several books? Our own authorized version, though made by different persons, and though some of the books may be more correctly rendered than others, nevertheless preserves a uniformity of style which stamps it as being all the work of the same age. And the fact that this is not the case with respect to the Septuagint, is a presumption against its being the work of the same men living at the same time. And this is a consideration which prepares us to regard the external evidence with some suspicion. When, indeed, we look to the external evidence, we find that the authority which was at first assumed only for the Pentateuch is gradually assumed for all the books of the Old Testament. In Aristeas we read of no miracle: the miracle was evidently gradually introduced and enlarged upon, until subsequent writers believed it to be a fact. And we are always and most justly suspicious of a story which thus

“Mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo.”

Each successive writer has added to the marvellous. And we are, therefore, justified in deducting from the account each marvellous addition. And when we have done this, what is the result? We find the simple fact, that, about the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus, a translation into Greek of the Mosaic books was made by persons sent from Judea. We must indeed go a step further, and deduct from the original statement, the assertion that the translation was made “by the direction of Demetrius Phalereus;” for though Demetrius was in great credit at Alexandria till the death of Soter, he was, immediately after that event, “disgraced by Philadelphus, and perished in confinement.” We cannot, therefore, attribute more than the original suggestion to Demetrius. But that, with this necessary deduction, we may fairly admit this, or at least the historical fact that it embodies, appears from the improbability of these stories having no foundation, and from the fact that both Ælian (Var. Hist. iii. 17) and Plutarch (Opp. t. ii. p. 189) inform us that Demetrius was appointed by one of the Ptolemies to preside over the drawing up of a code of laws, and had advised his sovereign to collect all the books he could which treated of political subjects, and in which doctrines were laid down which even their most familiar friends would not dare to mention to kings. It derives strength also from the circumstance, that the Samaritans contended with the Jews for the honour of being the authors of the Septuagint; pretending that Ptolemy, having heard of the disagreement between the two nations, caused a translation to be made of the Samaritan copy of the Septuagint, which he preferred to the copy he received from Jerusalem. Although this story is not corroborated, it is not impossible that a collation of the two copies may have taken place, care having evidently been taken to procure as good a version as possible. It may be proper to mention, that by Clemens Alexandrinus and by Eusebius, a quotation from an Alexandrian Jew and Peripatetic philosopher named Aristobulus has been preserved, in which he affirms that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was in existence anterior to the Septuagint, of which Plato and other Greek philosophers availed themselves. That some small portions of the ancient Scriptures may have been translated is far from impossible; but we cannot attach any weight to the unsupported testimony of a person who lived only 176 years before the Christian æra, and adduced in support of what was at the time a favourite theory with the Jews. His testimony, however, is of some importance, as proving that the Greek version of the Old Testament, which was then in use, was universally referred to the age of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

After taking into consideration all these various circumstances, all that we can satisfactorily say of the Septuagint is, that the Mosaic books were translated into Greek about 285 years before Christ, to which the other books were added from time to time, especially when, on occasion of the prohibition by Antiochus Epiphanes to read the law, the prophets used to be read publicly in the synagogues, and on the restoration of the law became “a second lesson.” It is generally admitted that the work was completed in the main parts prior to the middle of the second century, before the birth of our Saviour; that it was used as a sort of authorized version by the Jews of Alexandria, and by the Hellenistic Jews in general; and that as such it is expressly quoted nearly eighty times in the writings of the New Testament, being indirectly referred to much more frequently. And thus, to adopt the very beautiful and pious language of Dr. Lightfoot, “the greatest authority of this translation appeareth in that the holy Greek of the New Testament doth so much follow it. For as God useth this translation as a harbinger to the fetching in of the Gentiles, so when it was grown into authority by the time of Christ’s coming, it seemed good to his infinite wisdom to add to its authority himself, the better to forward the building of the Church. And admirable it is to see with what sweetness and harmony the New Testament doth follow this translation sometimes beside the Old, to show that he who gave the Old can and may best expound it in the New.”—Works, iv. 32. See Owen on the Septuagint: Hodius de Bib. Textibus Originalibus.

SEPTUM. The enclosure of the holy table, made by the altar rails.

SEPULCHRE. A niche, generally at the north side of the altar, used in the scenic representations of our Saviour’s burial and resurrection, on Good Friday and Easter, before the Reformation, and representing our Lord’s tomb, is called the Holy Sepulchre. It is sometimes quite plain, sometimes gorgeously adorned; the general subjects, where it is much decorated, being the Roman soldiers sleeping, on the base, and angels censing at the top. There is a remarkably fine series of these in the churches of Lincolnshire, and in Lincoln cathedral, perhaps the most beautiful in the kingdom.

SEQUESTRATION. This is a separating the thing in controversy from the possession of both the contending parties.

When a living becomes void by the death of an incumbent or otherwise, the ordinary is to send out his sequestration, to have the cure supplied, and to preserve the profits (after the expenses deducted) for the use of the successor. Sometimes a benefice is left under sequestration for many years together, namely, when it is of so small value that no clergyman, fit to serve the cure, will be at the charge of taking it by institution: in this case, the sequestration is committed sometimes to the curate only, sometimes to the curate and churchwardens jointly.

Sometimes the profits of a living are sequestered for neglect of duty: but that kind of sequestration most generally known and understood, because applicable to civil affairs, is upon the queen’s writ to the bishop to satisfy the debts of the incumbent.

This is where a judgment has been obtained in the law courts against a clergyman; and upon a fieri facias directed to the sheriff to levy the debt and damages, he makes his return that the defendant in a clerk beneficed, having no lay fee. Whereupon a levari facias is directed to the bishop to levy the same of his ecclesiastical goods, and by virtue thereof the property of the benefice shall be sequestered. In this case, the bishop may name the sequestrators himself, or may grant the sequestration to such persons as shall be named by the party who obtained the writ.

There are several other circumstances mentioned in books of ecclesiastical law, under which sequestration may take place; but it may be stated generally that, for any damages to which an incumbent may be made liable by civil action, the property of the benefice may also be made answerable by the process of sequestration. But it seems that the bishop is the party through whom this confiscation for the benefit of the creditor must take place. The sequestration is his act, to which he is bound by the queen’s writ; and it has been held that a bill filed in equity against sequestrators only was insufficient for want of parties. The bishop should be a party, for the sequestrator is accountable to him for what he receives.

SERAPHIM denotes an order of angels who surround the throne of the Lord. Derived from a Hebrew word, which signifies fiery. (See Angels.)

SERMONS are orations or discourses, delivered by the clergy of the Christian Church in their religious assemblies.

In the ancient Church, immediately after the reading of the psalms and lessons out of the Scriptures, before the catechumens were dismissed, followed the sermon, which the bishop, or some other appointed by him, made to the people. This, being done in the presence of the catechumens, was therefore reckoned a part of the Missa Catechumenorum or ante-communion service. Such discourses were commonly termed homilies, from the Greek ὁμιλίαι, which signifies indifferently any discourse of instruction to the people. Among the Latins they were frequently called tractatus, and the preachers tractatores.

Preaching, anciently, was one of the chief offices of a bishop; insomuch that, in the African Churches, a presbyter was never known to preach before a bishop in his cathedral church, till St. Austin’s time. In the Eastern Church, presbyters were indeed allowed to preach before the bishop; but this was not to discharge him of the duty, for still he preached a sermon at the same time after them. In the lesser churches of the city and country, the office of preaching was devolved upon the presbyters; but deacons never were allowed to perform it. There are numberless passages in the writings of the Fathers, which speak of preaching as a duty indispensably incumbent on a bishop. Many canons of councils either suppose or enjoin it. And in the imperial laws there are several edicts of the secular power to the same purpose. Particularly in the Theodosian code, there is one jointly made by the three emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, which bears this title, De munere seu officio episcoporum in prædicando verbo Dei, “of the duty and office of bishops in preaching the word of God.”

It has been a question, whether laymen were ever allowed by authority to make sermons to the people. It is certain they did it in a private way, as catechists, in their catechetic schools at Alexandria and other places; but this was a different thing from public preaching in the church. Sometimes the monks, who were only laymen, took upon them to preach; but this was censured and opposed, as an usurpation of an office that did not belong to them. Yet in some cases a special commission was given to a layman to preach; as in the case of Origen, who was licensed by Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, to preach and expound the Scriptures in the church, before he was in orders. As to women, whatever gifts they could pretend to, they were never allowed to preach publicly in the church; agreeably to the apostolical rule, “Let your women keep silence in the churches,” &c. But they might teach those of their own sex, as private catechists, and to prepare them for baptism. And this was the office of the deaconesses. The Montanists were a noted sect for giving the liberty of preaching to women, under pretence of inspiration by the Spirit; for they had their prophetesses, their women-bishops, and women-presbyters.

Next to the persons, the manner in which the office of preaching was executed, comes to be considered. And, first, it is observable, that they had sometimes two or three sermons preached in the same assembly, first by the presbyters and then by the bishop. When two or more bishops happened to be present in the same assembly, it was usual for several of them to preach one after another, reserving the last place for the most honourable person. In some places they had sermons every day, especially in Lent, and the festival days of Easter. St. Chrysostom’s homilies were evidently preached in Lent, one day after another; and, in St. Augustine’s homilies, there are frequent references to the sermon made heri and hesterno die. In many places they had sermons twice a day for the better edification of the people. But this is chiefly to be understood of cities and large churches. For in the country parishes there was not such frequent preaching.

The next thing to be observed is, their different sorts of sermons, and different ways of preaching. These are distinguished into four kinds; 1. Expositions of Scripture. 2. Panegyrical discourses upon the saints and martyrs. 3. Sermons upon particular times, occasions, and festivals. 4. Sermons upon particular doctrines, or moral subjects. There are examples of all these kinds in St. Chrysostom’s and St. Augustine’s homilies, the two great standards of preaching in the Greek and Latin Churches. But though most of these were studied and elaborate discourses, penned and composed beforehand, yet some were also extempore, spoken without any previous composition, and taken down in short-hand from the mouth of the preacher. Origen was the first that began the way of extempore preaching in the church. The catechetical discourses of St. Cyril are thought to be of this kind; for at the beginning of every one almost it is said in the title to be σχεδιασθεῖσα, which the critics translate an extempore discourse. Instances of this sort were very frequent among the Fathers of the ancient Church. And, in regard to this, they are wont frequently to mention the assistance of the Spirit in composing and preaching their sermons; by which they did not mean any kind of enthusiasm, but only the concurrence of the Spirit of God with their honest endeavours, as a blessing on their labours and studies.

Upon this account it was usual for the preacher to usher in his discourse with a short prayer for such Divine assistance. In this sense we are to understand St. Chrysostom, when he says, we must first pray, and then preach. Sometimes, before they began to preach, they used the common salutation, Pax vobis, Peace be with you; to which the people answered, And with thy spirit. And sometimes they prefaced the sermon with a short form of benediction, especially in times of calamity and distress, or of happy deliverances out of them. Sometimes they preached without any text, and sometimes upon more texts than one. Nor did they entertain their auditory with light and ludicrous matters, or fabulous and romantic stories, such as those with which preaching so much abounded in the age before the Reformation. Their subjects, as Gregory Nazianzen describes the choice of them, were commonly such as these: of the world’s creation, and the soul of man; of angels; of providence; of the formation of man, and his restoration; of Christ’s first and second coming, his passion, &c.; of the resurrection and judgment, &c.

And as they were careful in the choice of their subject, so were they in the manner of dressing it up, and delivering it, that they might answer the true ends of preaching. St. Augustine has laid down excellent rules for the practice of Christian eloquence; and if we will take his character of the ancient preachers, it was in short this: and their discourses were always upon weighty and heavenly matters, and their style answerable to the subject, being plain, elegant, majestic, and nervous; fitly adapted to instruct and delight, to convince and charm their hearers. It was no part of the ancient oratory to raise the affections of the auditory, either by gesticulations, or the use of external shows and representations of things in their sermons, as is now very common in the Romish Church. As to the length of their sermons, scarce any of them would last an hour, and many not half the time. And among those of St. Augustine there are many which a man may pronounce distinctly, and deliver decently, in eight minutes. They always concluded their sermons with a doxology to the Holy Trinity. And it is further observable, that the preacher usually delivered his sermon sitting, and the people heard it standing; though there was no certain rule about this, but the custom varied in different Churches.

It was a peculiar custom in the African Church, when the preacher chanced to cite some remarkable text in the middle of his sermon, for the people to join with him in repeating the close of it. St. Augustine takes notice of this in one of his sermons, where having begun those words of St. Paul, The end of the commandment is ——, the people all cried out, charity out of a pure heart. But it was a much more general custom for the people to testify their esteem for the preacher, and approbation of his sermon, by public applauses and acclamations in the church. Thus we are told the people applauded St. Chrysostom’s sermons, some by tossing their garments and waving their handkerchiefs. Many auditors practised the art of notaries, and took down the sermons word for word as they were delivered. Hence we possess copies of sermons delivered extempore.—Bingham.

The sermon in the Church of England is enjoined after the Nicene Creed, according to ancient custom: but nowhere else; although it is mentioned as discretionary in the marriage service, for which an exhortation, there given, may be substituted. But evening sermons have been customary time out of mind in some churches, as at St. Paul’s, e. g. and some other great churches. The sermon in Queen Elizabeth’s time was preached at the chapel royal in the afternoon, in order that it might not interfere with St. Paul’s Cross sermon.—Strype, Annals, Pref. Book i. ch. xxiii., Anno 1561.

SERVICE. “The common prayers of the Church, commonly called Divine service.”—Preface to the Book of Common Prayer. All Divine offices celebrated in the church constitute part of the Divine service: that is, the outward worship which all God’s servants render him. The term however is now used in a technical sense peculiar to the English Church, to signify those stated parts of the Liturgy which are set to music, as distinguished from those anthems, the words of which are not a matter of settled regulation. The term is now generally restricted to the Te Deum, and other canticles in Morning and Evening Prayer; and all the parts of the Communion Service appointed to be sung, including also the responses to the Commandments. The early Church musicians, however, set the whole service to music; (and hence the term;) that is, the pieces, (or versicles before the Psalms,) the Venite, one or more chants for the Psalms, the Te Deum and canticles, the versicles and responses after the Creed, the Amens, the Litany, and the Communion Office. The most perfect service, in the enlarged and proper sense, which exists in the Church of England, is Tallis’s, published in Dr. Boyer’s Cathedral Music, and since republished and corrected by a second Edition. Services are as old as the Reformation, and have ever constituted an integral part of the choral system as observed in cathedral churches and colleges.—Jebb.

SEVEN SACRAMENTS. (See Sacrament.) The Papists extend and enforce the word sacrament to five ordinances which are not sacraments in the strict sense. Against these our 25th Article is directed, which is as follows:

“Sacraments ordained by Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s professions, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.

“There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the gospel; that is to say, baptism and the supper of the Lord.

“Those five, commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown, partly of the corrupt following of the apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of sacraments with baptism and the Lord’s supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

“The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as the apostle St. Paul saith.”

Peter Lombard saying, that baptism, confirmation, the blessing of bread, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, are sacraments of the New Testament, the Papists have thence gathered, and ever since held, that there are seven sacraments instituted by Christ, truly and properly so called; insomuch that, in the Council of Trent, they determined that whosoever said there are more or less, should be accursed. Now our Church, not much fearing their curse, hath here declared, that only two of them, to wit, baptism and the eucharist, are properly sacraments of the New Testament, and that the other five are not to be accounted so; not but that, as the word sacrament was anciently used for any sacred sign or ceremony, it may, in some sense, be applied to these also; but, as it is here expressed, those five have not the like nature of sacraments with baptism and the Lord’s supper. They may call them sacraments if they please; but they are not such sacraments as baptism and the Lord’s supper are, and therefore not sacraments properly so called. For that these two are sacraments properly so called, is acknowledged on both sides; and therefore, whatsoever is a sacrament properly so called, must have the like nature with them, so as to agree with them in all those things wherein their sacramental nature consisteth, that is, in such things wherein they two most nearly agree with one another: for that wherein the species do most nearly agree with one another, must needs be their general nature. Now, there are several things wherein these two do so agree; for they are both instituted by Christ. They have both external signs and symbols determined in the gospel, which represent inward and spiritual grace unto us; yea, and they have both promises annexed to them: whereas the other five agree with these in none of these things, or, howsoever, none of them agree in all of them, and, by consequence, cannot be sacraments properly so called.

I. First, They do not agree with them in their institution from Christ. That baptism and the Lord’s supper were instituted by Christ, they cannot deny; but that the other were, we do.

1. As, first, for confirmation, which we confess was a custom anciently used in the Church of Christ, and still ought to be retained, even for children after baptism to be offered to the bishop, that they might receive the Holy Ghost by prayers, and the laying on of hands. But some of the Papists themselves acknowledge, that this was never instituted and ordained by Christ as the other sacraments were; neither did the Fathers use this as any distinct sacrament of itself, but as the perfection and consummation of the sacrament of baptism; and the chrism or ointment which they used was only a ceremony annexed to baptism also, as the cross and other ceremonies were.

2. And as for penance, which they define to be a sacrament of the remission of sins which are committed after baptism, I would willingly know where or when Christ ever instituted such a sacrament? What though he commanded all men to repent, is every command of Christ the institution of a sacrament? Or is it outward penance that is here commanded? Or, rather, is it not inward and true repentance? And what though Christ said, “Those sins that you forgive, they are forgiven;” what matter what form, what signs of sacrament, were appointed and instituted in these words?

3. And so for orders, or the ordination of ministers, we know it is a thing instituted of Christ: must it needs be, therefore, a sacrament, or instituted as a sacrament? Because Christ ordained that bishops, priests, and deacons should be ordained, doth it therefore follow that he intended and instituted their ordination as a sacrament?

4. And as for matrimony, we know their corrupt translation has it, “And this is a great sacrament,” (Eph. v. 32,) instead of “this is a great mystery,” or secret, as the Syriac and Arabic read it; and shall their false translation of the Scripture be a sufficient ground for Christ’s institution of a sacrament?

5. And, lastly, for extreme unction, which Bellarmine tells us “is truly and properly a sacrament, wherein the organs of the senses, the eyes, nostrils, lips, hands, feet, and reins, in those that are about to die, are anointed with exorcised oil.” What institution have we for this sacrament in the gospel? Yes, say they, the apostles anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. (Mark vi. 13.) It is very good; the apostles’ practice and example were the institution of a sacrament. By this rule, whatsoever the apostles did must be a sacrament; and so plucking off the ears of corn must be a sacrament too at length. But certainly, if example must be the ground of institution, anointing the eyes of the blind with clay and spittle must be much more a sacrament than the anointing of the sick with oil; for it was the apostles only that did this, but it was our Saviour himself that did that. (John ix. 6.) But the apostle saith, “Is any one sick amongst you? let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord.” (James v. 14.) It is true: but what analogy is there betwixt this anointing of the apostles and the extreme unction of the Papists? This was to be applied to any that were sick, “Is any one sick amongst you?” but theirs only to such as are past all hopes of recovery: the apostles’ was to be done by several elders; the Papists’ only by one priest: the apostles’ was to be performed with simple oil; the Papists’ with consecrated and exorcised oil. So that the Papists’ extreme unction cannot possibly lay claim to any institution from that place, as Cajetan himself acknowledged.

II. And as for external signs and symbols, analogically representing inward spiritual grace, which constitute the very form of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper, it is in vain to look for the like in the other sacraments, falsely so called, as is observed in the Article itself. For example: what is the sign in penance? Or, if there be a sign, what is the grace that is analogically represented by it? I know they cannot agree amongst themselves, what is the form or sign in this sacrament? Some say the words of absolution, others absolution itself, others imposition of hands; but whichsoever of these we take, they cannot be such signs or symbols as are in baptism and the Lord’s supper. For there is water, and bread, and wine, all substances; whereas these are all actions, and so accidents. The like may be said also of confirmation and orders, which have no such visible sign, howsoever not appointed by Christ. And so for matrimony too, there is no visible sign of any invisible grace can possibly be fastened upon it. To say that the priest’s words, or the parties’ mutual consent, is the form or sign, is a mere evasion: for the parties’ consent is an invisible thing, and therefore cannot be a visible sign: the words of the priest are mere words, which may be heard indeed, but cannot be seen, and so cannot be any visible sign. Neither are words significative elements, as bread and wine are, and therefore cannot be the signs of such sacraments as they be. And for extreme unction, there is, I confess, an external sign in it, even unction; but what analogy hath this external sign to any internal grace? Two things, they say, are represented by it, bodily health and forgiveness of sins; but is bodily health an inward grace? Or, suppose it was, what similitude is there betwixt that and oil, or unction? Forgiveness of sins, I know, is a spiritual grace; but none of them durst ever yet undertake to show the analogy betwixt the outward sign and this invisible grace. And seeing there is no analogy betwixt the oil and remission of sins, that cannot be looked upon as any sacramental sign or symbol, as water and wine are in the other sacraments, exactly representing the inward spiritual grace that is signified by them. To all which we might add also, that it is the nature of a sacrament to have promises annexed to them—promises of spiritual things. And what promises do we find in Scripture made to matrimony, to confirmation, to orders, and the rest.

But whatsoever other things the Papists would obtrude upon us as sacraments, it is certain that we find our Saviour solemnly instituting two, and but two, sacraments in the New Testament; to wit, these here mentioned, baptism and the Lord’s supper. And, therefore, when the apostle compares the law with the gospel, he instances these two sacraments only, and none else: “And were all baptized into Moses in the cloud, and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat.” (1 Cor. x. 2, 3.) And he again joins these two together, saying, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one spirit.” (xii. 13.) And thus do the Fathers observe how, when one of the soldiers pierced our Saviour’s side, and there came out blood and water, (John xix. 34,) the two sacraments of the New Testament were thereby intimated to us.—Beveridge.

SEXAGESIMA. (See Septuagesima.)

SEXTON; from Sacristan. The sexton was originally regarded as the keeper of the holy things devoted to Divine worship: he is appointed by the minister or parishioners according to custom; and his salary is according to the custom of each parish, or is settled by the parish vestry. In the case of Olive v. Ingram it was held, that a woman is as capable of being elected to this office as a man, and that women may have a voice in the election. The duty of a sexton is to keep the church and pews cleanly swept and sufficiently aired; to make graves, and open vaults for the burial of the dead; to provide (under the churchwarden’s direction) candles, &c. for lighting the church; bread and wine, and other necessaries, for the communion, and also water for baptisms; to attend the church during Divine service, in order to open the pew doors for the parishioners, keep out dogs, and prevent disturbances, &c. It has been held that if a sexton be removed without sufficient cause, a mandamus will lie for his restitution. But where it appeared that the office was held only during pleasure, and not for life, the court refused to interfere. The salary, however, generally depends on the annual vote of the parishioners.

SHAFT. The central portion of a pillar, resting on the base, and supporting the capital. (See Pillar.)

SHAKERS. A party of enthusiasts left England for America in 1774, and settled in the province of New York, where the society soon increased, and received the ludicrous denomination of Shakers, from the practice of shaking and dancing. They affected to consider themselves as forming the only true Church, and their preachers as possessed of the apostolic gift: the wicked, they thought, would only be punished for a time, except those who should be so incorrigibly depraved as to fall from their Church. They disowned baptism and the eucharist, not as in themselves wrong, but as unnecessary in the new dispensation, which they declared was opening upon mankind; and this was the Millennium, in which, however, they expected that Christ would appear personally only to his saints. Their leader was Anna Leese, whom they believed to be the woman mentioned in the Apocalypse, as clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. The successors of this elect body have been, they say, as perfect as she was, and have possessed, like her, unreserved intercourse with angels and departed spirits, and the power of imparting spiritual gifts.

SHECHINAH. (Hebr.) By this word the Hebrews meant the visible manifestation of the Divine presence in the temple of Jerusalem. It was a bright cloud, resting over the propitiatory or mercy-seat; from whence God gave forth his oracles with an articulate voice, when he was consulted by the high priest in favour of the people. Hence God is often said in Scripture to sit upon the cherubims, or between the cherubims, because the cherubims shadowed with their wings the mercy-seat, over which the Shechinah resided.

The Rabbins tell us, that the Shechinah first resided in the tabernacle prepared by Moses in the wilderness, and that it descended therein on the day of its consecration. From thence it passed into the sanctuary of Solomon’s temple, on the day of its dedication by that prince; where it continued to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Chaldeans, and was never after seen.

The Mohammedans pretend the Shechinah was in the shape of a leopard; and that, in time of war, when the ark of the covenant, over which it resided, was carried into the field of battle, it raised itself up, and sent forth such a dreadful cry, as threw the enemy into the utmost confusion. Others of them imagine it to have had the figure of a man, and say, that, when it was carried into the army, it stood up upon its feet, and came forth like a vehement wind, which, rushing upon the enemy, put them to flight.

SHEWBREAD. The name given to those loaves of bread which the Hebrew priests placed, every sabbath day, upon the golden table in the sanctuary. The Hebrew literally signifies bread of faces, these loaves being square, and having, as it were, four faces, or four sides. They are called shewbread by the Greek and Latin interpreters, because they were exposed to public view before the ark. The table on which they were placed was called the table of shewbread.

The shewbread consisted of twelve loaves, according to the number of the tribes. These were served up hot on the sabbath day, and at the same time the stale ones, which had been exposed during the whole week, were taken away. It was not lawful for any one to eat of these loaves, but the priests only. David, indeed, compelled by urgent necessity, broke through this restriction. This offering was accompanied with salt and frankincense, which was burnt upon the table at the time when they set on fresh loaves.

Authors are not agreed as to the manner in which the loaves of shewbread were ranged upon the table. Some think there were three piles of them, of four in each; others say, there were but two piles, of six loaves in each. The Rabbins tell us that, between every two loaves, there were two golden pipes, supported by forks of the same metal, whose ends rested upon the ground, to convey air to the loaves, to hinder them from growing mouldy.

SHRINE. The places where something sacred, or a relic, is deposited.

SHRIVE. To administer confession.

SHROVE TUESDAY. The day before Ash Wednesday, so called in the Church of England from the old Saxon word shrive, shrif, or shrove, which, in that language, signifies to confess; it being our duty to confess our sins to God on that day, in order to receive the blessed sacrament of the eucharist, and thereby qualify ourselves for a more religious observance of the holy time of Lent immediately ensuing.

SICK, COMMUNION OF. (See Communion of the Sick.)

SICK, VISITATION OF. By Canon 76, “When any person is dangerously sick in any parish, the minister or curate, having knowledge thereof, shall resort unto him or her, (if the disease be not known, or probably suspected, to be infectious,) to instruct and comfort them in their distress, according to the order of the communion book if he be no preacher, or if he be a preacher, then as he shall think most needful and convenient.” And by the rubric, before the office for the Visitation of the Sick, “When any person is sick, notice shall be given thereof to the minister of the parish, who shall go to the sick person’s house, and use the office there appointed. And the minister shall examine the sick person whether he repent him truly of his sins, and be in charity with all the world; exhorting him to forgive, from the bottom of his heart, all persons that have offended him; and if he hath offended any other, to ask them forgiveness; and where he hath done injury or wrong to any man, that he may make amends to the utmost of his power. And if he hath not before disposed of his goods, let him then be admonished to make his will, and to declare his debts what he oweth, and what is owing to him, for the better discharge of his conscience, and the quietness of his executors. But men should often be put in remembrance to take order for the settling of their temporal estates, while they are in health. And the minister should not omit earnestly to move such sick persons, as are of ability, to be liberal to the poor.” (See Absolution, Communion of Sick, Visitation of Sick.)

SIDESMAN. It was usual for bishops in their visitations, to summon some credible persons out of every parish, whom they examined on oath concerning the condition of the church, and other affairs relating to it. Afterwards these persons became standing officers in several places, especially in great cities; and when personal visitations were a little disused, and when it became a custom for the parishioners to repair the body of the church, which began about the fifteenth century, these officers were still more necessary, and then they were called Testes Synodales or Juratores Synodi; some called them synods-men, and now they are corruptly called sidesmen. They are chosen every year, according to the custom of the place, and their business is to assist the churchwardens in inquiring into things relating to the church, and making presentment of such matters as are punishable by the ecclesiastical laws. Hence they are also called Questmen; but now the whole office for the most part is devolved upon the churchwardens, though not universally. (See Churchwardens.)

SIGNIFICAVIT. The writ de excommunicato capiendo was called a significavit from the word at the beginning of the writ: Rex vicecomiti L. salutem. Significavit nobis venerabilis Pater, H. L. Episcopus, &c.

ST. SIMON AND ST. JUDE’S DAY. A holy-day appointed by the Church for the commemoration of these saints, observed in our Church on the 28th October.

The first is St. Simon, surnamed the Canaanite and Zelotes, which two names are, in fact, the same; for the Hebrew term, Canaan, signifies a zealot.

There was a sect of men called Zealots, about the time of Christ, in Judea, who, out of a pretended zeal for God’s honour, would commit the most grievous outrages: they would choose and ordain high priests out of the basest of the people, and murder men of the highest and most illustrious extraction. And it is highly probable that this Simon, before his conversion and call, was one of this hot-headed sect; or, at least, that there was some fire or fierceness conspicuous in his temper that occasioned his being distinguished by that warm name. He was one of the twelve apostles, and a relation of our blessed Lord; either his half-brother, being one of Joseph’s sons by another wife, or a cousin by his mother’s side.

The other saint this day commemorated, was likewise one of the twelve apostles, and James’s brother, and consequently of the same degree of consanguinity to our blessed Saviour.

He had two surnames, viz. Thaddeus, which seems to be nothing more than a diminutive of the term Judas, as it is derived from the same Hebrew root; and Lebbeus, which is derived from another Hebrew root, signifying little heart.

SIMONY. The corrupt presentation of any one to an ecclesiastical benefice for money, gift, or reward. It is so called from the sin of Simon Magus, who thought to have purchased the power of conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost for money (Acts viii. 19); though the purchasing holy orders seemed to approach nearer to his offence. It is by the canon law a very grievous offence; and is so much the more odious, because, as Sir Edward Coke observes, it is ever accompanied with perjury; for the presentee is sworn to have committed no simony.

Canon 40, “to avoid the detestable sin of simony,” provides this declaration upon oath, to be taken by every person on being instituted to a benefice; “I do swear that I have made no simoniacal payment, contract, or promise, directly or indirectly, by myself, or by any other to my knowledge or with my consent, to any person or persons whatsoever, for or concerning the procuring or obtaining of this ecclesiastical place, preferment, office, or living, nor will I at any time hereafter perform or satisfy any such kind of payment, contract, or promise, made by any other without my knowledge or consent: so help me God through Jesus Christ.”

And by statute 31 Eliz. c. 6, for the avoiding of simony and corruption, it is provided that all presentations made for such consideration as is described in the above-quoted canon, shall be utterly void; and any person or body politic or corporate, presenting to a benefice for such consideration, shall forfeit two years’ value or profits of the benefice, and the person procuring himself to be so presented shall be for ever disabled from holding that benefice; and any person who shall take any reward, other than the usual fees for admitting or inducting to a benefice, shall forfeit two years’ profits of such benefice; and the admission or induction shall be void, and the patron may present again as if the person so inducted or admitted were naturally dead.

In the great case of the Bishop of London and Lewis Disney Ffytche, Esq., in the year 1780, the rectory of the parish church of Woodham Walter in Essex being vacant, Mr. Ffytche presented his clerk, the Rev. John Eyre, to the bishop for institution. The bishop being informed that the said John Eyre had given his patron a bond in a large penalty to resign the said rectory at any time upon his request, and the said John Eyre acknowledging that he had given such a bond, the bishop refused to institute him to the living.

Thereupon Mr. Ffytche brought a quare impedit against the bishop in the court of Common Pleas. The cause was decided against the bishop in that court, and, subsequently, in the court of Queen’s Bench; but upon appeal to the House of Lords, after much debate, and the opinions of the judges being called for, the decision of the courts below was, upon the motion of Lord Thurlow, reversed. The lords, however, divided upon the question, and the numbers were nineteen to eighteen for reversing the decision of the inferior law courts, all the bishops present voting in the majority. But that decision of the House of Lords, though much objected to by lawyers at the time, is now held to be settled law. The ground of the decision was, that the bond to the patron to resign was a benefit to the said patron, and therefore the presentation was void. The law upon this matter will be found in the opinions of the judges given to the House of Lords, in 1826, in the case Fletcher v. Lord Sondes. See Bingham’s Reports, iii. 501. The decision in this case led to the passing of the Act 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 25, and was followed by the Act 9 Geo. IV. c. 94, by which bonds of resignation in certain cases are rendered legally valid.

SIN, DEADLY SIN, AND SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. Our sixteenth Article, headed “Of Sin after Baptism,” runs thus: “Not every deadly sin willingly committed after baptism, is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable; wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin, after baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God (we may) arise again, and amend our lives; and therefore they are to be condemned that say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.”

This Article is levelled against the doctrine of the Novatians of old, who held every sin committed after baptism to be unpardonable. This doctrine being revived by some of the Anabaptists, or other enthusiasts, who sprang up at the beginning of the Reformation, it is not improbable that the compilers of the Articles had an eye likewise upon their heterodoxy. For, as the Papists were wont maliciously to impute the wild doctrines of all the several sorts of enthusiasts to all Protestants, so it was thought here convenient to defend our Church against the imputation of any such opinion.—Dr. Nicholls.

In the preceding Article (of the XXXIX.) notice was taken of a sect of Christians who maintain the peccability of Christ; and in this we have to argue against those who contend for the impeccability of man.—Bp. Tomline.

By “deadly sin” in this Article we are not to understand such sins as, in the Church of Rome, are called “mortal,” in opposition to others that are “venial:” as if some sins, though offences against God, and violations of his law, could be of their own nature such slight things, that they deserved only temporal punishment, and were to be expiated by some piece of penance or devotion, or the communication of the merits of others. The Scripture nowhere teaches us to think so slightly of the majesty of God, or of his law. There is a “curse” upon every one “that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal. iii. 10); and the same curse must have been on us all, if Christ had not redeemed us from it: “the wages of sin is death.” And St. James asserts, that there is such a complication of all the precepts of the law of God, both with one another, and with the authority of the Lawgiver, that “he who offends in one point is guilty of all.” (James ii. 10, 11.) So since God has in his word given us such dreadful apprehensions of his wrath, and of the guilt of sin, we dare not soften these to a degree below the majesty of the eternal God, and the dignity of his most holy laws. But after all, we are far from the conceit of the Stoics, who made all sins alike. We acknowledge that some sins of ignorance and infirmity may consist with a state of grace; which is either quite destroyed, or at least much eclipsed and clouded, by other sins, that are more heinous in their nature, and more deliberately gone about. It is in this sense that the word “deadly sin” is to be understood in the Article; for though in the strictness of justice every sin is “deadly,” yet in the dispensation of the gospel those sins only are “deadly” that do deeply wound the conscience, and that drive away grace.—Bp. Burnet.

Every sin is in its nature deadly, since “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. vi. 23): and every sin is committed against the Holy Ghost, as well as against the Father and the Son; but still pardonable, if it be not that sin which is emphatically styled “the sin against the Holy Ghost;” and that is “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. xii. 31, 32; Mark iii. 28–30.) Of which sin St. Jerome says, that “they only are guilty, who, though in miracles they see the very work of God, yet slander them, and say that they are done by the devil; and ascribe to the operation of that evil spirit, and not to the Divine power, all those mighty signs and wonders which were wrought for the confirmation of the gospel.” In relation to all other sins, we are, as Clement of Rome observes, “to fix our eyes on the blood of Christ, which was shed for our salvation, and hath obtained the grace of repentance for the whole world.”—Archdeacon Welchman.

And “the doors,” says Clement of Alexandria, “are open to every one, who in truth, and with his whole heart, returns to God; and the Father most willingly receives a son who truly repents.” This is the general tenor of Scripture, in which all men are invited to repentance without any discrimination or exception. And we are told, even under the Mosaic dispensation, that “though our sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” (Isaiah i. 18.) And the exhortations to amendment and reformation, contained in the Epistles, are all addressed to persons who had been already baptized, and who had been guilty of faults or sins subsequent to their baptism.—Bp. Tomline.

The Church of Rome, in order to establish its dangerous doctrine of the merit of good works, which is equally opposed to Scripture and to fact, divides sin into two classes: mortal sin, that sin which is in its nature gross, and is committed knowingly, wilfully, deliberately; and venial sin, under which head are classed all sins of ignorance and negligence, and such as are considered small in their nature.

It is difficult to distinguish, in some instances, between mortal sins and venial sins. But they form two distinct classes of sin, differing not merely in degree, but in genus or kind.

Mortal sins render the transgressors children of wrath and enemies of God; but it is in regard to venial sins that the error or heresy is propounded. It is stated that in this mortal life even holy and justified persons fall into daily venial sins, which, nevertheless, do not in any way affect or detract from their holy character, “and which do not exclude the transgressor from the grace of God.”

It is here to be observed that we do not deny that a distinction is to be made between sins of greater or less enormity. But the error of the Romanist is this—that he makes the two classes of sin to differ not only in enormity and degree, which we admit to be the case, but also in their nature and kind. No amount of venial sins, according to Bellarmine, would ever make a mortal sin.

We also make a distinction of sins: we call some sins deadly, and others infirmities; we consider the commission of some sins as not inconsistent with a state of grace, whereas by others the Holy Spirit may be grieved, done despite unto, and quenched, so that the sinner shall be spiritually dead: he shall die a second death.

But here is the difference between us and the Romanists: although we speak of some sins as of less, and of others as of greater enormity, we consider every sin to be in its nature mortal; that by many little sins a man may be damned, even as a ship may be sunk by a weight of sand as well as by a weight of lead; and that they are not damnable to us, only from the constant intercession of Christ. Whereas negligences and ignorances, and sins of lesser enormity, are by the Romanists not regarded as sins at all, in the proper sense of the word.

Hence we are for ever relying directly upon Christ for pardon and for mercy, while they rely upon their own merits. They appeal to the justice of God; we, knowing that by his justice we must be condemned, confide in his mercy. They say that venial sin is not in itself mortal; we regard all sin as mortal in itself, but rejoice to know that “if any man sin” (any man in a state of justification, and, on that account, not sinning habitually and wilfully) “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins.”

The doctrine of the Church of England leads men to Christ, and nails them prostrate to the foot of the cross; whereas the Romish doctrine, though taking men to Christ in the first instance, soon removes them from the only rock of salvation, and induces them to rely upon an arm of flesh. Our doctrine lays low in the dust all human pride, it annihilates every notion of human merit, and exalts the Saviour as our all in all; the Romish doctrine, establishing the idea of human merit and supererogatory works, drives some to despair, and inflames others with spiritual pride, while it terminates in practical idolatry. Our doctrine is primitive, catholic, and scriptural, as well as Protestant, ever reminding us that “there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” while their doctrine is mediæval, scholastic, heretical, and opposed to the truth as it is in Jesus.

SI QUIS. (See Orders, Ordination.) In the Church of England, before a person is admitted to holy orders, a notice called the “Si quis” (from the Latin of the words if any person, occurring in the form) is published in the church of the parish where the candidate usually resides, in the following form: “Notice is hereby given, that A. B., now resident in this parish, intends to offer himself a candidate for the holy office of a deacon [or priest] at the ensuing ordination of the Lord Bishop of ——; and if any person knows any just cause or impediment, for which he ought not to be admitted into holy orders, he is now to declare the same, or to signify the same forthwith to the bishop.”

This is a proper occasion, of which the conscientious layman would take advantage, of testifying, if he knows anything which unfits the candidate for the sacred office to which he aspires: if no objection be made, a certificate is forwarded to the bishop, of the publication of the Si quis, with no impediment alleged, by the officiating minister and the churchwardens.

In the case of a bishop, the Si quis is affixed by an officer of the Arches on the door of Bow Church, and he then also makes three proclamations for opposers to appear, &c.

SITTING. This posture is allowed in our Church at the reading of the lessons in the Morning and Evening Prayer, and also of the first lesson or Epistle in the Communion Service, but at no other time except during the sermon. Even thus we have somewhat relaxed the rule of the primitive Church, in which the people stood, even to hear sermons. Some ultra-Protestant sects have irreverently used sitting as the posture of receiving the Lord’s supper, which ought to be accounted the act of deepest devotion. Some Arians in Poland have done this even for a worse reason: i. e. to show that they do not believe Christ to be God, but only their fellow-creature.

SOCIETIES. The Church itself is the proper channel for the circulation of the Bible and Prayer Book, for the establishment of missions, and the erection of sanctuaries; the Church acting under her bishops, and by her representatives in synod. But, under the existing circumstances of the Church of England, not only convocations, but diocesan synods have been for many years suspended: had not this been the case, all our plans for the circulation of the Scriptures, the institution of missions, and so forth, would have been conducted by committees of the convocation, in the name and by the avowed authority of the Church. At present we are obliged to promote these great objects by means of voluntary associations. A society, to be a Church society, must be confined exclusively to members of the Church. If Dissenters are admitted to its government, it is as much a Dissenting society as a Church society, i. e. it ceases to be a Church society, strictly speaking, since by a Church society we mean a society distinguished from a Dissenting society. (See the article on Schism.)

But, admitting that we are to unite for religious purposes with Churchmen only, are laymen by themselves, or laymen assisted by deacons or presbyters, competent to organize a religious society? And on the authority of the text, “Obey them that rule over you,” we give our answer in the negative. There is in every Church, and every diocese of a Church, a higher authority, to which presbyters, deacons, and laymen are to defer: the archbishop of the province and all his suffragans, in matters relating to the Church of the province generally; the diocesan, in matters relating to a particular diocese. So the first Christians always understood the passage to which we have referred. “Let no one,” says Ignatius, the contemporary of the apostles and the disciple of St. John, “do any of the things pertaining to the Church separately from the bishop.” “Let presbyters and deacons,” say the Apostolic Canons, “attempt nothing without the bishop’s allowance, for it is he to whom the Lord’s people are committed.”—Canon 39. Quotations might be multiplied to the same effect.

We may here, then, discover another principle. In forming our institutions we ought to have the episcopal sanction for what we do. Indeed it seems ridiculous to call ourselves Episcopalians, and then to act contrary to this law: though by the way, in the very first ages of the Church, some there were who did so. “Some,” says St. Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, to whom we have before alluded, “call him bishop, and yet do all things without him; but these seem not to me to have a good conscience, but rather to be hypocrites and scorners.” We ought not to be surprised, therefore, at this inconsistency in our own age, when even the apostolical times were not exempt from it. But here observe, it is not the sanction of a bishop, or the sanction of two or three bishops, that suffices, but the sanction of the bishop, the diocesan. A bishop may intrude into another man’s diocese, and thus violate the canons of the Church, and be himself liable to canonical censures: his example is rather to be avoided than followed. Yet it is necessary to mention this, because some persons think that all must be right if they obtain for a favourite society the names of one or two bishops, while they set aside the authority of the diocesan, against whom, perhaps, they are acting. This is in fact, when we come to examine the case, rather a specious evasion than an observance of the system of the Church, which would lead us to place every institution under the government of the diocesan.

But bishops are only, like ourselves, fallible men; and therefore we are not to suppose that the converse of this proposition must be true, that because no society, except such as has the diocesan at its head, can be worthy of a churchman’s support, therefore every society which has a diocesan’s sanction must have a claim upon each inhabitant of that diocese. The Church defers to her bishops as the executive power, but she does not regard them as irresponsible, or infallible, or despotic. She does not intend that they should transgress Scripture, and lord it over God’s heritage. To them, as well as us, the principles of the Church are to be a guide; and they, like ourselves, may err occasionally in the application of these principles. And in deciding whether a society is conducted on Church principles, it is not to the diocesan, but to the society itself, that we are to refer. And the question is, not merely whether the diocesan belongs to it, but also whether the society places the diocesan in his right position? We are to vindicate the rights of the diocesan, even though the diocesan do himself neglect them, for these rights pertain, not to him personally, but to the Church. We are therefore to ascertain, whether he is recognised by the society as the diocesan, as the spiritual ruler presiding of right over the society; so recognised as that, if he refused to sanction its proceedings, it would retire from the field; whether it receives him out of deference to his spiritual character, or only out of respect for his temporal rank; where, as in this country, temporal rank, a circumstance of minor consideration, not indeed worthy of notice, is conceded to him? If the society does not do this, it is not one whit improved, so far as its constitution is concerned, though a diocesan may peradventure be one of its members. Here then we come to another principle, and we may sum up what has been said, by asserting that a religious society, conducted on strictly Church principles, should consist of churchmen only, and should be under the superintendence, if instituted for general purposes, of the archbishops, and all the bishops of both provinces of the Church of England; if for diocesan purposes, of the diocesan; if for parochial purposes, of the parochial clergy, who act as the bishop’s delegates.

SOCINIANS. (See Unitarians.) A sect of heretics, so called from their founder, Faustus Socinus, a native of Sienna in Italy, born in 1539. Their tenets are,

I. That the eternal Father was the one only God; that the Word was no more than an expression of the Godhead, and had not existed from all eternity; and that Jesus Christ was God, no otherwise than by his superiority above all creatures, who were put in subjection to him by the Father.

II. That Jesus Christ was not a mediator between God and men, but sent into the world to serve as a pattern of their conduct; and that he ascended up to heaven only, as it were, to take a journey thither.

III. That the punishment of hell will last but for a certain time, after which both body and soul will be destroyed. And,

IV. That it is not lawful for princes to make war.

These four tenets were what Socinus defended with the greatest zeal: in other matters, he was a Lutheran, or a Calvinist. The truth is, he did but refine upon the errors of all the Anti-Trinitarians who had gone before him.

The Socinians spread extremely in Poland, Lithuania, and Transylvania. Their chief school was at Racow, and there all their first books were published. Their sentiments are explained at large in their catechism, printed several times, under the title of Catechesis Ecclesiarum Polonicarum unum Deum patrem, illiusque filium unigenitum, uno cum Sancto Spiritu, ex sacra scriptura confitentium. They were exterminated out of Poland in 1655; since which time they have been chiefly sheltered in Holland; where, though their public meetings have been prohibited, they find means to conceal themselves under the names of Arminians and Anabaptists.

SOFFIT. The under-surface of an arch. In the nomenclature of mouldings, the soffit-plane is the plane at right angles with the face of the wall, which is the direction of the soffit in its simplest form. Courses of mouldings occupying the soffit-plane and the wall-plane, to the exclusion of the chamfer-plane, indicate Norman or Early English work.

SOLFIDIANS. Those who rest on faith alone for salvation, without any connexion with works; or who judge themselves to be Christ’s because they believe they are.

SOMPNOUR. (Chaucer.) An officer employed to summon delinquents to appear in ecclesiastical courts; now called an apparitor.

SON OF GOD. (See Jesus, Lord.) “The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.”—Article II. He is the true, proper, and only Son of God; begotten “from the beginning;” “before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. i. 20; 1 John i. 1); as he “came down from heaven,” (John vi. 38,) where he had “glory with the Father,” “before the world was” (John xvii. 5); as he is himself called God, “one” with the “Father,” (John x. 30,) being of the same Divine essence communicated to him, (Matt. xi. 27; John v. 26; xiii. 3; xvi. 15; Rom. xiv. 9,) and exercising a power above that of all created beings. (Eph. i. 21; Heb. i. 2, 13; 1 Pet. iii. 22.) By him the world and “all things were made,” (John i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2, 10,) “by whom are all things,” (1 Cor. viii. 6,) for “He is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (Col. i. 17.) “All things are put in subjection under his feet,” and “nothing is left that is not put under him.” (Heb. ii. 8; Ps. viii. 6; 1 Cor. xv. 27; Eph. i. 22.) Of the manner and nature of this generation we are ignorant, and must not endeavour to be wise above what is written. We find our Lord declared by prophecy to be a “son begotten,” (Ps. ii. 7,) and acknowledged, by inspiration, as “the only begotten Son.” (John iii. 16; i. 14; 1 John iv. 9.) That he is “the image of the invisible God, the first-born of (or before) every creature, for by him were all things created” (Col. i. 15, 16); and who thus “being in the form of God,” “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” (Heb. i. 3,) was without “robbery equal to God.” (Phil. ii. 6.) That he “is in the bosom of the Father,” (John i. 18,) and is “one” with him. (John x. 30.) Many similes were imagined by the ancients to elucidate this: as the sun producing light—a fountain its streams, &c.; but too much caution cannot be used on this subject, lest things are conceived or uttered by us derogatory to the ineffable nature and peculiar attributes of the Divine majesty.

He was foretold in Scripture as “the Son of God,” (Luke i. 35,) and acknowledged on earth—by men inspired (Matt. xvi. 16; John i. 34; xx. 31; Acts ix. 20);—by devils (Matt. viii. 29; Mark iii. 11; Luke iv. 41);—and by the world (Matt. xiv. 33; John i. 49; xi. 27,) as he shall be in heaven (Rev. ii. 18). Therefore he addresses God as his “Father,” (Mark xiv. 36, &c.,) and claims to himself the title from men, (John v. 18, 22–25; ix. 35 with 37,) though for this he was accused, by the Jews, of blasphemy (John x. 36; xix. 7). He is the only Son, also, by reason of his resurrection from the dead, there being none but him begotten by such generation.

SONG. As applied to sacred subjects, it is one of the classes of vocal praise mentioned in Scripture: according to the enumeration of the apostle, (Eph. v. 19,) ψαλμοῖς, καὶ ὕμνοις, καὶ ψοαῖς πνευματικαῖς. (Psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, or odes.) Wolfius, in his note on Eph. v. 14, quotes an opinion of Heumannus, in his Pœcile, (ii. lib. iii. frag. 390,) that this verse of the apostle’s, “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee life,” is a fragment of an ancient Christian hymn or spiritual song: and remarks that there is a natural rhythm in the original:

ἔγειραι ὁ καθεύσων,
καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν,
καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ χριστός.

However this may be, it is to be hoped that the recent discoveries of early Christian hymns in the Syriac language may throw light on this subject; and here Dr. Burgess’s late translation of the hymns of Ephrem Syrus may be consulted with advantage. The Evening Hymn of the first or second century, preserved by St. Basil, and given in Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, is an interesting illustration of the ancient Christian songs.

The word song in the Old Testament is in the Hebrew Shir. Many of the Psalms are so denominated: sometimes simply Shir, at other times Mizmor Shir (Psalm-Song), or Shir Mizmor (Song-Psalm). It is not, perhaps, possible to distinguish them in style or subject from other Psalms. The word appears by comparison of different passages of Scripture to mean anything sung to instrumental music, as these instruments are called in Scripture instruments of Shir, i. e. accompanying vocal music. See 2 Chron. v. 13.

SONGS OF DEGREES. (See Degrees, and Psalms.)

SORTES. A method of divination borrowed by some superstitious Christians from the heathen, and condemned by several councils. The heathen, opening Virgil at hazard, took the first words they found as indicating future events, and this process they called Sortes Virgilianæ. The superstitious imitators of this custom used the Bible in the same way, and called their divinations Sortes sacræ.

SOUTHCOTTIANS. The deluded followers of one Johanna Southcot, a servant girl at Exeter, who, towards the close of the last century, gave herself out as the woman in the wilderness, mentioned in the Apocalypse, and declared that she held converse with spirits, good and bad, and with the Holy Ghost himself. She gave sealed papers, which were called her “seals,” to her followers, which were to protect them from all evil of this life and the next. In 1814, having fallen from indulgence and want of exercise into a habit of body which gave her the appearance of pregnancy, she announced herself the mother of the approaching Shiloh. She died, however, and her body was opened, revealing the real cause of her appearance; but her death and burial did not undeceive her followers, though no resurrection of their leader has yet taken place.

SPANDRIL. The triangular portion of wall between two arches, or an arch and the adjoining wall; or between the side of an arch and the square panel in which it is set. The latter is a remarkable feature in perpendicular doorways, being often richly ornamented with figures, foliage, or heraldic shields.

SPIRE. The high pyramidal capping or roof of a tower. The earliest spires still existing in England are Early English; and in this style, as well as in the next, or Geometric, it is generally of the form called a broach. In the Decorated, the broach and the parapetted spire occur indifferently; in the Perpendicular, the latter almost exclusively, though there is a large portion of Leicestershire and Northamptonshire in which Perpendicular broaches are not uncommon. Many of our loftiest spires were formerly of timber, covered with lead: such was the spire of St. Paul’s cathedral, the highest in the kingdom; such is still the remarkable twisted spire of Chesterfield. Several smaller spires of this kind remain in the southern counties, but the perishableness of the material has led to the destruction of by far the greater number of them.

SPLAY. The slanting expansion inwards of windows, for the wider diffusion of light. This is usually very great in Norman windows, where the external aperture is small.

SPONSORS. In the administration of baptism, these have from time immemorial held a distinguished and important place. Various titles have been given them significative of the position they hold, and the duties to which they are pledged. Thus they are called sponsors, because in infant baptism they respond or answer for the baptized. They are sureties, in virtue of the security given through them to the Church, that the baptized shall be “virtuously brought up to lead a godly and a Christian life.” And from the spiritual affinity here created, by which a responsibility almost parental is undertaken by the sureties, in the future training of the baptized, the terms godfather and godmother have taken their rise.

(For the rubrics and canons on this subject see Godfather.)

In the ancient Church they reckoned three sorts of sponsors: 1. For children, who could not renounce, or profess, or answer for themselves. 2. For such adult persons, as by reason of sickness or infirmity were in the same condition as children, incapable of answering for themselves. 3. For all adult persons in general.

The sponsors for children were obliged to answer to all the interrogatories usually made in baptism, and then to be the guardians of their Christian education. In most cases, parents were sponsors for their own children; and the extraordinary cases in which they were presented by others were such, where the parent could not or would not perform that kind office for them; as when slaves were presented for baptism by their masters; or children, whose parents were dead, were brought by any charitable persons, who would take pity on them; or children exposed by their parents, who were sometimes taken up by the holy virgins of the Church, and by them presented unto baptism. In these cases, where strangers became sureties for children, they were not obliged, by virtue of their suretyship, to maintain them; but the Church was charged with this care, and they were supported out of the common stock. All that was required of such sponsors was, first, to answer to the several interrogatories in baptism; and, secondly, to take care, by good admonitions and instructions, that they performed their part of the covenant they engaged in.

The second sort of sponsors were to answer for such adult persons as were incapable of answering for themselves. These were such as were suddenly struck speechless, or seized with a frenzy through the violence of some distemper, and the like. And they might be baptized, if their friends could testify that they had beforehand desired baptism. In which case the same friends became sponsors for them, making the very same answers for them that they did for children.

The third sort of sponsors were for such adult persons as were able to answer for themselves; for these also had their sureties, and no persons anciently were baptized without them. It was no part of the office of these sponsors to answer to the interrogatories made in baptism: the adult persons were to answer for themselves, according to that plain sentence of the gospel, “He is of age, let him answer for himself.” The only business of sponsors, in this case, was to be guardians of their spiritual life, and to take care of their instruction and morals, both before and after baptism. This office was chiefly imposed upon the deacons for the men, and the deaconesses for the women.

Anciently, there was no prohibition of any sorts of men from performing this charitable office; excepting only catechumens, energumens, heretics, and penitents; that is, persons who as yet were never in full communion with the Church, or such as had forfeited the privileges of baptism and Church communion by their crimes or errors; such persons being deemed incapable of assisting others, who stood in need of assistance themselves. In the time of Charles the Great, the Council of Mentz forbade fathers to be sponsors for their own children: and this was the first prohibition of this sort.

It is observable, that anciently no more than one sponsor was required, namely, a man for a man, and a woman for a woman. In the case of infants, no regard was had to the difference of sex: for a virgin might be sponsor for a male child, and a father for his children, whether male or female. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Mentz, upon a reason which is something peculiar: for they concluded, that, because there is but one God, one faith, and one baptism, therefore an infant ought to have but one sponsor.—Bingham.

SQUINCH. More properly Pendentive. A small arch thrown across the angle of a square tower, to receive one of the sides of an octagonal spire or lantern. In broach spires the external slant over this arch is also called a squinch.

STALLS. In a cathedral or collegiate church, and often in parish churches, certain seats constructed for the clergy and other members of the Church, and intended for their exclusive use. These stalls are placed in that portion of the building called the choir, or the part in which Divine service is usually performed.

In ancient times, all members of the cathedral, including lay clerks or vicars, had their stalls: though the inferior members had not always fixed stalls appropriated to each individual. Unless when the community was very small, there was an upper and lower range of stalls, called the prima et secunda forma, (or gradus,) the upper appropriated to the canons or prebendaries, (and sometimes the priest vicars or minor canons,) the lower to the other members. The designation of the respective dignitaries and canons were written on their stalls; in some few instances, those of the minor canons or priest vicars also. The destruction of the ancient stalls, as at Canterbury, and of the lower range of stalls, as in many places, is a barbarism much to be lamented.

The same word is also used to signify any benefice, which gives the person holding it a seat, or stall, with the chapter, in a cathedral or collegiate church.

STANDING. The posture enjoined by the Church at several parts of Divine service, as, for instance, at the exhortation with which the service of morning and evening commences, and at the ecclesiastical hymns. In the primitive Church the sermon was listened to standing; and in some churches the people stood praying on the Lord’s day, and during the fifty days after Easter, because it was not then so fitting to look downwards to the earth, as upwards to their risen and ascended Lord.

STATIONS. The weekly fasts of Wednesday and Friday. Not long after Justin Martyr’s time, the Church observed the custom of meeting solemnly for Divine worship on Wednesdays and Fridays, which days are commonly called the stationary days, because they continued their assemblies on those days to a great length, till three o’clock in the afternoon: for which reason they had also the name of semi-jejunia, or half fasts, in opposition to the Lent fasts, which always held till evening.—Bingham. Station, in the Romish Church, denotes certain churches in which indulgences are granted on certain days. It is also a ceremony wherein the clergy go out of the choir and sing before an image.

STEEPLE. The tower of a church with all its appendages, as turret, octagon, and spire. It is often incorrectly confounded with the spire.

STEPHEN’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the 26th of December, in honour of the protomartyr, St. Stephen.

STIPENDIARIES. Members of collegiate choirs, who do not possess an independent estate, but are paid stipends. At Christ Church in Dublin there are both vicars choral and stipendiaries, the latter generally succeeding to vacant vicarages. There were also formerly five stipendiaries at Tuam; and four at the now ruined cathedral of Enachdune.—Harris’s Ware. Cotton’s Facti Eccl. Hib.

STOLE, or ORARIUM. A long and narrow scarf with fringed extremities, that crossed the breast to the girdle, and thence descended in front on both sides as low as the knees. The deacon wore it over the left shoulder, and in the Latin Church joined under the right arm, but in the Greek Church with its two extremities, one in front and the other hanging down his back. The word ἄγιος was sometimes thrice embroidered on it instead of crosses. It is one of the most ancient vestments used by the Christian clergy, and in its mystical signification represented the yoke of Christ.—Palmer.

STOUP. A bason to receive holy water, often remaining in porches, or in some other place near the entrance of the church, and towards the right hand of a person entering.

SUBCHANTER. (See Succentor.)

SUBDEACONS. An inferior order of clergy in the Christian Church, so called from their being employed in subordination to the deacons.

The first notice we have of this order in any writers, is about the middle of the third century, when Cyprian lived, who speaks of subdeacons as settled in the Church in his time. The author of the “Constitutions” refers them to an apostolical institution, and brings in St. Thomas the apostle, giving directions to bishops for their ordination. But in this he is singular, it being the general opinion that subdeacons are merely of ecclesiastical institution.

As to their office, it was to fit and prepare the sacred vessels and utensils of the altar, and deliver them to the deacons in the time of Divine service; but they were not allowed to minister as deacons at the altar; no, not so much as to come within the rails of it, to set a paten or cup, or the oblations of the people, thereon. Another of their offices was, to attend the doors of the church during the Communion Service. Besides which offices in the church, they had another out of the church, which was, to carry the bishop’s letters or messages to foreign Churches. As to their ordination, it was performed without imposition of hands; and the ceremony consisted in their receiving an empty paten and cup from the hands of the bishop, and an ewer and towel from the archdeacon.

The singularity of the Church of Rome was remarkable in keeping to the exact number of seven subdeacons; whereas in other Churches the number was indefinite.

The employment of the subdeacons in the Romish Church is, to take care of the holy vessels, to prepare and pour water upon the wine in the chalice, to sing the Epistle at solemn masses, to bring and hold the book of the Gospels to the deacon, to give it the priest to kiss, to carry the cross in processions, and to receive the oblations of the people. The bishop, when he confers the order of subdeacon, causes the candidate to lay his hands on a cup and paten, both empty, saying to him at the same time, “Videte cujus ministerium vobis traditur,” &c. “Take care of the ministry which is committed to your charge, and present yourself unto God in such a manner as may be agreeable to him.” After which, the candidate lays his hand on the Epistles, and the bishop says, “Receive this book, and the power of reading the Epistles in the holy Church of God.” The person to be ordained must present himself clothed in a white albe, and holding a lighted taper in his right hand. After the litanies, &c., the bishop clothes him with the amict, saying, “Accipe amictum, per quem designatur castigatio vocis,” that is, “Receive the amict, which denotes the bridle of speech.” He then puts the maniple on his left arm, telling him that it signifies the fruit of good works; and clothes him with the dalmatica, letting him know that it is the garment of joy.

The office of subdeacon does not subsist in the Church of England. It is, however, mentioned in the statutes of Henry the Eighth’s foundations, and is considered to be identical with Epistoler. The four subdeacons at Hereford are lay clerks.—Bingham.

SUBDEAN. An officer in cathedrals, who assists the dean in maintaining the discipline of the Church. In some cathedrals of the old foundation he was a permanent dignitary: in others, a minor canon or vicar choral, and then his jurisdiction was merely over the inferior members. (See Vice Dean.)

SUBINTRODUCTÆ. (See Agapetæ.)

SUBLAPSARIANS. Those who hold that God permitted the first man to fall into transgression without absolutely predetermining his fall; or that the decree of predestination regards man as fallen, by an abuse of that freedom which Adam had, into a state in which all were to be left to necessary and unavoidable ruin, who were not exempted from it by predestination. (See Supralapsarians.)

SUBSTANCE. In relation to the Godhead, that which forms the Divine essence or being—that in which the Divine attributes inhere. In the language of the Church, and agreeably with holy writ, Christ is said to be of the same substance with the Father, being begotten, and therefore partaking of the Divine essence; not made, as was the opinion of some of the early heretics. (See Homoousion, Person, and Trinity.)

SUCCENTOR. The precentor’s deputy in cathedral churches. Sometimes this officer was a dignitary, as at York still and formerly at Glasgow, Aberdeen, Paris, &c.; and at York he is called Succentor Canonicorum, to distinguish him from the other subchanter, who is a vicar choral. In most churches however the subchanter is a vicar or minor canon, as at St. Paul’s, Hereford, Lichfield, St. Patrick’s, &c.

SUCCESSION, APOSTOLICAL, or UNINTERRUPTED. (See Apostolical Succession.) The doctrine of a regular and continued transmission of ministerial authority, in the succession of bishops, from the apostles to any subsequent period. To understand this, it is necessary to premise, that the powers of the ministry can only come from one source—the great Head of the Church. By his immediate act the apostles or first bishops were constituted, and they were empowered to send others, as he had sent them. Here then was created the first link of a chain which was destined to reach from Christ’s ascension to his second coming to judge the world. And as the ordaining power was confined exclusively to the apostles, (see Episcopacy,) no other men or ministers could possibly exercise it: from them alone was to be obtained the authority to feed and govern the Church of all future ages. By the labours of the apostles, the Church rapidly spread through the then known world, and with this there grew up a demand for an increase of pastors. Accordingly, the apostles ordained elders or presbyters in all churches; but the powers given to these terminated in themselves; they could not communicate them to others. A few therefore were consecrated to the same rank held by the apostles themselves, and to these the full authority of the Christian ministry was committed, qualifying them to ordain deacons and presbyters, and, when necessary, to impart their full commission to others. Here was the second link of the chain. For example: Paul and the other apostolic bishops were the first. Timothy, Titus, and others, who succeeded to the same ministerial powers, formed the second. A third series of bishops were in like manner ordained by the second, as time advanced, and a fourth series by the third. And here the reader will perceive what is meant by uninterrupted succession, viz. a perfect and unbroken transmission of the original ministerial commission from the apostles to their successors, by the progressive and perpetual conveyance of their powers from one race of bishops to another. The process thus established was faithfully carried on in every branch of the universal Church. And as the validity of the ministry depended altogether on the legitimacy of its derivation from the apostles, infinite care was taken in the consecration of bishops, to see that the ecclesiastical pedigree of their consecrators was regular and indisputable. In case that any man broke in upon the apostolical succession, by “climbing up some other way,” he was instantly deposed. A great part of the ancient canons were made for regulating ordinations, especially those of bishops, by providing that none should be ordained, except in extraordinary cases, by less than three bishops of the same province; that strange bishops should not be admitted to join with those of the province on such occasions, but those only who were neighbours and well known, and the validity of whose orders was not disputed. The care thus taken in the early ages to preserve inviolate the succession from the apostles, has been maintained in all Churches down to the present day. There are in existence, catalogues of bishops from our own time back to the day of Pentecost. These catalogues are proofs of the importance always attached by the Church to a regular genealogy in her bishops. And they, as well as the living bishops themselves, are proofs of the reality of an apostolical succession. It has been well remarked, that Christ Jesus has taken more abundant care to ascertain the succession of pastors in his Church, than ever was taken in relation to the Aaronical priesthood. For, in this case, the succession is transmitted from seniors to juniors, by the most public and solemn action, or rather series of actions, that is ever performed in a Christian Church; an action done in the face of the sun, and attested by great numbers of the most authentic witnesses, as consecrations always were. And we presume it cannot bear any dispute, but that it is now more easily to be proved that the archbishop of Canterbury was canonically ordained, than that any person now living is the son of him who is called his father; and that the same might have been said of any archbishop or bishop that ever sat in that or any other episcopal see, during the time of his being bishop.

Such then is uninterrupted succession; a fact to which every bishop, priest, and deacon, in the wide world, looks as the ground of validity in his orders. Without this, all distinction between a clergyman and a layman is utterly vain, for no security exists that heaven will ratify the acts of an illegally constituted minister on earth. Without it, ordination confers none but humanly derived powers.

The following acute observation occurs in Morgan’s “Verities:”

The succession of Canterbury from Augustine, A. D. 597, to Tillotson, 1691, includes seventy-nine archbishops, giving each an average reign of less than fourteen years. The view in which some persons, opposed to the indispensability of the apostolic succession, try to place it—as a single chain of single links, from some one single apostle, of which one link, wanting or broken, breaks the succession—if very contrary to the facts to be illustrated, is yet very original. Grant each apostle to have founded twenty churches, here are at least, ab origine, two hundred and forty successions apostolically commenced. Considering how these have reproduced themselves a thousand-fold, and that each episcopal link succeeded the last as publicly as kings their predecessors, the “one chain” is not a very fortunate comparison.

SUFFRAGANS. The word properly signifies all the provincial bishops who are under a metropolitan, and they are called his suffragans, because he has power to call them to his provincial synods to give their suffrages there.

The name is also used to denote a class resembling the chorepiscopi, or country bishops, of the ancient Church. (See Chorepiscopus.)

In the very beginning of the Reformation here, viz. an. 26 Henry VIII. c. 14, an act passed to restore this order of men under the name of suffragan bishops. The preamble recites, that good laws had been made for electing and consecrating archbishops and bishops, but no provision was made for suffragans, which had been accustomed here for the more speedy administration of the sacraments, and other devout things, &c.; therefore it was enacted that the places following should be the sees of bishops suffragans: Bedford, Berwick, Bridgewater, Bristol, Cambridge, Colchester, Dover, St. Germain, Guildford, Gloucester, Grantham, Hull, Huntingdon, Isle of Wight, Ipswich, Leicester, Marlborough, Moulton, Nottingham, Penrith, Southampton, Shaftesbury, Shrewsbury, Taunton, Thetford. The bishop of each diocese shall by petition present two persons to the king, whereof he shall allow one to be the suffragan, and thereupon direct his mandate to the archbishop to consecrate him, which was to be done after this manner: first it recites that the bishop, having informed the king that he wanted a suffragan, had therefore presented two persons to him who were qualified for that office, praying that the king would nominate one of them; thereupon he nominated P. S., being one of the persons presented, to be suffragan of the see of Ipswich, requiring the archbishop to consecrate him. The bishop thus consecrated was to have no greater authority than what was limited to him by commission from the bishop of the diocese, and was to last no longer. This act was repealed by 1 & 2 Philip & Mary, cap. 8; but it was revived by 1 Elizabeth, and during the reign of that sovereign we find notices of suffragans at Dover and elsewhere. Bishop Gibson mentions Dr. Stean, suffragan of Colchester about 1606, as among the last of these suffragans. But, although the law has not been acted on in later times, it is still unrepealed.

SUFFRAGE. A vote, token of assent and approbation, or, as in public worship, the united voice and consent of the people in the petitions offered.

The term is also used in the Prayer Book to designate a short form of petition, as in the Litany. Thus, in the Order for the Consecration of Bishops, we read that in the Litany as then used, after the words, “That it may please thee to illuminate all bishops,” &c., the proper suffrage shall be, “That it may please thee to bless this our brother elected,” &c. The versicles immediately after the creed, in Morning and Evening Prayer, are also denominated suffrages, as in the instance quoted by Johnson, “The suffrages next after the creed shall stand thus. Common Prayer, Form of Thanksgiving for May 29.” (See Versicle.)

The Litany in “the Ordering of Deacons” is headed the Litany and Suffrages. By suffrages here seems to be meant the latter part of the Litany, called the supplication. (See Wheatly in loc. and Supplications.) In some old choral books these are called the second suffrages.

SUNDAY. (See Lord’s Day.) The ancients retained the name Sunday, or Dies Solis, in compliance with the ordinary forms of speech; the first day of the week being so called by the Romans, because it was dedicated to the worship of the sun. Thus Justin Martyr, describing the worship of the Christians, speaks of the day which is called that of the sun.

Besides the most solemn parts of Christian worship, which were always performed on Sundays, this day was distinguished by a peculiar reverence and respect expressed towards it in the observation of some special laws and customs. Among these we may reckon, in the first place, those imperial laws, which suspended all proceedings at law on this day, excepting only such as were of absolute necessity, or eminent charity, such as the manumission of slaves, and the like. This was the same respect that the old Roman laws paid to the heathen festivals, which were exempted from all other juridical business, except in cases of necessity or charity. Neither was it only business of the law, but all secular and servile employments that were superseded on this day, still excepting acts of necessity and mercy. Constantine, indeed, allowed works of husbandry, as earing and harvest, to be done on Sundays: but this permission was never well approved of by the Church, which endeavoured to observe a just medium in the observation of the Lord’s day, neither indulging Christians in unnecessary works on that day, nor wholly restraining them from working, if a great occasion required it.

Another thing which the Christian laws took care of, to secure the honour and dignity of the Lord’s day, was, that no ludicrous sports or games should be followed on this day. There are two famous laws of the two Theodosiuses to this purpose, expressly forbidding the exercises of gladiators, stage-plays, and horse-races in the circus, to be exhibited to the Christians. And by the ecclesiastical laws, these sorts of diversions were universally forbidden to all Christians, on account of the extravagances and blasphemies that were committed in them. But all such recreations and refreshments, as tended to the preservation or conveniency of the life of man, were allowed on the Lord’s day. And therefore Sunday was always a day of feasting, and it was never allowable to fast thereon, not even in Lent.

The great care and concern of the primitive Christians, in the religious observation of the Lord’s day, appears, first, from their constant attendance upon all the solemnities of public worship, from which nothing but sickness, imprisonment, banishment, or some great necessity, could detain them: secondly, from their zeal in frequenting religious assemblies on this day, even in times of the hottest persecution, when they were often beset and seized in their meetings and congregations: thirdly, from their studious observation of the vigils, or nocturnal assemblies, that preceded the Lord’s day: fourthly, from the eager attendance on sermons—in many places, twice on this day; and their constant resorting to evening prayers, where there was no sermon: lastly, from the severe censures inflicted on those who violated the laws concerning the religious observation of this day; such persons being usually punished with excommunication, as appears from the Apostolical Constitutions, and the canons of several councils.

In the Romish Breviary and other offices, we meet with a distinction of Sundays into those of the first and second class. Sundays of the first class are, Palm Sunday, Easter Day, Advent, Whitsunday, &c. Those of the second class are the common Sundays of the year.—Bingham.

SUPEREROGATION. In the Romish Church, works of supererogation are those good deeds which are supposed to have been performed by saints, over and above what is required for their own salvation. These constitute an inexhaustible fund, on which the pope has the power of drawing at pleasure, for the relief of the Church, by the application of some portion of this superabundant merit, to meet a deficiency in the spiritual worth of any of its members.

On this doctrine of the Church of Rome our Church thus speaks in the fourteenth Article:—“Voluntary works besides, over and above God’s commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety; for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required; whereas Christ saith plainly, ‘When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.’”

The works here mentioned are called in the Romish Church likewise by the name of “counsels” and “evangelical perfections.” They are defined by their writers to be “good works, not commanded by Christ, but recommended;” rules which do not oblige all men to follow them, under the pain of sin; but yet are useful to carry them on to a sublimer degree of perfection than is necessary in order to their salvation. But there are no such counsels of perfection in the gospel; all the rules, set to us in it, are in the style and form of precepts; and, though there may be some actions of more heroical virtue and more sublime piety than others, to which all men are not obliged by equal and general rules; yet such men, to whose circumstances and station they belong, are strictly obliged by them, so that they should sin if they did not put them in practice.—Dr. Nicholls. Bp. Burnet.

SUPPLICATIONS. The following part of this Litany [beginning with the Lord’s Prayer] we call the Supplications, which were first collected and put into this form, when the barbarous nations first began to overrun the empire about six hundred years after Christ: but, considering the troubles of the Church militant, and the many enemies it always hath in this world, this part of the Litany is no less suitable than the former at all times whatsoever.—Wheatly. (See Litany and Suffrage.) In many choirs and at the universities this latter part of the Litany is performed by a different minister from the former: in apparent compliance with the rubric, which before the Lord’s Prayer directs that the Priest shall say it. And when the Litany is sung to the organ, it is usual to sing the responses in the Supplications without that accompaniment.

SUPRALAPSARIANS. The way in which they understand the Divine decrees, has produced two distinctions of Calvinists, viz. Sublapsarians and Supralapsarians. The former term is derived from two Latin words, sub, below or after, and lapsus, the fall; and the latter from supra, above, and lapsus, the fall. The Sublapsarians assert, that God had only permitted the first man to fall into transgression, without absolutely predetermining his fall; their system of decrees, concerning election and reprobation, being, as it were, subsequent to that event. On the other hand, the Supralapsarians maintained that God had, from all eternity, decreed the transgression of man. The Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian schemes agree in asserting the doctrine of predestination, but with this difference, that the former supposes that God intended to glorify his justice in the condemnation of some, as well as his mercy in the salvation of others; and for that purpose decreed that Adam should necessarily fall, and by that fall bring himself and all his offspring into a state of everlasting condemnation. The latter scheme supposes, that the decree of predestination regards man as fallen by an abuse of that freedom which Adam had, into a state in which all were to be left to necessary and unavoidable ruin, who were not exempted from it by predestination.

SUPREMACY. Lord Chief Justice Hale says, The supremacy of the Crown of England in matters ecclesiastical is a most indubitable right of the Crown, as appeareth by records of unquestionable truth and authority.—1 H. H. 75.

Lord-Chief Justice Coke says, That, by the ancient laws of this realm, this kingdom of England is an absolute empire and monarchy, consisting of one head, which is the king; and of a body, consisting of several members, which the law divideth into two parts, the clergy and laity, both of them, next and immediately under God, subject and obedient to the head.—5 Co. 8. 40. Caudrey’s case.

By the parliament of England, in the 16 Rich. II. c. 5, it is asserted, that the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no earthly subjection, but immediately subject to God in all things touching the regality of the same Crown, and to none other.

And in the 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, it is thus recited: “By sundry and authentic histories and chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed, that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king, having dignity and royal estate of the imperial crown of the same; unto whom a body politic, compact of all sorts and degrees of people, divided in terms and by names of spirituality and temporality, been bounden and owen to bear, next unto God, a natural and humble obedience; he being also furnished by the goodness and sufferance of Almighty God, with plenary, whole, and entire power, pre-eminence, authority, prerogative, and jurisdiction, to render and yield justice and final determination to all manner of persons, resiants within this realm, in all cases, matters, debates, and contentions, without restraint or provocation to any foreign princes or potentates of the world; in causes spiritual by judges of the spirituality, and causes temporal by temporal judges.”

Again, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21. The realm of England, recognising no superior under God but only the king, hath been and is free from subjection to any man’s laws, but only to such as have been devised, made, and obtained within this realm for the wealth of the same, or to such other as, by sufferance of the king, the people of this realm have taken at their free liberty by their own consent to be used amongst them, and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance of the same, not as to the observance of the laws of any foreign prince, potentate, or prelate; but as to the customed and ancient laws of this realm, originally established as laws of the same by the said sufferance, contents, and custom, and none otherwise.

The Church of England declares, Can. 1, “As our duty to the king’s most excellent Majesty requireth, we first decree and ordain, that the archbishop from time to time, all bishops, deans, archdeacons, parsons, vicars, and all other ecclesiastical persons, shall faithfully keep and observe, and as much as in them lieth shall cause to be observed and kept of others, all and singular laws and statutes made for restoring to the Crown of this kingdom the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical, and abolishing of all foreign power repugnant to the same. Furthermore, all ecclesiastical persons having cure of souls, and all other preachers, and readers of divinity lectures, shall, to the uttermost of their wit, knowledge, and learning, purely and sincerely, (without any colour of dissimulation,) teach, manifest, open, and declare, four times every year at the least, in their sermons and other collation and lectures, that all usurped and foreign power (forasmuch as the same hath no establishment nor ground by the law of God) is for most just causes taken away and abolished, and that therefore no manner of obedience or subjection within his Majesty’s realms and dominions is due unto any such foreign power; but that the king’s power, within his realms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and all other his dominions and countries, is the highest power under God, to whom all men, as well inhabitants as born within the same, do by God’s laws owe most loyalty and obedience, afore and above all other powers and potentates in the earth.”

Canon 2. “Whoever shall affirm, that the king’s Majesty hath not the same authority in causes ecclesiastical that the godly kings had amongst the Jews and Christian emperors of the primitive Church, or impeach any part of his regal supremacy in the said causes restored to the crown, and by the laws of this realm therein established, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored but only by the archbishop, after his repentance and public revocation of those his wicked errors.”

Canon 26. “No person shall be received into the ministry, nor admitted to any ecclesiastical function, except he shall first subscribe (amongst others) to this article following: that the king’s Majesty, under God, is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his Highness’s dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within his Majesty’s said realms, dominions, and countries.”

And the 37th Article declares, that “The queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, and other her dominions; unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain; and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction. But when we attribute to the queen’s Majesty the chief government, we give not thereby to our princes the ministering, either of God’s word or of the sacraments; but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scripture by God himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers. The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.”

By the 1 Eliz. c. 1, it is enacted as follows, viz. that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, spiritual or temporal, shall use, enjoy, or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence, or privilege, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within this realm, or any other her Majesty’s dominions or countries, but the same shall be abolished thereout for ever; any statute, ordinance, custom, constitutions, or any other matter or cause whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. (S. 16.)

And such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, and pre-eminence, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority have heretofore been, or may lawfully be, exercised or used for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons, and for reformation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, shall for ever be united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. (S. 17.)

And if any person shall by writing, printing, teaching, preaching express words, deed or act, advisedly, maliciously, and directly affirm, hold, stand with, set forth, maintain, or defend the authority, pre-eminence, power, or jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical, of any foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate whatsoever, heretofore claimed, used, or usurped within this realm, or any other her Majesty’s dominions or countries; or shall advisedly, maliciously, and directly put in use, or execute, anything for the extolling, advancement, setting forth, maintenance, or defence of any such pretended or usurped jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, and authority, or any part thereof; he, his abettors, aiders, procurers, and counsellors shall, for the first offence, forfeit all his goods, and if he hath not goods to the value of £20 he shall also be imprisoned for a year, and the benefices of every spiritual person offending shall also be void; for the second offence shall incur a præmunire; and for the third shall be guilty of high treason. (S. 27–30.)

But no person shall be molested for any offence committed only by preaching, teaching, or words, unless he be indicted within one half year after the offence committed. (S. 31.)

And no person shall be indicted or arraigned but by the oath of two or more witnesses; which witnesses, or so many of them as shall be living, and within the realm at the time of the arraignment, shall be brought face to face before the party arraigned, if he require the same. (S. 37.)

If any person shall by writing, cyphering, printing, preaching, or teaching, deed or act, advisedly and wittingly, hold or stand with, to extol, set forth, maintain or defend the authority, jurisdiction, or power of the bishop of Rome or of his see, heretofore claimed, used, or usurped, within this realm, or in any of her Majesty’s dominions; or by any speech, open deed, or act, advisedly and wittingly attribute any such manner of jurisdiction, authority, or pre-eminence to the said see of Rome, or to any bishop of the same see for the time being; he, his abettors, procurers, and counsellors, his aiders, assistants, and comforters, upon purpose and to the intent so set forth, further and extol the said usurped power, being indicted or presented within one year, and convicted at any time after, shall incur a præmunire.—5 Eliz. c. 1, s. 2.

And the justices of assize, or two justices of the peace, (one whereof to be of the quorum,) in their sessions, may inquire thereof, and shall certify the presentment into the King’s Bench in forty days, if the term be then open; if not, at the first day of the full term next following the said forty days: on pain of £100. (S. 3.)

And the justices of the King’s Bench, as well upon such certificate as by inquiry before themselves, shall proceed thereupon as in cases of præmunire. (S. 4.)

But charitable giving of reasonable alms to an offender, without fraud or covin, shall not be deemed abetting, procuring, counselling, aiding, assisting, or comforting. (S. 18.)

The papal encroachments upon the king’s sovereignty in causes and over persons ecclesiastical, yea, even in matters civil, under that loose pretence of in ordine ad spiritualia, had obtained a great strength and long continuance in this realm, notwithstanding the security the Crown had by the oaths of fealty and allegiance; so that there was a necessity to unrivet those usurpations, by substituting by authority of parliament a recognition by oath of the king’s supremacy, as well in causes ecclesiastical as civil; and thereupon the oath of supremacy was framed.—1 H. H. 75.

Which oath, as finally established by the 1 Will. III. c. 8, is as follows: “I A. B. do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that princes, excommunicated or deprived by the pope or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm: so help me God.”

But, lastly, the usurped jurisdiction of the pope being abolished, and there being no longer any danger to the liberties of the Church or State from that quarter; and divers of the princes of this realm having entertained more exalted notions of the supremacy, both ecclesiastical and civil, than were deemed consistent with the legal establishment and constitution; it was thought fit at the Revolution to declare and express, how far the regal power, in matters spiritual as well as temporal, doth extend; that so, as well the just prerogative of the Crown on the one hand, as the rights and liberties of the subject on the other, might be ascertained and secured. Therefore by the statute of the 1 W. III. c. 6, it is enacted as followeth:

“Whereas by the law and ancient usage of this realm, the kings and queens thereof have taken a solemn oath upon the evangelists at their respective coronations, to maintain the statutes, laws, and customs of the said realm, and all the people and inhabitants thereof in their spiritual and civil rights and properties; but forasmuch as the oath itself, on such occasion administered, hath heretofore been framed in doubtful words and expressions, with relation to ancient laws at this time unknown; to the end therefore that one uniform oath may be in all times to come taken by the kings and queens of this realm, and to them respectively administered, at the times of their and every of their coronation, it is enacted that the following oath shall be administered to every king or queen who shall succeed to the imperial crown of this realm, at their respective coronations, by one of the archbishops or bishops of this realm of England for the time being, to be thereunto appointed by such king or queen respectively, and in the presence of all persons that shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise present at such their respective coronations: that is to say,

“The archbishop or bishop shall say, ‘Will you solemnly promise and swear, to govern the people of the kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same?’ The king or queen shall say, ‘I solemnly promise so to do.’

“Archbishop or bishop: ‘Will you to your power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgments?’ The king and queen shall answer, ‘I will.’

“Archbishop or bishop: ‘Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel, and Protestant reformed religion established by law? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rites and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them?’ The king or queen shall answer, ‘All this I promise to do:’ after this, laying his or her hand upon the holy Gospels, he or she shall say, ‘The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep: so help me God:’ and shall then kiss the book.”

By the Act of Union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, 5 Anne, c. 8, it is enacted, that after the demise of her Majesty Queen Anne, the sovereign next succeeding, and so for ever afterwards every king or queen succeeding to the royal government of the kingdom of Great Britain, at his or her coronation, shall in the presence of all persons who shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise then and there present, take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof as by law established, within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, and the dominion of Wales and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed and the territories thereunto belonging.

And shall also swear and subscribe, that they shall inviolably maintain and preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion, with the government, worship, discipline, right, and privileges of the Church of Scotland, as then established by the laws of that kingdom. (The foregoing authorities are quoted from Burn.)

By the Church of England, the sovereign is thus regarded as being over all persons, and over all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, supreme. On this head an objection is raised against the Church of England, as if her ministers derived their authority from the Crown. This objection is thus answered by Palmer: 1. We must insist upon it that the principles of the Church of England, with reference to the authority of the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs, cannot be determined in any way by the opinions of lawyers, or the preambles of acts of parliament. We nowhere subscribe to either one or the other. 2. The opinion of the temporal power itself as to its own authority in ecclesiastical affairs, and its acts in accordance with such opinions, are perfectly distinct from the principles of the Church of England on these points. We are not bound to adopt such opinions, or approve such acts of temporal rulers, nor even to approve every point of the existing law. 3. The clergy of England, in acknowledging the supremacy of the king, A.D. 1531, did so, as Burnet proves, with the important proviso, “quantum per Christi legem licet;” which original condition is ever to be supposed in our acknowlegment of the royal supremacy. Consequently we give no authority to the prince, except what is consistent with the maintenance of all those rights, liberties, jurisdictions, and spiritual powers, “which the law of Christ confers on his Church.” 4. The Church of England believes the jurisdiction and commission of her clergy to come from God, by apostolic succession, as is evident from the ordination service, and has been proved by the Papist Milner himself (“Letters to a Prebendary,” Let. 8); and it is decidedly the doctrine of the great majority of her theologians. 5. The acts of English monarchs have been objected in proof of their views on the subject. We are not bound to subscribe to those views. If their acts were wrong in any case, we never approved them, though we may have been obliged by circumstances to submit to intrusions and usurpations. But since this is a favourite topic with Romanists, let us view the matter a little on another side. I ask, then, whether the parliaments of France did not, for a long series of years, exercise jurisdiction over the administration of the sacraments, compelling the Roman bishops and priests of France to give the sacrament to Jansenists, whom they believed to be heretics? Did they not repeatedly judge in questions of faith, viz. as to the obligation of the bull “Unigenitus?” Did they not take cognizance of questions of faith and discipline to such a degree, that they were said to resemble “a school of theology?” I ask whether the clergy of France in their convocations were not wholly under the control of the king, who could prescribe their subjects of debate, prevent them from debating, prorogue, dissolve, &c.?

Did they not repeatedly beg in vain from the kings of France, for a long series of years, to be permitted to hold provincial synods for the suppression of immorality, heresy, and infidelity? Is not this liberty still withheld from them, and from every other Roman Church in Europe? I further ask whether the emperor Joseph II. did not enslave the Churches of Germany and Italy? Whether he did not suppress monasteries, suppress and unite bishoprics? Whether he did not suspend the bishops from conferring orders, exact from them oaths of obedience to all his measures present and future, issue royal decrees for removing images from churches, and for the regulation of Divine worship down to the minutest points, even to the number of candles at mass? Whether he did not take on himself to silence preachers who had declaimed against persons of unsound faith? Whether he did not issue decrees against the bull “Unigenitus,” thus interfering with the doctrinal decision of the whole Roman Church? I ask whether this conduct was not accurately imitated by the grand duke of Tuscany, the king of Naples, the duke of Parma; whether it did not become prevalent in almost every part of the Roman Church; and whether its effects do not continue to the present day? I again ask, whether “Organic Articles” were not enacted by Buonaparte in the new Gallican Church, which placed everything in ecclesiastical affairs under the government? Whether the bishops were not forbidden by the emperor to confer orders without the permission of government; whether the obvious intention was not to place the priests, even in their spiritual functions, under the civil powers? And, in fine, whether these obnoxious “Organic Articles” are not, up to the present day, in almost every point in force? I again inquire whether the order of Jesuits was not suppressed by the mere civil powers, in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, &c.; whether convents, monasteries, confraternities, friars, and monks, and nuns, of every sort and kind, were not extinguished, suppressed, annihilated by royal commission, and by the temporal power, in France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Sicily, Spain, Portugal, &c., and in opposition to the petitions and protests of the pope and the bishops? I again ask, whether the king of Sicily does not, in his “Tribunal of the Monarchy,” up to the present day, try ecclesiastical causes, censure, excommunicate, absolve? Whether this tribunal did not, in 1712, give absolution from episcopal excommunications; and whether it was not restored by Benedict XII. in 1728?

Is there a Roman Church on the continent of Europe, where the clergy can communicate freely with him whom they regard as their spiritual head; or where all papal bulls, rescripts, briefs, &c. are not subjected to a rigorous surveillance on the part of government, and allowed or disallowed at its pleasure? In fine, was not Gregory XVI. himself compelled, in his encyclical letter of 1832, to utter the most vehement complaints and lamentations, at the degraded condition of the Roman obedience? Does he not confess that the Church is “subjected to earthly considerations,” “reduced to a base servitude,” “the rights of its bishops trampled on?” These are all certain facts: I appeal in proof of them to the Roman historians, and to many other writers of authority; and they form but a part of what might be said on this subject. Romanists should blush to accuse the Church of England for the acts of our civil rulers in ecclesiastical matters. They should remember those words, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

But it will be objected, all this was contrary at least to the principles of the Roman Church, while English theologians, on the contrary, exaggerate the authority of the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs. We admit unequivocally, that some of our theologians have spoken unadvisedly on this subject. But what of that? Can they have gone further than the whole school of Gallican writers, of modern canonists, and reforming theologians, in the Romish Church, whose object is to overthrow the papal power, and render the Church subservient in all things to the State? Do Romanists imagine that we are ignorant of the principles of Pithou and the Gallican School, of Giannone, Van Espen, Zallwein, De Hontheim, Ricci, Eybel, Sioch, Rechberger, Oberhauser, Riegger, Cavallari, Tamburini, and fifty others, who were tinged with the very principles imputed to us? Do they forget that their clergy in many parts have petitioned princes to remove the canonical law of celibacy? In fine, is it not well known, that there is a conspiracy among many of their theologians, to subject the discipline of the Church to the civil magistrate? It is really too much for Romanists to assail us on the very point where they are themselves most vulnerable, and where they are actually most keenly suffering. Our Churches, though subject to some inconvenience, and lately aggrieved by the suppression of bishoprics in Ireland, contrary to the solemn protests of the bishops and clergy, are yet in a far more respectable and independent position than the Roman Churches. Those amongst us who maintain the highest principles of the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, have reason to feel thankful that we have not yet fallen to the level of the Church of Rome.

SUPREMACY, PAPAL. The fourth Lateran Council, in the year 1215, is the first of those called general which recognised the authority of the Roman see as supreme over the Church. In the fifth canon the Roman Church is said to have “a principality of power over all others, as the mother and mistress of all Christian believers;” and all other patriarchs are required to receive their palls from the Roman pontiff. The titles of universal pope and universal patriarch, first used by the bishops of Constantinople, and afterwards applied indifferently to the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, as appears by the letters of the emperor Constantine Pogonatus, in Labbe and Cossart, vol. vi. pp. 593, 599, were titles of honour, and did not imply universal jurisdiction. There was no allusion to it in any former general council; so that, up to 1215, it was free for a man to think how he pleased concerning it. And not only were men free to deny the papal supremacy, they were bound to resist and reject it, in all places where it could not be proved to have been from the beginning. For so it was decreed by the third general council, which was assembled at Ephesus, A. D. 431, “that none of the bishops, most beloved of God, do assume any other province that is not, and was not formerly, and from the beginning, subject to him, or those who were his predecessors. But if any have assumed any church, that he be forced to restore it, that so the canons of the fathers be not transgressed, nor worldly pride be introduced under the mask of this sacred function. The holy general synod hath therefore decreed, that the right of every province, formerly, and from the beginning, belonging to it, be preserved clear and inviolable.” This decree was passed on the occasion of an attempt by the patriarch of Antioch to usurp authority over the churches of the island of Cyprus, which had not been formerly under his jurisdiction, and is worthy of notice to the members of the Churches of England and Ireland. For as it is beyond denial, from the conduct of the British and Irish bishops, that the Churches in these islands knew no subjection to Rome up to the close of the sixth century, it is certain that every exercise of jurisdiction which the bishop of Rome practised afterwards for a time in this kingdom, was in violation of the decrees of the Catholic Church, and that the Churches here were merely acting in obedience to those decrees, when, after having made trial of that cruel bondage, they were enabled to release themselves from it. There is one other thing not unworthy of notice as concerns this point. By the creed of Pope Pius, all communicants in the Church of Rome are required to acknowledge as part of that “faith without which no man can be saved,” “the holy Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, for the mother and mistress of all Churches.” It should be known that the Fathers assembled in the second general council, Constantinople, A. D. 381, gave the title which is here claimed for Rome to the Church of Jerusalem, as appears from their synodical epistle. “We acknowledge the most venerable Cyril, most beloved of God, to be bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, which is the mother of all Churches.”—See Conc. ii. 866. Thus then it appears, that in order to obtain communion in Rome, it is necessary to record an opinion directly at variance with that of a general council universally acknowledged.

The following has been abbreviated from Mr. Sanderson Robins’s very able treatise on the Evidence of Scripture against the Claims of the Church of Rome.

“The earlier popes knew nothing of the modern view which makes Peter and his alleged successors to be the supreme pastors, and all other bishops subordinate and deriving authority from them. Launoy cites no fewer than forty who employ the term fellow-bishop, and fellow-priest; which utterly contradicts the opinion of Bellarmine and his school. The very formula which indicates the invasion of episcopal independence, ‘By the grace of the apostolic see,’ is not to be traced farther back than the middle of the thirteenth century. Yet Duval argues that because the jurisdiction of bishops can be limited or taken away by the pope, it is not derived immediately from Christ. The converse is the true proposition; because it is derived immediately from Christ, it cannot be limited or taken away by the pope.

“The interpretation which assigns supreme power to the pope as Peter’s successor, would make him universal bishop, and leave nothing but vicarial power to all other bishops, which is exactly the conclusion so strenuously resisted by Gregory the Great, when he feared the growing importance of the see of Constantinople. Bellarmine admits the title to be antichristian and profane; but when he attempts to draw a distinction in favour of the powers claimed for the bishop of Rome, he reasons illogically, as Launoy has abundantly proved.

“The witness of the Bible remains, in spite of all efforts to conceal or pervert its meaning by those who are interested in defending an adverse system. It represents the office of Christ as incommunicable and unapproachable. He is the Root, from which the branches derive life and strength; the Shepherd, who knows his sheep, and is known of them; the heavenly Bridegroom, to whom the Church is espoused. So, again, he is ‘the Head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.’ When the title is ascribed to another, there is insurmountable difficulty involved. If Peter, or the bishop of Rome, is the head, then the Church must in the same sense be his body, which no one ventures to say. The distinction, again, between a visible and an invisible head has not the least show of Scripture proof, and is no better than an invention to meet an obvious difficulty. Nor is it of any avail to speak, as some do, of Christ as the essential, and Peter as the ministerial head, because whatever relation to the Church is represented by the figure, can exist only under the former, that is, by the union of believers to Christ, which is maintained through the ministry of the word and sacraments.

“There is an utter and hopeless disagreement, and on a point which involves supreme government. It is no secondary question, but one, as Dupin reminds us, which includes all ecclesiastical discipline. And yet, whether pope is superior to council, or the reverse; and whether the pope enjoys his prerogatives by Divine right, or ecclesiastical, has never been defined, though the decision is above all things required. In the Council of Trent, where the delivery of a clear, intelligible doctrine might have been reasonably expected, there was, instead, a prohibition of all discussion on the subject. It is not even settled whether, by disagreement on the question, persons incur the peril of heresy; Gerson holds the affirmative, and Bossuet sides with him, while Duval and others maintain the negative. The truth is, that the Roman Church has authorized two opposite conclusions, which have been enforced as the one party or the other prevailed. It is not the mere contention of private doctors, whose judgment might on either side be disavowed, but it is the Church itself which speaks inconsistently by its synodical decisions. It has, indeed, been demanded unreasonably, and sometimes incautiously allowed, that no statements of doctrine should be attributed to the Roman Church as authoritative, but such as are contained in the decrees of the Council of Trent, in the creed of Pius IV., and in the catechism. But it is to be observed, in the first place, that the decisions of the council avowedly do not extend beyond such points as had been brought into question by Protestants, and, at the same time, had not been disputed among Romanists themselves, for it was expressly enjoined that no definition should be made about any matter controverted among ‘Catholics’ themselves. The creed and the catechism have no more than the authority of the individual pope, by whom they were promulgated. It is true that this office was remitted to the bishop of Rome by the members of the council, but they possessed no such power of delegation. They might have adopted any decree of the pope, and have given it synodical sanction; but their consent previous to the consideration, or even knowledge of its contents, could not afford any weight additional to that which the pope alone could give. And, in the next place, the index of books, the catechism, the breviary, and the missal, possess equal authority, for they are enumerated together in the decree passed at the close of the council; that is, they possess as much authority as the decree of a pope could give them, and less than that which belongs to the decree of a council which has papal confirmation. It is true that, in the last of the articles which Pius IV. added to the creed of the Church Catholic, there is a profession of adherence to the decrees of general councils; but then no Romanist can tell what is and what is not a general council. It depends on the school to which he belongs, and on which side of the mountains he happens to live. Some so-called general councils, as Bellarmine tells us, are received, some are rejected, and some partly approved and partly reprobated; which, as Leslie says truly, ‘is going through all the degrees of uncertainty.’ The chief difficulty arises from those which flatly contradict each other, and which yet, from indispensable considerations, the Roman Church is obliged to acknowledge; they are chiefly such as pronounce upon this question of the supreme authority. At Pisa, and Constance, and Basle, the superiority of a council was distinctly and absolutely affirmed; and obedience required from all persons of whatever dignity, including the pope. In the Council of Florence it was decreed that the pope, as the successor of Peter, and as the vicar of Christ, is head of the whole church, the father and teacher of all Christians, and that plenary power from Christ was given him, in the person of St. Peter, to feed the universal flock. The Lateran Council under Leo X. decreed that the pope has full authority over all councils, to summon, transfer, and dissolve them. It is to be observed, that these conflicting decisions of great Roman councils are no more than the embodying in decrees the opposite interpretations of that text which forms the main Scripture authority for all papal assumptions. No Latin council is to be compared with that of Constance for importance or dignity; and by its acts, accepted and confirmed through the whole Western Church, it rejected the exposition which Romanists are now trying to enforce. M. de Maistre, the chief papal champion in the present century, disposes of the difficulty in a very characteristic way. When pressed with the Decrees of Constance, he says that the answer is easy: the council talked nonsense, like the English Long Parliament, or the Constituent Assembly, or the National Convention, &c.

“Our opponents boast that their Church is the same everywhere; but we cross the Alps, and find the whole system of ecclesiastical doctrine changed. The very term, ultramontane, which is universally recognised as the distinction of a school, bears witness that diversities have not only subsisted at different periods, but exist at the same time in different places. The Gallican Church has, doubtless, been the stronghold of those who deny the absolute power of the pope; but they have had their advocates among distinguished members of the Roman communion in all countries. Panormitan represented them in Italy, Cardinal de Cusa in Germany, and in Spain Alphonso Tostato, of whom Bellarmine says that he was the wonder of the world for his learning. Nay, even in the university of Paris, and among the doctors of the Sorbonne, we find the contest raging with the utmost violence, and the great teachers in vehement antagonism. Sometimes we see the representative of the pope brought into collision with the theological professor; as when Richer maintained the prevalent opinions of his Church against Cardinal du Perron, who, being a convert from Protestantism, was, of course, extravagant on the other side. Then, at the close of the century, we have Roccaberti, archbishop of Valentia, unsparing in his condemnation of the Gallicans, and calling on the pope to put them down. While Bossuet, on the other hand, affirms that the doctrine which he maintained had always been held in the Church; though he does not attempt to prove that there had not been another distinct line of teaching.”

SURCINGLE. The belt by which the cassock is fastened round the waist.

SURETY. (See Sponsors.)

SURPLICE. A white linen garment, worn by the Christian clergy and other ministers of the Church, in the celebration of Divine services, and also, on certain days, by members of colleges, whether clerical or lay. It is, in Latin, superpelliceum, a name which Cardinal Bona says was not older than 600 years before his time, (the middle of the seventeenth century,) and was so called from the white garment which was placed by ecclesiastics, super pelles, over the garments of dressed skins worn by the northern nations.

This habit seems to have been originally copied from the vestments of the Jewish priests, who, by God’s own appointment, were to put on a white linen ephod at the time of public service. And its antiquity in the Christian Church may be seen from Gregory Nazianzen, who advised the priests to purity, because a little spot is soon seen in a white garment; but more expressly from St. Jerome, who, reproving the needless scruples of such as opposed the use of it, says, “what offence can it be to God, for a bishop or priest to proceed to the communion in a white garment?” The ancients called this garment, from its colour, Alba, the Albe, a word in later times applied to a surplice with close sleeves.

The surplice is white, to represent the innocence and righteousness with which God’s ministers ought to be clothed. As for the shape of it, it is a thing so perfectly indifferent, that no reason need to be assigned for it; though Durandus has found out one: for that author observes, that, as the garments used by the Jewish priesthood were girt tight about them, to signify the bondage of the law; so the looseness of the surplices used by the Christian priests signifies the freedom of the gospel.

It is objected by dissenters from the Church of England, against the use of the surplice, that it is a rag of Popery, and has been abused by the Papists to superstitious and idolatrous uses. But this is no just objection against it; for, if the surplice, or some such white garment, was in use among the primitive Christians, the Church is justified in following their example, notwithstanding the abuses thereof by those of the Romish or any other communion.

Whether the surplice should be worn by the preacher in the pulpit is a question which has given rise, of late years, to much unprofitable controversy. On the side of wearing the surplice, it is said that the preacher is nowhere in the Prayer Book directed to change his dress; and therefore his dress should be, as before prescribed, the surplice. On the other hand it has been shown that, before the Reformation, the preachers were accustomed to wear their ordinary dress in the pulpit, except in cathedrals and collegiate churches, which custom has come down to us; and to adhere to inherited customs is to act on the catholic principle. On these facts it is obvious to remark, first, that the ultra-Protestants who are very violent against the use of the surplice by the preacher,—are, in this instance, the Romanizers; and secondly, that if the surplice be not worn, since no preacher’s dress is appointed by the Church, the preacher would be more correct who should appear in his ordinary costume. But those who are wise on either side, will, in regard to a thing so purely indifferent, follow the customs of the place in which they are called to officiate.

SURPLICE DAYS, or times. According to the 17th canon, “all masters and fellows of colleges or halls, and all the scholars and students in either of the universities, shall in their churches and chapels, upon all Sundays, holy-days, and their eves, at the time of Divine service, wear surplices according to the order of the Church of England; and such as are graduates, shall agreeably wear with their surplices such hoods as do severally appertain unto their degrees.” Saturday evening, it is to be observed, as the eve of Sunday, has always been considered as coming within this rule. The colleges in the universities of Cambridge and Dublin construe this rule as applying to all their members; those of Oxford, Christ Church excepted, to the foundation members only; and there noblemen are deprived of the privilege of wearing the surplice. By the 25th canon, the use of the surplice is prescribed daily to the dean, masters, heads of collegiate churches, canons, and prebendaries. The short surplice adopted in the Roman Church is a corruption, as Cardinal Bona confesses. He says that “Stephen of Tonmay, who lived A. D. 1180, shows that the surplice formerly reached to the feet;” and so likewise “Honorius de Vestibus Clericorum:” and that in the course of time it was shortened, as it appears from the Council of Basle, sess. 21, which commanded the clergy to have surplices reaching below the middle of the leg. He adds, that they are now so much shortened as scarcely to reach to the knee. Hence it is evident that the Church of England retains the correct and ancient fashion.—Jebb.

SURROGATE. Surrogate is one who is substituted or appointed in the room of another. Thus the office of granting licences for marriage in lieu of banns, being in the bishop of the diocese by his chancellor, the inconvenience of a journey to the seat of episcopal jurisdiction is obviated by the appointment of clergymen in the principal towns of the diocese as surrogates, with the power of granting such licences, and of granting probates of wills, &c.

By canon 128, “No chancellor, commissary, archdeacon, official, or any other person using ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall substitute in their absence any to keep court for them, unless he be either a grave minister and a graduate, or a licensed public preacher, and a beneficed man near the place where the courts are kept, or a bachelor of law, or a master of arts at least, who hath some skill in the civil and ecclesiastical law, and is a favourer of true religion, and a man of modest and honest conversation; under pain of suspension, for every time that they offend therein, from the execution of their offices for the space of three months toties quoties: and he likewise that is deputed, being not qualified as is before expressed, and yet shall presume to be a substitute to any judge, and shall keep any court as aforesaid, shall undergo the same censure in manner and form as is before expressed.”

And by the statute of the 26 Geo. II. c. 33, No surrogate, deputed by any ecclesiastical judge, who hath power to grant licences of marriage, shall grant any such licence before he hath taken an oath before the said judge, faithfully to execute his office according to law, to the best of his knowledge; and hath given security by his bond in the sum of £100 to the bishop of the diocese, for the due and faithful execution of his office.

SURSUM CORDA. (Lift up your hearts.) Cyprian, in the third century, attests the use of the form “Lift up your hearts,” and its response, in the liturgy of Africa. Augustine, at the beginning of the fifth century, speaks of these words as being used in all churches. And accordingly we find them placed at the beginning of the Anaphora, or canon, (or solemn prayers,) in the liturgies of Antioch and Cæsarea, Constantinople and Rome, Africa, Gaul, and Spain. How long these introductory sentences have been used in England it would be in vain to inquire: we have no reason, however, to doubt that they are as old as Christianity itself in these countries. The Gallican and Italian churches used them, and Christianity with its liturgy probably came to the British isles from one or other of those churches. We may be certain, at all events, that they have been used in the English liturgy ever since the time of Augustine, archbishop of Canterbury, in 595.

It appears that these sentences were preceded by a salutation or benediction in the ancient liturgies. According to Theodoret, the beginning of the mystical liturgy, or most solemn prayers, was that apostolic benediction, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.” The same was also alluded to by Chrysostom, when he was a presbyter of the Church of Antioch. We find that this benediction, with the response of the people, “And with thy spirit,” has all along preserved its place in the East; for in the liturgies of Cæsarea, Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem, it is uniformly placed at the beginning of the Anaphora, just before the form, “Lift up your hearts.” In Egypt, Africa, and Italy, the apostolic benediction was not used at this place, but instead of it the priest said, “The Lord be with you,” and the people replied, “and with thy spirit.” In Spain, and probably Gaul, as now in England, there was no salutation before the introductory sentences.

Priest. Lift up your hearts. | Sacerdos. corda.
Answer. We lift them up unto the Lord. | Respons. Habemus ad Dominum.
Priest. Let us give thanks unto our Lord God. | Sacerdos. Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
Answer. It is meet and right so to do. | Respons. Dignum et justum est.
| Palmer.

SUSANNAH, THE HISTORY OF. An apocryphal book (or rather chapter) of the Bible, containing the story of one Susannah, daughter of Chelcias, and the wife of Joachim, of the tribe of Judah, who lived at Babylon, being carried thither captive with her husband, probably at the same time with Daniel, that is, in the year of the world 3398, before Christ 604. The story is well known, being allowed to be read, among other apocryphal books, for the instruction of manners.

This history makes part of the book of Daniel in the Greek, but is not found in the Hebrew. Many therefore have disputed, not only the canonicalness, but even the truth of it; imagining it to be no more than a pious fable, invented as an example of a chaste and loyal wife. Julius Africanus was of this opinion; and St. Jerome in some places censures it as a mere fable; though, in others, he tells us that not only the Greeks and Latins, but the Syrians and Egyptians also, received and admitted it as Scripture. Origen wrote expressly in defence of it. The Church of Rome allows it to be of equal authority with the Book of Daniel.

SUSPENSION. In the laws of the Church we read of two sorts of suspension; one relating solely to the clergy, the other extending also to the laity. That which relates solely to the clergy is suspension from office and benefice jointly, or from office or benefice singly; and may be called a temporary degradation, or deprivation of both. And the penalty upon a clergyman officiating after suspension, if he shall persist therein after a reproof from the bishop, (by the ancient canon law,) that he shall be excommunicated all manner of ways, and every person who communicates with him shall be excommunicated also. The other sort of suspension, which extends also to the laity, is suspension ab ingressu ecclesiæ, or from the hearing of Divine service, and receiving the holy communion; which may therefore be called a temporary excommunication. Which two sorts of suspension, the one relating to the clergy alone, and the other to the laity also, do herein agree, that both are inflicted for crimes of an inferior nature, such as in the first case deserve not deprivation, and such as in the second case deserve not excommunication; that both, in practice at least, are temporary; both also terminate either at a certain time, when inflicted for such time, or upon satisfaction given to the judge when inflicted until something be performed which he has enjoined; and lastly, both (if unduly performed) are attended with further penalties; that of the clergy with irregularity, if they act in the mean time; and that of the laity (as it seems) with excommunication, if they either presume to join in communion during their suspension, or do not in due time perform those things which the suspension was intended to enforce the performance of.

SWEDENBORGIANS. This body of Christians claims to possess an entirely new dispensation of doctrinal truth derived from the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg; and, as the name imports, they refuse to be numbered with the sects of which the general body of Christendom is at present composed.

Emanuel Baron Swedenborg was born at Stockholm in 1688, and died in London in 1772. He was a person of great intellectual attainments, a member of several of the learned societies of Europe, and the author of very voluminous philosophical treatises. In 1745 he separated himself from all secular pursuits, relinquished his official labours in the Swedish State, and commenced the career which led to a religious movement. In that year, and thenceforth, he was favoured, he reports, with continual communications from the spiritual world, being oftentimes admitted into heaven itself, and there indulged with splendid visions of angelic glory and felicity. The power was given him to converse with these celestial residents; and from their revelations, sometimes made directly to himself and sometimes gathered by him from the course of their deliberations, he obtained the most important of his doctrines. His own account of the matter is thus stated in a letter to a friend:—“I have been called to a holy office by the Lord himself, who most graciously manifested himself before me, his servant, in the year 1745, and then opened my sight into the spiritual world, and gave me to speak with spirits and angels, as I do even to this day. From that time I began to publish the many arcana which I have either seen, or which have been revealed to me, concerning heaven and hell, concerning the state of man after death, concerning true Divine worship, and concerning the spiritual sense of the Word, besides other things of the highest importance, conducive to salvation and wisdom.”

The general result of these communications was to convince the baron that the sacred writings have two senses—one their natural, the other their spiritual, sense; the latter of which it was his high commission to unfold. The natural sense is that which is alone received by other Christian churches—the words of Scripture being understood to have the same signification (and no other) which they bear in ordinary human intercourse; the spiritual sense is that which, in the judgment of the New Church, is concealed within the natural sense of these same words, each word or phrase possessing, in addition to its ordinary meaning, an interior significance corresponding with some spiritual truth.

The principal tenets he deduced from this interior meaning of the Holy Word, and which his followers still maintain, are these: That the last judgment has already been accomplished (viz. in 1757); that the former “heaven and earth” are passed away; that the “New Jerusalem,” mentioned in the Apocalypse, has already descended, in the form of the “New Church;” and, that, consequently, the second advent of the Lord has even now been realized, in a spiritual sense, by the exhibition of his power and glory in the New Church thus established.

The usual doctrine of the Trinity is not received; the belief of the New Church being, “that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, comparatively as soul, body, and proceeding operation are one in every individual man.”

The New Church also rejects the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the imputed righteousness of Christ: salvation, it inculcates, cannot be obtained except by the combination of good works with faith. “To fear God, and to work righteousness, is to have charity; and whoever has charity, whatever his religious sentiments may be, will be saved.”

The resurrection, it is believed, will not be that of the material body, but of a spiritual body; and this will not immediately pass into a final state of being, but be subject to a kind of purgatory, where those who are interiorly good will receive truth corresponding with their state of goodness, and thus be fitted for heaven; while those who are interiorly evil will reject all truth, and thus be among the lost.

The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper are administered in the New Church. The former is believed to be “a sign and a medium, attended with a Divine influence of introduction into the Lord’s Church; and it means that the Lord will purify our minds from wicked desires and bad thoughts, if we are obedient to his holy word.” The latter is believed to be “a sign and a medium, attended with a Divine influence, for introducing the Lord’s true children, as to their spirits, into heaven; and it means that the Lord feeds their souls with his Divine goodness and truth.”

The mode of worship adopted by the followers of Swedenborg resembles in its general form that of most other Christian bodies; the distribution of subjects in their liturgy, and the composition of their hymns and prayers, being, of course, special; but no particular form is considered to be binding on each society.

The general affairs of the New Church (which is the name assumed by the Swedenborgian sect) are managed by a conference, which meets yearly, composed of ministers and laymen in conjunction; the proportion of the latter being determined by the size of the respective congregations which they represent: a society of from 12 to 50 members sending one representative, and societies of from 50 to 100 members, and those of upwards 100 members, sending each two and three representatives respectively. There is nothing, however, in Swedenborg’s writings to sanction any particular form of Church government.—Registrar-general’s Report.

SYMBOL, or SYMBOLUM. A title anciently given to the Apostles’ Creed, and for which several reasons have been assigned. Two of these have an appearance of probability, viz. that (1.) which derives it from a Greek word, signifying a throwing or casting together, and alleges that the apostles each contributed an article to form the creed, forming their joint opinion or counsel in an abridged form; and (2.) the opinion that this creed was used in times of persecution as a watchword or mark whereby Christians (like soldiers in the army) were distinguished from all others. This latter is the sense given in the short catechism of Edward VI., 1552, where we read, “M. Why is this abridgment of the faith termed a symbol? S. A symbol is, as much as to say, a sign, mark, privy token, or watchword, whereby the soldiers of the same camp are known from their enemies. For this reason the abridgment of the faith, whereby the Christians are known from them that are no Christians, is rightly named a symbol.”

The term symbol, importing an emblem or sensible representation, is also applied in the holy eucharist to the sacred elements, which there set forth the body and blood of Christ. (See also Emblem.)

SYMPHONY. In music, an instrumental composition in the form of an overture, &c. The term is popularly applied to short introductory movements on the organ, before anthems and other pieces; also to any portion performed by the instrument without the voices, including preludes, interludes, and postludes, i. e. strains before, in the midst, and at the end of psalmody, and other church music.

The word sumphónea occurs in Daniel iii. 5, 7, 10, 15; being evidently the Greek word συμφωνία, written in Hebrew or Chaldee letters, like other words in the same sentence, as Kaitheros, κιθύρα, (harp,) sabbeca, σαμβύκη, (sacbut,) psanterin, ψαλτήριον, (psaltery,) and which do not occur in the older Hebrew Scriptures. It is translated in our Bible dulcimer. Hardouin (in his note on Plinii Hist. Nat. ix. § 8) considers it to mean a musical instrument. But the majority of scholars, and of classical authorities, give as its meaning, a concert or combination of voices or instruments.

SYNOD. This is a meeting of ecclesiastical persons for the purposes of religion, and it comprehends the provincial synods of every metropolitan, and the diocesan of every bishop within their limits. And these are not of the same authority as general councils, nor do their canons oblige the whole Christian Church, but only that nation, province, or diocese where they were made; but if such canons are agreeable with the Scriptures, and confirmed by general councils, they are in force everywhere. The most famous synods have been held in Africa, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain. It would make a very large volume to treat particularly of those synods which have been held in each of those places, therefore we will refer to those which were assembled here in Britain; and as to that matter, we find that a synod was held here at Winchester, in the time of King Edgar, in which Archbishop Dunstan was president. In this synod the marriage of the clergy was prohibited. There was another held at Oxford, wherein Archbishop Langton was president, who divided the Bible into chapters; and in this synod many constitutions were made for the better government of the church. Another at Clarendon, under Archbishop Becket, in the reign of Henry II., in which some decrees were made concerning the prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of the clergy. Two in the reign of Edward VI. And here we may notice that provincial synods were to be held twice in every year; this appears by the apostolical canons, and likewise by those made in the Council of Nice. But this being found too hard a task for bishops, (who were usually men in years,) especially where the provinces were large, it was disused about the middle of the fifth century: so that some canons were made for synods to be held once in a year, but not abrogating the ancient custom to hold them oftener; and this continued for many ages: but at last this came in like manner to be neglected, and thereupon, about the middle of the fourteenth century, another canon was made in the Council of Basil, for a triennial synod of all the bishops of every province; and in the same council there was another canon for every bishop to hold a diocesan synod once in a year. And even here in Britain, by the ancient constitution of this Church, a synod was to be held once a year, which is now discontinued, and thus the authority of examining things through the province devolved on the archdeacon. In a diocesan synod the bishop always presided, and he usually summoned septem e plebe in every parish in his diocese, to whom he administered an oath to inquire into the state and condition of each parish relating to ecclesiastical affairs, which were called testes synodales, and these men made their presentments in writing, or viva voce in the synod. (See Councils.)

The form of holding these diocesan synods was as follows:—The clergy, in solemn procession, came to the church assigned, at the time appointed by the bishop, and seated themselves according to the priority of their ordinations. Then the deacons and laity were admitted. The bishop, or in his absence the vicar, when the office for the occasion was over, made a solemn exhortation to the audience. Then a sermon was preached; after which, if the clergy had any complaints to make, or anything else to offer, they were heard by the synod. The complaints of the clergy being over, the laity made theirs. Then the bishop proposed his diocesan constitutions to them. After which, if nothing remained to be done, he made a synodical exhortation, by way of injunction, to the clergy; and all concluded with solemn prayers suited to the business. The form at the conclusion of the first day, called Benedictio primæ diei, was this: “Qui dispersos Israel congregat, ipse vos hic et ubique custodiat. Amen. Et non solum vos custodiat, sed ovium suarum custodes idoneos efficiat. Amen. Ut cum summo pastore Christo de gregum suarum pastione gaudeatis in cœlo. Amen. Quod ipse parare dignetur,” &c. The benedictions of the other days were much to the same purpose.

The common time allowed for despatching the business of these synods was three days; and a rubric was settled, to direct the proceedings in each of them. But, if the business could be despatched in a shorter time, the assembly continued no longer than was necessary.

The first thing done in these diocesan synods, was the bishop’s making his synodical inquiries, of which the ancient forms are still extant. Next, the synodical causes were heard. Then the bishop reported to his clergy what had been decreed in large provincial synods. And, lastly, he published his own diocesan constitutions, which being read, and agreed to by the synod, were from that time in force within the diocese, provided they were not contrary to the decrees of some superior council of the province. Of these we have several collections published in the volumes of the English councils, and many more are still remaining in the bishops’ registers.

These diocesan synods were continued in England till the reign of Henry VIII., that is, till the commencement of the Reformation.

Provincial synods are still held pro forma in Ireland, by the archbishop of Dublin, as they were by his predecessor, at the triennial visitations of his province. The constituent number are the same as for convocations, being the bishops of the province, deans, archdeacons, capitular and other proctors, &c. But the synods have no power to make canons.

SYNODALS and SYNODATICUM, by the name, have a plain relation to the holding of synods; but there being no reason why the clergy should pay for their attending the bishop in synod, pursuant to his own citation, nor any footsteps to be found of such a payment by reason of the holding of synods, the name is supposed to have grown from this duty being usually paid by the clergy when they came to the synod. And this in all probability is the same which was anciently called cathedraticum, as paid by the parochial clergy in honour to the episcopal chair, and in token of subjection and obedience thereto. So it stands in the body of the canon law, “No bishop shall demand anything of the churches but the honour of the cathedraticum, that is, two shillings” (at the most, saith the Gloss, for sometimes less is given). And the duty which we call synodals is generally such a small payment, which payment was reserved by the bishop upon settling the revenues of the respective churches on the incumbents; whereas before those revenues were paid to the bishop, who had a right to part of them for his own use, and a right to apply and distribute the rest to such uses and in such proportions as the laws of the Church directed.—Gibson.

Synodals are due of common right to the bishop only, so that, if they be claimed or demanded by the archdeacon, or dean and chapter, or any other person or persons, it must be on the foot of composition or prescription.—Id.

And if they be denied where due, they are recoverable in the spiritual court. And, in the time of Archbishop Whitgift, they were declared upon a full hearing to be spiritual profits, and as such to belong to the keeper of the spiritual see vacant.—Id.

Constitutions made in the provincial or diocesan synods were also sometimes called synodals, and were in many cases required to be published in the parish churches: in this sense the word frequently occurs in the ancient directories.

TABERNACLE. Among the Hebrews, a kind of building, in the form of a tent, set up by the express command of God, for the performance of religious worship, sacrifices, &c. (Exod. xxvi., xxvii.)

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. A solemn festival of the Hebrews, observed after harvest, on the fifteenth day of the month Tisri, instituted to commemorate the goodness of God, who protected the Israelites in the wilderness, and made them dwell in booths when they came out of Egypt. The pyx, or box in which the reserved host is placed on Romish altars, is called in the Missal the Tabernacle.

TALMUD. (Signifying doctrine.) A collection of the doctrines of the religion and morality of the Jews. It consists of two parts: 1. The Misna, or text; literally repetition: that is, a repetition or supplement to the Divine law; which they pretend was delivered to Moses on the mount, and transmitted from him to the members of the Sanhedrim. 2. The Gemara, (perfection, or completion,) which is the commentary. The origin of this work is as follows:—

Judah the Holy had no sooner completed the Misna, but one Rabbi Chun, jealous of his glory, published quite contrary traditions; a collection of which was made under the title of Extravaganta, and inserted with the Misna, in order to compose one and the same body of law.

Notwithstanding that the collection made by Judah seemed to be a complete work, yet two considerable faults were observed in it: one, that it was very confused, the author having reported the opinions of different doctors, without naming them, and determining which of these opinions deserved the preference: the other, (which rendered this body of canon law almost useless,) that it was too short, and resolved but a small part of the doubtful cases and questions that began to be agitated among the Jews.

To remedy these inconveniences, Jochanan, with the assistance of Rab and Samuel, two disciples of Judah the Holy, wrote a commentary upon their master’s work. This is called the Talmud of Jerusalem; either because it was composed in Judea, for the use of the Jews that remained in that country, or because it was written in the common language spoken there. The Jews are not agreed about the time that this part of the Gemara, which signifies Perfection, was made. Some believe it was two hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem; others reckon but a hundred and fifty; and maintain that Rab and Samuel, quitting Judea, went to Babylon, in the two hundred and nineteenth year of the Christian era. However, these are the heads of the second order of doctors, called Gemarists, because they composed the Gemara. (See Gemara.)

There was also a defect in the Jerusalem Talmud, for it contained the opinions of but a small number of doctors. For this reason the Gemarists, or commentators, began a new explication of the traditions. Rabbi Asa, who kept a school at Sora, near Babylon, where he taught forty years, produced a commentary upon Judah’s Misna. He did not finish it; but his sons and scholars put the last hand to it. This is called the Gemara, or Talmud, of Babylon, which is preferred before that of Jerusalem. It is a very large collection, containing the traditions, the canon law of the Jews, and all the questions relating to the Law.

In these two Talmuds is contained the whole of the Jewish religion as it is now possessed by that people, who esteem it equal with the law of God. Some Christians set a great value upon it, whilst others condemn it as a detestable book, and full of blasphemies; but a third sort observe a just medium between these opposite opinions.

Though the Talmud was received with general applause by the Jews, yet there started up a new order of doctors, who shook its authority by their doubts. These were called Sebarim, or opiniative doctors, and were looked upon by the Jews as so many sceptics, because they disputed without coming to a determination upon anything.

TARGUM. So the Jews call the Chaldee paraphrases, or expositions, of the Old Testament in the Chaldee language; for the Jewish doctors, in order to make the people understand the text of the Holy Scripture, (after the captivity,) which was read in Hebrew in their synagogues, were forced to explain the law to them in a language they understood; and this was the Chaldean, or that used in Assyria.

The Targums that are now remaining were composed by different persons, upon different parts of Scripture, and are in number eight.

1. The Targum of Onkelos upon the five books of Moses.

2. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Prophets, that is, upon Joshua, Judges, the two Books of Samuel, the two Books of Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets.

3. The Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Law.

4. The Jerusalem Targum, upon the Law.

5. The Targum on the five lesser books, called the Megilloth, that is, Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah.

6. The second Targum upon Esther.

7. The Targum of Joseph the Blind, upon the Book of Job, the Psalms, and the Proverbs.

8. The Targum upon the First and Second Books of Chronicles.

Upon Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, there is no Targum at all. Indeed, a great part of Daniel and Ezra is written originally in Chaldee; and therefore there was no need of a Chaldee paraphrase upon them: but Nehemiah is written wholly in the Hebrew tongue, and no doubt anciently there were Chaldee paraphrases upon all the Hebrew parts of those books, though they are now lost.

The Targum of Onkelos is, without doubt, the most ancient that is now extant. He was certainly older than Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the author of the second Targum, who is supposed to have lived in our Saviour’s time, and who could have no reason to omit the Law in his paraphrase, but that he found Onkelos had done this work with success before him. No Chaldee writing, now extant, comes nearer the style of what is written in that language by Daniel and Ezra, than the Targum of Onkelos, which is a good argument for its antiquity. It is rather a version than a paraphrase; for the Hebrew text is rendered word for word, and for the most part with great exactness.

The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Prophets, is next to that of Onkelos in the purity of its style, but not in the manner of its composure; for Jonathan takes the liberty of a paraphrast, by enlarging and adding to the text, and by inserting several stories and glosses of his own, which are no reputation to the work. The Jews not only give him the preference to all the disciples of Hillel, but equal him even to Moses himself.

The Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Law, is none of his, as appears by the style. Who was the true author of it, or when it was composed, is utterly unknown. It seems to have lain long in obscurity among the Jews themselves; for no notice was taken of it till it was published at Venice, about a hundred and fifty years since; and the name of Jonathan, it is probable, was prefixed to it for no other reason than to give it the more credit, and the better to recommend it by that specious title.

The Jerusalem Targum, upon the Law, was so called, because it was written in the Jerusalem dialect. There were three dialects of the Chaldean language. The first was spoken in Babylon, the metropolis of the Assyrian empire. The second was the Commagenian, or Antiochian, being that spoken in Commagena, Antioch, and the rest of Syria. The third was the Jerusalem dialect, which was spoken by the Jews after the captivity. The Babylonian and Jerusalem dialects were written in the same character; but the Antiochian was in a different, and is the same with what we call the Syriac. The purest style of the Jerusalem dialect is, first, in the Targum of Onkelos, and next, in that of Jonathan; but the Jerusalem Targum is written in a most barbarous style, intermixed with a great many foreign words, taken from the Greek, Latin, and Persian languages. This Targum is not a continued paraphrase, but only upon some parts here and there, as the author thought the text most wanted an explication; and sometimes whole chapters are omitted. It was written by an unknown hand, and probably some time after the third century.

The fifth Targum, which is that on the Megilloth, and the sixth, which is the second Targum on the book of Esther, are written in the corrupted Chaldee of the Jerusalem dialect; but the author of these is unknown. The seventh, which is upon Job, the Psalms, and the Prophets, is equally corrupt, and said to be written by Joseph the Blind, who is as unknown as the author of the other two. The second Targum on Esther is twice as large as the first, and seems to have been written the last of all the Targums, by reason of the barbarity of its style. There is also a third Targum on Esther. The first Targum upon Esther is a part of the Targum upon Megilloth, which makes mention of the Babylonish Talmud, and therefore must have been written after the year of Christ 500. The last Targum, upon the First and Second Books of Chronicles, was not known till the year 1680, when Beckius, from an old manuscript, published, at Augsburg in Germany, that part which is upon the First Book; the paraphrase upon the Second he published three years afterwards, at the same place.

TE DEUM LAUDAMUS. (“We praise Thee, O God,” &c.) This sublime composition has been referred to several different authors. Some have ascribed it to Ambrose and Augustine, others to Ambrose alone; others, again, to Abondius, Nicetius, bishop of Triers, or Hilary of Poictiers. In truth, it seems that there is no way of determining exactly who was the author of this hymn. Archbishop Usher found it ascribed to Nicetius, in a very ancient Gallican Psalter, and the Benedictine editors of the works of Hilary of Poictiers cite a fragment of a manuscript epistle of Abbo Floriacensis, in which Hilary is unhesitatingly spoken of as its author; but Abbo lived five or six centuries after that prelate, and therefore such a tradition is most doubtful. Some reasons, however, appear to justify the opinion, that Te Deum was composed in the Gallican Church, from which source we also derive the inestimable creed bearing the name of Athanasius. The most ancient allusions to its existence are found in the Rule of Cæsarius, bishop of Arles, who lived in the fifth century, and in that of his successor Aurelian. It has been judged from this, that the Te Deum may probably have been composed by some member of the celebrated monastery of Lerins, which was not far from Arles; or perhaps by Hilary of Arles, who seems to have composed the Athanasian Creed in the fifth century. Another presumption in favour of the same notion is deducible from the wording of this hymn. The verse, “Vouchsafe, O Lord, to keep us this day without sin,” (“Dignare, Domine, die isto sine peccato nos custodire,”) gives reason to think that it was originally composed for the matin, and not for the nocturnal office, for it appears that the day is supposed to have actually commenced. Now Cæsarius and Aurelian both appoint Te Deum to be sung in the morning, while Benedict directed it to be sung in the nocturnal office on Sundays; and thence we may observe that the former appear to have adhered closer to the intentions of the author of this hymn than the latter: that therefore they were better acquainted with the author’s design than Benedict; and therefore the hymn was probably not composed in Italy, but in Gaul.

In the office of matins this hymn occupies the same place as it always has done, namely, after the reading of Scripture. The ancient offices of the English Church gave this hymn the title of the “Psalm Te Deum,” or the “Song of Ambrose and Augustine,” indifferently. As used in this place, it may be considered as a responsory psalm, since it follows a lesson; and here the practice of the Church of England resembles that directed by the Council of Laodicea, which decreed that the psalms and lessons should be read alternately.

In the Roman office it is only used on Sundays and certain festivals; but even on these omitted at certain seasons of the year. In the Church of England it is prescribed for daily use; but the Benedicite may be substituted for it.

TEMPLARS, TEMPLERS, or KNIGHTS OF THE TEMPLE. A religious order instituted at Jerusalem, in the beginning of the twelfth century, for the defence of the holy sepulchre, and the protection of Christian pilgrims. They were first called the Poor of the Holy City, and afterwards assumed the appellation of Templars, because their house was near the temple. The order was founded by Baldwin II., then king of Jerusalem, with the concurrence of the pope; and the principal articles of their rule were, that they should hear the holy office throughout every day; or that, when their military duties should prevent this, they should supply it by a certain number of Paternosters; that they should abstain from flesh four days in the week, and on Friday from eggs and milk meats; that each knight might have three horses and one squire, and that they should neither hunt nor fowl. After the ruin of Jerusalem, about 1186, they spread themselves through Germany, and other countries of Europe, to which they were invited by the liberality of the Christians. In the year 1228, this order acquired stability by being confirmed in the Council of Troyes, and subjected to a rule of discipline drawn up by St. Bernard. In every nation they had a particular governor, called Master of the Temple, or of the Militia of the Temple. Their grand-master had his residence at Paris. The order of Templars flourished for some time, and acquired, by the valour of its knights, immense riches, and an eminent degree of military renown. But as their prosperity increased, their vices were multiplied; and their arrogance, luxury, and cruelty rose at last to such a great height, that the order was suppressed in 1312.

TEMPLE. In the Bible, this title generally refers to that house of prayer which Solomon built in Jerusalem, for the honour and worship of God. The name of temple is now properly used for any church or place of worship set apart for the service of Almighty God. Thus the services of the Church are frequently introduced by the words, “The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him.” Here, by the word “temple,” allusion is made to the church in which we have met together to offer our prayers and praises to the Most High.

The church called the Temple Church in London, was built by the Knights-Templars in 1185: and the circular vestibule was built after the fashion of the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem: as also the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Cambridge, and a few others.

TERMINATOR. A sort of master of the ceremonies in some of the cathedrals of Sicily.—Pini’s Sicilia Sacra.

TERRIER. By Canon 87, the archbishops and all bishops within their several dioceses shall procure (as much as in them lies) a true note and terrier of all the glebes, lands, meadows, gardens, orchards, houses, stocks, implements, tenements, and portions of tithes lying out of their parishes, which belong to any parsonage, vicarage, or rural prebend, to be taken by the view of honest men in every parish, by the appointment of the bishop, whereof the minister to be one; and to be laid up in the bishop’s registry, there to be for a perpetual memory thereof. It may be convenient also to have a copy of the same exemplified, to be kept in the church chest.

These terriers are of greater authority in the ecclesiastical courts, than they are in the temporal; for the ecclesiastical courts are not allowed to be courts of record; and yet even in the temporal courts these terriers are of some weight, when duly attested by the registrar.

Especially if they be signed, not only by the parson and churchwardens, but also by the substantial inhabitants; but if they be signed by the parson only, they can be no evidence for him; so neither (as it seemeth) if they be signed only by the parson and churchwardens, if the churchwardens are of his nomination. But in all cases they are certainly strong evidence against the parson. (See Burn, Eccl. Law, under this head, for the form of a terrier, which is given at great length. It is, however, merely an inventory of the matters enumerated in the above-quoted canon.)

TERSANCTUS. The Latin title of the hymn in the liturgy, beginning “With Angels and Archangels,” &c. This celebrated anthem is probably the most ancient and universally received of all Christian songs of praise. Its position in the established liturgies has always been (as in the Prayer Book) a little antecedent to the prayer of consecration; and the hymn itself does not appear in any other office than that of the Communion. The antiquity of the Tersanctus, and its prevalence in the liturgies of the Eastern and Western Churches, naturally lead to the conclusion that it was derived from the apostolic age, if not from the apostles themselves. It is remarked by Palmer, that no liturgy can be traced to antiquity, in which the people did not unite with the invisible host of heaven in chanting these sublime praises of the Most High God. From the testimony of Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem, we find that the seraphic hymn was used in the liturgy of Antioch and Jerusalem in the fourth century. The Apostolical Constitutions enable us to carry it back to the third century in the East. It is also spoken of by Gregory Nyssen, Cyril of Alexandria, Origen, Hilary of Poictiers, Isidore, and other Fathers, as having formed a part of the liturgy. In the liturgy of Milan it has been used from time immemorial, under the name of Trisagion; in Africa we learn from Tertullian, that it was customarily used in the second century. As has already been observed, (see Preface,) the preface ends just before the words “Holy, holy, holy:” and the congregation or choir ought not to audibly join their voices with the priest till this hymn begins.

TESTAMENT, THE OLD AND THE NEW. The title of the Old Testament is given to those books which the Hebrews received as sacred and inspired before the coming of our Lord, in order to distinguish them from those sacred books which contain the doctrines, precepts, and promises of the Christian religion, which are distinguished by the appellation of the New Testament. The appellation of Testament is derived from 2 Cor. iii. 6, 14, in which place the word ἡ Παλαιὰ Διαθήκη and ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη, are by the old Latin writers rendered Antiquum Testamentum and Novum Testamentum. Although the appellation of New Testament is not given by Divine command to the writings of the evangelists and apostles, yet it was adopted in a very early age, (according to Bishop Marsh, in the second century). The title “New Covenant” signifies the book which contains the terms of the New Covenant, upon which God is pleased to offer salvation to mankind, through the mediation of Jesus Christ. But the word Testament seems to have been preferred, as implying that the Christian’s redemption is sealed to him as a son and heir of God; and because the death of Christ as testator is related at large and applied to our benefit. (See Canon of Scripture, Bible, Scripture.)

TESTIMONIAL. A testimonial of good conduct from his college, or from three beneficed clergymen, required of every one that seeks to be admitted into holy orders, is among the safeguards which the Church has appointed for the purity of her ministry. The testimonial is directed to the bishop to whom application is made for orders, and is as follows:

“Whereas our well-beloved in Christ, A. B., hath declared to us his intention of offering himself as candidate for the sacred office of [a deacon], and for that end hath requested of us letters testimonial of his learning and good behaviour; we, therefore, whose names are hereunto subscribed, do testify that the said A. B., having been previously known to us for the space of [three] years last past, hath during that time lived piously, soberly, and honestly, and diligently applied himself to his studies; nor hath he at any time, so far as we know or believe, held, written, or taught anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the united Church of England and Ireland: and, moreover, we believe him in our consciences to be a person worthy to be admitted to the sacred order of [deacons]. In witness whereof,” &c.

It is needless to add, that no conscientious man can sign such a document, without well weighing its terms, and the solemnity of the occasion on which it is required.

The apostle having laid it down as a standing canon in the Church, that “a bishop must be blameless, and have a good report of them that are without,” (1 Tim. iii. 2, 7,) thence the Church of God has, in all ages, taken especial care to require a sufficient satisfaction, that all persons who are to be admitted into that or any other inferior order of the clergy, have such a good report for a pious and virtuous conversation. This Tertullian mentions as a very singular honour of the Christian priesthood. In pursuance of which practice of the ancient Church, our Church of England has forbidden the bishop to admit any person into sacred orders, “except he shall then exhibit letters testimonial of his good life and conversation, under the seal of some college in Cambridge or Oxford, where before he remained, or of three or four grave ministers, together with the subscription and testimony of other credible persons, who have known his life and behaviour by the space of three years next before.”—Can. 33. The same is further provided for by our statute law: “None shall be made minister, unless he first bring to the bishop of that diocese, from men known to the bishop to be of sound religion, a testimonial both of his honest life, and of his professing the doctrine expressed in the said articles,” 13 Eliz. chap. xii.—Dr. Nicholls.

Such as sign these testimonials have it put into their power to discover evil men, and commend only those that are worthy: wherefore, since so great a trust is reposed in them, they ought never to sign any testimonial which they know to be false; yea, which they do not know to be true; lest they become guilty of bearing false witness, and mislead the bishop, who cannot see all things with his own eyes, nor hear all with his own ears, and so must rely on others to direct his choice. And let him be ever so desirous to keep out wicked pastors, an hypocrite commended by eminent hands may deceive him; and then the dishonour of God and mischief to souls, which are the sad consequence of such misinformation, are to be charged only upon those who, for fear, favour, or negligence, signed the false certificate; who deserve a severe punishment in this world, if our law did allow it: however, they shall certainly answer for it in the next world. And I heard a most reverend and worthy prelate (Archbishop Dolben) charge his clergy, “not to impose upon him by signing testimonials which they did not know to be true, as they would answer it to him at the dreadful day of judgment.” Which being duly considered will, I hope, prevent that evil custom of giving men’s hands, out of custom or compliment, to mere strangers, or to oblige a friend that we know doth not deserve it.—Dean Comber.

A sham testimonial of life and manners, doth not only deceive the bishop in a point of the nicest concernment, both with regard to his office and his reputation, but does an injury to the Church itself, and affects the interests and credit of the ministry at large. And therefore, to attest worthy characters of unworthy persons, in order to bring them into a situation where they may expose themselves and their functions, do public mischief, and give open scandal, is destitute of any justifiable pretence; and I wish I could add it were equally destitute of any precedent.

I must acknowledge that human respects, and solicitations of acquaintance, and other mere social regards, are great temptations with people of kind dispositions, to too easy a compliance in granting this favour; and such persons may be sometimes drawn into the signing of testimonials, when their judgment doth not concur with their good nature. I am loth to blame any friendly or neighbourly qualities, yet sometimes they do deserve blame, as in this case in particular; where they are the occasions of a mischief which much better qualities cannot repair, or make sufficient amends for.—Archdeacon Sharp.

TEXT. The letter of the sacred Scriptures, more especially in the original languages. In a more limited sense, the word text is used for any short sentence out of the Scripture, quoted in proof of a dogmatic position,—as an auctoritee, as it was formerly called,—or taken as the subject or motto of a discourse from the pulpit. Thus Chaucer has—

“He needeth not to speken but of game,
And let auctorites in Goddes name
To preching, and to scole eke of clergie.”

And so a sermon is called “Expositio auctoritatis.”

The custom of taking a text for a sermon is probably coeval with that of preaching set discourses; and it is needless to remark, that the use of texts as authority in doctrinal points is of the very essence of true theology, and was ever the custom even of those who, professing the name of Christians, denied the truth of Christ. Even the most abominable and shameless heretics quoted Scripture for their worst tenets. A simple Christian, therefore, may well be on his guard against receiving everything for which a text is quoted, remembering that the “inspired writings are an inestimable treasure to mankind, for so many sentences, so many truths. But then the true sense of them must be known; otherwise, so many sentences, so many authorized falsehoods.”

THANKSGIVING. Giving of thanks is an essential part of Divine worship, as St. Paul expressly declares to St. Timothy, (1 Tim. ii. 1,) and has ever formed a part of the service both of Jews and Christians. In our own Book of Common Prayer there are many forms of thanksgiving, particular and general: as especially the general thanksgiving, which was added (being composed, as is conjectured, by Bishop Sanderson) at the last review, and appointed for daily use; and the eucharistic hymn, always used in the holy communion, sometimes with an appropriate preface, and introduced with the versicles,

“Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.

“It is meet and right so to do.

“It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all times and in all places give thanks,” &c.

But there are, besides, particular thanksgivings appointed for deliverance from drought, rain, famine, war, tumult, and pestilence; and there is an entire service of thanksgiving for women after child-birth, (see Churching of Women,) and certain days on which we commemorate great deliverances of our Church and nation, are marked also with a solemn service of thanksgiving. (See Forms of Prayer.)

THANKSGIVING, THE GENERAL. The general thanksgiving may perhaps, to some, appear superfluous, after we have thanked and praised God in the use of the psalms and hymns. But it was inserted at the Restoration, because others complained it was wanting.—Abp. Secker.

After the general intercession, there follows likewise a general thanksgiving. For though in the psalms and hymns after the lessons, with the several doxologies interspersed, we have everywhere “set forth God’s most worthy praise,” yet it seemed meet also, in a distinct and appropriate form of thanksgiving, “to render thanks for the great benefits we have received at his hands,” which, according to the first exhortation, we therefore do, beginning with that original blessing, “our creation,” then “preservation,” attended with all these secondary benefits and “blessings of life,” “but above all,” because the greatest of all, “our redemption,” attended with all “the means of grace and hope of glory,” thus ascending gradually through the long scale of blessings received at God’s hand, from temporal to spiritual, from the first to the last, from our coming forth to our returning to him again.—Dr. Bisse.

Indeed, this is a more methodical summary of the several mercies of God “to us and to all men,” than we had before: it furnishes an opportunity of thanking him more expressly for the late instances of his loving-kindness to the members of our own congregation; and besides, as we cannot be too thankful to God, the acknowledgments, which we offered up at the beginning of the service, are very properly repeated at the end. For surely we ought to ask nothing of God, without remembering what we have received from him: which naturally excites both our faith and resignation, and prepares the way for that admirable collect, with which we conclude.—Abp. Secker.

After enumerating the blessings for which we return our humble and hearty thanks, the form from eucharistic becomes petitionary. We beseech God to make us truly sensible of his mercies, and really thankful for them, that we may show our gratitude, and promote his glory, not only by celebrating his praises day by day in the public assemblies of the Church, but by walking in the paths of holiness and righteousness all our lives. These petitions we enforce through the merits of Jesus Christ; and we conclude the whole with a doxology, in which we ascribe to the Son, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.—Shepherd.

THEOLOGAL. An officer in some foreign cathedrals, generally a canon, often a dignitary, whose business it was to profess theology.

THEOLOGY, (From Θεὸς, God, and λόγος, a discourse.) A discourse concerning God, it being the business of this science to treat of the Deity. The heathens had their theologues or divines, as well as the Christians; and Eusebius and Augustine distinguished the theology of the heathens into three sorts: first, the fabulous and poetical; secondly, natural, which was explained by philosophy and physics; the third was political or civil, which last consisted chiefly in the solemn service of the gods, and in the belief which they had in oracles and divinations, together with the ceremonies wherewith their worship was performed.

Divinity among the Christians is divided into positive and scholastical; the first being founded upon fact and institution, having the Scriptures, councils, and Fathers for its bottom and foundation, and, properly speaking, this is true divinity: the other, called scholastical, is principally supported by reason, which is made use of to show, that the Christian theology contains nothing inconsistent with natural light; and with this view it is that Thomas Aquinas makes use of the authority of philosophers, and arguments from natural reason, because he was engaged with philosophers, who attacked the Christian religion with arguments from those topics.

THEOPHORI. (Θεὸς and φέρω.) See Christophori.

THOMAS’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church observed on the 21st of December, in commemoration of St. Thomas the apostle.

THOMAS, ST., CHRISTIANS OF, who are of the Chaldæan and Nestorian sect, notwithstanding the several attempts made to reform them, remain firm to their ancient customs, and if they sometimes comply with the Popish missionaries, it is but in outward appearance: when they are desired to submit to the Church of Rome, they answer, that as St. Peter was chief of that Church, so St. Thomas was head of theirs, and both Churches were independent one of another, and they stand stedfast in acknowledging the patriarch of Babylon, without minding the pope: they hold, as Moreri relates, Nestorius’s opinion, receive no images, and do not much reverence the cross. They hold that the souls of saints do not see God before the day of judgment. They allow three sacraments, viz. baptism, orders, and the eucharist: but even in these they do not agree, there being several forms of baptism in the same Church: they abhor auricular confession; and for their consecration make use of small cakes, made with oil and salt; the wine they use is nothing but water in which they steep raisins: they observe no age for orders, but make priests at seven, eighteen, twenty, &c., who may marry as often as their wives die. They administer no sacrament without their fees or reward, and, as for marriage, they make use of the first priest they meet with. They have all an extraordinary respect for the patriarch of Babylon, chief of the Nestorians, and cannot abide to hear the pope named in their churches, where, for the most part, they neither have curate nor vicar, but the eldest presides: it is true they go to mass on Sundays, not that they think themselves obliged in conscience to do so, or that they would sin mortally if they did not. Their children, unless it be in case of sickness, are not baptized till the fiftieth day. At the death of friends, the kindred and relations keep an eight days’ fast in memory of the deceased: they observe the times of Advent and Lent, the festivals of our Lord, and many of the saints’ days, those especially that relate to St. Thomas, the Dominica in Albis, or Sunday after Easter, in memory of the famous confession which St. Thomas on that day made of Christ, after he had been sensibly cured of his unbelief; another on the 1st of June, celebrated not only by Christians, but by Moors and Pagans. The people who come to his sepulchre on pilgrimage, carry away a little of the red earth of the place where he was interred, which they keep as an inestimable treasure, and believe it to be a sovereign remedy against diseases: their priests are shaven in fashion of a cross; but Simon does not charge them with so many errors as Meneses does, from whom this account is taken.

THRONE. The bishop’s principal seat in his cathedral. At St. Paul’s the bishop has two thrones; that at the end of the stalls probably representing the episcopal throne, properly so called, which he assumed at the more solemn part of the service; that more westerly his ordinary seat, or stall. In old times the bishop of London often occupied the stall usually assigned to the dean, as is still the custom at Ely and Carlisle. The bishop’s throne in the ancient basilicas and churches was at the apex of the apsis, a semicircle behind the altar. The marble chair of the archbishop at Canterbury, in which he is enthroned, formerly occupied a place behind the altar; a remnant of the old arrangement, as appears from Darl’s Canterbury. The cumbrous pew occupied by the doctors and university officers at St. Mary’s, Cambridge, is called the throne.

THUNDERING LEGION. (See Legion.)

THURIFICATI. In times of persecution Christians who were brought to be examined before the heathen tribunal, were permitted to escape punishment by casting frankincense on an altar dedicated to an idol. This was of course an act of idolatry, and amounted to open and unreserved apostasy: some however there were who were betrayed into this act by present fear, rather than a real wish to deny Christ, and who sought afterwards, by a rigid penance, the peace of the Church. These were called Thurificati. (See Libellatici and Sacrificati.)

TIARA. The name of the pope’s triple crown. The tiara and keys are the badges of the papal dignity, the tiara of his civil rank, and the keys of his jurisdiction; for as soon as the pope is dead, his arms are represented with the tiara alone, without the keys. The ancient tiara was a round high cap. John XIII. first encompassed it with a crown; Boniface VIII. added a second crown; and Benedict XIII. a third.

TILES. The use of ornamented tiles in churches is at least as old as the Norman æra, and was never discontinued till the fall of Gothic art. A very valuable paper on the arrangement of tiles, by Lord Alwyne Compton, will be found in the first number of the collected papers of the Northamptonshire and other architectural societies.

TIPPET. In the 74th canon, in which decency in apparel is enjoined to ministers, it is appointed that “All deans, masters of colleges, archdeacons, and prebendaries, in cathedral and collegiate churches, (being priests or deacons,) doctors in divinity, law, and physic, bachelors in divinity, masters of arts, and bachelors of law, having any ecclesiastical living, shall usually wear gowns with standing collars and sleeves straight at the hands, or wide sleeves, as is used at the universities, with hoods or tippets of silk or sarsenet, and square caps.” And that all other ministers admitted, or to be admitted, into that function shall also usually wear the like apparel as is aforesaid, except tippets only. (See “The Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical,” by G. I. French, London, 1850.) And in the 58th canon: “It shall be lawful for such ministers as are not graduates to wear upon their surplices, instead of hoods, some decent tippet of black, so it be not silk.” See Mr. Gilbert French’s ingenious treatise on the Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical: from which it would appear that the present black scarf worn by some of the English clergy represents three things: 1. The stole; 2. the chaplain’s scarf; 3. the choir tippet. The chaplain’s scarf is a remnant of the ancient badges, or liveries, worn by the members of noblemen’s households, their chaplains included. The choir tippet grew out of the ancient almutium, or amice, that is, a vesture which covered the shoulders, and included the hood: the liripipium, or pendent part of the hood, sometimes hanging singly behind, (as in our modern hoods,) sometimes in duplicate before, like the scarf. In process of time the hood became separated from this pendent part in front, and hence the choir tippet. It is certain that the tippet so called, often made of sables or furs, was worn in the form of the scarf, by dignitaries of the Church and State for many ages in England. The scarf has been called a tippet immemorially in Ireland, and within memory in many parts of England. The law of the Church therefore seems to be this, that all ecclesiastics (whether priests or deacons) being prebendaries or of higher rank in cathedral and collegiate churches, and all priests or deacons being Masters of Arts or of higher degree, may wear either hoods or tippets of silk: and all non-graduate ministers (whether priests or deacons) may not wear hoods, but only tippets not of silk. Whence the tippet is to be worn by all clergymen. The 58th canon however is explicit as to the use of hoods by graduates. By the constant usage of cathedrals, both hood and scarf are worn by all capitular graduates.—Jebb.

TITHES, in the religious application of the phrase, is a certain portion, or allotment, for the maintenance of the priesthood, being the tenth part of the produce of land, cattle, or other branches of wealth. It is an income, or revenue, common both to the Jewish and Christian priesthood.

The priests among the Jews had no share allowed them in the division of the land, that they might attend wholly upon Divine service, and not have their thoughts diverted by the business of tillage, or feeding cattle, or any other secular employment. Their maintenance arose chiefly from the first-fruits, offerings, and tithes.

The ancient Christians, it is generally thought, held the Divine right of tithes, that is, that the payment of tithes was not merely a ceremonial or political command, but of moral and perpetual obligation; though Bellarmine, Selden, and others place them upon another foot. St. Jerome says expressly, that the law about tithes (to which he adds first-fruits) was to be understood to continue in its full force in the Christian Church. And both Origen and St. Augustine confirm the same opinion.

But why, then, were not tithes exacted by the apostles at first, or by the fathers in the ages immediately following? For it is generally agreed, that tithes were not the original maintenance of ministers under the gospel. It is answered, first, that tithes were paid to the priests and Levites, in the time of Christ and his apostles; and the synagogue must be buried, before these things could be orderly brought into use in the Church. Secondly, in the times of the New Testament, there was an extraordinary maintenance, by a community of all things; which supplied the want of tithes. Thirdly, paying tithes, as the circumstances of the Church then stood, could not conveniently be practised; for this requires that some whole state or kingdom profess Christianity, and the Church be under the protection of the magistrates; which was not the case in the apostolical times. Besides, the inhabitants of the country, from whom the tithes of fruits must come, were the latest converts to Christianity.

The common opinion is, that tithes began first to be generally settled upon the Church in the fourth century, when the magistrates protected the Church, and the empire was generally converted from heathenism. Some think Constantine settled them by a law upon the Church; but there is no law of that emperor’s now extant, that makes express mention of any such thing. However, it is certain tithes were paid to the Church before the end of the fourth century, as Mr. Selden has proved out of Cassian, Eugippius, and others. The reader may see this whole matter historically deduced, through many centuries, by that learned author.

The custom of paying tithes, or offering a tenth of what a man enjoys, is not so peculiar to the Jewish and Christian law, but that we find some traces of it even among the heathens. Xenophon has preserved an inscription upon a column near a temple of Diana, whereby the people were admonished to offer the tenth part of their revenues every year to the goddess. And Festus assures us, the ancients gave tithe of everything to their gods.

Before the promulgation of the law, Abraham set the example of paying tithes, in giving the tenth of the spoils to Melchisedech, king of Salem, at his return from his expedition against Chedorlaomer and the four confederate kings. And Jacob imitated the piety of his grandfather in this respect, when he vowed to the Lord the tithe of all the substance he might acquire in Mesopotamia. (See Revenues, Ecclesiastical.)

TITLE. (See Orders.) Canon 33. “It has been long since provided by many decrees of the ancient Fathers, that none should be admitted, either deacon or priest, who had not first some certain place where he might use his function: according to which examples we do ordain, that henceforth no person shall be admitted into sacred orders, except (1.) he shall at that time exhibit to the bishop, of whom he desireth imposition of hands, a presentation of himself to some ecclesiastical preferment then void in the diocese; or (2.) shall bring to the said bishop a true and undoubted certificate, that either he is provided of some church within the said diocese where he may attend the cure of souls, or (3.) of some minister’s place vacant either in the cathedral church of that diocese, or in some other collegiate church therein also situate, where he may execute his ministry; or (4.) that he is a fellow, or in right as a fellow, or (5.) to be a conduct or chaplain in some college in Cambridge or Oxford; or (6.) except he be a Master of Arts of five years’ standing, that liveth of his own charge in either of the universities; or (7.) except by the bishop himself that doth ordain him minister, he be shortly after to be admitted either to some benefice or curateship then void. And if any bishop shall admit any person into the ministry that hath none of these titles, as is aforesaid, then he shall keep and maintain him with all things necessary, till he do prefer him to some ecclesiastical living; and if the said bishop refuse so to do, he shall be suspended by the archbishop, being assisted with another bishop, from giving of orders by the space of a year.” The same rules apply to the Irish portion of the united Church.

TOBIT, THE BOOK OF. An apocryphal book of Scripture, so called. Tobit, whose history is related therein, was of the tribe of Nephthali, and one of those whom Salmanassar, king of Assyria, carried away captive, when he took Samaria, and destroyed the kingdom of Israel. This happened in the fourth year of the reign of Hoshea, king of Israel, and the sixth of Hezekiah, king of Judah. The tribe of Nephthali was indeed carried away before by Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria; but this was not a general captivity, there being several still left behind.

The Book of Tobit was written in Chaldee, by some Babylonian Jew, and seems, in its original draught, to have been the memoirs of the family to which it relates, first begun by Tobit, then continued by Tobias, and finished by some other of the family; and afterward digested by the Chaldee author into that form in which we now have it. It was translated out of the Chaldee into Latin by St. Jerome, and his translation is that which we have in the Vulgar Latin edition of the Bible. But there is a Greek version much ancienter than this, from which was made the Syriac version, and also that which we have in English among the apocryphal writers, in our Bible. But the Chaldee original is not now extant. The Hebrew copies of this book, as well as of that of Judith, seem to be of a modern composition. It being easier to settle the chronology of this book than that of the Book of Judith, it has met with much less opposition from learned men, and is generally looked upon, both by Jews and Christians, as a genuine and true history; though, as to some matters in it, (particularly that of the angel’s accompanying Tobias, in a long journey, under the shape of Azarias, the story of Raguel’s daughter, the frightening away of the devil by the smoke of the heart and liver of a fish, and the curing of Tobit’s blindness by the gall of the same fish,) it is much less reconcilable to a rational credibility. These things look more like poetical fictions than the writings of a sacred historian, and afford an objection against this book, which does not lie against the other.

This book is very instructive, full of religious and pious thoughts, and written in a plain, natural, and easy style. Tobit lived an hundred and two years; lost his sight at fifty-six years of age, and recovered it in the sixtieth. Before his death, he foretold the destruction of Nineveh, which happened under Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus, that is, under Astyages and Nabopalasar.

TOLERATION. Johnson defines this word as “the allowance given to that which is not approved.” The Church, as the depository and dispenser of religious truth, cannot bring within the range of its theory the allowance of that which it holds to be error. The Church of England holds (see Art. VI.) that it is not to be required of any man, that anything should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation, which is not read in Holy Scripture, nor may be proved thereby. But if any man profess what is clean contrary to that which the Church has laid down as an article of the faith, then, in the Church’s view, he professes what is contrary to the Scripture, and there can be no warrant for allowing that which is contrary to the Scripture. The Church, however, while refusing any allowance to error, may refrain from denunciation and persecution of those who profess and maintain erroneous doctrines; and in this respect the Church of England is conspicuously more charitable than the Church of Rome: that Church, which dares not venture to say that she requires nothing to be believed but that which may be found in Holy Scripture, or may be proved thereby, nevertheless, wherever she has the power, punishes those who refuse assent to her theories, and makes them personally answerable for the heterodoxy of their principles. Such is not the practice of the Church of England.

The State or political government in England, admits toleration, in the sense of the word as defined by Johnson. Although the Church is united with the State, and the State must be held to approve of the doctrines of the Church, yet it allows, and to a certain extent supports, religious teaching which the Church holds to be erroneous. Whether this be done upon the principle that the State does not hold itself competent to decide between truth and error in religion, but acts merely as the head of a community, in which a variety of conflicting doctrines are maintained, or whether it be done upon the ground of expediency, or what Dr. Paley calls “general utility,” (see his “Moral Philosophy,” book vi. ch. x.,) it is not necessary here to inquire.

Previously to the year 1688, the statute law (see 35 Eliz. and 22 Car. II. c. 1) forbade the public exercise of other religions than that of the Church of England. But the statute of 1 W.& M. c. 18, commonly called the Toleration Act, recognised and admitted the public profession of the religion of Protestant Dissenters, (except those who denied the doctrine of the Trinity,) while it confirmed all the severities, then upon the statute book, against the religion of Papists. This act, however, did not relieve Dissenters from the operation of the Corporation Act, 13 Car. II. c. 1, nor from that of the Test Act, 25 Car. II. c. 2. These acts, which made it necessary that all members of the corporations of towns, and all persons holding office under the Crown, should receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper according to the usage of the Church of England, continued in force until the year 1828, when they were repealed by the 9 Geo. IV. c. 17.

By the Toleration Act of 1 W. & M. c. 18, it was provided, that no law or statute of the realm, made against Papists or Popish recusants, should extend to persons dissenting from the Church of England, who should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and make and subscribe the declaration against Popery.

Section 8, provides that no person dissenting from the Church of England, in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders, nor any preacher or teacher of any congregation of dissenting Protestants, that shall make and subscribe the declaration aforesaid, and take the said oaths at the general or quarter sessions of the peace, to be held for the county, town, parts, or division where such person lives, which court is hereby empowered to administer the same, and shall also declare his approbation of and subscribe the Articles of Religion mentioned in the statute made in the 13th of Queen Eliz., except the 34th, 35th, and 36th, and these words in the 20th Article, viz. “the Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith,” shall be liable to any of the pains or penalties mentioned in former acts.

Section 17, provides that neither this act, nor any clause, article, or thing herein contained, shall extend or be construed to extend to or give any ease, benefit, or advantage to any Papist or Popish recusant whatsoever, or any person that shall deny in his preaching or writing the doctrine of the blessed Trinity, as it is declared in the aforesaid Articles of Religion.

By the 19 Geo. III. c. 44, it was recited, that certain Protestant Dissenters had an objection to the declaration in favour of the articles set forth in sect. 8 of the Toleration Act; and it was provided that, in lieu of that declaration, the following might be made:—“I, A. B., do solemnly declare, in the face of Almighty God, that I am a Christian and a Protestant, and, as such, that I believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as commonly received among Protestant Churches, do contain the revealed word of God, and that I do receive the same as the rule of my doctrine and practice.”

In 1813, by 53 Geo. III. c. 160, the clause of the Toleration Act, excepting those persons who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, was repealed.

As to Roman Catholics, the severity of the laws against them was relaxed in 1778, and again in 1780. Further disabilities were removed in 1793, and at subsequent periods; but still they were excluded from parliament, and from all important civil offices, till 1829, when the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act was passed (10 Geo. IV. c. 7); and, in regard to all civil and political rights and privileges, they were placed upon the same footing as Protestants. Since then they have endeavoured, in respect to ecclesiastical matters, to assert an independence of the Crown of Great Britain, to which the Church of England itself does not lay claim. This attempt has been met by the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 60.

TONSURE. The having the hair clipped in such a fashion as the ears may be seen and not the forehead, or a shaved spot on the crown of the head. A clerical tonsure was made necessary about the fifth or sixth century. No mention is made of it before, and it is first spoken of with decided disapprobation.

The ancient tonsure of the Western clergy by no means consisted in shaven crowns: this was expressly forbidden them, lest they should resemble the priests of Isis and Serapis, who shaved the crowns of their heads. But the ecclesiastical tonsure was nothing more than polling the head, and cutting the hair to a moderate degree.

The rituals tell us, the tonsure is a mark of the renunciation of the world and its vanities; but the hair that is left denotes with what sobriety the person tonsured ought to use the things of this world.

fig. 1.

fig. 2.

TRACERY. The system of ornamental framework in a window, or in a compartment of panelling or screen-work. The first form of tracery was doubtless suggested by the pierced circle often found between the heads of two lancets, and connected with them by a single hood.[18] For some time the form thus suggested (fig. 1.) was rigidly adhered to; even the number of lights being, in a great majority of cases, either two, four, or eight, the square and cube of two, and the simple two-light window was multiplied into itself once or twice, as in (fig. 2.), so that the pattern may be expressed by a geometrical series a^1, a^2, a^3. Windows of three or other odd numbers of lights were less frequent and less successful; and the reduplication was effected by arithmetical rather than geometrical progression, the six-light windows being of two three-light windows, with the addition of a centre piece (see figs. 3. and 4.). Throughout the windows of this early style of tracery, all is effected by simple reduplication, no attempt being yet made to extend a single composition throughout the space to be filled. Circles, when of a considerable size, were filled with smaller circles (see fig. 2.) or with cusping (fig. 4.) designed after the same laws. But we must omit for the future all consideration of cusping, (see Cusping,) and everything but the mere pattern of the tracery.

fig. 3.

fig. 4.

fig. 5.

fig. 6.

fig.7.

The exclusive use of circles led to great sameness of character, and the first effort to avoid this was by the introduction of convex-sided triangles, sometimes alone (fig. 5.), sometimes enclosed in or accompanying circles (fig. 3). Later still this triangle is resolved into a three-lobed figure, of which, however, the triangle is still the ruling form (fig. 6.). All these characteristics belong to the earlier class of Geometrical tracery, which is called concentric, because each perfect figure is either itself a circle, or is composed of circles or parts of circles struck from centres within the resultant figure, and themselves in the circumference of a circle, whose centre is the centre of the whole system. Thus in fig. 2. eight circles are struck either from the same centre, or points in the circumference of a circle concentric with the containing circle. In figs. 3. and 5. the triangles are composed of parts of circles, of which the centres are the opposite angles, and as the triangles are equilateral, all the centres are in the circumference of the circle whose centre is the centre of the triangle. This may be called the first law of the concentric Geometrical. It has two corollaries, 1. that each line forms a part of one figure, only, and, 2. that each circle, or part of a circle, touches, or cuts, but never flows into, another. As this law is broken, its consequences also are reversed; and we get an excentric Geometrical, in which there is no one ruling centre within the figure; but, on the contrary, the spirit of the style consists in having curves struck from centres alternately within and without the resulting figure, as in the accompanying trilobate and tricuspidate triangle (fig. 7.); but still the lines cut or touch, and never flow into one another. In fig. 8. we have lines each forming parts of two figures, which is the same as fig. 5., with the omission of the lower side of each triangle, and the consequent rejection of a centre of construction, i. e. from concentric the figure has become excentric. This makes a very near approach to the flowing Decorated, which indeed it becomes by the reversal of the last remaining rule, i. e. by suffering the curves which are struck from circles within and without the resulting figure, and which already form part of two figures, to flow into another, instead of cutting or touching. By this process, fig. 4. is altered into the ordinary reticulated tracery of the flowing Decorated (fig. 9.); and fig. 10., instead of fig. 1., becomes a normal form.

fig. 8.

fig. 9.

fig. 10.

This introduction of curves of contrary flexure is the ruling principle of flowing tracery, and its results are far too various to be pursued here. We must, however, observe, that in England the resulting forms have a great tendency to become pear-shaped, i.e. with the lower end pointed and the upper round and turned downward; whereas, on the Continent, while our Decorated was stiffening into the Perpendicular, their Geometrical was waving upward in their Flamboyant, which differs, as to mere pattern of tracery, from our flowing, in having both ends of each figure acutely pointed, and the upper point with an additional curve upward. Our own Perpendicular is scarcely worthy to be called tracery; its normal form is represented by mere intersections of vertical and horizontal lines (fig. 11.).

fig. 11.

fig. 12.

We have at present described only the component figures of tracery. The character of windows is further altered by several other means common to all the styles, consistent with every form here described. Thus, for instance, tracery is grouped in these three ways: a large and prominent centre-piece is carried by two independent arches (fig. 2.); or it is divided into two windows, as it were, by two main arches, of the same curvature with the window arch (figs. 3. and 11.); or it fills the whole window head with no such equal division of its parts[19] (figs. 5., 8., 9.); or, again, it is divided into foil and foiled tracery, the latter being the ordinary form, the first that of tracery, which itself, in its principal bars, follows the direction of foils, without a circumscribing arch (fig. 12.); or, again, according as the surface of the tracery bar which traces the pattern is a fillet, an edge, or a roll, it is fillet, edge, or roll tracery; or, again, if it is only a plate of stone, pierced, without being moulded, it is plate tracery. Flowing tracery is convergent, or divergent, or reticulated. But the greatest source of beauty next to cusping is the due subordination of mouldings, which is itself sufficient to remedy the apparent sameness of pattern in the concentric Geometrical, and which adds infinite grace to the flowing tracery, in which, however, it is too seldom found. The student of ecclesiastical architecture will do well to pursue the subject of this article in Sharpe’s “Decorated Windows,” and in Freeman’s “Essay on the Origin and Development of Window Tracery.”

TRACT, in the Roman Missal, is an anthem, generally taken from the Psalms, following, and sometimes substituted for, the Gradual, (i.e. the anthem after the Epistle,) during penitential seasons, as the third Sunday in Advent, the three Sundays before Lent, Sundays, Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in Lent, Easter Saturdays, and Easter Even, and certain holidays. Cardinal Bona says it is so called, “a trahendo: quia tractim et graviter, et prolixo descensu cantatur,” because it is sung in a protracted or slow manner.—Jebb.

TRADITION. (See Fathers.) The doctrine which has been delivered or handed down from one age to another. The great deference paid by the Church of England as a branch of the Catholic Church to tradition, is so misrepresented by the wicked, and so misunderstood by the weak, that we quote the following passage from Palmer’s “Treatise on the Church.” Speaking of those who calumniate us for our use of this doctrine, he says: “The various methods which these men employ in endeavouring to prevent any appeal to the tradition of the Church, may be classed under the following heads:

“1. Systematic misrepresentation. We do not appeal, in proof of Christian doctrine, to the ancient Christian writers as in any way infallible. Our sentiments on this head are well known; they have been repeatedly explained. We hold that the doctrine of any Father, however great and learned he may have been, e. g. that of Augustine, Athanasius, Ambrose, or Basil, is to be rejected in any point where it contradicts Scripture. We consider all these writers as uninspired men, and therefore liable to mistakes and errors like other theologians. Therefore it involves a studied misrepresentation of our meaning and principle, when we are met by assertions or proofs that particular Fathers have taught errors in faith or morality—that they were credulous—that their writings are in some points obscure—that their criticisms or interpretations of Scripture are sometimes mistaken—that they invented scholastic doctrines and were tinged with false philosophy—that the later Fathers were better theologians than the earlier—that there are Fathers against Fathers, and councils against councils, on some points. This is all calculated merely to excite prejudice against an appeal to the doctrine of the Church, by misrepresenting our design and principle in making it. Our answer to all these arguments is, that we do not appeal to the Fathers as inspired and authoritative writers, but as competent witnesses of the faith held by Christians in their days. If they are not to be trusted in this, they are not to be trusted in their testimony to the facts of Christianity, and the external evidence of revelation is subverted.

“2. Pretended respect for religion. Under this head may be classed that mode of argument which rejects any appeal to the doctrine of the Christian Church, under pretence that the Word of God alone ought to be the rule of our faith, in opposition to all the doctrines of man; that the Scripture constitutes a perfect rule of faith, needing nothing else; that it must necessarily be plain in all essential points, and that it is its own interpreter. The end of all this pretended reverence for Scripture is, to obtain an unlimited liberty of interpreting it according to our own reason and judgment, even in opposition to the belief of all Christians from the beginning. But in asserting this liberty to all men, it follows inevitably that no particular interpretation of Scripture is necessary to salvation; that Scripture has no Divine meaning; that it is not a revelation. In short, tradition is thrown aside, under pretence of veneration for the Scripture, in order that men may be enabled to distort, or misinterpret, and to destroy that very Scripture.

“The same may be observed of that pretended zeal for the defence of the Reformation, which infidels, Unitarians, and other enemies of the doctrine and discipline of the Church allege as a plea for rejecting all appeal to the doctrines of the universal Church. ‘The doctrines of the Reformation,’ they say, ‘cannot be defended if this appeal is allowed; Popery must triumph.’ Excellent men! They will maintain the Reformation at all hazards; all evidence shall be pronounced worthless if it be opposed to the interests of that sacred cause! But what is the end sought by all this pretended devotion? It is, that every man may be permitted, without any check, to interpret Scripture in such a manner as to subvert all the doctrines of the Reformation, whether positive or negative, to prove the Reformation itself needless, erroneous, bigoted, equally absurd as the system to which it was opposed, and more inconsistent. I charge these men with the grossest hypocrisy. Never was there a more daring attempt to palm an imposture on the credulous and unthinking, than this effort of deists and heretics to set aside tradition under pretence of zeal for the Reformation. They are the opponents of the Reformation. They are the representatives of those whom the Reformation condemned. They reject its doctrines, they charge it with ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, errors as gross as those of Popery. They have separated from its reformed institutions, as anti-Christians, and only exist by a perpetual attack upon them. The Reformation has no connexion with these men: its defence belongs exclusively to those who maintain its doctrines and adhere to its institutions, and they alone are proper judges of the mode of argument suited to its interests.

“3. Statements directly untrue. Under this head may be included the palmary argument employed by all sects against any appeal to the tradition of the Church universal, namely, that it was the principle of the Reformation to reject any such appeal; and its principle was, ‘the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.’ Nothing can be more untrue than this assertion; the Reformation as a whole acknowledged and appealed to the authority of Catholic tradition, though it denied the infallibility of particular Fathers and councils. With equal veracity it is asserted that the Church of England rejects tradition in her sixth Article of Religion, when it is manifest that her object is simply to maintain the necessity of Scriptural proof for articles of faith; while our canons, our rituals, and the whole body of our theologians, so notoriously uphold the authority of tradition, that it is a subject of unmeasured complaint on the part of those who disbelieve the doctrines of the Church. The nature of these various arguments testifies sufficiently that the doctrine of the universal Church is opposed to those who employ them. It could be nothing but a feeling of despair on this point, which could have induced men to resort to perpetual misrepresentation, to false pretences, and to untruths. The employment of these weapons by all sects, in order to prevent any appeal to universal tradition, proves two points. First, as the sole fundamental principle on which they all agree is, the rejection of an appeal to the doctrines of the Church as a check on the interpretation of Scripture, and the assertion of an unlimited right of private interpretation; this principle is the source of all their divisions and contradictions, and therefore must be radically false. Secondly, the doctrine of the universal Church from the beginning must condemn that of all modern sects, in every point in which they differ from our Catholic and apostolic Churches; and therefore, on every such point, they are in error, and misinterpret Scripture, and the Church is in the right.”

TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH. (See Ceremony.) “It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

“Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.”—Article XXXIV.

The word “tradition” is not here used in the same sense in which it was used in the explanation of the sixth Article. It there signified unwritten articles of faith, asserted to be derived from Christ and his apostles: in this Article it means customs or practices, relative to the external worship of God, which had been delivered down from former times; that is, in the sixth Article, traditions meant traditional doctrines, of pretended Divine authority; and in this it means traditional practices acknowledged to be of human institution.—Bp. Tomline.

The word means the same as is expressed immediately by the word “ceremonies,” which is only explanatory; and which the Church afterwards calls “rites,” supposing them the same with ceremonies.—Dr. Bennet.

TRADITORS. Persons who in times of persecution delivered the sacred Scriptures and other ecclesiastical records to their persecutors, were thus called, and were subjected to severe censures.

TRANSEPT. (See Cathedral.)

TRANSITION. About the year 1145, the use of the pointed arch was introduced into English architecture, and with this so many constructive changes in the fabric, that though Norman decorations were long retained, and even the round arch was used, except in the more important constructive portions, a style equally distinct from Norman and from Early English was the result, and this style is called Semi-Norman, or Transition. Before the close of the twelfth century, the round arch had entirely disappeared, and the Early English, or Lancet, style was fully developed about 1190.

TRANSLATION. The removal of a bishop from the charge of one diocese to that of another, in which case the bishop in his attestations writes “anno translationis nostræ,” not “anno consecrationis nostræ.”

Also, in literature, the rendering of a work from the original into another language. All the scriptural portions of the Prayer Book are not derived from the translation in common use. For example, the Psalter is from the great English Bible set forth and used in the time of Henry VIII. and Edward VI.

Translation of festivals. In the Roman Church, when two festivals of a certain class concur on the same day with other festivals of the same or similar class, the celebration of one or other of these festivals is transferred to some future day, according to rules which are given in the Breviary and Missal. This is called a translation.—Jebb.

TRANSOM. A horizontal mullion, or cross-bar, in a window or in panelling. The transom first occurs in late Decorated windows, and in Perpendicular windows of large size it is of universal occurrence.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The pretended miraculous conversion or change of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of our Lord, which the Romanists suppose to be wrought by the consecration of the priest. This false doctrine is condemned by the Church of England in her 28th Article. “The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.”

Transubstantiation, (or the change of the substance of bread and wine,) in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ: but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

“The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper is faith.

“The sacrament of the Lord’s supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”

Bishop Beveridge has the following remarks on this article, from Scripture and the Fathers:

“Scripture and Fathers holding forth so clearly, that whosoever worthily receives the sacrament of the Lord’s supper doth certainly partake of the body and blood of Christ, the devil thence took occasion to draw men into an opinion, that the bread which is used in that sacrament is the very body that was crucified upon the cross; and the wine after consecration the very blood that gushed out of his pierced side. The time when this opinion was first broached was in the days of Gregory III., pope of Rome. The persons that were the principal abettors of it were Damascen in the Eastern, and afterwards Amalarius in the Western Churches. It was no sooner started in the East, but it was opposed by a famous council at Constantinople, consisting of 338 bishops, the famous opposers of idol worship. But afterwards, in the second Council of Nice, it was again defended, and in particular by Epiphanius the deacon, who confidently affirmed that, ‘after the consecration, the bread and wine are called, are, and are believed to be, properly the body and blood of Christ.’ In the West also, Amalarius having broached this opinion, Paschasius Radbertus readily swallowed it down. But Rabanus Maurus, Ratramnus or Bertramnus, (of whom more presently,) as also Johannes Scotus Erigena, not only stuck at it, but refused it, and wrote against it as a poisonous error. And, after them, Berengarius too, who was not only written against by Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, but condemned for it in a council held at Verceli, (where the book of Johannes Scotus of the eucharist was also condemned,) and at another council held at Rome about the same time. And though he did recant his opinion at a council held at Tours, and another at Rome, as some think, so as never to hold it more, yet his followers would never recant what they had learned of him. But in the Lateran Council, held A. D. 1215, the opinion of the real or carnal presence of Christ was not only confirmed, but the word transubstantiated was newly coined to express it by; that council determining that ‘there is one universal Church of the faithful, without which there is none saved; in which Jesus Christ himself is both priest and sacrifice, whose body and blood in the sacrament of the altar are truly contained under the shapes of bread and wine; the bread being transubstantiated, or substantially changed into his body, and the wine into his blood, by the power of God; that for the perfecting the mystery of our union, we might receive of him what he had received of us.’ And ever since this word was thus forged by this council, the abettors of this opinion have made use of it to declare their minds by concerning this great mystery; still holding with the Council of Trent, ‘that by the consecration of the bread and wine is made a change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which change is aptly and properly called by the holy Catholic Church transubstantiation.’ So that, according to this opinion, the bread and wine, which before are properly bread and wine only, and not the body and blood of Christ, are after consecration as properly the body and blood of Christ, only, and not bread and wine; the bread being changed by the words of consecration into the very body of Christ that hung upon the cross; and the wine into the very blood that ran in his veins, and afterwards issued forth out of his side.

“Now the doctrine delivered in the former part of this article being so much abused, that they should take occasion from that great truth to fall into this desperate error, so as to say the bread and wine are really changed into the body and blood of Christ, because he doth really partake of the body and blood of Christ, that rightly receives the bread and the wine; that truth is no sooner delivered but this error is presently opposed. It being no sooner declared that the bread we break is a partaking of the body, and the cup we bless a partaking of the blood, of Christ, but it is immediately subjoined, that, notwithstanding the truth of that assertion, yet transubstantiation, or the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is to be rejected upon a fourfold account. First, because it cannot be proved by the Scriptures. Secondly, it is repugnant to them. Thirdly, it overthroweth the nature of the sacrament. Fourthly, it hath given occasion to many superstitions. Of which in their order briefly.

“1. As for the first, that this doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved from the Holy Scriptures, is plain from the insufficiency of those places which are usually and principally alleged to prove it; and they are the sixth of St. John’s Gospel, and the words of institution. In the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, we find our Saviour saying, ‘My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.’ (John vi. 55.) And many such like expressions hath he there concerning our eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood. From whence they gather, that the bread and wine are really turned into the body and blood of Christ; not considering, first, that our Saviour said these words at the least a year before the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was instituted. For when Christ spake these words, it is said, that ‘the passover was nigh,’ (ver. 4,) whereas the institution of the sacrament was not until the passover following; and it is very unlikely that he should preach concerning that sacrament before it was instituted. To which we may also add, that our Saviour here saith concerning the flesh and blood here spoken of, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you’ (ver. 53); whereas it is manifest that a man may be deprived of the sacramental bread and wine, and yet have life in him; for otherwise all that die before they receive the sacrament must of necessity be damned. And, therefore, though the thing signified, even the flesh and blood of Christ, is here to be understood, yet the signs themselves of the sacrament cannot. And so this place, not intending the bread and wine in the sacrament, cannot be a sufficient foundation to ground the transubstantiation of that bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. And, secondly, suppose this place was to be understood of the sacrament, when our Saviour saith, ‘My flesh is bread indeed, and my blood is drink indeed:’ this might prove indeed that Christ’s body and blood were turned into bread and drink, but not at all that [that] bread and drink are turned into his body and blood. Thirdly, it is plain that in these words our Saviour doth not mean any external or bodily, but internal and spiritual, feeding upon him. So that whosoever thus feedeth upon him shall never die, (ver. 50,) but live for ever (ver. 51). Yea, ‘He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him’ (ver. 56). So that, as Origen observeth, ‘No wicked man can eat of this bread here spoken of; whereas it is as clear as the noonday sun, that sinners, as well as saints, the worst as well as the best of men, may eat the bread and drink the wine in the sacrament.’ And as the sixth of St. John’s Gospel doth not, so neither do the words of institution, ‘This is my body,’ prove the transubstantiation of the bread into the very body of Christ. For he that saith, because our Saviour said, ‘This is my body,’ the bread is therefore changed into his body, may as well say that, because Joseph said, ‘The seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years,’ (Gen. xli. 26,) therefore the seven good kine, and the seven good ears, were all changed into seven years. And because Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar, ‘Thou art this head of gold,’ (Dan. ii. 38,) therefore Nebuchadnezzar must needs be changed into a head of gold; whereas it is plain that in Scripture that is often said to be a thing which is only the sign of it: as God is pleased to explain himself when he said of circumcision, ‘This is my covenant,’ (Gen. xvii. 10,) and in the next verse, ‘And it shall be a sign or token of the covenant betwixt me and you’ (ver. 11). And what sense the Most High explains himself by in that sacrament we may well understand him in this. When he said, ‘This is my covenant,’ he tells us what he meant by that phrase, even ‘This is the sign of my covenant:’ and so here, when Christ said, ‘This is my body,’ according to his own explication of himself before, it is no more than if he should have said, ‘This is the sign or token of my body.’ And therefore saith Augustine, ‘For if sacraments should not have a certain resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; but from this resemblance they often receive the names of the things themselves. Therefore, as after a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is the body of Christ, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ; so the sacrament of faith (baptism) is faith.’ So that the words, ‘This is my body,’ prove no more than that the bread was the sign or sacrament of his body; not at all that it is really changed into his body. But that this doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved from the Scriptures, is further evident in that it is contrary to them.

“2. And this is the second thing here asserted of transubstantiation, that it is ‘repugnant to the plain words of the Holy Scriptures;’ which to prove I need go no further than to show, that the Scripture doth still assert them to be bread and wine after as well as before consecration. And this one might think was plain enough, in the first place, even from the words of institution themselves; for the Scripture saith, ‘And as they were eating Jesus took bread and blessed it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.’ (Matt. xxvi. 26.) So that that which Jesus took was bread, that which Jesus blessed was bread, that which Jesus gave to his disciples was bread; and therefore that of which he said, ‘This is my body,’ must needs be bread too, as the Fathers long ago acknowledged. And truly in reason it cannot be denied; for there is no other antecedent to the pronoun ‘this’ but ‘bread;’ for the ‘body’ of Christ, that cometh after it, cannot possibly be the antecedent to it. For, according to the principles of our adversaries themselves that hold this opinion, the bread is not changed into the body of Christ before consecrated, nor is it consecrated until the words, ‘This is my body,’ be all pronounced; so that when the priest saith, ‘This,’ there is no such thing as the body of Christ present, that not coming in till both that and the following words too are perfectly uttered; and therefore the body of Christ can by no means be looked upon as the antecedent to this pronoun; but that it is bread and bread only that it hath reference to. So that ‘This is my body,’ is as much as to say, ‘This bread is my body, this bread that I have taken, and blessed, and give unto you, is my body.’ Now, as Bellarmine himself acknowledged, this proposition, ‘This bread is my body,’ cannot possibly be taken any other ways than significatively, so as that the sense should be, ‘This bread signifies my body,’ is a sign or sacrament of it; it being absolutely impossible that bread should be the very body of Christ: for if it be bread, and yet the very body of Christ too, then bread and the body of Christ would be convertible terms. So that the very words of institution themselves are sufficient to convince any rational man, whose reason is not darkened by prejudice, that that of which our Saviour said, ‘This is my body,’ was real bread, and so his body only in a figurative or sacramental sense; and by consequence that the bread was not turned into his body, but his body was only represented by the bread. But if this will not do, we may consider, in the second place, the institution of the other part of the sacrament; for it is said, ‘And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.’ (Matt. xxvi. 27, 28.) Where these last words, ‘for this is my blood,’ &c., being the words of consecration; and our Saviour having given them the cup before, and bidden them to drink all of it; it could not possibly be meant of anything else than the wine in the cup of which he said these words. To which we may also observe what follows, even after the words of consecration: ‘But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’ (Matt. xxvi. 29.) Whence we see our Saviour himself, even after he had consecrated the wine, still calls it the fruit of the vine; and in saying that he will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, plainly shows that it was the fruit of the vine which he before drank. So that the very wine of which he said, ‘this is my blood,’ was wine still, and the fruit of the vine; which I hope none of our adversaries will say the very blood of Christ is. But, thirdly, this may be discovered also from the words of the apostle: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?’ (1 Cor. x. 16); where we may take notice of two things. First, that he here calleth the sacramental elements still ‘a cup,’ or wine, and bread, ‘the bread which we break;’ so that it is still bread: and, secondly, that the cup of blessing is the communion of the blood, and the bread broken the communion of the body, of Christ. Now, if the bread be the communion of his body, and the cup the communion of his blood, it cannot be that the cup should be his real blood, and the bread his real body; for then it would be as much as if he should have said, ‘The blood of Christ is the communion of the blood of Christ, and the body of Christ the communion of the body of Christ;’ and so the body of Christ must be the communion of itself, which is impossible; to which we might also add the several places where the apostle calls the elements still bread and wine, or the cup; as, ‘For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup.’ (1 Cor. xi. 26.) “Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily,” &c. (Ver. 27.) ‘But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.’ (Ver. 28.) From whence it is manifest, that that which we eat at the sacrament is bread, and not the very body of Christ; that which we drink, the cup or wine, and not the very blood of Christ; and therefore, that to say it is not bread nor wine, but the very body and blood of Christ, is repugnant to the plain words of the Scripture.

“3. The third thing is, that it ‘overthroweth the nature of the sacrament,’ which I need not spend many words to prove; for in a sacrament it is required, first, that there be some outward sign representing spiritual grace; whereas if the bread be really changed into the body of Christ, there is no outward sign at all in the sacrament, there being nothing else but the body and blood of Christ, which are not signs, but the thing signified. Nay, as Augustine observes, ‘The signs themselves are the sacraments,’ and therefore where there is no sign there can be no sacrament. And so, by depriving this sacred ordinance of its outward signs, they degrade it from being a sacrament, making it to have nothing of the nature of a sacrament in it. And therefore, if they will still hold, that by the words of consecration the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and blood of Christ, let them cease to call that holy action any longer a sacrament, but name it ‘the body and blood of Christ;’ for, according to their opinion, there is nothing in it but the body and blood of Christ. So that it is plain that, by this doctrine, the nature of a sacrament in general must be destroyed, or this sacrament in particular must be expunged out of their catalogue of sacraments.

“4. The fourth and last thing here objected against this doctrine of transubstantiation is, that it ‘hath given occasion to many superstitions,’ which any one that ever observed their customs and practices cannot but acknowledge. For this fond opinion possessing their brains, that the bread is the real body of Christ hung upon the cross, and pierced for their sins, oh! how zealous are they in wrapping it up neatly in their handkerchiefs, laying it up in their treasures, carrying it about in their processions; yea, and, at the length, in worshipping and adoring it too!”

This learned and orthodox bishop proceeds to show how inconsistent this tenet is with the teaching of the Fathers. We add a few quotations upon the subject from other orthodox divines.

“The article next condemns the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine into the real substance of Christ’s body and blood, in the administration of the Lord’s supper. The idea of Christ’s bodily presence in the eucharist was first started in the beginning of the eighth century, and it owed its rise to the indiscretion of preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who, instead of explaining judiciously the lofty figures of Scripture language upon this subject, understood and urged them in their literal sense. Thus the true meaning of these expressions was grossly perverted: but as this conceit seemed to exalt the nature of the holy sacrament, it was eagerly received in that ignorant and superstitious age; and was by degrees carried farther and farther, by persons still less guarded in their application of these metaphorical phrases. This has always been a favourite doctrine of the Church of Rome, as it impressed the common people with higher notions of the power of the clergy, and therefore served to increase their influence. It met however with opposition upon its original introduction, particularly from Bertram and John Scot; and again at the first dawn of the Reformation, both upon the Continent and in this country. It was objected to by the Waldenses; and there are strong expressions against it in some parts of Wickliff’s works. Luther, in contradiction to the other reformers, only changed transubstantiation into consubstantiation, which means that the substance of Christ’s body and blood is present in the holy sacrament with the substance of the bread and wine; and his perseverance in this opinion was a principal cause of the division among the reformed churches. He was opposed by Zuingle and Calvin, but the Confession of Augsburg, which was drawn up by Melancthon, favours consubstantiation. There is, however, considerable doubt concerning the real sentiments of Melancthon upon this subject, especially in the latter part of his life. Some of our early English reformers were Lutherans, and consequently they were at first disposed to lean towards consubstantiation; but they seem soon to have discovered their error, for in the articles of 1552 it is expressly said, “A faithful man ought not either to believe or openly confess the real and bodily presence, as they term it, of Christ’s flesh and blood in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper.” This part of the article was omitted in 1562, probably with a view to give less offence to those who maintain the corporal presence, and to comprehend as many as possible in the Established Church.”—Bp. Tomline.

In arguing against this doctrine we may first observe, that it is contradicted by our senses, since we see and taste that the bread and wine after consecration, and when we actually receive them, still continue to be bread and wine, without any change or alteration whatever. And again, was it possible for Christ, when he instituted the Lord’s supper, to take his own body and his own blood into his own hands, and deliver them to every one of his apostles? or was it possible for the apostles to understand our Saviour’s command to drink his blood literally, when they were forbidden, under the severest penalties, to taste blood by the law of Moses, of which not only they themselves, but Christ also had been a strict observer? They expressed not the slightest surprise or reluctance when Christ delivered to them the bread and wine, which could not have been the case, had they conceived themselves commanded to eat the real body and drink the real blood of their Lord and Master. The bread and wine must have been considered by them as symbolical, and indeed the whole transaction was evidently figurative in all its parts; it was instituted when the Jews, by killing the paschal lamb, commemorated their deliverance from Egyptian bondage by the hand of Moses, which was typical of the deliverance of all mankind from the bondage of sin by the death of Christ, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;” and as the occasion was typical, so likewise were the words used by our Saviour: “This is my body which is broken,” and “this is my blood which is shed.” But his body was not yet broken, nor was his blood yet shed; and therefore the breaking of the bread, and the pouring out of the wine, were then figurative of what was about to happen, as they are now figurative of what has actually happened. He also said, “This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Cor. xi. 25); which words could not be meant in a literal sense; the cup could not be changed into a covenant, though it might be a representation or memorial of it. Our Saviour called the wine, after it was consecrated, “the fruit of the vine,” (Matt. xxvi. 29,) which implied that no change had taken place in its real nature. Since then the words, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” upon which the Papists pretend to support this doctrine, were manifestly used in a figurative sense, and must have been so understood by the apostles, to whom they were originally addressed, we may safely pronounce that “transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine, in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ.” That the early Christians understood our Saviour’s words in a figurative sense, appears from the writings of more than twenty Fathers, without a single authority on the opposite side.—Bp. Tomlins.

1. That transubstantiation is “repugnant to the plain words of Scripture,” appears from St. Paul’s saying, “we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Cor. x. 17); and, “as often as ye eat this bread” (1 Cor. xi. 26); so that it is bread, and not Christ’s flesh, even when we eat and partake thereof. Parity of reason proves the same of the wine. 2. That transubstantiation “overthroweth the nature of a sacrament” is evident, because it supposes what we eat and drink to be, not the sign, but the thing signified. 3. It has also “given occasion to many superstitions.” That it has given occasion to abominable idolatry is evident from the adoration of the host, which is grounded on it. But, though idolatry is worse than superstition, yet it is different from it. Wherefore, for the proof of this branch of the proposition, let it be considered, that, in cases of imminent danger or great calamities, the host is exposed by the Papists, to appease God’s anger, and prevent or remove his judgments: or reference may be had to the provisions made in the Romish Church, in the event of any accident happening to the consecrated elements. Our reformers were too well acquainted with these superstitions: though, blessed be God, we have not instances ready at hand.—Dr. Bennet.

TRAVERSE. A seat of state with a canopy, formerly placed at the upper end of the choir in the royal chapels, and temporarily in cathedrals, for the use of the sovereign.

TREASURER. A dignitary formerly existing in all cathedrals and collegiate churches of old foundation in England, and in Ireland and Scotland in such churches as followed the English model. The treasurer was not the bursar, but rather the chief sacristan. He had the care of the plate, vestments, furniture, necessaries of Divine service; the control of the sacristan and inferior officers, of the bells, and the general superintendence of the fabric. In many foreign churches the place of treasurer was discharged by a dignitary called a sacristan; but in others, as at Glasgow, and the royal chapel, Stirling, there was a treasurer and a sacristan, both dignitaries. In cathedrals of the new foundation, the treasurer is merely the bursar; the canons taking this office in annual rotation.—Jebb.

TRENT, COUNCIL OF. (See Roman Catholic Church, Popery, Council of Trent.) This important council met in 1545, and was dissolved in 1563. Its nominal period extended over eighteen years, but its actual sessions occupied less than five. Protestants from the days of Luther had been urgent for the convocation of a free synod. They had reiterated the demand at Nuremberg, and Ratisbon, and Spires. There were indeed on both sides earnest and pious persons who were anxious that the questions at issue should be settled by competent authority. The evil lives of the clergy, and the general disorders of the Church, afforded another strong reason by which many were influenced. At the same time, the endless extortions of the papal chancery had raised disputes in every European state, which there seemed no other hope of allaying. It was the great object of the pope and his adherents to condemn Lutheran doctrine, and to avoid definition on points disputed in the Roman Church. Clement VII. had promised that a general council should be held in Italy for raising subsidies against the Turks, and for the suppression of heresy, but he really used his influence to prevent its assembling. On his death in 1534 his successor, Paul III., published a bull of convocation. Various difficulties however arose, partly on account of the proposed place of meeting, and partly through the war between the emperor and the king of France, and interposed a delay of some years. The city of Trent in the Tyrol, on the confines of Italy and Germany, and now in the dominions of Austria, was at length selected, the summons was issued, and the council was opened December 13, 1545. The meeting had been so long deferred, that when a few ecclesiastics and others assembled, it was hardly believed that the synod was really convened; and the importance of the movement was not perceived until somewhat later.

The first three sessions were occupied by preliminary matters, after which the actual business commenced. The constitution of the assembly, as well as the form of procedure, was governed by arbitrary rules. The legates presided as the representatives of the pope; who also appointed the secretaries and other officers. Bishops alone were allowed to vote, but an exception was made in the case of certain abbots and generals of orders, for whose admission no precedent could however be alleged, but such as would be equally availing for all presbyters. Proxies were generally refused, although some were allowed by the sole authority of the pope. All discussions were confined to previous congregations, and in the sessions which followed there was no deliberation, but only the acceptance or rejection of the proposed conclusions. The judgments of the council were embodied partly in decrees which profess to contain the Catholic doctrine on the points in question, partly in canons by which the contrary opinions are anathematized as heretical.

In the fourth session, which was held April 5, 1546, somewhat less than fifty bishops being present, it was decreed that the canon of Scripture includes the books commonly called apocryphal, and that tradition is to be received as of equal authority with the written Word; that the Vulgate is to be taken for the standard text, and no interpretation allowed but such as the Church has affixed. In the fifth session the decree on original sin was passed; in the sixth, that on justification; and in the seventh, that on the sacraments in general, and baptism and confirmation in particular. In the eighth session, the removal to Bologna was appointed, where the two following sessions were held; but no decrees were passed, and in September, 1547, the council was prorogued. The translation to an Italian city had been made under a bull of Paul III., when the German bishops were urgent for reformation, and there seemed no other escape. A disease which broke out at Trent was the alleged excuse. In 1551 the council was again convened by Julius III., who had been present at a former period as legate. The eleventh and twelfth sessions were spent in formal business; in the thirteenth the sacrament of the eucharist was treated; in the fourteenth, the sacraments of penance and extreme unction; in the fifteenth, a safe-conduct was granted to the Protestants; and in the sixteenth, which was held in April, 1552, the prorogation of the council for two years was decreed. Paul IV. was, however, resolutely opposed to its revival, on the ground that his authority was higher than that of a synod, which was therefore needless; and by the threat of secular reformation he deterred some princes from urging the reassembling of the council, which did not take place till January, 1562, when the seventeenth session was held under Pius IV. In the eighteenth, certain of the fathers were appointed to prepare an index of prohibited books, and at the same time, the safe-conduct was removed; in the eighteenth and nineteenth no business was transacted; in the twenty-first, the communion under one kind was enjoined for all, except the celebrant; in the twenty-second, the sacrifice of the mass was declared to be a true and Catholic doctrine; in the twenty-third, the subject handled was the sacrament of order; in the twenty-fourth, the sacrament of matrimony; and in the twenty-fifth, decrees were passed on purgatory, the invocation of saints, the worship of relics and images, indulgences, fasting, the index of prohibited books, the catechism, the breviary, and the missal. After which, the decrees passed under Paul III. and Julius III. were read, and the council was dissolved.

In reviewing the history of this remarkable assembly, it is impossible to overlook the want of unity both in purpose and opinion among its members. The representatives of the emperor of Germany, of the kings of France and Spain, of the duke of Bavaria, and of other secular princes, urgently demanded the reformation of the Church, while the partisans of the Roman court were desirous only to suppress Protestantism. There were none but Italians on whom the pope could entirely depend, for even the Spanish prelates wished his power to be restrained, and that of other bishops to be enlarged. The Germans and French demanded the restoration of the cup, and the marriage of the clergy, while the Spaniards, who opposed them on these points, were united with them on some others against the Roman faction. One great party was urgent that the later sessions should be declared a continuation of the earlier, while another vehemently opposed the declaration; and the council never ventured to rule the question either way. There were endless conflicts between the bishops and the monastic orders, and of Franciscans and Dominicans, with each other. Whether the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin; what is the true nature of transubstantiation; whether Christ offered himself in the holy supper; whether the apostles were ordained priests at that time or previously,—were among the topics of vehement contention. On the subject of the great doctrine of justification by faith, the members of the council were far from being agreed, and it is beyond denial that some of them held the Protestant view. Even the scanty number, who ventured to decide on the canon of Scripture, and on tradition, were at variance among themselves. Some disputes lasted throughout the whole period, such as whether the council should be said to represent the universal Church; whether the legates should have the privilege of proposing all matters for debate; and whether doctrine should precede reformation. The question of the residence of bishops, that is, whether it is binding by Divine ordinance, or by the law of the Church, in which important considerations were involved, excited long and angry conflicts. Day after day, through weeks and months of the most critical period, the dispute was renewed. The legates themselves were divided; and at one time the dissolution of the council seemed inevitable.

There are many controverted points on which the council gives no information, and they are the very questions which it was most important to decide. No one can learn from its decrees, for instance, what is the sound doctrine about purgatory, nor in what due veneration for images consists, nor which is the sacramental form in penance, or matrimony, nor what is the nature of original sin, nor what is the proper definition of a sacrament. There were some subjects debated more than sufficiently, but left at last undecided; and there were some positions which the council could not renounce, because this would have contradicted the decrees of former popes and councils, and which they could not affirm, because they were opposed by powerful members of the existing Church.

In spite, however, of the imperfect and contradictory statements of the Fathers of Trent, they had no hesitation in pronouncing judgment on what they esteemed Lutheran opinions. We can indeed find no parallel for the prodigality of their curses, unless we go back to the days of the Donatists. They reach not only to those whom the Church of all ages has called blessed, but to many also of the doctors most esteemed in the Roman communion itself. If any one, for example, denies that the works of justified persons are truly meritorious of eternal life, or that the mass is a true and propitiatory sacrifice, or that the custom of confessing privately to a priest has existed from the apostolic age, or that the Church has power to change an institution of Christ, he falls under the imprecation of the council. In the decree of the last session on the invocation of saints, and the use of images and relics, an anathema is pronounced, not only against those who teach, but those who even think differently. And yet the synod which spoke with so much boldness had no claim, either from numbers or character, to be taken as the representative of the Catholic Church. In the first seven sessions held under Paul III., when the ground was laid for maintaining all the errors and corruptions of the Roman Church, less than sixty bishops were present. In the thirteenth, under Julius III., when transubstantiation and the worship of the host were defined, only forty-five bishops and two cardinals were assembled. And in the ninth session there were only thirty-five collected, who yet presumed to take the title of an Ecumenical Council. In the later sessions held under Pius IV., there was a greater number of bishops at Trent; but the chief subjects in dispute had been ruled in the earlier periods of the council, and the deficiency of numbers was not remedied by any subsequent confirmation. Of those who were present, the chief part were Italians; some were bishops of inconsiderable sees, and some mere titulars. There were among them not a few, who subsisted on pensions granted by the pope.

The council was in no sense the free assembly to which Luther and others had appealed, for it was guided throughout by papal influence; and, as the Protestants complained in 1546, it was not convened in a neutral place, while the pope, who was the great delinquent on trial, was allowed to be the judge in his own cause. There were external causes at work, which prevented the freedom of debate. At the very time when the doctrine of justification was under review, a league was formed between the pope and the emperor, for putting down the Protestants; and while the council was debating, the bishop of Rome was sending his contingent of troops. In the council itself, the legates assumed unreasonable authority, and their interruptions were the subject of continual complaint. During the later sessions, the Inquisition was in full force, and there were persons present in the council who had been sufferers. The assembly was overborne by Italian prelates. At one time, when very important subjects were under discussion, there were no more than two bishops to represent the Church of France. On another occasion, forty bishops were sent by the Roman court for the purpose of carrying a particular point, by outvoting the Spanish bishops, by whom it was opposed. We find the ambassadors of secular princes expressing in the strongest language their sense of the tyranny under which the council was held, and by which its freedom was annihilated.

No one who considers these circumstances can wonder that the beneficial reforms of the Church did not result, which had been so long expected and so anxiously desired. They had been demanded, but in vain, by the emperor, and other great princes, as well as by diets and other assemblies of the empire. Even as late as 1563, the French ambassador delivered a list of thirty-four articles of required reformation. After the twenty-second session we find the Imperialists affirming that none of the desired changes had been proposed. And just before the close of the council, the Spanish ambassador came to the legates with a written complaint, that the principal things for which it was assembled had been omitted, and the rest carried with precipitation. The French envoy filled the letters which he addressed to his court with similar testimony. Whatever beneficial changes in the administration of Church affairs seemed to have been made, were neutralized by the terms in which the rights of the see of Rome were reserved, and which were vague enough to admit every abuse, the pope himself being constituted judge in each case, and possessing also a dispensing power.

The last session was brought hastily to a close, partly through the diplomatic skill of the legate Morone; but chiefly on account of the illness of the pope, because everybody knew that if he died during the sitting of the assembly, a schism was inevitable.

The history of the council was written, in 1619, by Sarpi, and forty years later by Cardinal Pallavicini. The former was the most learned person of the age, a statesman and historian as well as a divine; the latter is chiefly known as an apologist of the court and Church of Rome. His work has been described as more injurious to papal interests than that of his predecessor; because if the one has shown how much may be said against the Council of Trent, the other has made it equally plain how little can be alleged in its defence.

The decrees of the council were signed by only 255 members: four of these were legates of the papal see; two, cardinals; three, patriarchs; twenty-five, archbishops; one hundred and sixty-eight, bishops; thirty-nine, deputies of absent prelates; seven, abbots; and seven were generals of religious orders. The Greek Church and the English Church were not represented. It was subscribed on separate schedules, by the ambassadors of the sovereigns who still adhered to the Romish system.

The following are the anathemas of the council.

I. The sacred œcumenical and general synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, and presided over by the three legates of the apostolic see, having it constantly in view that, by the removal of errors, the gospel, which, promised aforetime in the Holy Scriptures by the prophets, Christ himself first published with his own mouth, and then commanded his apostles to preach to every creature, as the source of all saving truth and instruction of manners, should be preserved pure in the Church; and clearly perceiving that this truth and this instruction are contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which traditions have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and by the apostles handed down even to us, receives and reverences, conformably to the example of the orthodox Fathers, with the same pious regard and veneration, all the books as well of the Old as of the New Testament—both having God for their author, and the traditions relating both to faith and practice, inasmuch as these traditions were either delivered by word of mouth, from Christ, or dictated by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by uninterrupted succession in the Catholic Church. The books received by this council are, of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, viz. Genesis, &c., Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four of Kings, two of Chronicles, first of Esdras, second of Esdras, called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, consisting of 150, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, twelve minor prophets, viz. Hosea, &c., the first and second of Maccabees. Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews, the Epistle catholic of St. James, the two Epistles of St. Peter, the three Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the Revelations of St. John.

Whosoever shell not receive these books entire with all their parts, (i. e. the Apocrypha as well as the canonical books,) as they are used to be read in the (Roman) Catholic Church, and are contained in the ancient Vulgate Latin edition, for sacred and canonical, and shall knowingly and wilfully contemn the aforesaid traditions: let him be accursed. (See Bible, Scripture, Apocrypha.)

II. Moreover, in order to repress the arrogant and self-sufficient, the council decrees, that no one, relying on his own wisdom, shall presume to pervert and interpret Holy Scripture to his own sense, in matters of faith and manners, pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, contrary to the sense which hath been and is maintained by the holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even if such interpretations should never be made public. (See Fathers and Tradition.)

III. Whosoever shall say, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or that they are more or less in number than seven; that is to say, baptism, confirmation, the Lord’s supper, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; or that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament: let him be accursed. (See Seven Sacraments.)

IV. Whosoever shall say, that by the sacraments of the New Law, grace is not conferred by the mere performance of the act, but that faith alone in the Divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace: let him be accursed. (See Opus Operatum.)

V. Whosoever shall say, that it is not requisite that the ministers, when celebrating the sacraments, should have, at least, the intention of doing that which the Church doeth: let him be accursed. (See Intention, Priests’.)

VI. Whosoever shall say, that the free will of man, after the sin of Adam, was lost and extinguished: let him be accursed. (See Free Will.)

VII. The formal cause of justification is the righteousness of God: not that whereby he is himself righteous, but that whereby he maketh us righteous; that with which we, being by him endowed, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and are not only accounted, but are truly called, and are righteous, each of us receiving into himself righteousness, according to the measure whereby the Spirit divideth to every man severally as he will, and according to every man’s disposition and co-operation. (See Sanctification.)

VIII. Whosoever shall say, that the ungodly is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required to co-operate in obtaining the grace of justification; and that it is by no means necessary that he should be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will: let him be accursed. (See Justification.)

IX. Whosoever shall say, that in the mass there is not a true and proper sacrifice offered up to God, and that the offering up is no more than the giving us Christ to eat: let him be accursed. (See Satisfaction, Romish.)

X. Whosoever shall say, that by these words, “This do in remembrance of me,” Christ did not ordain the apostles, priests, or that he did not appoint that they and other priests should offer up his body and blood: let him be accursed. (See Orders.)

XI. Whosoever shall say, that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice made on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice, or that it is profitable only to the partaker, and that it ought not to be offered up for the quick and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be accursed. (See Mass, Sacrifice of.)

XII. Whosoever shall deny, that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, the body and blood, together with the soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and, consequently, the whole of Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained; but shall say that they are there only symbolically, figuratively, or virtually: let him be accursed. (See Real Presence and Transubstantiation.)

XIII. Whosoever shall say, that in the holy sacrament of the eucharist, the substance of bread and wine remains, together with the substance of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine still remaining, which change the (Roman) Catholic Church very fitly calleth Transubstantiation: let him be accursed. (See Transubstantiation.)

XIV. Whosoever shall say, that Christ exhibited in the eucharist is only spiritually eaten, and not also sacramentally and really: let him be accursed. (See Eucharist.)

XV. Whosoever shall say, that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship called Latria even outwardly; nor honoured by a peculiar festival, nor solemnly carried about in processions, according to the praiseworthy and universal rite and usage of the holy Church, nor exposed publicly to the people to be worshipped, and that its worshippers are idolaters: let him be accursed. (See Corpus Christi.)

XVI. Whosoever shall say, that the holy eucharist ought not to be reserved in a sacred place, but is immediately after consecration necessarily to be distributed to those present, or that it ought not to be carried in a respectful manner to the sick: let him be accursed. (See Elevation of the Host.)

XVII. Whosoever shall say, that it is the commandment of God, or necessary to salvation, that all and every faithful Christian should receive the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, under both kinds: let him be accursed. (See Communion in One Kind.)

XVIII. Whosoever shall say, that the holy Catholic Church hath not been moved by just cause and reason to administer the bread only to the laity, and even to the clergy not officiating, or that it is in error in so doing: let him be accursed. (See Cup.)

XIX. Whosoever shall deny, that the whole of Christ, the source and author of all grace, is received in the bread, because, as some falsely affirm, according to Christ’s own institution, he is not received under one and each kind: let him be accursed. (See Communion in One Kind.)

XX. Whosoever shall say, that the mass ought to be performed only in the vulgar tongue: let him be accursed. (See Liturgy.)

XXI. The Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, and in conformity to the Holy Scriptures, and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, hath taught in its sacred councils, and, lastly, in this œcumenical synod, that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained therein are assisted by the prayers of the faithful, and more especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar. (See Purgatory.)

XXII. Whosoever shall say, that after receiving the grace of justification, any penitent sinner hath his offence so remitted, and his obnoxiousness to eternal punishment so blotted out, as to render him no longer obnoxious to temporal punishment, to be undergone either in this world or in the future in purgatory, before an entrance can be opened to the kingdom of heaven: let him be accursed. (See Purgatory.)

XXIII. This holy synod enjoins all bishops and others who undertake the office of teaching, to instruct the faithful, that the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their prayers to God for men, that it is good and profitable to invoke them in a supplicating manner, and that, in order to procure benefit from God through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only Redeemer and Saviour, we should have recourse to their prayers, help, and assistance; and that those persons hold impious opinions who deny that the saints enjoying eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked; or who affirm, that the saints do not pray for men, or that the invoking them that they may pray ever for every one of us in particular, is idolatry, or is repugnant to the word of God, and contrary to the honour of the one Mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ, or that it is foolish to supplicate orally or mentally those who reign in heaven. (See Invocation of Saints.)

XXIV. Also the bodies of the holy martyrs and others living with Christ, having been lively members of Christ and temples of the Holy Ghost, and to be raised again by him to eternal life and glory, are to be reverenced by the faithful, as by them many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who affirm that reverence and honour are not due to the reliques of saints, or that it is useless for the faithful to honour them or other sacred monuments, and a vain thing to celebrate the memory of the saints, for the purpose of obtaining their assistance, are wholly to be condemned, as the Church hath before condemned and now condemns them. The images of Christ, and of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be set up and retained, especially in churches, and due honour and reverence to be paid unto them. (See Image Worship, Mariolatry, and Relics.)

XXV. Since the power of granting indulgences hath been bestowed by Christ upon the Church, and such power thus Divinely imparted hath been exercised by her even in the earliest times; this holy synod teaches and enjoins that the use of indulgences, as very salutary to Christian people, and approved of by the sacred councils, be retained in the Church, and pronounces an anathema on such as shall affirm them to be useless, or deny the power of granting them to be in the Church. (See Indulgences.)

XXVI. The holy synod exhorts and adjures all pastors, by the coming of our Lord and Saviour, that as good soldiers they enjoin the faithful to observe all things which the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all Churches, hath enacted, as well as such things as have been enacted by this and other œcumenical councils. (See Church of Rome.)

XXVII. The chief pontiffs, by virtue of the supreme authority given them in the universal Church, have justly assumed the power of reserving some graver criminal causes to their own peculiar judgment. (See Supremacy, Papal.)

XXVIII. The more weighty criminal charges against bishops which deserve deposition and deprivation may be judged and determined only by the supreme Roman pontiff. (See Pope.)

XXIX. This holy synod enjoins all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, and all others who, by right or custom, ought to assist at a provincial council, that in the first provincial synod that may be holden after the conclusion of the present council, they do openly receive all and each of the things which have been defined and enacted by this holy synod; also that they do promise and profess true obedience to the supreme Roman pontiff, and at the same time publicly detest and anathematize all heresies condemned by the sacred canons, the general councils, and especially by this present synod. (See Popery.)

XXX. Whosoever shall say, that the clergy in holy orders, or regulars having made a solemn profession of chastity, may contract marriage, and that a marriage so contracted is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law or vow; and that to maintain the contrary is nothing else than to condemn matrimony, and that all may contract marriage who do not feel themselves to have the gift of continence, even though they should have made a vow of it: let him be accursed; since God denies it not to such as rightly ask it, nor will he suffer us to be tempted above what we are able. (See Celibacy.)

XXXI. Whosoever shall say, that the state of matrimony is to be preferred to the state of virginity or single life, and that it is not better or more blessed to continue in virginity or single life: let him be accursed. (See Matrimony.)

TRENTAL. A service of thirty masses for the dead, usually celebrated on as many different days.

TRICANALE. “A round ball with a screw coin for the water of mixture,” at the holy communion in Bishop Andrewes’s chapel, and in Canterbury cathedral. Canterbury’s Dom., 1646, and Neale’s Hist. of the Puritans, vol. ii. pp. 223, 224.—Jebb.

TRIFORIUM. Any passage in the walls of a church, but generally restricted in its use to the passage immediately over the arches of the great arcade, usually, in Norman and Early English, marked by an arcade of its own. It is so called as being in most cases a triple aperture, opening to the nave. In the Geometrical style, the Triforium is sometimes treated as a mere decorative arcade, connected in composition with the clerestory; and in the Decorated it sinks still lower into a course of panels, pierced at intervals; while in the Perpendicular it either wholly disappears, or is a mere lengthening of the mullions of the clerestory windows.

TRINITY. (See Person, God, Jesus, Christ, Messiah, Son of God, Holy Ghost.) Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.—“There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions: of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”—Article I.

“Whosoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity: neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.”—Athanasian Creed.

Here it is said, that in the unity of the Godhead there be three persons; that is, though there be but one living and true God, yet there be three persons, who are that one living and true God. Though the true God be but one in substance, yet he is three in subsistence; and so three in subsistence, as still to be but one in substance. And these three persons, every one of which is God, and yet all three but one God, are really related to one another; as they are termed in Scripture, one is a Father, the other a Son, the other a Holy Ghost. The first is Father to the second, the second is Son to the first, the third is neither Father nor Son, but the issue or spirit of both. The first was a Father from eternity, as well as God; the second was God from eternity, as well as a Son; the third was both Holy Ghost and God from eternity, as well as either of them. The Father is the first person in the Deity; not begotten, nor proceeding, but begetting; the Son, the second, not begetting, nor proceeding, but begotten; the Holy Ghost, the third, not begotten, nor begetting, but proceeding. The first is called the Father, because he begot the second; the second is called the Son, because he is begotten of the Father; the third is called the Holy Ghost, because breathed both from the Father and the Son.

And though these be thus really amongst themselves distinct from one another, yet are they not distinct in the Divine nature; they are not distinct in essence, though they be distinct in the manner of their subsisting in it. The Father subsists as a Father, the Son as a Son, the Holy Ghost as a Spirit, and so have distinct subsistences; yet have all the same numerical substance. We say numerical or individual substance; for otherwise they might have all the same Divine nature, and yet not be the same God. As Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were three distinct persons, and had all the same human nature; yet they could not all be called one man; because, though they had but one human nature, yet they had it specifically, as distinguished into several individuals; not numerically, so as to be the same individual man; and, therefore, though they had but one specifical, they had several numerical, natures, by which means Abraham was one man, Isaac another, Jacob a third. And upon the same account is it, that, amongst the angels, Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, though they have the same angelical nature, yet they are not the same angel. But here the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have not only the same Divine nature “in specie,” but “in numero;” and so have not only one and the same nature, but are one and the same God. The Father is the self-same individual God with the Son; the Son is the self-same individual God with the Father; and the Holy Ghost is the self-same individual God with them both. We say, individual God, for the Divine nature is not divided into several Gods, as the human is into several men, but only distinguished into several persons, every one of which hath the same undivided Divine nature, and so is the same individual God. And thus it is, that in the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; which great mystery, though we be not able adequately to conceive of it, yet the Scriptures give a sufficient testimonial to it.—Beveridge.

The sublime mystery of the Trinity in Unity is taught by revelation—not by reason; although it is not in contradiction to this, rightly exercised, nor more unintelligible than many of the “things hard to be understood” in Holy Scripture. A plurality in the Godhead is indicated by the language of the very earliest revelations; which plurality is plainly expressed under the Gospel dispensation—a sacred Three being enumerated by mutual relation in the form of baptism, and by name in the apostolic benediction; which Three are also frequently mentioned together elsewhere, though not in terms so clear.

The doctrine may perhaps be gleaned as much from the economy of creation, as from that of redemption; and herein may be observed, that in the very commencement of the sacred history, the Deity is mentioned under a term of plural signification; and when man, the more eminent work, is to be made, and is afterwards spoken of, a Divine council seems implied: “Let us make man,” &c., “the man is become as one of us!” This peculiar fact seems referred to, and corroborated by, the introduction to St. John’s Gospel; which declares that the “Word was in the beginning with God.” Again, each of the sacred Three is noticed as acting separately in the work. With respect to the Father this is clear from innumerable passages, in which the Lord God is mentioned as the Creator, unless in such a Trinity be implied, which then shortly decides the point at issue. Of the Son it is said, “all things were made by him;” and expressly, “without him was not anything made that was made.” (John i. 3; Col. i. 16.) And of the Holy Spirit, that by him are made and created both man and beast. (Job xxxiii. 4; Ps. civ. 30.) Thus is that passage intelligible, “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made: and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” (Ps. xxxiii. 6.) The mode of operation in the work of redemption has been before noticed. To all these may be added, that the sacred Three are mentioned equally as sending and instructing the prophets and teachers, (Jer. vii. 25; Matt. ix. 38; x. 5; Acts xxvi. 16–18; Isa. xlviii. 16; Acts xiii. 2, 4; xx. 28,)—and equally speaking by them. (Heb. i. 1; 2 Cor. xiii. 3; Mark xiii. 11.) Each, too, gives life—raises the dead—and is joined in the form of baptism, and Christian benediction.

The word Elohim is a plural noun (Gods); and as that was the first term used in the Divine revelation, it seems intended to indicate that plurality—the holy Trinity—afterwards more plainly revealed. And it is to be noticed, that by this word (Elohim) was the earliest revelation made to man. In this was the faith of the patriarchs expressed, as particularly in Gen. xxviii. 20–22; and by this name God expressly declares he appeared unto them, when by his “name Jehovah” he was “not known.” (Ex. vi. 3.) Indeed this latter term seems for a time to have been used less as a name, than as a character, of the Elohim, since it was subsequently that it was announced as the “name”—I AM—by which the Divine plurality was to be known in unity. (Ex. iii. 14; vi. 2.) Jehovah God hath not been “seen at any time;” whereas, of the Elohim, one, at least—the angel Jehovah in prelude to his incarnation—condescended frequently to appear, and talk with man. The translation of Jehovah by Adonai (or Lords) is also remarkable; with the coincidence to be found in the mode adopted by the heathen, of speaking of their gods; as in the name of Baalim for Baal. (Judges ii. 11; Hosea xi. 2.)

That Elohim implies plurality seems evident, from the construction of such a passage as Gen. xx. 13, where it is said, “when they, Elohim, caused me to wander.” Again, (xxxv. 7,) when “they appeared unto him,” at Bethel. And (Josh. xxiv. 19) “the Elohim are holy.” In Ps. lviii. 11, the Elohim are called “judges;” in Ps. cxlix. 2; Isa. xliv. 2, and liv. 5, “makers” and “kings;” in Eccl. xii. 1, “creators;” and in Jer. xxiii. 36, “the living Gods.” Other places are mentioned by Parkhurst; as Gen. xxxi. 53; Deut. iv. 7; v. 23, or 26; 1 Sam. iv. 8; 2 Sam. vii. 23; Isa. vi. 8; Jer. x. 10, &c.

In perfect accordance with this is the first great commandment given from Mount Sinai: “I am the Lord thy God,” (Jehovah Elohim,) thou “shalt have no other gods before me;” more plainly set forth in the baptismal “name”—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, a “holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity,” in inseparable Unity, and perfect co-equality, as may be most safely concluded, from the various passages in which the sacred Three are mentioned in different order—the Father first, in Matt. xxviii. 19,—the Son first, in 2 Cor. xiii. 14,—and the Holy Ghost first, in 1 Cor. xii. 4–6; Eph. iv. 4–6, and Luke i. 35.

The laws and ordinances of the Jews were peculiarly adapted to guard the pure worship against heathen idolatry; therefore, when the legislator, in speaking of God, uses a term implying plurality, which he does, with verbs and persons singular, above thirty times, this, too, in the Decalogue, and in the repetition of laws, and frequently prefaced by an address, demanding attention,—“Hear, O Israel!” “Thus saith the Lord!” it could not but be that plurality in the Godhead was intended to be announced. This is strongly corroborated by such expressions as “holy Gods,” “thy Creators,” being used by Joshua and Solomon; the one an eminent type of Christ, the other inspired with learning in an extraordinary degree.—See Bishop Huntingford’s “Thoughts on the Trinity,” xxii., xxiii. And we may be rather confirmed in the opinion, by the futile attempts of the Jewish Rabbins, to make tolerable sense of the peculiar phraseology adopted, while denying the implication of a plurality.

The doctrine of a Trinity, and this in Unity, is not then an arbitrary assumption, or an attempt to be wise “above that which is written;” but it necessarily arises out of certain Scriptural expressions and passages, which though apparently, or to human sense, contradictory to each other, must in reality be consistent: and the Catholic, or orthodox system, framed on the whole of these, reconciles them in a more easy and natural manner than any other scheme offered.

The word “Trinity,” it is confessed, does not occur in Holy Scripture; nor does the word “Unity,” as applied to the Deity. But neither do the words “omnipresence” and “omniscience;” and as the use of these has never been objected to in speaking of the attributes of Him who is everywhere present, and “knoweth all things,” so may the others be used with equal propriety to express the distinct existence of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the simple oneness of God! The use is admissible, to prevent circumlocution; and irreverence may be deprecated where language is inefficient. The word Trinity was used by the Greek and Latin Fathers, in the middle of the second century, in a way that indicated it was not then a novel expression; and was considered by the orthodox so unobjectionable, as to be employed without reserve in their opposition to the Sabellian heresy.

Indeed, the primitive Fathers appear to have indulged an idea, that without a distinction of hypostases in the Godhead, it is difficult to imagine that αὐτάρκεια, or self-sufficiency, and perfect bliss, which seems to have arisen from a Divine society, as in Prov. viii. 22, 23, particularly 30, and elsewhere. Indeed, the notion of a Trinity has prevailed immemorially, long before the term was adopted; and is found in the heathen worship, as well as in the Church; both, no doubt, having it from a common original.

TRINITY SUNDAY. The solemn festivals, which in the foregoing parts of our annual service have propounded to our consideration the mysterious work of man’s redemption, and the several steps taken to accomplish it, naturally lead us up to, and at last conclude with, that of the Trinity. The incarnation and nativity, the passion and resurrection of the blessed Jesus, demonstrate how great things the Son of God hath condescended to do for us. The miraculous powers with which the first disciples were endued, and the sanctifying graces with which all the faithful are assisted, do prove how great and how necessary a part the “Holy Spirit” bore in this work, both for publishing the salvation of the world, and for rendering it effectual. And all agree in representing to us the inestimable love of the “Father,” by whom that “Son” was sent, and that “Spirit” so wonderfully and so plentifully shed abroad. Most justly, therefore, after such informations how fit a subject this is for our wonder and adoration, does the Church on this day call upon us to celebrate the mystery of those “three” persons in the unity of the Godhead; each of whom hath so kindly, and so largely, contributed to this united and stupendous act of mercy, upon which the whole of all our hopes and happiness depends.—Dean Stanhope.

Notwithstanding on each day, and especially Sundays, the Church celebrates the praises of the Trinity, in her doxologies, hymns, creeds, &c.; yet the wisdom of the Church thought it meet, that such a mystery as this, though part of the meditation of each day, should be the chief subject of one, and this to be the day. For no sooner had our Lord ascended into heaven, and God’s Holy Spirit descended upon the Church; but there ensued the notice of the glorious and incomprehensible Trinity, which before that time was not so clearly known. The Church therefore, having solemnized in an excellent order all the high feasts of our Lord, and after that of the descent of God’s Spirit upon the apostles, thought it a thing most seasonable to conclude these great solemnities with a festival of full, special, and express service to the holy and blessed Trinity.—Bp. Sparrow.

This mystery was not clearly delivered to the Jews, because they, being always surrounded by idolatrous nations, would have easily mistaken it for a doctrine of plurality of Gods; but yet it was not so much hidden in those times, but that any one with a spiritual eye might have discerned some glimmerings of it dispersed through the Old Testament. The first chapter in the Bible seems to set forth three persons in the Godhead; for, besides the “Spirit of God” which “moved upon the face of the waters,” (ver. 2,) we find the great Creator (at the 26th verse) consulting with others about the greatest work of his creation, the making of man, of which we may be assured the Word or Son of God was one, since “all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” So that those two verses fully pointing out to us the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, make this a very proper lesson for the solemnity of the day. The reason of the choice of the other first lesson is as obvious: it records the appearance of the great Jehovah to Abraham, whom the patriarch acknowledges to be the “Judge of all the earth;” and who therefore, by vouchsafing to appear with two others in his company, might design to represent to him the “Trinity of Persons.” But this sacred mystery is nowhere so plainly manifested as in the second lesson for the morning, which at one and the same time relates the baptism of the Son, the voice of the Father, and the descent of the Holy Ghost: which, though they are (as appears from this chapter) three distinct persons in number, yet the second lesson at evening shows they are but one in essence.—Wheatly.

The Epistle and the Gospel are the same that were anciently assigned for the Octave of Pentecost; the Epistle being the vision of St. John (Rev. iv.); and the Gospel, the dialogue of our Lord with Nicodemus; and the mention, which we find therein, of baptism, of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of it, though it might then fit the day as a repetition, as it were, of Pentecost, so is it no less fit for it as a feast of the blessed Trinity. The mission of the Holy Ghost brings with it, as aforesaid, more light and clearness to the doctrine of the Trinity: and when more fit to think of the gifts of the Spirit, than on a solemn day of ordination, as this is one, when men are consecrated to spiritual offices? But, besides this, we have in the Gospel set before us all the three persons of the sacred Trinity, and the same likewise represented in the vision, which the Epistle speaks of, with an hymn of praise, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty,” &c.: which expressions, by ancient interpretation, relate to the Holy Trinity, as is above said.—Bp. Sparrow.

In the Roman Church the Sundays between Whitsunday and Advent are reckoned from Pentecost: in our Church, following the old English custom in the unreformed office, we count from Trinity Sunday.

TRISAGION. (See Tersanctus.)

TRUCE OF GOD. In the French, Treve de Dieu: in modern Latin, Trevia, Treuvia, Treuga, or Truga Dei.

In the eleventh century, when the disorders and licences of private wars, between particular lords and families, were a great disturbance to the peace of the kingdom of France, the bishops took upon them to publish injunctions, forbidding acts of violence, within certain times, under canonical pains. These prohibitions were called Truce of God; a phrase frequently to be met with in the councils held about that time.

The first regulation of this kind was in a synod, held in the diocese of Elno in Rousillon, A. D. 1027; where it was enacted, that, throughout that country, no person should attack his enemy, from the hour of nones on Saturday to that of primes on Monday, that Sunday might have its proper celebration: that no person should, at any time, attack a religious or priest walking unarmed; nor any person going to, or returning from, church: that nobody should attack a church, or any house within thirty paces round it: all this under penalty of excommunication.

TRUMPETS, FEAST OF. An annual festival of the Jews, expressly enjoined by the law of Moses, and observed upon the first day of the seventh month, called Tisri, which was the beginning of the civil year.

This festival is expressly called a sabbath, and was a very solemn day, on which no servile work was to be done; only provision made for their meals, which were usually very plentiful at this time. Among other dishes they served up a ram’s head, in memory of that ram which was sacrificed in the room of Isaac; which they fancy was done upon this day.

All the festivals of the Jews, it is true, were introduced by the sound of trumpets: but this was attended with more than usual solemnity. For they began to blow at sunrising, and continued till sunset. He who sounded, began with the usual prayer: “Blessed be God, who hath sanctified us with his precepts,” &c., subjoining these words: “Blessed be God, who hath hitherto preserved us in life, and brought us unto this time.” At the conclusion, the people said with a loud voice these words of the Psalmist: “Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance.” And whereas, in other places, the beginning of the year was sounded with a trumpet of ram’s or sheep’s horn, at the temple they used two silver trumpets, and the Levites upon that day sung the eighty-first psalm.

This festival is called a memorial of blowing of trumpets: but it is not so easy to determine what this blowing of trumpets was a memorial of. Maimonides will have it to be instituted to awaken the people out of sleep, and call to repentance; being intended to put them in mind of the great day of expiation, which followed nine days after. Basil imagined, that by these soundings the people were put in mind of that day, wherein they received the Law from Mount Sinai with blowing of trumpets. Others think it more probable, that, since all nations made great shouting, rejoicing, and feasting in the beginning of the year, at the first new-moon, in hopes that the rest of the year by this means would prove more prosperous, God was pleased to ordain this festival among his people, in honour of himself, upon the day of the first new-moon, to preserve them from idolatry, and to make them sensible that he alone gave them good years. Others again imagine, that God marked this month with a peculiar honour, because it was the seventh; that, as every seventh day was a sabbath, and every seventh year the land rested, so every seventh month of every year should be a kind of sabbatical month: and upon that account the people might be awakened by this blowing of trumpets, to observe this festival with the proper ceremonies. Lastly, others explain this blowing of trumpets to be a memorial of the creation of the world, which was in autumn. Upon this account it was that they anciently began their years at this time, as the eastern people do at this day. By this means they also confessed the Divine goodness in blessing the year past, and bringing them to the beginning of a new year, which they prayed that God would make happy and propitious to them.

TUNICLE. An ecclesiastical garment mentioned in the rubrics of King Edward VI.’s First Book, to be worn by the assistant ministers at the holy communion. It is the same as the tunic or the dalmatic, which was also an episcopal garment. Originally it had no sleeves; and was the same with the Greek colobion. The sleeves were added in the west about the fourth century; and then the vestment was called a dalmatic. The tunicle in the Roman Church is proper to subdeacons.—Palmer. Goar.

TURRET. A small tower appended to a tower, or the angle or other part of any component portion of a building for support, or to carry stairs, or for ornament. Like the tower, it is often finished with a high conical capping, which is then called a spiret or pinnacle.

TYPE. An impression, image, or representation of some model, which is termed the antitype. In this sense we often use the word to denote the prefiguration of the great events of man’s redemption by persons or things in the Old Testament.

UBIQUITARIANS. A sect of heretics, so called because they maintained that the body of Jesus Christ is (ubique) everywhere, or in every place.

Brentius, one of the earliest reformers, is said to have first broached this error, in Germany, about the year 1560. Melancthon immediately declared against it, as introducing a kind of confusion in the two natures of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, it was espoused by Flacius Illyricus, Osiander, and others. The universities of Leipsic and Wirtemburg in vain opposed this heresy, which gained ground daily. Six Ubiquitarians, viz. Smidelin, Selneccer, Musculus, Chemnitius, Chytræus, and Cornerus, had a meeting, in 1577, in the monastery of Berg, and composed a kind of creed, or formulary of faith, in which the Ubiquity of Christ’s body was the leading article. However, the Ubiquitarians were not quite agreed among themselves; some holding that Jesus Christ, even during his mortal life, was everywhere, and others dating the Ubiquity of his body from the time of his ascension only.

ULTRA-PROTESTANT. (See Via Media.)

UNCTION. (See Extreme Unction.)

UNIFORMITY, ACTS OF. The Acts of Uniformity are 1 Eliz. c. 2, and 14 Car. II. The Irish Acts of Uniformity are also 2 Eliz. cap. 2, and 17 and 18 Car. II. See Stephens’s Edition of both the English and Irish Prayer Book. By stat. 1 Eliz. c. 2, s. 4–8, If any parson, vicar, or other minister that ought to use the Common Prayer, or to minister the sacraments, shall refuse to do the same, or shall use any other form, or shall speak anything in derogation of the same book, or of anything therein contained, he shall, on conviction for the first offence, forfeit to the queen one year’s profit of all his spiritual promotions, and be imprisoned for six months; for the second offence, shall be deprived of all his spiritual promotions, and be imprisoned for a year; and, for the third offence, shall be deprived of all his spiritual promotions, and be imprisoned during life. And if he has no spiritual promotion, he shall, for the first offence, be imprisoned for a year; and, for the second, during life.

And by the same act, if any person shall in plays, songs, or by other open words, speak anything in derogation of the same book, or anything therein contained; or shall, by open fact, cause or procure any minister in any place to say Common Prayer openly, or to minister any sacrament in other form, or shall interrupt or let any minister to say the said Common Prayer, he shall (being indicted for the same at the next assizes) forfeit to the queen for the first offence 100 marks, and for the second 400 marks, which, if not paid in six weeks after conviction, he shall suffer six months’ imprisonment for the first offence, and twelve months’ for the second, and for the third offence shall forfeit all his goods and chattels, and be imprisoned during life.

By stat. 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, Where an incumbent resides upon his living and keeps a curate, the incumbent himself, (not having lawful impediment, to be allowed by the bishop,) shall at least once a month openly and publicly read the Common Prayer, and (if there be occasion) administer the sacraments and other rites of the Church.

UNIGENITUS, THE BULL. The instrument issued by Pope Clement XI., in 1713, against the French translation of the New Testament, with notes, by Pasquier Quesnel, priest of the Oratory, and a celebrated Jansenist. The book, having occasioned considerable disputes, had already been condemned by the court of Rome in 1708; but this step being found ineffectual, Clement, who had privately spoken of it in terms of rapture, declaring it to be an excellent book, and one which no person resident at Rome was capable of writing, proceeded to condemn one hundred and one propositions of the notes; such as—grace, the effectual principle of all good works; faith, the first and fountain of all the graces of a Christian; the Scriptures should be read by all, &c. This bull, procured by Louis and the Jesuits, occasioned great commotion in France. Forty Gallican bishops accepted it; but it was opposed by many others, especially by Noailles, archbishop of Paris. Many of the prelates, and other persons eminent for piety and learning, appealed, on the subject, from the papal authority to that of a general council, but in vain.

UNION, HYPOSTATICAL, (see Jesus, Lord, Christ, Messiah, Mediator,) is the union of the human nature of Christ with the Divine, constituting two natures in one person. Not consubstantially, as the three persons in the Godhead; nor physically, as soul and body united in one person; nor mystically, as is the union between Christ and believers; but so as that the manhood subsist in the second person, yet without making confusion, both making but one person. It was miraculous. (Luke i. 34, 35.) Complete and real: Christ took a real human body and soul, and not in appearance. Inseparable. (Heb. vii, 25.)—See Burton.

UNITARIANS. A title which certain heretics, who do not worship the true God, assume most unfairly, to convey the impression that those who worship the one and only God do not hold the doctrine of the Divine Unity. Christians worship the Trinity in Unity, and the Unity in Trinity.

This name includes all, whether Arians of old, or more lately Socinians, and other Deists, who deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the separate personality of the Holy Ghost. They are not very numerous in England, although most of the old English Presbyterian congregations have fallen into Unitarianism.

These persons made little progress in England till the opening of the eighteenth century, when many of the old Presbyterian ministers embraced opinions adverse to the Trinitarian doctrine. A noticeable controversy on the subject was begun in 1719, in the West of England, and two Presbyterian ministers, in consequence of their participation in these sentiments, were removed from their pastoral charges. Nevertheless, the Presbyterian clergy gradually became impregnated, although for some time they gave no particular expression from their pulpits to their views in this respect. In course of little time, however, their congregations either came to be entirely assimilated with themselves in doctrine, or in part seceded to the Independent body. Thus, the ancient Presbyterian chapels and endowments have, in great degree, become the property of Unitarians, whose origin, as a distinct community in England, may be dated from the first occurrence of such virtual transfers, viz. from about the period just subsequent to 1730.

Persons denying the doctrine of the Trinity were excepted from the benefits of the Toleration Act, and remained so until 1813, when the section in that statute which affected them was abrogated by the 53 Geo. III. c. 160, which was extended to Ireland by 57 Geo. III. c. 70. Since that period they have been exactly in the same position as all other Protestant Dissenters with respect to their political immunities. These persons do not object to the form of attestation, “on the true faith of a Christian,” though denying the principal doctrines of Christianity as recognised by the Catholic Church.

The form of ecclesiastical government adopted by the Unitarians is substantially “congregational;” each individual congregation ruling itself without regard to any courts or synods.

Returns have been received at the Census Office from 229 congregations connected with this body.

UNITED BRETHREN. (See Moravians.)

UNIVERSALISTS. Those who, contrary to the express word of God, deny the eternal punishment of the wicked.

UNIVERSITY. University, as Johnson observes, originally meant a community or corporation;—it afterwards came to be restricted to those communities for divine and secular learning, which were originally called studia generalia, schools, pædagogies, (as St. Andrew’s,) academies, &c. In all of these, the four great branches of knowledge were professed, divinity, law, medicine, and the liberal arts and sciences. In the twelfth century, degrees were conferred, (see Degrees,) first in canon and civil law, afterwards in theology and philosophy; though all these branches of learning had long been taught. The universities were gradually endowed with important privileges. For ages they had been regarded in England as great and influential, with corporate titles though not with corporate privileges. These were formally given to them by Queen Elizabeth; under whose auspices the third university of Dublin, endowed with like privileges, was founded.

It is foreign to the object of a Church Dictionary to notice those corporations for mere secular learning, to which in England the title of University, though with a novel meaning, has of late years been legally given. The term, as formerly understood in England, Ireland, and Scotland, as throughout Europe for ages, comprehended Divine learning as an essential and crowning part of the system. The old universities are connected with the Church by the closest ties. Their discipline is recognised by the canons, (the xvi., xvii., and xxiii., for example,) and their degrees are essential qualifications for many Church preferments; these also are conferred under the invocation of the Holy Trinity; all their solemn assemblies are accompanied with the prayers of the Church; and the foundation within the universities, upon which their influence and very existence depend, has been made with the plain and obvious understanding that these great corporations are the nurseries of the Church; that those who partake of their privileges are to be educated as her generic children.

It is beyond the object of this work to give any detailed account of their constitution. It may suffice to observe, that the English system of having many colleges within the precincts of, and subordinate to, the greater corporation, though forming each a minor corporation in itself, is not peculiar to this country. Such was the system of the most ancient universities, Bologna, Paris, and Salamanca; and of many more modern ones, as Louvain, &c. Paris had anciently fifty-three colleges, (including eight for the religious order,) and up to the Revolution had twenty-three, (of which fifteen were not monastic,) several of the secular ones having been amalgamated by Louis XIV. Besides these, each faculty had its corporate assembly; and over all the rector, assisted by three deans and four proctors, presided. The constitution at Louvain was similar, where there were twenty colleges. The college system is the best auxiliary to the university, and grew up from the obvious necessity of securing to the younger students a proper domestic discipline, and to the elder the means of pursuing their maturer studies.

URIM AND THUMMIM. So the Hebrews called a certain oracular manner of consulting God; which was done by the high priest, dressed in his robes, and having on his pectoral, or breastplate.

Concerning the Urim and Thummim, various have been the sentiments of learned men. Josephus, and others after him, have maintained, that Urim and Thummim meant the precious stones set in the high priest’s breastplate; which, by some extraordinary lustre, made known the will of God to those who consulted him. Spencer, in his dissertation on these words, believes they were two little golden figures, shut up in the pectoral, as in a purse, which gave responses with an articulate voice. In short, there are as many opinions concerning the Urim and Thummim, as there are authors that have written about them. The safest opinion seems to be, that the words Urim and Thummim signify some divine virtue and power annexed to the breastplate of the high priest, by which an oracular answer was obtained from God, when he was consulted by the high priest; and that this was called Urim and Thummim, to express the clearness and perfection which these oracular answers always carried with them; for Urim signifies light, and Thummim, perfection. These answers were not enigmatical and ambiguous, like the heathen oracles, but clear and evident; and never fell short of perfection, either with regard to fulness in the answer, or certainty in the event.

The use made of the Urim and Thummim was, to consult God, in difficult and momentous cases, relating to the whole state of Israel. For this purpose the high priest put on his robes, and over them the breastplate, in which the Urim and Thummim were; and then presented himself before God, to ask counsel of him. But he was not to do this for any private person; but only for the king, for the president of the Sanhedrim, for the general of the army, or for some other great personage; nor for any private affairs, but such only as related to the public interest of the nation, either in Church or State. The place where he presented himself before God, was before the ark of the covenant; where standing with his robes and breastplate on, and his face turned directly towards the ark, and the mercy-seat over it, upon which the Divine presence rested, he proposed what he wanted to be resolved about; and directly behind him, at some distance without the holy place, stood the person, upon whose account God was consulted, and there, with all humility and devotion, expected the answer that should be given.

It seems plain from Scripture, that the answer was given by an audible voice from the mercy-seat, which was within, behind the veil. There it was that Moses went to ask counsel of God in all cases; and from thence he was answered by an audible voice. In the same way did God afterwards communicate his will to the governors of Israel, as often as he was consulted by them; only with this difference, that whereas Moses, through extraordinary indulgence, had immediate access to the Divine presence, and God communed with him, as it were, face to face, no other person was admitted thither to ask counsel of God but through the mediation of the high priest, who, in his stead, asked counsel for him by Urim and Thummim. There are many instances in Scripture of God’s being consulted this way; and the answer, in most of them, is introduced with, “the Lord said.” And when the Israelites made a peace with the Gibeonites, they are blamed because they did not ask counsel at the mouth of God: both which phrases seem plainly to imply a vocal answer. And for this reason it is that the holy of holies, the place where the ark and the mercy-seat stood, from whence this answer was given, is so often in Scripture called the oracle; because from thence the divine oracles of God were delivered to such as asked counsel of him.

It is variously conjectured by learned men, when this Urim and Thummim entirely ceased: it is certain there is no instance of it in Scripture during the first temple; and it was wholly wanting in the second. And hence came that saying among the Jews, that the Holy Spirit spake to the Israelites during the tabernacle, by Urim and Thummim; under the first temple, by the prophets; and, under the second, by Bath-Col.

URSULINES. An order of nuns, founded originally by St. Angeli, of Brescia, in the year 1537, and so called from St. Ursula, to whom they are dedicated.

USE. In former times each bishop had the power of making some improvements in the liturgy of his church: in process of time, different customs arose, and several became so established, as to receive the names of their respective churches. Thus gradually the “Uses” or customs of York, Sarum, Hereford, Bangor, Lincoln, Aberdeen, &c., came to be distinguished from each other.

The missals and other ritual books of York and Hereford have been printed; but we have inquired in vain for the names of the bishops who originated the unessential peculiarities which they contain. Their rubrics are sometimes less definite than those of the Sarum “USE,” and they contain some few offices in commemoration of departed prelates and saints, which are not found in other missals, &c. The “Use” or custom of Sarum derives its origin from Osmund, bishop of that see in A. D. 1078, and chancellor of England. We are informed by Simeon of Durham, that about the year 1083, King William the Conqueror appointed Thurstan, a Norman, abbot of Glastonbury. Thurstan, despising the ancient Gregorian chanting, which had been used in England from the sixth century, attempted to introduce in its place a modern style of chanting invented by William of Fescamp, a Norman. The monks resisted the innovations of their abbot, and a scene of violence and bloodshed ensued, which was terminated by the king’s sending back Thurstan to Normandy. This circumstance may very probably have turned the attention of Osmund to the regulation of the ritual of his church. We are informed that he built a new cathedral; collected together clergy, distinguished as well for learning as for a knowledge of chanting; and composed a book for the regulation of ecclesiastical offices, which was entitled the “Custom” book. The substance of this was probably incorporated into the missal and other ritual books of Sarum, and ere long, almost the whole of England, Wales, and Ireland, adopted it. When the archbishop of Canterbury celebrated the liturgy in the presence of the bishops of his province, the bishop of Salisbury (probably in consequence of the general adoption of the “Use” of Sarum) acted as precentor of the college of bishops, a title which he still retains. The churches of Lincoln and Bangor also had peculiar “Uses;” but we are not aware that any of their books have been printed. A MS. pontifical, containing the rites and ceremonies performed by the bishop, still (we believe) remains in the church of Bangor; it is said to have belonged to Anianus, who occupied that see in the thirteenth century. The church of Aberdeen in Scotland had its own rites; but whether there was any peculiarity in the missal we know not, as it has never been published. The breviary of Aberdeen, according to Zaccaria, was printed in A. D. 1609 (qu. 1509?). Independently of these rites of particular churches, the monastic societies of England had many different rituals, which, however, all agreed substantially, having all been derived from the sacramentary of Gregory. The Benedictine, Carthusian, Cistertian, and other orders, had peculiar missals. Schultingius nearly transcribes a very ancient sacramentary belonging to the Benedictines of England; Bishop Barlow, in his MS. notes on the Roman missal, speaks of a missal belonging to the monastery of Evesham; and Zaccaria mentions a MS. missal of Oxford, written in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, which is in the library of the canons of S. Salvator at Bologna. This last must probably be referred to some of the monastic societies, who had formerly houses in Oxford; as the bishopric or church of Oxford was not founded till the sixteenth century.

It may be remarked in general of all these missals and rituals, that they differed very little; the sacramentary of Gregory was used every where, with various small additions. However, the rites of the churches throughout the British empire were not by any means uniform at the middle of the sixteenth century, and needed various corrections; and therefore the metropolitan of Canterbury, and other bishops and doctors of the holy Catholic Church, at the request and desire of King Edward VI., revised the ritual books; and having examined the Oriental liturgies, and the notices which the orthodox fathers supply, they edited the English ritual, containing the common prayer and administration of all the sacraments and rites of the Church. And although our liturgy and other offices were corrected and improved, chiefly after the example of the ancient Gallican, Spanish, Alexandrian, and Oriental, yet the greater portion of our prayers have been continually retained and used by the Church of England for more than 1200 years.—Palmer.

VALENTINIANS. Heretics, who sprang up in the second century, and were so called from their leader, Valentinus.

This sect was one of the most famous and most numerous amongst the ancients. Valentinus, who was the author of it, was an Egyptian, and began there to teach the doctrine of the Gnostics. His merit made him aspire to the episcopacy; but another having been preferred before him, Valentinus, enraged at this denial and resolved to revenge himself of the affront given him, departed from the doctrine of the Church, and revived old errors. He began to preach his doctrine in Egypt, and from thence coming to Rome, under the pontificate of Pope Hyginus, he there spread his errors, and continued to dogmatize till the pontificate of Anicetus, i. e. from the year 140 to 160.

Of all the Gnostics, none formed a more regular system than Valentinus. His notions were drawn from the principles of the Platonists. The Æons were attributes of the Deity, or Platonic ideas, which he realized, or made persons of them, to compose thereof a complete deity, which he called Pleroma, or Plenitude; under which was the Creator of the world, and the angels, to whom he committed the government of it. The most ancient heretics had already established those principles, and invented genealogies of the Æons: but Valentinus, refining upon what they had said, placed them in a new order, and thereto added many fictions. His system was this:

The first principle is Bythos, i. e. depth: it remained for many ages unknown, having with it Ennoia, i. e. Thought, and Sigê, i. e. Silence. From these sprung the Nous, or Intelligence, which is the only son, equal to it alone, and capable of comprehending it; whose sister is Aletheia, i. e. Truth. This is the first quaternity of Æons, which is the source and original of all the rest. For Nous and Aletheia produced the Word and the Life; and from these two proceeded Man and the Church. This is the second quaternity of the eight principal Æons. The Word and the Life, to glorify the Father, produced five couple of Æons: man and the Church formed six. These thirty Æons bear the name of attributes and compose the Pleroma, or Plenitude of the Deity. Sophia, or Wisdom, the last of these Æons, being desirous to arrive at the knowledge of Bythos, gave herself a great deal of uneasiness, which created in her anger and fear, of which was born matter. But the Horos, or Bounder, stopped her, preserved her in the Pleroma, and restored her to perfection. Then she produced the Christ and the Holy Spirit; which brought the Æons to their last perfection, and made every one of them contribute their utmost to form the Saviour. Her Enthymese, or Thought, dwelling near the Pleroma, perfected by the Christ, produced everything that is in the world, by its divers passions. The Christ sent into it the Saviour, accompanied with angels, who delivered it from its passions, without annihilating it; and from thence was formed corporeal matter, which was of two sorts; the one bad, arising from the passions; the other good, proceeding from conversion, but subject to the passions.

There are also three substances, the material, the animal, and the spiritual. The Demiurgus, or maker of the world, by whom the Enthymese formed this world, is the animal substance: he formed the terrestrial man, to whom the Enthymese gave a spirit: the material part perished necessarily; but that which is spiritual can suffer no corruption; and that which is animal stood in need of the spiritual Saviour, to hinder its corruption. This Saviour or Christ passed through the womb of the Virgin, as through a canal, and at his baptism the Saviour of the Pleroma descended upon him in the form of a dove. He suffered as to his animal part, which he received from Demiurgus, but not as to his spiritual part. There are likewise three sorts of men, the spiritual, material, and animal. These three substances were united together in Adam; but they were divided in his children. That which was spiritual went into Seth, the material into Cain, and the animal into Abel. The spiritual men shall be immortal, whatever crimes they commit; the material, on the contrary, shall be annihilated, whatever good they do: the animal shall be in a place of refreshment, if they do good; and shall be annihilated, if they do evil. The end of the world shall come, when the spiritual men shall have been formed and perfected by the Nous. Then the Enthymese shall ascend up to the Pleroma again, and be re-united with the Saviour. The spiritual men shall not rise again: but shall enter with the Enthymese into the Pleroma, and shall be married to the angels, who are with the Saviour. The Demiurgus shall pass into the region where his mother was, and shall be followed by the animal men, who have lived well; where they shall have rest. In fine, the material and animal men, who have lived ill, shall be consumed by the fire, which will annihilate all matter.

The disciples of Valentinus did not strictly confine themselves to his system. They took a great deal of liberty, in ranging the Æons according to their different ideas, without condemning one another upon that account. But what is most abominable is, that from these chimerical principles they drew detestable conclusions as to morality: for, because spiritual beings could not perish, being good by nature, hence they concluded that they might freely and without scruple commit all manner of actions, and that it was not at all necessary for them to do good; but above all, they believed continence to be useless. We have, in Clemens Alexandrinus, an extract of a letter of Valentinus, in which he maintains, that God does not require the martyrdom of his children, and that, whether they deny or confess Christ before tyrants, they shall be saved. If they believed that good works were necessary, it was only for animal men. Some believed that baptism by water was superfluous; others baptized in the name of the unknown Father, of the truth the mother of all, of him who descended in Jesus, of the light, redemption, and community of powers. Many rejected all outward ceremonies.

In fine, the errors of the Valentinians were wholly incompatible with the Christian doctrine. If they did not destroy the unity of God, they made of him a monstrous composition of different beings. They attributed the creation to another principle: they set up good and bad substances by nature. Jesus Christ, according to them, was but a man, on whom the celestial Christ descended. The Holy Ghost was but a simple Divine virtue. There is no resurrection of the body. Spiritual men do not merit eternal life; it is due to them by their nature; and do what they will they can never miss of it; as material men cannot escape annihilation, although they live an unblameable life.

VALESIANS. Christian heretics, disciples of Valesius, an Arabian philosopher, who appeared about the year 250, and maintained that concupiscence acted so strongly upon man, that it was not in his power to resist it, and that even the grace of God was not sufficient to enable him to get the better of it. Upon this principle he taught that the only way for a man to be saved was to make himself an eunuch. The Origenists afterwards fell into the same error; but it was Valesius who gave birth to it. The bishop of Philadelphia condemned this philosopher, and the other Churches of the East followed his example.

The maxims of the Valesians were very cruel. They were not satisfied to mutilate those of their sect, but they had the barbarity to make eunuchs of strangers who chanced to pass by where they lived. This heresy spread greatly in Arabia, and especially in the territory of Philadelphia.

VAUDOIS. (See Waldenses.)

VAULT. An arched roof, so constructed as to be supported by mutual compression. Vaulting and Gothic architecture are so intimately connected, that the latter has been defined as “the truthful elaboration of vaulted structure;” and vaulting has been called “the final cause of Gothic architecture, that to which all its members subserve, for which everything else is contrived, and without which the whole apparatus would be aimless and unmeaning.”[20] To enter into the science of vaulting would be quite beyond our present purpose; we can only very loosely assign the various forms of vaults to the respective styles to which they belong.

The earliest and simplest vault is that called the waggon vault, i. e. a simple semi-cylindrical vault, one side of which rests throughout on each wall of the span to be vaulted. This vault was used by the Romans, and for a while in our Romanesque: but it was very soon discontinued for one in which the whole space to be vaulted was divided into equal squares, and a semi-cylinder being supposed to be thrown over each square in each direction, the one crossing and cutting the other, the points at which they would cut were taken as the groins, and all below these parts being removed, an arched way was left in either direction. This formed a simple quadripartite vault, but as yet of very rude construction. Some of the defects of this were remedied by supplying ribs at the groins, which not only strengthened the vault, but also served in a great degree to conceal its defects of form. By and by the compartments were also separated by a rib, springing transversely over the space to be vaulted. The introduction of bosses at the intersection of the diagonal ribs, and the various moulding of the ribs themselves, was as far as the Normans proceeded with this kind of vault, except that they had various methods of bringing the apex of the intersecting cylinders into the same plane, by stilting or depressing them, where they were obliged to apply low vaults to rectangles with unequal sides.

In the Early English, the pointed arch was applied to the vault, as well as to all other arched constructions, and groining ribs were never omitted; still the transverse rib, or that separating two bays, is by no means invariably found. The ribs were multiplied as architecture advanced; and, during the Geometrical period, we have often, in addition to the diagonal and transverse ribs, a rib along the apex of the vault, both longitudinal and transverse, and sometimes two or more additional ribs rising from the vaulting shaft to the ridge rib. In the later Decorated, these ribs are often tied together by little cross ribs, at various angles, and the vault thus formed is called a lierne vault: this was continued into the Perpendicular period; its complexity rather than richness gradually increasing with the multiplication of ribs and bosses. It is a long process to arrive at the exact office of each rib; but there is in each case a constructive reason for its adoption.

The later architects of England adopted a more gorgeous, and, in some respects, a more scientific vault than any of those mentioned, which, from the equal radiation of its numerous ribs over the whole surface of the inverted conoids, of which the whole surface consists, is called fan vaulting; a system really more simple and perfect than any of the others, though to the eye so exceedingly elaborate.

VENIAL SIN. The Church of Rome, following the schoolmen, represents some sins as pardonable, and others not. The first they call venial, the second, mortal, sins. Thomas Aquinas makes seven distinctions in sin. (See Sin.)

VENI, CREATOR SPIRITUS. A hymn to the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is that person of the Blessed Trinity, to which the distributing of the several offices in the Church, and qualifying the persons for them, is generally ascribed in Scripture. (Acts xiii. 2, 4; xx. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 11.) And upon that ground it is fit that a particular address be made to the Spirit before the ordination, which we do by this hymn. It is said to have been composed by St. Ambrose, and is placed among his works as an hymn for Pentecost; and on that day it is annually used in the Roman Church, and was so of old. It was inserted into the office for consecrating a bishop as early as the year 1100; and with a later hand put into the ordination of a priest about 500 (620) years ago in the Roman Church, and so it stands there to this day. And the Protestants have so well approved of it, that the Lutheran Churches begin their office with the same hymn. And our reformers translated it into metre in the larger way in King Edward the Sixth’s first ordinal. Since which time (namely, in the review of the Common Prayer under King Charles the Second, Dr. Nicholls) it hath been abbreviated, and put into fewer words, but to the same case, as it stands foremost here.—Dean Comber.

Though the words of these hymns have lost something from time, the prayer is too serious, too important, ever to be forgotten. We are not so enthusiastic as to expect an extraordinary communication of the Spirit to any minister of the gospel. Neither are we so void of spiritual feeling as to imagine that the Divine influence, which God himself has promised, and an innumerable host of Christians have displayed by their conduct, cannot touch our hearts. We do truly believe that it is the grace of God, operating with our spirit, which enables us to fulfil our duty in so arduous a situation. We may “resist and quench the Spirit” (Acts vii. 51; 1 Thess. v. 19); and we may “grow in grace.” (2 Pet. iii. 18.) From these expressions we are taught, to leave our hearts open in the one case, and in the other to aim at greater perfection. In both our connexion with the Spirit is made manifest; for, “if we have not the Spirit of Christ, we are none of his.” (Rom. viii. 9.) May the Spirit of Divine grace “visit our minds,” and “inspire our souls” with holy affections, that we may improve those “manifold gifts,” which alone give stability to the Church of Christ, and are derived from him, “the fountain and the spring of all celestial joy.”—Brewster.

VENITE. The 95th Psalm. The Psalmist here calls upon us with this arousing exhortation, “O come, let us sing unto the Lord!” and the apostle to the same purpose wills us to “admonish one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts unto God.” (Col. iii. 16) Where he seems to quicken our backwardness, and to stir us up to a due sense of the Divine favour and goodness. And this is to be done, both outwardly with the voice, by singing unto the Lord; and inwardly with the heart, by heartily rejoicing in God, who is “the strength of our salvation.” It is by his power that our salvation is effected, and upon his mercy alone all our hopes of it are founded, and therefore both our heart and tongue are to become the instruments of his praise.—Hole.

Whenever we repeat this psalm, we should, if we wish to improve and be edified by it, always make some such reflections as these that follow. The wandering of the Israelites through the wilderness represents our travelling through this world; their earthly Canaan, or promised land, being a type or figure of heaven, of that blessed country, to which we are all invited, and where, if it be not our own fault, we may all one day arrive. The same Divine providence which once guided and protected them, now watches over and defends us;—“they did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink.” (1 Cor. x. 3, 4.) The manna, with which they were miraculously sustained, was an emblem of the true “bread of life, which came down from heaven,” for the support of our souls; and the water, which they drank out of the rock, prefigured the graces of the Holy Spirit, which we receive from the true fountain of life; for “that rock was Christ,”—that is, it represented Christ. Now if they, through their infidelity and disobedience, notwithstanding all the signal favours they enjoyed, fell short of the promised rest, and perished in the wilderness, so shall we, who are blessed with still higher privileges, if we tread in their steps, most assuredly fail of our eternal inheritance in the heavenly Canaan, and be doomed to everlasting destruction. “Take heed,” therefore, “brethren,” as the apostle justly infers, “lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called to-day, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” (Heb. iii. 12, 13.) Let us not rest in a bare speculative belief, but endeavour to obtain and preserve a lively faith and hearty trust in the promises of God made to us in the gospel. This, and this only, will support us in our pilgrimage here on earth, and carry us safe to our eternal rest in heaven.—Waldo.

According to ancient use in the Western Church, the Venite always precedes the Morning Psalm, except on Easter Day, when another anthem is appointed.

VERGER. (From virgu, a rod.) He who carries the mace before the dean or canons in a cathedral or collegiate church. In some cathedrals the dean has his own verger, the canons theirs: in others the verger goes before any member of the church, whether capitular or not, when he leaves his place to perform any part of the service. An officer of a similar title precedes the vice-chancellor in the English universities.

VERSE. A line or short sentence, generally applied to poetry, but also applicable to prose, as Cicero employs it. See Facciolati in voc. Hence it came to mean a short sentence. It has, in an ecclesiastical sense, these several meanings:

1. The short paragraphs, numbered for the sake of reference, into which the Bible is at present divided, are called verses. These divisions were introduced into the Old Testament by Rabbi Nathan, in the fifteenth century. Those in the New were introduced by Robert Stephens in 1551.

2. The short sentence of the minister, which is followed by the response of the choir or people, in the Latin ritual. These are marked V. & R. It is something like the versicles in our service, but is frequently longer.

3. A sentence or short anthem, as in the Introits of the Latin service.

4. Verse in the English choral service means those passages in the hymns or anthems which are sung by a portion only of the choir, sometimes by a single voice, as contradistinguished from the full parts, or chorus. Thus we have full and verse anthems.

VERSICLES. Short or diminutive verses, said alternately by the minister and people; such, for example, as the following:—

Min.

O Lord, show thy mercy upon us;

Ans.

And grant us thy salvation.

Min.

O God, make clean our hearts within us;

Ans.

And take not thy Holy Spirit from us.

The versicles, properly so called, (with their responses,) are in most instances passages from the Psalms, and are thus distinguished from other suffrages, which are neither verses from the Psalms, nor form in each petition and response a continuous sentence. In the Litany the two versicles with their responses, “O Lord, deal not with us after our sins,” and “O Lord, let thy mercy be showed upon us,” are distinguished from the other suffrages (in the Litany) by having the words Priest and Answer prefixed; and by being each a verse from the Psalms. To which may be added, that till the last Review, these had been always prefaced in the English Litany, since the Reformation, by the words “the versicles.”

VESICA PISCIS. (See Piscis.)

VESPERS, or EVEN-SONG, is mentioned by the most ancient Fathers, and it is probable that the custom of holding an assembly for public worship at this time is of the most primitive antiquity. Certainly in the fourth century, and perhaps in the third, there was public evening service in the Eastern Churches, as we learn from the Apostolical Constitutions; and Cassian, in the beginning of the fifth century, appears to refer the evening and nocturnal assemblies of the Egyptians to the time of St. Mark the Evangelist.

VESTMENTS. (See Ornaments.) The vestment mentioned in the rubric of King Edward VI.’s first Prayer Book, is the same as the Chasuble. (See Chasuble.)

VESTRY. (Anciently Revestry or Sacristy.) A room attached to a church for the keeping of the vestments and the sacred vessels. The most usual place for the vestry was at the north side of the chancel, at the east end. There was not infrequently an altar in the vestry; and sometimes it was arranged with an additional chamber, so as to form a domus inclusa for the residence of an officiating priest.

And from their meeting in this room, certain assemblies of the parishioners, for the despatch of the official business of the parish, are called vestries or vestry meetings. It is not, however, essential to the validity of the meeting, that it should be held in the vestry of the church. It may be convened in any place in the parish, provided the parishioners have free access to it, even though the place fixed on be private property. Notice of meeting must be given three days previously, by affixing on or near the doors of all churches or chapels within the parish, a printed or written notice. The incumbent is ex officio chairman of the meeting. All persons rated to the relief of the poor, whether inhabitants of the parish or not, are entitled to attend the vestry and vote thereat: and this right is also extended to all inhabitants coming into the parish since the last rate for the relief of the poor, if they consent to be rated. But no person is entitled to vote, who shall have neglected or refused to pay any rate which may be due, and shall have been demanded of him, nor is he entitled to be present at any vestry meeting. A motion to adjourn the vestry for six or twelve months, or for any time, with a view to defeat the object of the meeting, is illegal, and therefore no such motion should be received by the chairman.

The functions of vestries are, to take due care for the maintenance of the edifice of the church, and the due administration of Divine service; to elect churchwardens, to present for appointment fit persons as overseers of the poor, to administer the property of the parish, and (if so appointed under local acts) to superintend the paving and lighting of the parish, and to levy rates for those purposes.

The remedy for neglect of duty by a vestry is a mandamus from the court of Queen’s Bench, directed to the officer whose duty it would be to perform the particular act, or in some cases by an ordinary process against him, or by a process against the churchwardens out of the ecclesiastical courts.

In the year 1818 was passed the 58 Geo. III. c. 69, making general regulations for the holding of vestries, and this act was amended next year by the 59 Geo. III. c. 85. In the same year was passed the 59 Geo. III. c. 12, commonly called Sturges Bourne’s Act, authorizing the formation of select vestries for the management of the relief of paupers; but that is superseded by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.

The 1 & 2 Wm. IV. c. 20 is an important act relating to vestries, commonly called Hobhouse’s Act. It authorizes, upon the petition of a certain number of parishioners paying rates, the formation of a representative select vestry. To 1000 ratepayers 12 representatives are allowed; above 1000, 24; above 2000, 36; and so on, allowing 12 additional representatives for every additional 1000 ratepayers, until the number of the select vestry reaches 120, which is the limit of elected members. There are others ex officio, including the clergy of the district. Section 40 of this act saves all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and provides that the act shall not invalidate or avoid any ecclesiastical law or constitution of the Church of England, save as concerns the appointment of vestries.

A series of church-building acts, eighteen in number, were passed between 1818 and 1848, beginning with the 58 Geo. III., and ending with the 11 & 12 Vict. They contained clauses which provided for the formation of select vestries in the new ecclesiastical districts constituted by those acts. In 1851 came the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 97, which enumerates all these acts, and by section 20 not only forbids the formation of select vestries in new districts to be formed, but abolishes all those which had been formed under the acts enumerated.

By the Metropolitan Burials Acts of 1852, (15 & 16 Vict. c. 85, amended and extended by 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134,) new and important duties were thrown upon vestries. It is therein provided, that, upon the requisition in writing of ten or more ratepayers of any parish in the metropolis in which the place or places of burial shall appear to such ratepayers insufficient or dangerous to health, (and whether any order in council in relation to any burial ground in such parish has or has not been made,) the churchwardens or other persons to whom it belongs to convene meetings of the vestry of such parish, shall convene a meeting of the vestry, for the special purpose of determining whether a burial ground shall be provided under this act for the parish; and public notice of such vestry meeting, and the place and hour of holding the same, and the special purpose thereof, shall be given in the usual manner in which notices of the meetings of the vestry are given, at least seven days before holding such vestry meeting; and if it be resolved by the vestry that a burial ground shall be provided under this act for the parish, a copy of such resolution, extracted from the minutes of the vestry, and signed by the chairman, shall be sent to one of her Majesty’s principal secretaries of state.

In case of such resolution as aforesaid, the vestry shall appoint not less than three, nor more than nine persons, being ratepayers of the parish, to be the burial board of such parish, of whom one third, or as nearly as may be one third, (to be determined among themselves,) shall go out of office yearly, at such time as shall be from time to time fixed by the vestry, but shall be eligible for immediate re-appointment: provided always, that the incumbent of the parish shall be eligible to be appointed and re-appointed from time to time as one of the members of the said board, although not a ratepayer of the parish; provided also, that any member of the board may at any time resign his office, on giving notice in writing to the churchwardens or persons to whom it belongs to convene meetings of the vestry.

Any vacancies in the board may be filled up by the vestry when and as the vestry shall think fit.

The board shall meet at least once in every month at their office, or some other convenient place, previously publicly notified, and the said board may meet at such other time as at any previous meeting shall be determined upon; and it shall be at all times competent for any two members of the board, by writing under their hands, to summon, with at least forty-eight hours’ notice, the board for any special purpose mentioned in such writing, and to meet at such times as shall be appointed therein.

At all meetings of the board, any number not less than three members of such board shall be a sufficient number for transacting business, and for exercising all the powers of the board.

The board shall appoint, and may remove at pleasure, a clerk, and such other officers and servants as shall be necessary for the business of the board, and for the purposes of their burial ground; and, with the approval of the vestry, may appoint reasonable salaries, wages, and allowances for such clerk, officers, and servants, and, when necessary, may hire and rent a sufficient office for holding their meetings and transacting their business.

Entries of all proceedings of the board, with the names of the members who attend each meeting, shall be made in books to be provided and kept for that purpose, under the direction of the board, and shall be signed by the members present, or any two of them; and all entries purporting to be so signed shall be received as evidence, without proof of any meeting of the board having been duly convened or held, or of the presence at any such meeting of the persons named in any such entry as being present thereat, or of such persons being members of the board, or of the signature of any person by whom any such entry purports to be signed, all which matters shall be presumed until the contrary be proved; and the board shall provide and keep books in which shall be entered true and regular accounts of all sums of money received and paid, for or on account of the purposes of this act in the parish, and of all liabilities incurred by them for such purposes, and of the several purposes for which such sums of money are paid and such liabilities incurred.

All such books shall, at all reasonable times, be open to the examination of every member of such board, churchwarden, overseer, and ratepayer, without fee or reward, and they respectively may take copies of, or extracts from, such books, or any part thereof, without paying for the same; and in case the members of such board, or any of them, or any of the officers or servants of such board having the custody of the said books, being thereunto reasonably requested, refuse to permit or do not permit any churchwarden, overseer, or ratepayer to examine the same, or take any such copies or extracts, every such member, officer, or servant so offending shall for every such offence, upon a summary conviction thereof before any justice of the peace, forfeit any sum not exceeding five pounds.

The vestry shall yearly appoint two persons, not being members of the board, to be auditors of the accounts of the board, and at such time in the month of March in every year as the vestry shall appoint, the board shall produce to the auditors their accounts, with sufficient vouchers for all monies received and paid, and the auditors shall examine such accounts and vouchers, and report thereon to the vestry.

The expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by the burial board of any parish in carrying this act into execution, shall be chargeable upon and paid out of the rates for the relief of the poor of such parish; the expenses to be so incurred for or on account of any parish in providing and laying out a burial ground under this act, and building the necessary chapel or chapels thereon, not to exceed such sum as the vestry shall authorize to be expended for such purpose; and the overseers or other officers authorized to make and levy rates for the relief of the poor in any parish shall, upon receipt of a certificate under the hands of such number of members of the burial board as are authorized to exercise the powers of the board, of the sums required from time to time for defraying any such expenses as aforesaid, pay such sums out of the rates for the relief of the poor, as the board shall direct.

Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the board, with the sanction of the vestry and the approval of the commissioners of her Majesty’s treasury, to borrow any money required for providing and laying out any burial ground under this act, and building a chapel or chapels thereon, or any of such purposes, and to charge the future poor rates of the parish with the payment of such money and interest thereon; provided that there shall be paid in every year, in addition to the interest of the money borrowed and unpaid, not less than one-twentieth of the principal sum borrowed, until the whole is discharged.

The commissioners for carrying into execution an act of the session holden in the 14th and 15th years of her Majesty, c. 23, “to authorize for a further period the advance of money out of the consolidated fund to a limited amount for carrying on public works and fisheries and employment of the poor,” and any act or acts, amending or continuing the same, may from time to time make to the burial board of any parish for the purposes of this act any loan under the provisions of the recited act, or the several acts therein recited or referred to, upon security of the rates for the relief of the poor of the parish.

The money raised for defraying such expenses, and the income arising from the burial ground provided for the parish, except fees payable to the incumbent, clerk, and sexton of the parish, and the other fees herein directed to be otherwise paid, shall be applied by the board in or towards defraying the expenses of such board under this act; and whenever, after repayment of all monies borrowed for the purposes of this act in or for any parish, and the interest thereof, and after satisfying all the liabilities of the board with reference to the execution of this act in or for the parish, and providing such a balance as shall be deemed by the board sufficient to meet their probable liabilities during the then next year, there shall be at the time of holding the meeting of the vestry at which the yearly report of the auditors shall be produced, any surplus money at the disposal of the board, they shall pay the same to the overseers, in aid of the rate for the relief of the poor of the parish.

The vestries of any parishes which shall have respectively resolved to provide burial grounds under this act, may concur in providing one burial ground for the common use of such parishes, in such manner, not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, as they shall mutually agree; and may agree as to the proportions in which the expenses of such burial ground shall be borne by such parishes, and the proportion for each of such parishes of such expenses shall be chargeable upon and paid out of the monies to be raised for the relief of the poor of the same respective parish accordingly; and, according and subject to the terms which shall have been so agreed on, the burial boards appointed for such parishes respectively shall, for the purpose of providing and managing such one burial ground, and taking and holding land for the same, act as one joint burial board for all such parishes, and may have a joint office, clerk, and officers, and all the provisions of this act shall apply to such joint burial board accordingly; and the accounts and vouchers of such board shall be examined and reported on by the auditors of each of such parishes; and the surplus money at the disposal as aforesaid of such board, shall be paid to the overseers of such parishes respectively in the same proportions as those in which such parishes shall be liable to such expenses.

For the more easy execution of the purposes of this act, the burial board of every parish appointed under this act shall be a body corporate, by the name of “The Burial Board for the Parish of ——, in the County of ——,” and by that name shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall sue and be sued, and have power and authority (without any licence in mortmain) to take, purchase, and hold land for the purposes of this act; and where the burial boards of two or more parishes act as, and form, one joint burial board for all such parishes for the purposes aforesaid, such joint board shall for such purposes only be a body corporate, by the name of “The Burial Board for the Parishes of —— and ——, in the County of ——,” and by that name shall have perpetual succession, and a common seal, and shall sue and be sued, and have power and authority as aforesaid to take, purchase, and hold land for the purposes of this act.

Every burial board shall, with all convenient speed, proceed to provide a burial ground for the parish or parishes for which they are appointed to act, and to make arrangements for facilitating interments therein; and in providing such burial ground, the board shall have reference to the convenience of access thereto from the parish or parishes for which the same is provided; and any such burial ground may be provided either within or without the limits of the parish, or all or any of the parishes, for which the same is provided; but no ground not already used as or appropriated for a cemetery, shall be appropriated as a burial ground, or as an addition to a burial ground, under this act, nearer than 200 yards to any dwelling house, without the consent in writing of the owner, lessee, and occupier of such dwelling house.

For the providing such burial ground, it shall be lawful for the burial board, with the approval of the vestry or vestries of the parish or respective parishes, to contract for and purchase any lands for the purpose of forming a burial ground, or for making additions to any burial ground to be formed or purchased under this act, as such board may think fit, or to purchase from any company or persons entitled thereto any cemetery or cemeteries, or part or parts thereof, subject to the rights in vaults and graves, and other subsisting rights, which may have been previously granted therein: provided always that it shall be lawful for such board, in lieu of providing any such burial ground, to contract with any such company or persons entitled as aforesaid for the interment in such cemetery or cemeteries, and either in any allotted part of such cemetery or cemeteries or otherwise, and upon such terms as the burial board may think fit, of the bodies of persons who would have had rights of interment in the burial grounds of such parish or respective parishes.

VIA MEDIA. The position occupied in the Christian world by the Anglican Church. There are three parties at present dividing the kingdom—the Church, the Romanist, the ultra-Protestant; of these the Church occupies the middle, Romanism and ultra-Protestantism the extreme positions. Were the Church withdrawn or forced from this central position, the two extremes would soon collide in civil and religious contention and rancour. The Church is the peace-preserving power in the home empire; her advantages and resources in this respect are singularly her own. As far as the Roman is a Church, she agrees with Rome: educated Romanists, however much they regret the disunion of the sees of Rome and Canterbury, respect her ecclesiastical and apostolic character. As far as the renunciation of errors dangerous to salvation constitutes Protestantism, she is thoroughly Protestant; learned and sober Nonconformists, therefore, have always considered her as the bulwark of the reformed religion. She possesses what Rome does not, to conciliate the Nonconformist; she possesses what ultra-Protestantism does not, to attract the esteem of the Roman Catholic. She has wherewith to conciliate to herself these two extremes, totally irreconcileable with each other. Were all religious parties in the realm to meet at this moment to draw up a national form of Christianity consistent with both Scripture and Catholic antiquity, the vast majority, we doubt not, would conscientiously prefer the liturgy and articles of the Church to any form or articles propounded by any one sect out of the Church. Without the Church, again, ultra-Protestantism would prove but a rope of sand to oppose the subtle machinations and united movement of the papal hierarchy. With her, at peace with both, though not in communion with either, these hostile schemes have as yet been prevented from committing the nation to the horrors of intestine commotion. The statesman who would undermine or debilitate this passive supremacy—for to all aggressive or domineering purposes it is entirely passive—on the chance that conflicting sects would extend to each other the mild toleration which now under the Church all impartially enjoy, must have studied religious passions and religious history to little profit.

The great mass of Protestant communities sends each individual to the Bible alone; thence to collect, as it may happen, truth or falsehood, by his own interpretation, or misinterpretation, and thence to measure the most weighty and mysterious truths by the least peculiar and appropriate passages of sacred Scripture. The Church of Rome sends her children neither to the Bible alone, nor to tradition alone; nor yet to the Bible and tradition conjointly, but to an infallible living expositor: which expositor sometimes limits, and sometimes extends, and sometimes contradicts, both the written word and the language of Christian antiquity. The Church of England steers a middle course. She reveres the Scripture: she respects tradition. She encourages investigation: but she checks presumption. She bows to the authority of ages: but she owns no living master upon earth. She rejects alike the wild extravagance of unauthorized opinion, and the tame subjection of compulsory belief. Where the Scripture clearly and freely speaks, she receives the dictates as the voice of God. When Scripture is neither clear nor explicit, or when it may demand expansion and illustration, she refers her sons to an authoritative standard of interpretation, but a standard which it is their privilege to apply for themselves. And when Scripture is altogether silent, she provides a supplementary guidance: but a guidance neither fluctuating nor arbitrary; the same in all times, and under all circumstances; which no private interest can warp, and no temporary prejudice can lead astray. Thus, her appeal is made to past ages, against every possible error of the present. Thus, though the great mass of Christendom, and even though the vast majority of our own national Church, were to depart from the purity of Christian faith and practice, yet no well-taught member of that Church needs hesitate or tremble. His path is plain. It is not merely his own judgment, it is not by any means the dictatorial mandate of an ecclesiastical director, which is to silence his scruples, and dissolve his doubts. His resort is, that concurrent, universal, and undeviating sense of pious antiquity, which he has been instructed, and should be encouraged, to embrace, to follow, and to revere.—Bishop Jebb.

VIATICUM. The provision made for a journey. Hence, in the ancient Church, both baptism and the eucharist were called Viatica, because they were equally esteemed men’s necessary provision and proper armour, both to sustain and conduct them safe on their way in their passage through this world to eternal life. The administration of baptism is thus spoken of by St. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, as the giving to men their viaticum or provision for their journey to another world; and under this impression it was frequently delayed till the hour of death, being esteemed as a final security and safeguard to future happiness. More strictly, however, the term viaticum denoted the eucharist given to persons in immediate danger of death, and in this sense it is still occasionally used. The 13th Canon of the Nicene Council ordains that none “be deprived of his perfect and most necessary viaticum, when he departs out of this life.” Several other canons of various councils are to the same effect, providing also for the giving of the viaticum under peculiar circumstances, as to persons in extreme weakness, delirium, or subject to canonical discipline.

VICAR. In order to the due understanding of this office, as distinguished from those of rector and perpetual curate, it will be necessary to describe in this article the three several offices in their order.

The appellation of rector is synonymous with that of parson, which latter term, although frequently used indiscriminately, as applicable also to vicars and even curates, is, according to Blackstone, the most legal, beneficial, and honourable title that a parish priest can enjoy. Parson, in the legal signification, is taken for the rector of a church parochial: he is said to be seised in jure ecclesiæ. Such an one, and he only, is said vicem seu personam ecclesiæ gerere. He is called parson (persona) because by his person the Church, which is an invisible body, is represented; and he is in himself a body corporate, in order to protect and defend the rights of the Church (which he personates) by a perpetual succession. And, as Lord Coke says, the law had an excellent end therein, viz. that in his person the Church might sue for and defend her right. A parson, therefore, is a corporation sole, and has during his life the freehold in himself of the parsonage house, the glebe, the tithe, and other dues.

But these are sometimes appropriated; that is to say, the benefice is perpetually annexed to some spiritual corporation, either sole or aggregate, being the patron of the living, which the law esteems equally capable of providing for the service of the Church as any single private clergyman. This contrivance seems to have sprung from the policy of the monastic orders. At the first establishment of parochial clergy, the tithes of the parish were distributed in a fourfold division: one for the use of the bishop, another for maintaining the fabric of the church, a third for the poor, and the fourth to provide for the incumbent. When the sees of the bishops became otherwise amply endowed, they were prohibited from demanding their usual share of these tithes, and the division was into three parts only; and hence it was inferred by the monasteries, that a small part was sufficient for the officiating priest, and that the remainder might well be applied to the use of their own fraternities, (the endowment of which was construed to be a work of the most exalted piety,) subject to the burden of repairing the church, and providing for its constant supply. And therefore they begged and bought for masses and obits, and sometimes even for money, all the advowsons within their reach, and then appropriated the benefices to the use of their own corporation. But in order to complete such appropriation effectually, the king’s licence and consent of the bishop must first have been obtained; because both the king and the bishop may, some time or other, have an interest, by lapse, in the presentation to the benefice, which can never happen if it be appropriated to the use of a corporation which never dies, and also because the law reposes a confidence in them that they will not consent to anything that shall be to the prejudice of the Church. The consent of the patron also is necessarily implied, because (as was before observed) the appropriation can be originally made to none but to such spiritual corporation as is also the patron of the Church; the whole being, indeed, nothing else but an allowance for the patrons to retain the tithes and glebe in their own hands, without presenting any clerk, they themselves undertaking to provide for the service of the church.

The terms appropriation and impropriation are now so commonly used indiscriminately, that it has become almost unnecessary to mention the distinction between them; but appropriation, in contradistinction to impropriation, means the annexing a benefice to the proper and perpetual use of some spiritual corporation either sole or aggregate, being the patron of a living, which is bound to provide for the service of the church, and thereby becomes perpetual incumbent, the whole appropriation being only an allowance for the spiritual patrons to retain the tithes and glebe in their own hands, without presenting any clerk, they themselves undertaking to provide for the service of the church; while impropriation is supposed to be properly used when the profits of the benefice are held in lay hands, as being improperly so. But, in truth, the correctness of the distinction, even originally, seems doubtful: they are used as synonymous in statutes in the times of Elizabeth, of Mary, and of Charles II.; and even prior to the Reformation, in a petition to parliament in the time of Henry VIII., the term used is “impropried.” Both terms were borrowed from the form of the grant, “in proprios usus,” and they are peculiar or principally confined to this country. Blackstone says, that appropriations can be made to this day; upon which Mr. Christian observes, “It cannot be supposed that at this day the inhabitants of a parish, who had been accustomed to pay their tithes to their officiating minister, could be compelled to transfer them to an ecclesiastical corporation, to which they might be perfect strangers,” and that “there probably have been no new appropriations since the dissolution of monasteries.” Upon this same proposition, Mr. Justice Coleridge observes, alluding to the opinion of Mr. Christian, “The truth of this position has been questioned, and the doubt is not likely to be solved by any judicial decision. But I am not aware of any principle which should prevent an impropriation from being now legally made, supposing the spiritual corporation already seised of the advowson of the church, or enabled to take it by grant. The power of the king and the bishop remain undiminished.”

This appropriation may be severed, and the church become disappropriate, in two ways; as, first, if the patron or appropriator presents a clerk, who is instituted and inducted to the parsonage; for the incumbent so instituted and inducted is, to all intents and purposes, completed parson: and the appropriation, being once severed, can never be re-united again, unless by a repetition of the same solemnities. And when the clerk so presented is distinct from the vicar, the rectory thus vested in him becomes what is called a sinecure, because he had no cure of souls, having a vicar under him, to whom that cure is committed. Also, if the corporation which has the appropriation is dissolved, the parsonage becomes disappropriate at common law; because the perpetuity of person is gone, which is necessary to support the appropriation.

These sinecure rectories here spoken of had their origin in the following manner: The rector, with proper consent, had a power to entitle a vicar in his church to officiate under him, and this was often done; and by this means two persons were instituted to the same church, and both to the cure of souls, and both did actually officiate. So that however the rectors of sinecures, by having been long excused from residence, are in common opinion discharged from the cure of souls, (which is the reason of the name,) and however the cure is said in the law books to be in them habitualiter only, yet, in strictness, and with regard to their original institution, the cure is in them actualiter, as much as it is in the vicar, that is to say, where they come in by institution; but if the rectory is a donative, the case is otherwise; for coming in by donation, they have not the cure of souls committed to them. And these are most properly sinecures, according to the genuine signification of the word.

But no church, where there is but one incumbent, is properly a sinecure. If indeed the church be down, or the parish become destitute of parishioners, without which Divine offices cannot be performed, the incumbent is of necessity acquitted from all public duty; but still he is under an obligation of doing this duty whenever there shall be a competent number of inhabitants, and the church shall be rebuilt. And these benefices are more properly depopulations than sinecures.

But sinecure rectors and rectories are now in the course of gradual suppression, and will soon have entirely passed away; for it is declared by the stat. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, that all ecclesiastical rectories, without cure of souls, in the sole patronage of her Majesty, or of any ecclesiastical corporation, aggregate or sole, where there shall be a vicar endowed or a perpetual curate, shall, as to all such rectories as may be vacant at the passing of that act, immediately upon its so passing, and as to all others immediately upon the vacancies thereof respectively, be suppressed; and that as to any such ecclesiastical rectory without cure of souls, the advowson whereof, or any right of patronage wherein, shall belong to any person or persons, or body corporate, other than as aforesaid, the ecclesiastical commissioners for England shall be authorized and empowered to purchase and accept conveyance of such advowson or right of patronage, as the case may be, at and for such price or sum as may be agreed upon between them and the owner or owners of such advowson or right of patronage, and may pay the purchase money, and the expenses of and attendant upon such purchase, out of the common fund in their hands; and that after the completion of such purchase of any such rectory, and upon the first avoidance thereof, the same shall be suppressed; and that upon the suppression of any such rectory as aforesaid, all ecclesiastical patronage, belonging to the rector thereof as such rector, shall be absolutely transferred to, and be vested in, the original patron or patrons of such rectory.

The office of vicar, as distinct from that of rector, would sufficiently appear from what has been already said of the latter. The vicar was originally little more than a stipendiary curate of the present day, being a minister deputed or substituted by the spiritual corporation, who held the revenues of the benefice, to perform the ecclesiastical duties in their stead. Usually, though not always, he was one of their own body; and his stipend was entirely at their discretion, and he was removable at their caprice. The evil results of such a practice are apparent; and an effectual attempt to arrest the evil was made by a statute in the reign of Richard II.; but this was found to be insufficient; and accordingly it was enacted by statute 4 Henry IV. c. 12, that the vicar should be a secular ecclesiastic; perpetual; not removable at the caprice of the monastery; that he should be canonically instituted and inducted; that he should be sufficiently endowed at the discretion of the ordinary to do Divine service, to inform the people, and to keep hospitality. It is under this latter statute, therefore, that our vicarages in their present form came into existence, and the endowments of them have usually been by a portion of the glebe or land belonging to the parsonage; and a particular share of the tithes which the appropriators found it most troublesome to collect, and which are therefore generally called privy or small tithes, the greater or prœdial tithes being still reserved to their own use. But one and the same rule was not observed in the endowment of all vicarages. Hence some are more liberally, and some more scantily, endowed; and hence the tithes of many things, as wood in particular, are in some parishes rectorial, and in some, vicarial tithes.

The distinction, therefore, between a rector and a vicar, at the present day, is this, that the rector has generally the whole right to all the ecclesiastical dues within his parish; the vicar is entitled only to a certain portion of those profits, the best part of which are absorbed by the appropriator, to whom, if appropriations had continued as in their origin, he would in effect be perpetual curate with a fixed salary.

The parson, and not the patron of the parsonage, is of common right the patron of the vicarage. The parson, by making the endowment, acquires the patronage of the vicarage. For, in order to the appropriation of a parsonage, the inheritance of the advowson was to be transferred to the corporation to which the church was to be appropriated; and then the vicarage being derived out of the parsonage, the parson, of common right, must be patron thereof. So that if the parson makes a lease of the parsonage, (without making a special reservation to himself of the right of presenting to the vicarage,) the patronage of the vicarage passeth as incident to it. But it was held in the 21 James I., that the parishioners may prescribe for the choice of a vicar. And before that, in the 16 James I., in the case of Shirley and Underhill, it was declared by the court, that though the advowson of the vicarage of common right is appendant to the rectory, yet it may be appendant to a manor, as having been reserved specially upon the appropriation.

And if there be a vicar and parson appropriate, the ordinary and parson appropriate may, in time of vacation of the vicarage, reunite the vicarage to the parsonage.

From what has been already observed of the distinction between rector and vicar, it will be easy to anticipate what remains to be said of a perpetual curate; for a perpetual curate is, in many things, in the same position as was a vicar previous to the statute of Henry IV. before mentioned. The fact is, that certain cases were exempted from the operation of that statute; for if the benefice was given ad mensam monachorum, and so not appropriated in the common form, but granted by way of union pleno jure, it was allowed to be served by a curate of their own house, consequently not a secular ecclesiastic; and the like exemption from the necessity of appointing a vicar was sometimes also granted by dispensation, or on account of the nearness of the church.

At the dissolution of the monasteries, when appropriations were transferred from spiritual societies through the king to single lay persons, to them also, for the most part, was transferred the appointment of the vicars in the parishes where they were the appropriators, and in places where, by means of exemptions, there was no regularly endowed vicar; and as they were appropriators of the whole ecclesiastical dues, the charge of providing for the cure was laid on them; for neither in fact, nor in presumption of law, nor habitualiter, could a lay rector as such have cure of souls; they were consequently obliged to nominate some particular person to the ordinary for his licence to serve the cure; and such curates thus licensed became perpetual, in the same manner as vicars had been before, not removable at the caprice of the appropriator, but only by due revocation of the licence of the ordinary.

A perpetual curacy was formerly adjudged not to be an ecclesiastical benefice, so that it was tenable with any other benefice; but now perpetual curacies are expressly declared to be benefices within the meaning of that word in the Benefices Pluralities Act, and a perpetual curate is consequently liable to its restrictions in the same manner as any other incumbent; and it has been recently determined that perpetual curates, or their representatives, are liable to be sued in an action for dilapidations in the same manner as other incumbents.

In some cases it might be a matter of considerable difficulty to determine whether a place is a perpetual curacy or a chapelry only; and the more so, since, for most practical purposes, the question would be quite immaterial, and therefore less likely to have been judicially determined; but as an aid in deciding certain other questions which might arise, it might be important: and the following are the rules laid down by Lord Hardwicke for determining whether it is a perpetual curacy or not.

To determine this, he says, “consider it first as to the rights and privileges appearing to belong to the chapel itself; next, as to the right of the inhabitants within the district; thirdly, as to the rights and dues belonging to the curate of the chapelry. If all these rights concur to show the nature of a perpetual curacy, that must determine it.

“As to the first consideration, it appears this is a chapel belonging to a country town. It has belonging to it all sorts of parochial rights, as clerk, warden, &c., all rights of performing Divine service, baptism, sepulture, &c., which is very strong evidence of itself that this is not barely a chapel of ease to the parish to which it belongs, but stands on its own foundation, capella parochialis, as it is called in Hobart; and this differs it greatly from the chapels in London, which are barely chapels of ease, commencing within time of memory, which have not baptism or sepulture; all which sort of rights belong to the mother-church, and the rector or vicar of the parish, who has the cure of souls, has the nomination, as the rector of St. James’s or St. Martin’s has, but they have no parochial rights, which clearly belong to this chapel. Nor have any of the inhabitants of this chapelry a right to bury in the parish church of Northop, and that right of sepulture is the most strong circumstance, as appears from 3 Selden’s History, Tithes, fol. column 1212, to show that it differs not from a parish church.

“The next circumstance to determine this question is the right of the inhabitants, viz. to have service performed there, and baptism and christening, and having no right to resort to the parish church of Northop for these purposes, nor to any other place, if not here; nor are they or have they been rateable to the parish church of Northop. It was determined in the case of Castle Birmidge, Hob. 66, that the having a chapel of ease will not exempt the inhabitants within that district from contributing to repairs of the mother-church, unless it was by prescription, which would then be a strong foundation, that it must be considered as a curacy or chapelry.

“Next, as to the rights and dues of the curate. All these concur to show it to be a perpetual curacy, and not at all at the will and pleasure of the vicar; for the curate has always enjoyed the small tithes and surplice fees, nor is there any evidence to show that the vicar has received the small tithes.”

A nomination to a perpetual curacy may be by parol. “Most regularly,” Lord Hardwicke says, “it ought to be in writing;” but, he adds, “I do not know that it has been determined that it is necessary. A presentation to a church need not be in writing, but may be by parol; if so, I do not see why a nomination to a perpetual curacy may not be by parol.”

A perpetual curate has an interest for life in his curacy, in the same manner and as fully as a rector or vicar; that is to say, he can only be deprived by the ordinary, and that in proper course of law; and, as Lord Hardwicke observes, it would be a contradiction in terms to say that a perpetual curate is removable at will and pleasure.

The ministers of the new churches of separate parishes, ecclesiastical districts, consolidated chapelries, and district chapelries, are perpetual curates, so that they are severally bodies politic and corporate, with perpetual succession, and consequently may accept grants made to them and their successors; and they are to be licensed and to be removable in the same manner as other perpetual curates. This is also the case with those ministers who are appointed to new districts or parishes under the Church Endowment Act; and as licence operates to all such ministers in the same manner as institution would in the case of a presentative benefice, it would render voidable any other livings which such ministers might hold, in the same manner as institution.

VICARS CHORAL. The assistants or deputies of the canons or prebendaries of collegiate churches, in the discharge of their duties, especially, though not exclusively, those performed in the choir or chancel, as distinguished from those belonging to the altar and pulpit.

The vicars choral, as their name implies, were originally appointed as the deputies of the canons and prebendaries for Church purposes; that is, to provide for the absence or incapacity of the great body of capitular members: the clerical vicars to chant in rotation the prayers at matins and evening, &c., and the whole body to form a sufficient and permanent choir for the performance of the daily service; a duty which the canons were originally required to perform in person. The presbyteral members were usually four, being the vicars of the four dignitaries, personæ principales (see Persona). Sometimes they were five; the rest were deacons, and in minor orders, in later times chiefly laymen.

This institution was most salutary; since, were every canon required to have the peculiar qualifications required from vicars, viz. a practical knowledge of ecclesiastical music, men of more essential and higher qualities would of necessity be often excluded from the canonical stalls. In fact, the appointment of deacons and inferior ministers to this peculiar office, which we do not find established till the beginning of the fourth century, (i. e. the κανονικοὶ ψαλταὶ, vide Bingham, iii. 7,) bears a striking analogy to the regulation of the Jewish temple; where some of the Levites, the deacons of the elder Church, were newly appointed by David to the musical service.... Originally the vicars choral were commensurate with the capitular members, each of these having a vicar, appointed by himself, and holding his place only so long as his principal lived. The numbers have now greatly diminished. At York, they were at one time, 36; at Lincoln, 25; at Hereford, 20. At St. Patrick’s each vicar is still denominated from a dignitary or prebendary, twenty-six in number; but one vicar is in many instances the representative of two stalls; and he is designated from both, as “the prebendary of A and B, vicar.”

In all cathedrals of the old foundation in England, and in Ireland, where there were choirs, the vicars choral formed a minor corporation, in some way under the control of the dean or chapter, but with separate estates, with collegiate buildings, halls, chapels, some of which still subsist. Those at Hereford were incorporated in the 15th century, those at Exeter in Henry IV.’s time. At Southwell they formerly formed a college, till the Reformation. These presidents were styled custos, or warden, subdean, subchanter, provost, or procurator. In Ireland, but twelve of the cathedrals have had foundations for vicars choral, as far as any record remains, and in some of these their very sufficient endowments had been suffered by a long course of neglect and abuse to be diverted from their original purpose, and were a few years ago alienated by law.—A better spirit has happily arisen of late years.—In Scotland it does not appear that vicars choral were attached to all cathedrals. Bishop Elphinston endowed twenty vicars choral or minor canons at Aberdeen, in 1506; at Glasgow, vicars of the choir were founded in 1455; Elgin cathedral modelled on that of Lincoln, in 1224, had twenty-two vicars choral, commensurate with the chapter.

In cathedrals of the new foundation, the term vicar choral was generally superseded by that of Minor Canon for the clergy, and Lay-clerk for the laity. (See Minor Canon.)

The term was occasionally used in a less strict sense, to signify a choral priest or chaplain. Thus the church of St. Nicholas in Galway was founded in 1501, for a warden and eight vicars choral, (or singing vicars, as they were sometimes called,) who served that church. The corporation is styled in some ancient documents, Wardianus et Capitulum. A few vicars are still maintained, who serve the church in turn, but discharge no choral duty.

In all foreign cathedrals, there are inferior choral members, though the designations vary much; they consist of priests, deacons, clergy of the inferior orders, and laymen.—See Jebb on Choral Service.

VICAR GENERAL. An ecclesiastical officer, who assists the bishop in the discharge of his office, as in ecclesiastical causes and visitations; much the same as the chancellor. The archbishop of Canterbury has his vicar general; and this is the designation of the bishop’s principal official in Ireland, where the diocesan title of chancellor is unknown.

In the reign of Henry VIII., when the rejection of papal usurpation led for a time to a recoil of a very Erastian character, Thomas Cromwell, afterwards Earl of Essex, was appointed the king’s vicar general, vicegerent, and special and principal commissary; with powers of visitation and correction over all the spirituality; an anomalous office, which could not exist but in times of confusion.—Vide Collin’s Eccl. History, and Cromwell’s Commission in vol. ii., Appendix, p. 21.

VICAR PENSIONARY. Certain clergymen appointed at a fixed stipend to serve churches, the titles of which belonged to a collegiate foundation: as at St. Salvador’s College, St. Andrews.—Vide Lyons’ History of St. Andrews.

VICE-DEAN, or SUBDEAN. In cathedrals of the new foundation, one of the canons is annually chosen to represent the dean in his absence; and as such he ranks next to him in the choir and chapter.

VIDAME: Vicedominus. The vicegerent, or official of a bishop in temporals. A dignitary in a few foreign cathedrals is thus called: a sort of subdean.

VIGIL. The night or evening before certain holy-days of the Church. In former times it was customary to have religious services on these eves, and sometimes to spend a great part of the night in prayer and other devotions, to qualify the soul for the better observance of the festival itself on the morrow. These nights thus spent were called vigils or watchings, and are still professedly observed in the Church of England.

This term originated in a custom of the early Christians, who fasted and watched the whole night previous to any great festival; hence Vigiliæ, Vigils, or watchings, from Vigilo, to watch.—As a military custom this was most ancient. The Jews seem originally to have divided the night into three watches; but in the New Testament we read of “the fourth watch of the night,” (Mark vi. 48,) a custom, perhaps, introduced by their conquerors, the Romans, who divided their night into four vigils. The primitive Christians might have been inclined to this custom from various references to it in the Gospel; particularly in the close of the parable of the ten virgins; though it is not improbable that the secrecy with which they were obliged to meet, “for fear of the Jews,” (John xx. 19,) and other persecutors, went far towards establishing it. This, like many other innocent or necessary ceremonies, having been at length abused, the nocturnal vigils were abolished, about the year 420, and turned into evening fasts, preparatory to the principal festival. But it appears that a vigil was observed on All Hallows Day, by watching and ringing of bells all night long, even till the year 1545, when Henry VIII., in his letter to Cranmer, as to “creeping to the cross,” &c., desired it might be abolished.

It is not every festival which has a vigil preceding it. Those appointed by the Church are as follows:—

Before the Nativity of our Lord.

the Purification and Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin.

Easter Day.

Ascension Day.

Pentecost.

St. Matthias.

St. John Baptist.

St. Peter.

St. James.

St. Bartholomew.

St. Matthew.

St. Simon and St. Jude.

St. Thomas.

St. Andrew.

All Saints.

It has been given as a reason why the other holy-days have no vigils before them, that they generally happened between Christmas and the Purification, or between Easter and Whitsuntide, seasons of joy which the Church did not think fit to break into by fasting and humiliation.—See fully on this subject, Wheatly on the Common Prayer.

VIRGIN MARY. (See Mariolatry and Mother of God.) The mother of our Blessed Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. What follows is from the celebrated Bishop Bull. “She was of all the women, of all the virgins in Israel, elected and chosen by God to be the instrument of bringing into the world the long-desired Messias. All the virtuous daughters of Jacob, a good while before the revelation of our Saviour, but especially in the age when he appeared, (the time wherein they saw the more punctual and remarkable prophecies concerning the coming of the Messias fulfilled,) desired, and were not without hopes, each of them, that they might have had this honour done unto them. But it was granted to none of all these holy women and virgins, but to the Virgin Mary. And therefore ‘all generations shall call her blessed.’

“The Blessed Virgin Mary was the only woman that took off the stain and dishonour of her sex, by being the instrument of bringing that into the world, which should repair and make amends for the loss and damage brought to mankind by the transgression of the first woman, Eve. By a woman, as the principal cause, we were first undone; and by a woman, as an instrument under God, a Saviour and a Redeemer is born to us. And the Blessed Virgin Mary is that woman. Hence Irenæus, in his fifth book, makes a comparison between the virgin Eve, (for such the ancients believed her to be till after her transgression,) and the Virgin Mary. ‘Seductionem illam solutam,’ &c., i. e. ‘That seduction being dissolved, whereby the virgin Eve designed for man was unhappily seduced; the Virgin Mary, espoused to man, by the truth, happily received the glad tidings from an angel. For as the former was seduced by the speech of an angel to flee from God, having transgressed his commandments: so the latter, by the word also of an angel, received the good news, ut portaret Deum, that she should bear God within her, being obedient to his word. And as the former was seduced to flee from God, so the latter was persuaded to obey God. So that the Virgin Mary became the comforter of the virgin Eve.’ Where the last words of the holy martyr are grossly misinterpreted by the Latin translator, and have given to the Papists to conclude from them, that Eve was saved by the intercession of the Virgin Mary. A most absurd conceit, unworthy of the learned and holy Father, or indeed of any man else of common sense; for who knows not that Eve was past all need of intercession, before ever the Blessed Mary could be capable of making intercession for her? Doubtless the Greek word used by Irenæus here was παράκλητος, which, as it signifies ‘an advocate,’ so it also as frequently signifies ‘a comforter,’ and so ought to have been rendered here. But, you will say, how did Eve receive comfort from the Blessed Virgin Mary? I answer, in that gracious promise delivered by God himself in the sentence passed on the serpent, after Eve’s seduction by him, where it is said, ‘that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head.’ Every man now knows that the seed there spoken of is Christ; and, consequently, that the individual woman, whose immediate seed he was to be, is the Blessed Virgin Mary. The holy Virgin was the happy instrument of the saving incarnation of the Son of God, who hath effectually crushed the old serpent, the devil, and destroyed his power over all those that believe on himself, and thereby she became the instrument of comfort to Eve and all other sinners. This is certainly all the good Father intended by that expression.

“The Blessed Virgin was consecrated to be a temple of the Divinity in a singular manner. For the eternal Son of God, by an ineffable conjunction, united himself to that human nature, which was miraculously conceived and formed in her, even whilst it was within her; and so he that was born of her, at the very time that he was born of her, was Θεανθρωπος, God and Man. O astonishing condescension of the Son of God! O wonderful advancement of the Blessed Virgin! and therefore we daily sing in our Te Deum, ‘Thou art the King of Glory, O Christ; Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father. When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man, thou didst not abhor the Virgin’s womb.’ Upon which account, the fathers of the third General Council at Ephesus, convened against Nestorius, approved the title of Θιοτοκος, ‘the Mother of God,’ given to the Blessed Virgin.”

A little afterwards he says, “I will mention some few instances of extravagant honour which the Papists give, but which we of the Church of England utterly refuse to yield to the Blessed Virgin, out of a true zeal to the honour of God.

“We will not give her lavish and excessive attributes, beyond what the Holy Scriptures allow her, and the holy men of the primitive Church afforded her. We will call her ‘blessed,’ as the mother of our Lord in the sense above explained. But we dare not call her ‘queen of heaven,’ ‘queen of angels, patriarchs, prophets, and apostles,’ ‘source of the fountain of grace,’ ‘refuge of sinners,’ ‘comfort of the afflicted,’ ‘advocate of all Christians,’ as she is called in that Litany of our Lady, still used in their devotions. For we have no instance of such attributes given to the Blessed Virgin in the Holy Scriptures, and they are too big for any mere creature.

“We will not ascribe those excellencies to her that she never had nor could have; as a fulness of habitual grace, more grace than all the angels and archangels of God put together ever had; that she was born without original sin, and never committed any the least actual sin, and consequently, never needed a saviour. These are wild things, which very many of the Papists, drunk with superstition, say of her.

“We will not give her the honour of invocation, or praying to her, as all the Papists do, for the unanswerable reasons above mentioned. Indeed, as long as that one text of Scripture remains in our Bibles, which we read, (1 Tim. ii. 5,) ‘There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,’ we shall never be persuaded, by any sophistry or subtle distinctions of our adversaries, to betake ourselves to the mediation of the Blessed Virgin, much less of any other saint. Much more do we abhor the impiety of those among the Papists, who have held it disputable, whether the milk of the Blessed Virgin, or the blood of her Son, be to be preferred; and at last could pitch upon no better resolution than this, that the milk and blood should be mixed together, and both compound a medicine for their souls.

“We abhor to divide the Divine kingdom and empire, giving one-half, the better half, the kingdom of mercy, to the Blessed Virgin, and leaving only the kingdom of justice to her Son. This is downright treason against the only universal King and Monarch of the world.

“We are astonished at the doxology which some great and learned men of the Church of Rome have not been ashamed to close their printed books with, ‘Laus Deo Deiparæque Virgini:’ ‘Praise be to God, and the Virgin-mother.’

“We should tremble every joint of us, to offer any such recommendation as this to the Virgin Mary. Hear, if you can without horror, a prayer of theirs to her. It is this: ‘O my Lady, holy Mary, I recommend myself into thy blessed trust and singular custody, and into the bosom of thy mercy, this night and evermore, and in the hour of my death, as also my soul and my body; and I yield unto thee all my hope and consolation, all my distress and misery, my life and the end thereof, that by thy most holy intercession, and by thy merits, all my works may be directed and disposed, according to thine and thy Son’s will. Amen.’ What fuller expressions can we use to declare our absolute affiance, trust, and dependence on the eternal Son of God himself, than they here use in this recommendation to the Virgin? Yea, who observes not, that the will of the Blessed Virgin is expressly joined with the will of her Son, as the rule of our actions, and that so as that her will is set in the first place. A plain smatch of their old blasphemous impiety, in advancing the Mother above the Son, and giving her a commanding power over him. Can they have the face to say, that all this is no more than desiring the Blessed Virgin to pray for them, as we desire the prayers of one another on earth? And yet this recommendation is to be seen in a Manual of Prayers and Litanies, printed at Antwerp no longer ago than 1671, and that permissu superiorum, in the Evening Prayers for Friday. A book it is, to my knowledge, commonly to be found in the hands of our English Papists; for I had it from a near relation of mine, (who had been perverted by the emissaries of Rome, but is since returned again to the communion of the Church of England,) who assured me that she used it herself, by the direction of her confessor, in her private devotions.”

No instance of Divine honour paid to Mary (remarks Coleman from Augusti) is recorded of an earlier date than the fifth century. Cyril of Alexandria, and Proklus of Constantinople, were the first to pay these honours to her. Festivals to her memory began to be held about the year 431, but were not generally observed until the sixth century. From this time until the sixteenth century, they were general in all the Western Churches, though differing in number and in rank, in the several countries of Europe. The Greek Church observes only three great festivals of this description.

The following is a brief enumeration of the principal festivals in question.

1. The festival of the Purification. Candlemas, Feb. 2, instituted in the sixth century.

2. Of the Annunciation, popularly styled Lady Day, March 25th, an early festival, styled by St. Bernhard, radix omnium festorum.

3. Of the Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth, instituted by Urban VI. 1389.

4. Of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, Aug. 15th, early instituted. Mary was the tutelary divinity of France; and for this reason this day was observed with peculiar care. It was also the birthday of Napoleon, and accordingly was observed under his dynasty as the great festival of the nation.

5. Of the Nativity of Mary, Sept. 8th, instituted in the Eastern Church in the seventh century; in the Western, in the eleventh or twelfth.

6. Of the Naming of Mary, A. D. 1513.

7. Of Conception. This feast, according to Bellarmine, was not necessarily dependent upon the question so fiercely discussed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries respecting the immaculate conception.

VISITATION. This is that office which is performed by the bishop usually once in three years, or by his archdeacon every year, by visiting the churches throughout the diocese. It is the duty of a commissary to summon the churchwardens and sidesmen to a visitation, but he has no authority to summon any other persons; but if he does summon those persons, and they, refusing to appear, should be excommunicated for this contempt, a prohibition would be granted. (Noy, 122.) Two things are requisite in these visitations: 1st, The charge. 2nd, The inquiry. The charge consists of such things as the visitor thinks proper to impart to the clergy; but usually it is to put them in mind of their duty, and to persuade them to perform it. The inquiry formerly consisted of several articles taken out of the canons; and the bishop’s visitation being accounted an episcopal synod, there were at that time certain persons who attended it, and who were called Testes Synodales, or Juratores Synodi, and they were to present those who were negligent in performing religious offices, or any irregularities amongst the clergy, both in respect to their morals and behaviour, and likewise all dilapidations, and generally what they found to be amiss in the diocese. The bishop at first exercised this jurisdiction alone; it was what was implied in his very office; and this he was to do in every parish throughout his diocese once a year, there to examine the minister and the people, which he might do with more ease at that time, because parish churches were not so numerous then as afterwards. When this was disused, then ecclesiastical persons were to be assembled in a certain place, and inquiry was made, upon oath, concerning the state of the clergy, and at this place they were all bound to appear.

Afterwards, when bishops came to be ministers of state, and to attend the courts of kings, which began in the Norman reigns, then archdeacons were vested with this jurisdiction under the bishops, and visited in those years wherein the bishops did not. But still the bishops were to visit once in three years, and being then the king’s barons and statesmen, they came with very great equipage, insomuch that, by the Council of Lateran, their number was limited according to their qualities, viz. if the visitor was an archbishop, he was not to have above fifty horses in his retinue; if a bishop, he was not to exceed thirty; if a cardinal, then twenty-five; if an archdeacon, he was to have no more than seven, and a dean but two; and if they respectively exceeded those numbers, then no procuration was due for the maintenance of the supernumeraries. But even this was very chargeable to the parochial clergy, for the visitor was to be maintained at their expense a day and night in every parish; and, therefore, it was thought fit to turn that charge into a certain sum, which is now called procurations, and this is paid to archdeacons in that very year wherein bishops visit, for it is by some affirmed to be due to them ratione officii; and some say it is due to them by virtue of the statute of 33 Henry VIII. c. 5, by which these duties are made pensions. The first of these opinions is contrary to several canons, which not only enjoin personal visitations, but expressly forbid any procurations to be paid where the archdeacon himself did not visit in person. But notwithstanding those canons, custom has so far prevailed, that the archdeacons receive these fees in the bishop’s triennials, when they do not visit in person; but instead of that they hold two chapters about Easter and Michaelmas, and there, by themselves or their officials, they formally inquire into the state and condition of the Church, which inquiry is now called a visitation, and for which they are entitled to these fees.

Visitation, as commonly understood, denotes the act of the bishop, or other ordinary, going his circuit through his diocese or district, with a full power of inquiry into such matters as relate to church government and discipline. By the canon law visitations were to be once a year, but that was intended of parochial visitations, or a personal repairing to every church, as appears not only from the assignment of procurations, but also by the indulgence, where every church cannot be conveniently repaired to, of calling together the clergy and laity from several parts into one convenient place, that the visitation of them may not be postponed. From this indulgence and the great extent of the dioceses grew the custom of citing the clergy and people to attend visitations at particular places. But as to parochial visitation, or the inspection into the fabrics, mansions, utensils, and ornaments of the church, that care has long devolved upon the archdeacons, who, at their first institutions in the ancient church, were only to attend the bishops at their ordination and other public services in the cathedral, but being afterwards occasionally employed by them in the exercise of jurisdiction, not only the work of parochial visitation, but also the holding of general synods or visitations, when the bishop did not visit, came by degrees to be known and established branches of the archdiaconal office as such, which by this means attained to the dignity of ordinary, instead of delegated jurisdiction; and by these degrees came on the present practice of triennial visitations by bishops; so as the bishop is not only not obliged by law to visit annually, but is actually restrained from it.

“By the 137th canon it is enjoined, that forasmuch as a chief and principal cause and use of visitation is, that the bishop, archdeacon, or other assigned to visit, may get some knowledge of the state, sufficiency, and ability of the clergy and other persons whom they are to visit, we think it convenient that every parson, vicar, curate, schoolmaster, or other person licensed whatsoever, do at the bishop’s first visitation, or at the next visitation after his admission, show and exhibit unto him his letters of orders, institution, and induction, and all other his dispensations, licenses, of faculties whatsoever, to be by the said bishop either allowed or (if there be just cause) disallowed and rejected, and, being by him approved, to be (as the custom is) signed by the registrar, and that the whole fees accustomed to be paid in the visitations in respect of the premises, be paid only once in the whole time of every bishop, and afterwards but half of the said accustomed fees in every other visitation during the said bishop’s continuance.”

Gibson says, that none but the bishop or other person exercising ecclesiastical authority by commission from him, has right de jure communi to require these exhibits of the clergy; therefore, if the archdeacon require it, it must be on the foot of custom, the beginning whereof, he says, has probably been encroachment, since it is not likely that any bishop should give to the archdeacon and his official a power of allowing or disallowing such instruments as have been granted by himself or his predecessors. The canon last mentioned appears to be in observance now, for it is the practice for each clergyman to exhibit these letters of orders, &c. on his first attendance at the bishop’s visitation, and on the first appointment to an office, &c. in any diocese, as well as upon several other occasions.

By a constitution of Othobon it is ordained, that archdeacons visit the churches profitably and faithfully by inquiring of the sacred vessels and vestments, and how the service is performed, and generally of temporals and spirituals, and what they find to want correction that they correct diligently. And it was further ordained by this, as well as by other constitutions, that they should not extort money by giving sentence unjustly.

By a constitution of Archbishop Reynolds, it was enjoined that archdeacons and their officials in the visitation of churches have a diligent regard of the fabric of the church, and especially of the chancel, to see if they want repair; and if they find any defects of that kind, limit a certain time under a penalty within which they shall be repaired.

By a constitution of Archbishop Langton, archdeacons in their visitation are to see that the offices of the church are duly administered, and shall take an account in writing of all the ornaments and utensils of churches, and of the vestments and books, and shall require them to be presented before them every year, that they may see what has been added and what lost.

It is said that the archdeacon, although there be not a cause, may visit once a year; and if there be a cause, he may visit oftener; and that where it is said in the canon law, he ought to visit from three years to three years, this is to be understood so that he shall visit from three years to three years of necessity, but that he may visit every year if he will.

At these archdiaconal visitations the churchwardens are to make presentments; and though their duty in that particular has become in practice, to a great extent, obsolete, yet it may be well to state the law of the Church upon the subject. The following canons relate to these presentments.

Canon 113. “Because it often cometh to pass, that churchwardens, sidemen, questmen, and such other persons of the laity as are to take care for the suppressing of sin and wickedness, as much as in them lieth, by admonition, reprehension, and denunciation to their ordinaries, do forbear to discharge their duties therein, either through fear of their superiors, or through negligence, more than were fit, the licentiousness of these times considered, we do ordain, that hereafter every parson and vicar, or in the lawful absence of any parson and vicar, then their curates and substitutes, may join in every presentment with the said churchwardens, sidemen, and the rest above mentioned, at the times of visitation, if they the said churchwardens and the rest will present such enormities as are apparent in the parish; or if they will not, then every such parson and vicar, or, in their absence as aforesaid, their curates, may themselves present to their ordinaries at such times, and when else they think it meet, all such crimes as they have in charge or otherwise, as by them (being the persons that should have the chief care for the suppressing of sin and impiety in their parishes) shall be thought to require due reformation. Provided always, that if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him, we do not any way bind the said minister by this our constitution, but do straitly charge and admonish him, that he do not at any time reveal and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy, (except they be such crimes as by the laws of this realm his own life may be called in question for concealing the same,) under pain of irregularity.”

Canon 116. “It shall be lawful for any godly-disposed person, or for any ecclesiastical judge, upon knowledge or notice given unto him or them, of any enormous crime within his jurisdiction, to move the minister, churchwardens, or sidemen, as they tender the glory of God and reformation of sin, to present the same, if they shall find sufficient cause to induce them thereunto, that it may be in due time punished and reformed.”

Canon 119. “For the avoiding of such inconveniences as heretofore have happened, by the hasty making of bills and presentments upon the days of visitation and synods, it is ordered, that always, hereafter, every chancellor, archdeacon, commissary, and every other person having ecclesiastical jurisdiction, at the ordinary time when the churchwardens are sworn, and the archbishop and bishops, when he or they do summon their visitation, shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the churchwardens, questmen, and sidemen of every parish, or to some of them, such books of articles as they or any of them shall require (for the year following) the said churchwardens, questmen, and sidemen to ground their presentments upon, at such times as they are to exhibit them. In which book shall be contained the form of the oath which must be taken immediately before every such presentment; to the intent that, having beforehand time sufficient, not only to peruse and consider what their said oath shall be, but the articles also whereupon they are to ground their presentments, they may frame them at home both advisedly and truly, to the discharge of their own consciences, (after they are sworn,) as becometh honest and godly men.”

Canon 115. “Whereas, for the reformation of criminous persons and disorders in every parish, the churchwardens, questmen, sidemen, and other such church officers are sworn, and the minister charged, to present as well the crimes and disorders committed by the said criminous persons, as also the common fame which is spread abroad of them, whereby they are often maligned, and sometimes troubled, by the said delinquents or their friends; we do admonish and exhort all judges, both ecclesiastical and temporal, as they regard and reverence the fearful judgment-seat of the highest Judge, that they admit not in any of their courts any complaint, plea, suit or suits, against any such churchwardens, questmen, sidemen, or other church officers, for making any such presentments, nor against any minister for any presentments that he shall make: all the said presentments tending to the restraint of shameless impiety, and considering that the rules both of charity and government do presume that they did nothing therein of malice, but for the discharge of their consciences.”

Canon 116. “No churchwardens, questmen, or sidemen of any parish shall be enforced to exhibit their presentments to any having ecclesiastical jurisdiction above once in every year where it hath been no oftener used, nor above twice in every diocese whatsoever, except it be at the bishop’s visitation: provided always, that, as good occasion shall require, it shall be lawful for every minister, churchwardens, and sidemen, to present offenders as oft as they shall think meet: and for these voluntary presentments no fee shall be taken.”

Canon 117. “No churchwardens, questmen, or sidemen, shall be called or cited, but only at the said time or times before limited, to appear before any ecclesiastical judge whatsoever, for refusing at other times to present any faults committed in their parishes, and punishable by ecclesiastical laws. Neither shall they or any of them, after their presentments exhibited at any of those times, be any further troubled for the same, except upon manifest and evident proof it may appear that they did then willingly and wittingly omit to present some such public crime or crimes as they knew to be committed, or could not be ignorant that there was then a public fame of them, or unless there be very just cause to call them for the explanation of their former presentments: in which case of wilful omission, their ordinaries shall proceed against them in such sort as in causes of wilful perjury in a court ecclesiastical it is already by law provided.”

Canon 118. “The office of all churchwardens and sidemen shall be reputed to continue until the new churchwardens that shall succeed them be sworn, which shall be the first week after Easter, or some week following, according to the direction of the ordinary; which time so appointed shall always be one of the two times in every year when the minister, and churchwardens, and sidemen of every parish shall exhibit to their several ordinaries the presentments of such enormities as have happened in their parishes since their last presentments. And this duty they shall perform before the newly chosen churchwardens and sidemen be sworn, and shall not be suffered to pass over the said presentments to those that are newly come into that office, and are by intendment ignorant of such crimes, under pain of those censures which are appointed for the reformation of such dalliers and dispensers with their own consciences and oaths.”

Canon 116. “For the presentments of every parish church or chapel, the registrar of any court where they are to be exhibited shall not receive in one year above 4d., under pain, for every offence therein, of suspension from the execution of his office for the space of a month, toties quoties.”

Canon 26. “No minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the holy communion any churchwardens or sidemen, who, having taken their oaths to present to their ordinaries all such public offences as they are particularly charged to inquire of in their several parishes, shall (notwithstanding the said oaths, and that their faithful discharge of them is the chief means whereby public sins and offences may be reformed and punished) wittingly and willingly, desperately and irreligiously, incur the horrible crime of perjury, either in neglecting or in refusing to present such of the said enormities and public offences as they know themselves to be committed in their said parishes, or are notoriously offensive to the congregation there, although they be urged by some of their neighbours, or by their minister, or by the ordinary himself, to discharge their consciences by presenting of them, and not to incur so desperately the said horrible sin of perjury.”

Canon 121. “In places where the bishop and archdeacon do, by prescription or composition, visit at several times in one and the same year, lest for one and the self-same fault any of his Majesty’s subjects should be challenged and molested in divers ecclesiastical courts, we do order and appoint, that every archdeacon or his official, within one month after the visitation ended that year and the presentments received, shall certify under his hand and seal, to the bishop or his chancellor, the names and crimes of all such as are detected and presented in his said visitation, to the end the chancellor shall henceforth forbear to convent any person for any crime or cause so detected or presented to the archdeacon. And the chancellor, within the like time after the bishop’s visitation ended and presentments received, shall, under his hand and seal, signify to the archdeacon or his official the names and crimes of all such persons, which shall be detected or presented unto him in that visitation, to the same intent as aforesaid. And if these officers shall not certify each other as is here prescribed, or after such certificate shall intermeddle with the crimes or persons detected and presented in each other’s visitation, then every of them so offending shall be suspended from all exercise of his jurisdiction by the bishop of the diocese until he shall repay the costs and expenses which the parties grieved have been at by that vexation.”

As to legal proof: in case the party presented denies the fact to be true, the making good the truth of the presentment, that is, the furnishing the court with all proper evidences of it, undoubtedly rests upon the person presenting. And as the spiritual court in such case is entitled by law to call upon churchwardens to support their presentments, so are churchwardens obliged, not only by law, (Dr. Gibson says,) but also in conscience, to see the presentment effectually supported; because, to deny the court those evidences which induced them to present upon oath, is to desert their presentment, and is little better, in point of conscience, than not to present at all, inasmuch as, through their default, the presentment is rendered ineffectual as to all purposes of removing the scandal, or reforming the offender. And from hence he takes occasion to wish that the parishioners would think themselves bound (as on many accounts they certainly are bound) to support their churchwardens in seeing that their presentments are rendered effectual. In any point which concerns the repairs or ornaments of churches, or the providing conveniences of any kind for the service of God, when such defects as these are presented, the spiritual judge immediately, and of course, enjoins the churchwarden presenting to see the defect made good, and supports him in repaying himself by a legal and reasonable rate upon the parish. But what he intends is, the supporting the churchwardens in the prosecution of such immoral and unchristian livers as they find themselves obliged by their oath to present, as fornicators, adulterers, common swearers, drunkards, and such like, whose example is of pernicious consequence, and likely to bring many evils upon the parish.

It is customary for the archdeacon at his visitation, to call upon one of his clergy to preach what is called a visitation sermon; and although it appears that formerly it was the duty of the visitor himself to preach this sermon, it seems to be doubtful whether the clergyman so called upon by the archdeacon may refuse.

VISITATION OF THE SICK. In so uncertain a world, where sickness sometimes interrupts the very joys of marriage, it is no wonder that the sad office should be placed next to matrimony; for all people in all conditions, of all ages and sexes, are subject to diseases continually; so that when any person falls sick, those that are in health must “remember them, as being themselves also in the body,” (Heb. xiii. 3, ) and liable to the same calamities; and all Christians are commanded to visit their neighbours in this estate, and are promised they shall be rewarded by God for so doing. (Ps. xli. 1, 2; Matt. xxv. 34, 36; James i. 27; Eccles. vii. 35.) And in the primitive times they were famous for this piece of charity. But it is especially the duty of the clergy to visit the sick, a duty instituted and enjoined by God himself: “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” (James v. 14, 15.) In which words (being the original and foundation of this office) we may note, first, that the duty is enjoined by Divine authority, and therefore it is not barely a point of civility, but an act of religion, and a necessary duty which God requires from us. Secondly, the time to perform it is, “when any are sick among us;” for then the parties have most need of comfort, advice, and prayers to support them and procure help for them, as also to prepare them for their last and great account; and then these religious exercises will do us most good, because sickness embitters the world and endears heaven to us, making us pray devoutly, and hearken willingly to holy advice; so that this happy opportunity must not be lost; nor may it be deferred till the sick persons be very weak and nigh to death, for then they are incapable either to join in the office, or to receive the main benefits thereof; and the word in St. James is, “if any be infirm” (ver. 14); to note, this should be done in the beginning of sickness, and not put off till the physicians give men over. Thirdly, as to the manner of performing this duty; the sick man (or his friends) must “send for” the priest, who else may either not know of his sickness, or when it may be seasonable to visit; and if he come unsent for, it is more than he is obliged to do; but yet it is an act of great charity, because God requires the elders of the Church shall do this duty. The sick man must pray for himself (ver. 13); and his neighbours may pray with him and for him (ver. 16); but neither of these sufficeth; he must send for the minister besides, who, now the Church is settled, lives not far from him, and he is most able to give counsel, and most likely to prevail, because God requires him to perform this office, which is described in St. James. 1. By “praying over him,” that is, beside him, in the house where he lies sick. And since God enjoins prayer shall be made, and doth not prescribe the form; as all other Churches have made proper forms, so hath ours also composed this, which is the most full and useful office on this occasion extant in the world. 2. In St. James’s time, and as long as the miraculous gift of healing continued, they “anointed the sick with oil also in the name of Jesus,” not to convey any grace to the soul, (as the Papists now pretend to do by their extreme unction, lately made a sacrament,) but to work a miraculous cure, which was the usual effect in those ages. But the power and gift being now ceased, the reformed Churches left off the oil, which was the sign, because the thing signified was now taken away. But yet we retain all the substantial parts of this office. 3. Here are by St. James set down “the benefits” which may be obtained by it, which are annexed to the “prayer of faith,” the part which was not ceremonial, and which continues still as the benefits also shall do, namely, this shall be a means “to save the sick;” and more particularly, 1. “The Lord shall raise him up,” that is, if God see that health be good for him, the devout performing of this office shall contribute to his recovery; or, 2. However, (because men are mortal and must die at some time,) it shall be a means to procure “forgiveness” of the sins he “hath committed;” not the priest only will absolve him upon his penitent confession, but God will seal his pardon, and then, whether life or death follow, the man shall be happy. Wherefore, as we love our friends, or our own souls, all care must be taken that this necessary and profitable office be not neglected. The method of performing which in this Church may be thus described: The usual office contains, 1. Supplications to avert evil, in the salutation and short litany. 2. Prayers to procure good things, in the Lord’s Prayer and the two collects. 3. Exhortations prescribed in the large form of exhortation; and directions in the rubric, to advise the sick man to forgive freely, to give liberally, to do justice in settling his estate, and to confess his sins humbly and ingenuously unto God’s minister now with him. 4. Consolations, in the absolution, the prayer to God to confirm it; in the 71st Psalm, and the concluding benedictions.

Secondly, there are added, 1. Extraordinary prayers for a sick child, for one past recovery, for a dying person, and for one troubled in conscience. 2. The manner of administering the communion to the sick.—Dean Comber.

As to the form of prayer to be used on this occasion, it is left to the prudence of the Church; since God hath only in general ordered prayers to be made, but not prescribed any particular words, therefore several Churches have made and used several forms proper for the occasion. The Greek Church hath a very large office in their Euchologion; which seems to have been much corrupted by the superstitious additions of later ages, though some of the ancient prayers may yet be discerned there. The most ancient of the Western Church are those which bear the names of St. Ambrose and St. Gregory; and that which Cardinal Bona cites with this title, “Pro infirmis,” written about 900 (1040) years ago, and supposed to be part of the old Gallican service. And upon the Reformation, the several Protestant Churches had their several forms, which are in use amongst them at this day. But this office of the Church of England may be thought to excel all that are now extant in the world; and it exactly agrees with the method of the primitive visitation of the sick in St. Chrysostom’s time.—Dean Comber.

VISITATORIAL POWER. Every corporation, whether lay or ecclesiastical, is visitable by some superior; and every spiritual person being a corporation sole, is visitable by the ordinary. There is, however, in our ecclesiastical polity, an exception to this rule; for, by composition, the archbishop of Canterbury never visits the bishop of London. During a visitation, all inferior jurisdictions are inhibited from exercising jurisdiction: but this right, from the inconvenience attending the exercise of it, is usually conceded; so that the exercise of jurisdiction in the inferior court is continued notwithstanding.

VOLUNTARY. A piece of music played on the organ, usually after the Psalms, sometimes after the second lesson. This was formerly more usual than now; and was practised in many cathedrals, where it is now laid aside, as at St. Paul’s, and Christ Church in Dublin. In the latter place it is transferred to another interval of the service. The name is derived from its performance not being obligatory, but optional with those who are in authority. Pieces of music played at other intervals of the service are properly called symphonies. Lord Bacon approves of voluntaries as affording time for meditation.

VULGAR TONGUE. This expression in the baptismal office stood formerly “in the English tongue.” The alteration was made in compliance, as it should seem, with a suggestion of Bishop Cosin, that “suppose, as it often falls out, that children of strangers, which never intend to stay in England, be brought there to be baptized,” it would be exceptionable that “they also should be exhorted and enjoined to learn those principles of religion in the English tongue.”

VULGATE. The name given to what is called the vulgar Latin translation of the Bible. It was a name anciently applied to any popular edition; and the Septuagint, as Dr. Hody remarks, was sometimes so called by St. Jerome. This is the most ancient version of the whole Scriptures into Latin now extant, and the only one which the Church of Rome acknowledges to be authentic.

The Vulgate of the Old Testament was translated, almost word for word, from the Greek of the Septuagint; the author of it is not known, or so much as guessed at. It was a long time known by the name of the Italic version, as being of very great antiquity in the Latin Church. (See Italic Version.) It was commonly in use, before St. Jerome made a new one from the Hebrew. St. Austin preferred this Vulgate before all the other Latin versions, as rendering the words and sense of the sacred text more closely and justly than any of the rest. It was since corrected from the emendations of St. Jerome; and it is the mixture of the ancient Italic version with the corrections of St. Jerome, that is now called the Vulgate, and which the Council of Trent has declared to be authentic. The version of St. Jerome, however, forms the main part of the Vulgate, with the exception of some of the apocryphal books, and the Psalter. The translation of the latter from the Hebrew was not adopted publicly by the Western Church, though still to be found in his works. The Psalter was twice corrected by him from the old Italic version; the first recension was for a long time used in the Roman Church, the latter was first adopted by the Churches of Gaul and Britain, and was finally adopted by the Western Church by an ordinance of Pius V. The old Roman Psalter being still, however, used at the Vatican, at St. Mark’s, Venice, and in part of the diocese of Britain.

A revision of the Vulgate was made by order of Sixtus V., and published at Rome in 1590. But this, though pronounced by papal authority to be authentic, became such an object of ridicule among the learned from its gross inaccuracies, that his successor, Gregory XIV., caused it to be suppressed, and another authentic Vulgate was published in 1592, by Clement VIII.—Walton’s Prolegomena. Hodius de Bibl. text. orig. Horne’s Introd.

The Vulgate of the New Testament is, by the Romanists, generally preferred to the common Greek text. The priests read no other at the altar; the preachers quote no other in the pulpit, nor the divines in the schools. (See Bible.)

WAFERS. The bread which is used in the eucharist by the Romanists, and by Lutheran Protestants in the Lord’s supper, is so designated. In the ancient Church, so long as the people continued to make oblations of bread and wine, the elements for the use of the eucharist were usually taken out of them; and, consequently, so long, the bread was that common leavened bread, which they used upon other occasions; and the use of wafers, and unleavened bread, was not known in the Church till the eleventh or twelfth centuries. This is now acknowledged by the most learned writers of the Romish communion. The school divines, who maintain that the primitive Church always consecrated in unleavened bread, argue that we must suppose they followed the example of our Saviour, who celebrated his last supper with unleavened bread. But ecclesiastical history, and the writings of the ancient Fathers, unanimously testify the contrary; and it is noted by Epiphanius, as a peculiar rite of the Ebionite heretics, that they celebrated the eucharist with unleavened bread and water only.

How the change in this matter was made, and the exact time when, is not easily determined. Cardinal Bona’s conjecture seems probable enough; that it crept in upon the people’s leaving off to make their oblations in common bread; which occasioned the clergy to provide it themselves, and they, under pretence of decency and respect, brought it from leaven to unleaven, and from a loaf of common bread, that might be broken, to a nice and delicate wafer, formed in the figure of a Denarius, or penny, to represent the pence, for which our Saviour was betrayed; and then also the people, instead of offering a loaf of bread, as formerly, were ordered to offer a penny, which was either to be given to the poor, or to be expended upon something pertaining to the sacrifice of the altar.

This alteration in the eucharistical bread occasioned great disputes between the Eastern and Western Churches, which divided about it; for the Western Church ran so far into an extreme, as almost to lose the nature of the sacramental element, by introducing a thing that could hardly be called bread, instead of that common staff of life, which our Lord had appointed to be the representative of his body in the eucharist. But there wanted not some discerning and judicious men, who complained of this abuse, as soon as it began to be introduced.

The first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI. enjoins unleavened bread to be used throughout the whole kingdom, for the celebration of the eucharist. It was ordered to be round, in imitation of the wafers, used by the Greek and Roman Churches; but it was to be without all manner of print, the wafers usually having the impression either of a crucifix or the holy lamb; and something more large and thicker than the wafers, which were of the size of a penny. This rubric, affording matter for scruple, was set aside at the review of the liturgy in the fifth of King Edward; and another inserted in its room, by which it was declared sufficient, that the bread be such as is usually eaten at the table with other meats. By the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, wafer bread seems to have been again enjoined, for among other orders this was one, “For the more reverence to be given to these holy mysteries—the sacramental bread, &c., made and formed plain without any figure thereupon, of the same fineness and fashion round, though somewhat bigger in compass and thickness, as the usual bread and wafers, heretofore called singing cakes, which served for the use of private mass.”

WAGER. (See Battle and Ordeal.)

WAKE. (See Dedication.)

WALDENSES. (See Albigenses.) Some difficulty exists as to the origin and history of the sect to which this name has been attached. According to Mosheim, the sect originated with Peter Waldo, a merchant of Lyons, about the year 1160. They flourished chiefly in the valleys of Piedmont; and hence, rather than from Peter Waldo or Valdo, it is supposed by some that they acquired the name of Valdenses or Vaudois. From the perusal of the Scriptures and other writings, and from comparing the doctrines of Scripture with the superstitions and practices of the age in which he lived, Waldo perceived the corruption of the existing mediæval Church, and, in advance of his age, became a reformer. He shared the fate of those who are so circumstanced. He had many followers, and exposed both himself and them to suspicion and persecution. It is probable that, in attacking error, the Waldenses themselves sometimes became erroneous. They are accused of having maintained the unlawfulness of oaths and of infant baptism, and of being seditious. These charges were easily made, but writers of celebrity have undertaken to confute them. The marvel is, that, when every attempt was made to blacken their character, the success of their accusers was not greater than it has proved to be. It is certain that they were austere, if not morose, in their practice; that they prohibited wars and law suits, penal punishments, and all attempts to acquire wealth.

Those of them who dwelt in the valleys of Piedmont in the seventeenth century, were subjected by the Church of Rome to the most barbarous and inhuman persecutions, especially in the years 1655, 1656, and 1696. The most horrible scenes of violence and bloodshed were exhibited in this theatre of papal tyranny, and the Waldenses at last owed their existence and support to the interference of the English and Dutch governments.

WARBURTONIAN LECTURE. A lecture founded by Bishop Warburton, to prove the truth of revealed religion in general, and the Christian in particular, from the completion of the prophecies in the Old and New Testament which relate to the Christian Church, especially to the apostasy of papal Rome. To this foundation we owe the admirable discourses of Hurd, Halifax, Bagot, Davison, and many others.

WARDEN. The head of some colleges, and the superior of some conventual churches, in which the chapter remains, is called a warden. The head of the collegiate church of Galway is called warden: as was the case at Manchester, till the erection of the collegiate church there into a cathedral.

WEDNESDAY. This day has been marked in many cases by the Church with an especial religion. Thus it was often added to Friday as a weekly fast, and in our own Church it is numbered among the rogation and ember days; besides which, throughout the year the Litany is appointed to be sung or said on Wednesday, as well as on Sunday and Friday after Morning Prayer.

WESLEYANS. (See Methodists.)

WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. (See Assembly of Divines.)

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. (See Confessions of Faith.)

WHITSUNDAY. One of the great festivals of the Church, held in commemoration of the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. It occurs ten days after Holy Thursday, or Ascension Day. The reason of this day being called Whitsunday, or more properly Whitesunday, is, because on this day, being a remarkable time for baptism, the catechumens, who were then baptized, as well as those who had been baptized before at Easter, appeared in the ancient Church in white garments. It has also been thought that the name was symbolical of those vast diffusions of light and knowledge which were then shed upon the apostles, in order to the enlightening of a world then in the darkness of superstition and idolatry.

This day the Holy Ghost came down from heaven upon his Church, as the Epistle tells, according to the promise of the Gospel; in honour of whom and of his gifts we keep this holy day.—Bp. Sparrow.

As to the name, the most received opinion is, that the word is at length “Whitesunday;” so called from the white garments worn by the persons baptized in the ancient Church. For the administering of which sacrament, Easter, and this, and the Sundays between, were the most solemn seasons. Particularly on this day, the last of those Sundays, (when that solemnity determined, and the preparation for it had been extended to the utmost length,) as well on that account, as for the deserved veneration due to so great a festival, vast numbers offered themselves to be received to baptism. And, in token of their being cleansed from all past sins, as well as for an emblem of that innocence and purity, to which they then obliged themselves, they were clad in white; and from the multitude of such vestments then put on, are supposed to have given occasion for this Lord’s day being distinguished by that name.—Dean Stanhope.

The reason why this time was of old appointed for solemn baptism, was, 1. Because this day the apostles were baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire (Acts ii. 3). 2. Because this day 3000 were baptized by the apostles (Acts ii. 41). In memory of which, the Church ever after held a solemn custom of baptizing at this feast.—Bp. Sparrow.

Some conclude from St. Paul’s earnest desire of being at Jerusalem at this time, that the observation of it as a Christian festival is as old as the apostles; but, whatever St. Paul’s design was, we are assured that it hath been universally observed from the very first ages of Christianity.—Wheatly.

This day is called Pentecost, because there are fifty days betwixt the true passover and Whitsunday. As there were fifty days from the Jews’ passover to the giving of the law to Moses in Mount Sinai, which law was written with the finger of God (for from the fourteenth day of the first month, the day of the passover, to the third day of the third month, the day of the law’s giving, Exod. xix. 1, 16, are fifty days); so from the true passover, which was celebrated when Christ was offered up for us, are fifty days to this time, when the Holy Ghost came down upon the Church, to write the new law of charity in their hearts. Upon this meditation, St. Augustine breaks out thus: “Who would not prefer the joy and pleasure of these mysteries, before all the empires of the world? Do you not see, that as the two seraphim cry one to another, Holy, holy, holy,” (Isa. vi. 3,) “so the two Testaments, Old and New, faithfully agreeing, evince the sacred truth of God?” It should be noted, that we must not count the fifty days from the very day of the passover, but from the Sunday following; and so God directed the Jews, (Lev. xxiii. 15,) speaking of their Pentecost or Feast of Weeks, “and ye shall count from the morrow after the sabbath; from that day seven weeks shall be complete.”—Bp. Sparrow.

The first lesson for the morning contains the law of the Jewish Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which was a type of ours; for as the law was at this time given to the Jews from Mount Sinai, so also the Christians upon this day received the new evangelical law from heaven, by the administration of the Holy Ghost. The first lesson for the evening is a prophecy of the conversion of the Gentiles to the kingdom of Christ, through the inspiration of the apostles by the Spirit of God; the completion of which prophecy is recorded in both the second lessons, but especially in the portion of Scripture for the Epistle, which contains a particular description of the first wonderful descent of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles, who were “assembled together in one place,” in expectation of that blessed Spirit, according to the promise of our Saviour mentioned in the Gospel.—Wheatly.

The same harmony of Epistle, Gospel, and collect, and lessons, and Psalms, that has been observed upon Christmas, and Easter, and Ascension, may with pleasure be mentioned upon this day.—Bp. Sparrow. It is observed as a Scarlet day at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge; and at several cathedrals on this day, as on the two following, the service is performed in a more solemn manner than usual, as at Christmas and Easter.

WICLIFITES. The followers of John Wickliff. He was of Merton college in Oxford, where he took his doctor’s degree with great reputation. He was once sent ambassador by Edward III. to the pope. He preached against the real presence, pilgrimages, purgatory, &c., so strenuously at Oxford, that the monks prevailed with Simon Sudbury, Archbishop of Canterbury, to silence him. He was rector of Lutterworth in Leicestershire, much favoured by the great men in his time, and is justly reckoned the first reformer. The fame of him reached to Rome, and occasioned Pope Gregory XI. to write to Richard II. to assist the bishops in suppressing Wickliff and his followers. In Henry IV.’s time, his books were condemned at Oxford; and at last, when the Council of Constance met, about 1428, they condemned him, with this sentence: “That John Wickliff, being a notorious heretic, and obstinate, and dying in his heresy, his body and bones, if they may be discerned from the bodies of other faithful people, should be taken up out of the ground, and thrown away far from the burial of the Church.” The bishop of Lincoln executed this sentence, and forty-one years after his burial he burnt the remains, (which was more than the sentence commanded,) and cast them into a neighbouring brook called the Swift. The followers of Wickliff were called Lollards. Wickliff’s notions were: “The Scriptures ought to be in the vulgar tongue, contain all things necessary to salvation, may be understood by every well-disposed man: he declared against traditions, the pope’s authority, their power over the temporalities of kings, and pronounced the pope to be the chiefest antichrist. He taught that the Church of Rome may err; he rejected merit of works, transubstantiation, and owned but two sacraments; he was against images, auricular confession, pardons, indulgences, and monastic vows; he approved the marriage of priests.”

WILL, FREE. (See Free Will.)

WISDOM, THE BOOK OF. An apocryphal book of Scripture; so called, on account of the wise maxims and useful instructions contained therein.

The Book of Wisdom is commonly ascribed to King Solomon, either because the author imitated that king’s manner of writing, or because he sometimes speaks in his name. It is certain Solomon was not the author of it; for it was not written in Hebrew, nor was it inserted in the Jewish canon, nor is the style like Solomon’s: and therefore St. Jerome observes justly, that it smells strongly of the Grecian eloquence; that it is composed with art and method, after the manner of the Greek philosophers, very different from that noble simplicity, so full of life and energy, to be found in the Hebrew books. It has been attributed by many of the ancients to Philo, a Jew, but more ancient than he whose works are now extant. But it is commonly ascribed to an Hellenistical Jew, who lived since Ezra, and about the time of the Maccabees.

It may properly be divided into two parts: the first is a description and encomium of wisdom; the second, beginning at the tenth chapter, is a long discourse in the form of prayers, wherein the author admires and extols the wisdom of God, and of those who honour him; and discovers the folly of the wicked, who have been the professed enemies of the good and virtuous in all ages of the world.

WORD, THE. (See Jesus.) The only-begotten Son of the Father, the uncreated Wisdom, the second person of the most Holy Trinity, equal and consubstantial with the Father. St. John the Evangelist, more expressly than any other, has opened to us the mystery of the Word of God, when he tells us, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” The Chaldee paraphrasts, the most ancient Jewish writers extant, generally use the name Memra, or Word, where Moses puts the name Jehovah. In effect, according to them, it was Memra who created the world; who appeared to Abraham in the plain of Mamre; and to Jacob at Bethel. It was Memra to whom Jacob appealed to witness the covenant between him and Laban. The same Word appeared to Moses at Sinai; gave the law to the Israelites; spoke face to face with that lawgiver; marched at the head of that people; enabled them to conquer nations, and was a consuming fire to all who violated the law of the Lord. All these characters, where the paraphrast uses the word Memra, clearly denote Almighty God. This Word therefore was God, and the Hebrews were of this opinion at the time that the Targum was composed.

WORKS. (See Good Works, Justification, and Sanctification.) The doctrine of our Church on the subject of works is contained in the following articles:

“XI. Of the Justification of Man.

“We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings; wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

“XII. Of Good Works.

“Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

“XIII. Of Works before Justification.

“Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”

WORSHIP. Besides the usual application of this term to the supreme homage and devotion due only to the Divine Being, it is occasionally used in the Bible and Prayer Book, to denote honour, respect, and reverence given to men. Thus, in the 84th Psalm, it is said that “the Lord will give grace and worship (favour and dignity) to them that live a godly life.” In Luke xiv. 10, we read that the humble guest “shall have worship in the presence of those who sit at meat with him.” And in 1 Chron. xxix. 20, it is said, that all the congregation “bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king.” In the Order of Matrimony in the English Prayer Book, the husband promises to worship his wife, that is, to render to her all that respect and honour to which she is entitled by the command of God, and the station she holds.

For the better understanding of this phrase we must know, that anciently there were two sorts of wives, one whereof was called the primary or lawful wife, the other was called the half-wife, or concubine. The difference betwixt these two was only in the differing purpose of the man, betaking himself to the one or the other: if his purpose was only fellowship, there grew to the woman by this means no worship at all, but rather the contrary. In professing that his intent was to add by his person honour and worship unto hers, he took her plainly and clearly to be his wife, not his concubine. This it is, which the civil law doth mean, when it makes a wife differ from a concubine in dignity. The worship that grew unto her, being taken with declaration of this intent, was, that her children became by this means free and legitimate heirs to their father, (Gen xxv. 5, 6,) and herself was made a mother over his family. Lastly, she received such advancement of state, as things annexed to his person might augment her with: yea, a right of participation was thereby given her, both in him, and even in all things which were his; and therefore he says not only, “with my body I thee worship,” but also, “with all my worldly goods I thee endow.” The former branch having granted the principal, the latter granteth that which is annexed thereto.—Hooker.

The Jews anciently used the same phrase: “Be unto me a wife, and I, according to the word of God, will worship, honour, and maintain thee, according to the manner of husbands among the Jews, who worship, honour, and maintain their wives.” And that no man quarrel at this harmless phrase, let him take notice, that to worship here signifies, to make worshipful or honorable, as you may see, 1 Sam. ii. 30. For where our last translation reads it, “him that honours me, I will honour;” in the old translation, which our Common Prayer Book uses, it is, “him that worships me, I will worship,” that is, I will make worshipful; for that way only can God be said to worship man.—Bp. Sparrow.

These words are objected to by our adversaries, as a great crime in our Church, for obliging the bridegroom to make an idol of his bride, and to declare, in the most extravagant strain of all compliments, that he worships her. But this imputation is owing to the want of a just consideration of the purport of the old English word “worship,” which signifies an honourable regard, as is yet to be seen in our usual expressions still retained in common discourse, as Your Worship, Worshipful &c. And so King James, in the conference at Hampton Court, told Dr. Reynolds, who made this objection. For our Church is not only content that the wife should be endowed with a share of the husband’s goods, but that the husband should oblige himself to promote his spouse to the dignity of the uxorial honour, for she would not have the men joined to concubines by this religious solemnity; and, therefore, she ties the man to make profession, that he is willing to have the person he marries not only to be a partner in his bed, but that she should have all the dignity of a wife allowed her. And that is the meaning of these words, “with my body I thee worship:” I not only give thee a right in my body, but that in the honourable and worshipful way of a wife. For, by the old Roman law, this was the difference between a wife and a concubine: that the husband before marriage promised that he designed to promote the woman he was married to, to the honour of materfamilias, or mistress of the family.—Dr. Nicholls.

The first right accruing to the wife by marriage, is honour; and, therefore, the man says, “with my body I thee worship;” that is, “with my body I thee honour:” for so the word signifies in this place; and so Mr. Selden, and before him Martin Bucer, who lived at the time when our liturgy was compiled, have translated it. The design of it is to express that the woman, by virtue of this marriage, has a share in all the titles and honours which are due, or belong to, the person of her husband. It is true the modern sense of the word is somewhat different: for which reason, I find, that at the review of our liturgy, after the restoration of King Charles II., “worship” was promised to be changed for “honour.” How the alteration came to be omitted I cannot discover; but so long as the old word is explained in the sense that I have given of it, one would think no objection could be urged against using it.—Wheatly.

XEROPHAGIA. (Ξηροφαγία, from ξηρός, dry, φάγω, to eat.) Fast days in the first ages of the Christian Church, on which they ate nothing but bread and salt, the word signifying so much as to eat dry things; afterwards there were pulse, herbs, and fruits added. This great fast was kept the six days of the holy week for devotion, and not by obligation; so that the Church condemned the Montanists, who of their own private authority, would not only oblige all people to observe the Xerophagia of the holy week, but also other fasts that they had established, as well as several Lents. The Essenes, whether they were Jews or the first Christians of the Church of Alexandria, observed Xerophagia on certain days; for Philo says, they put nothing to their bread and water but salt and hyssop.

YEAR, ECCLESIASTICAL. (See Advent, Calendar, and Feasts.)

YULE. An old word signifying festival, and still in use to designate the festival of Christmas. The yule of August anciently signified Lammas. See Johnson in voc.

ZEALOTS. An ancient sect of the Jews, so called from their pretended great zeal for God’s laws, and the honour of religion. They were a branch of the Pharisees, though some account them a distinct sect. (See Pharisees.)

The Zealots were a most outrageous and ungovernable people, and, on pretence of asserting the honour of God’s laws, and the strictness and purity of religion, assumed a liberty of questioning notorious offenders, without staying for the ordinary formalities of law: nay, when they thought fit, they executed capital punishments upon them with their own hands. Thus, when a blasphemer cursed God by the name of any idol, the Zealots, who next met him, immediately killed him, without ever bringing him before the Sanhedrim. They looked upon themselves as the true successors of Phinehas, who, out of a great zeal for the honour of God, did immediate execution upon Zimri and Cozbi; which action was so pleasing to God, that he made with him, and his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood. In imitation of Phinehas, these men took upon them to execute judgment in extraordinary cases; and not only by the connivance, but with the permission both of the rulers and the people; till, in after-times, under this pretence, their zeal degenerated into all manner of licentiousness and extravagance. And they not only became the pests of the commonwealth at home, but opened the door for the Romans to break in upon the Jews, to their final and irrecoverable ruin; for they were continually encouraging the people to throw off the Roman yoke, and assert their native liberty.

They made no scruple of robbing, plundering, and killing the principal of the nobility, under pretence of holding correspondence with the Romans, and betraying the liberty of their country; and, upon the merit of this, they assumed to themselves the titles of benefactors and saviours of the people. They abrogated the succession of ancient families, thrusting ignoble and obscure persons into the office of the high priesthood, that by this means they might draw over the most infamous villains to their party. And, not contented to affront men, they injured the majesty of heaven, and proclaimed defiance to the Divinity itself, by breaking into and profaning the most holy place.

Many attempts were made, especially by Annas the high priest, to reduce them to order; but neither force of arms, nor fair and gentle methods, could prevail upon them. They persisted in these violent proceedings, and, joining with the Idumeans, committed all manner of outrage, and slew many of the high priests themselves; and even when Jerusalem was besieged by the Roman army, they never left off to promote tumults and distractions, till their intestine quarrels ended, at last, in the sacking of the city.

ZUINGLIANS. The disciples of Zuinglius, whose opinion was that Luther’s scheme of Reformation fell very short of the extent to which it ought to have been carried. Under this impression, and with a view, as he termed it, of restoring the Church to its original purity, Zuingle sought to abolish many doctrines and rites of the Roman Catholic Church, which Luther had retained. In some points of doctrine he also differed from Luther, and his opinion on the real presence made a complete separation between them. Luther held that, together with the bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ were really present in the eucharist. Zuingle held, that the bread and wine were only signs and symbols of the absent body and blood of Christ; so that the eucharistic rite was merely a pious and solemn ceremony, to bring it to the remembrance of the faithful. The opinions of Zuingle were adopted in Switzerland, and several neighbouring nations. They gave rise to the most violent animosities between their favourers and the disciples of Luther. Frequent advances to peace were made by the Zuinglians; Luther uniformly rejected them with sternness. He declared an union to be impossible; he called them “ministers of Satan.” When they entreated him to consider them as brothers, “What fraternity,” he exclaimed, “do you ask with me, if you persist in your belief?” On one occasion, the ingenuity of Bucer enabled him to frame a creed, which each party, constructing the words in his own sense, might sign. This effected a temporary truce; but the division soon broke out with fresh animosity. “Happy,” exclaimed Luther, “is the man who has not been of the Council of the Sacramentarians; who has not walked in the ways of the Zuinglians.”

THE END.

JOHN CHILDS AND SON, BUNGAY.

1. “An Ecclesiastical Biography, containing the Lives of Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines. By Walter Farquhar Hook, D. D., Vicar of Leeds.”

2. Author of “The History of the Christian Church, to the Pontificate of Gregory the Great: for general readers as well as for Students in Theology.” 8vo, 12s.

3. The Confession which was subscribed at Halyrud-house the 25th of February, 1587–8, by the King, Lennox, Huntly, the Chancellor, and about ninety-five other persons, hath here added, “Agreeing to the word.” Sir John Maxwell of Pollock hath the original parchment. If the clerk nominated shall have been ordained a less time than three years, the testimonial may be from the time of ordination.

4. It is recommended that the clergyman nominating be not a subscriber to the testimonial.

5. This notice must be dated on a day subsequent to the date of the bishop’s permission.

6. Here the infirm persons are presented to the king on their knees, and the king layeth his hands upon them.

7. Here they are again presented unto the king upon their knees, and the king putteth gold about their necks.

8. Sancti Bonaventuræ Opera, tom. vi. part ii., from p. 466 to 473. Fol. Moguntiæ, 1609.

9. “The Glories of Mary, Mother of God; translated from the Italian of blessed Alphonsus Liguori, and carefully revised by a Catholic Priest.” John Coyne, Dublin, 1833.

10. As the practice may not be alike in every diocese, application should be made by a candidate to the bishop’s secretary for instructions.

11. It is to be observed that the proper address to an archbishop is, “To the Most Reverend ——, by Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of ——;” and the style “Grace” is to be used instead of “Lordship.” The proper address to the bishop of Durham is, “To the Right Reverend ——, by Divine Providence ——.”

12. For three years, or such shorter period as may have elapsed since the date of the College testimonial.

13. It is recommended that the party giving the title be not one of the subscribers.

14. The bishop in whose diocese the curacy conferring the title is situate.

15. See 76th sect. of 1 & 2 Victoria, c. 106.

16. The concluding part of the nomination, within inverted commas, is not to be used, except in the nomination to serve as a title for orders.

17. It is not usual to confer priest’s orders till the candidate has been a deacon one whole year.

18. Mr. Sharpe, in his work on “Decorated Window Tracery,” goes back one step, to the occurrence of a round window in the apex of a semi-Norman façade, over two round head-lights. If we were in search of what might suggest tracery, we might go back still further, to the panels often occurring, even in early Norman triforium arcades, as at Rochester; and sometimes, as at Peterborough, in groups of three or four, and deeply sunk.

19. See Sharpe’s “Decorated Window Tracery,” p. 93.

20. Garbet’s “Rudimentary Treatise;” a work well worth much study.

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

DISCOURSES BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSIES OF THE DAY. 8vo.

THE NONENTITY OF THE ROMISH SAINTS, AND THE INANITY OF ROMAN ORDINANCES. Third Edition, 8vo, 2s. 6d.

ON THE MEANS OF RENDERING MORE EFFECTUAL THE EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE. Tenth Edition, 8vo, 2s. 6d.

FRIENDLY AND SEASONABLE ADVICE TO THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF ENGLAND. By Dean Comber. New Edition, with a Preface and Notes, 18mo, 3s.

THE THREE REFORMATIONS; LUTHERAN,—ROMAN,—AND ANGLICAN. Third Edition, 8vo, 3s.

THE DUTY OF ENGLISH CHURCHMEN, AND THE PROGRESS OF THE CHURCH AT LEEDS. 8vo, 1s.

50, Albemarle Street, London.

April, 1854.

MR. MURRAY’S

GENERAL LIST OF WORKS.

ABBOTT’S (Rev. J.) Philip Musgrave; or, Memoirs of a Church of England Missionary in the North American Colonies. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

ABELL’S (Mrs.) Recollections of the Emperor Napoleon during the First Three Years of his Captivity on the Island of St. Helena. Second Edition. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d.

ABERCROMBIE’S (John, M.D.) Enquiries concerning the Intellectual Powers and the Investigation of Truth. Fourteenth Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. 6d.

—— Philosophy of the Moral Feelings. Ninth Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 4s.

—— Pathological and Practical Researches on the Diseases of the Stomach, the Intestinal Canal, the Liver, and other Viscera of the Abdomen. Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6s.

ACLAND’S (Rev. Charles) Popular Account of the Manners and Customs of India, Illustrated with Numerous Anecdotes. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

ADDISON’S (Joseph) WORKS. A New Edition, with a New Life and Notes. By Rev. Whitwell Elwin. 4 Vols. 8vo. In the Press.

ÆSCHYLUS. (The Agamemnon and Choephoræ). A New Edition of the Text, with Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Philological, for the Use of Students. By Rev. W. Peile, D.D., Head Master of Repton School. Second Edition. 2 Vols. 8vo. 9s. each.

ÆSOP’S FABLES, for Old and Young. A New Version. By Rev. Thomas James, M.A. Illustrated with 100 Woodcuts, by John Tenniel. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

AGRICULTURAL (The) Journal. Published (half-yearly) by the Royal Agricultural Society of England. 8vo. 10s.

AMBER-WITCH (The). The most interesting Trial for Witchcraft ever known. Edited by Dr. Meinhold. Translated from the German by Lady Duff Gordon. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

ARABIAN NIGHTS. A New Translation. By E. W. Lane. With Explanatory Notes. 600 Woodcuts. Medium 8vo. 21s.

ARAGO’S (M.) Historical Eloge on James Watt. Translated from the French, with Notes by J. P. Muirhead. Portrait. 8vo. 8s. 6d.

ARTHUR’S (Little) History of England. By Lady Callcott. Seventeenth Edition. Woodcuts. 18mo. 2s. 6d.

AUNT IDA’S Walks and Talks; a Story Book for Children. By a Lady. Woodcuts. 16mo. 5s.

ADMIRALTY PUBLICATIONS (The); Issued by direction of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty:—

1. A MANUAL OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY, for the Use of Officers in H.M. Navy and Travellers in General. By Various Hands. Edited by Sir J. F. Herschel, Bart. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 1Os. 6d.

2. AIRY’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS made at Greenwich. 1836 to 1847. Royal 4to. 50s. each.

3. —— APPENDIX TO THE ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 1836, 1837, 1842, 8s. each; and 1847, 14s. Royal 4to.

CONTENTS.

1836.—Bessel’s Refraction Tables.

Tables for converting Errors of R.A. and N.P.D. into Errors of Longitude and Ecliptic P.D.

1837.—Logarithms of Sines and Cosines to every Ten Seconds of Time.

Table for converting Sidereal into Mean Solar Time.

1842.—Catalogue of 1439 Stars.

1847.—Twelve Years’ Catalogue of Stars.

4. —— MAGNETICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS. 1840 to 1847. Royal 4to. 50s. each.

5. —— ASTRONOMICAL, MAGNETICAL, AND METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS, 1848, 49, & 50. Royal 4to. 50s. each.

6. —— REDUCTION OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF PLANETS. 1750 to 1830. Royal 4to. 50s.

7. —— LUNAR OBSERVATIONS. 1750 to 1830. 2 Vols. Royal 4to. 50s. each.

8. BERNOULLI’S SEXCENTENARY TABLE. London, 1779. 4to. 5s.

9. BESSEL’S AUXILIARY TABLES FOR HIS METHOD OF CLEARING LUNAR DISTANCES. 8vo.

10. —— FUNDAMENTA ASTRONOMIÆ: Regiomonti, 1818. Folio. 60s.

11. BIRD’S METHOD OF CONSTRUCTING MURAL QUADRANTS. London, 1768. 4to. 2s. 6d.

12. —— METHOD OF DIVIDING ASTRONOMICAL INSTRUMENTS. London, 1767. 4to. 2s. 6d.

13. COOK, KING, AND BAYLY’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. London, 1782. 4to. 21s.

14. EDWARDS ON THE COMPOSITION OF METALS FOR REFLECTING TELESCOPES. 8vo. 2s. 6d.

15. EIFFE’S ACCOUNT OF IMPROVEMENTS IN CHRONOMETERS. 4to. 2s.

16. ENCKE’S BERLINER JAHRBUCH, for 1830. Berlin, 1828. 8vo. 9s.

17. GROOMBRIDGE’S CATALOGUE OF CIRCUMPOLAR STARS. 4to. 10s.

18. HARRISON’S PRINCIPLES OF HIS TIME-KEEPER. Plates. 1767. 4to. 5s.

19. HUTTON’S TABLES OF THE PRODUCTS AND POWERS OF NUMBERS. 1781. Folio. 7s. 6d.

20. LAX’S TABLES FOR FINDING THE LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE. 1821. 8vo. 10s.

21. LUNAR OBSERVATIONS at GREENWICH. 1783 to 1819. Compared with the Tables, 1821. 4to. 7s. 6d.

22. —— DISTANCES of the MOON’S CENTRE from the PLANETS. 1822, 3s.; 1823, 4s. 6d.; 1824 to 1835. 8vo. 4s. each.

23. MASKELYNE’S ACCOUNT OF THE GOING OF HARRISON’S WATCH. 1767. 4to. 2s. 6d.

24. MAYER’S THEORIA LUNÆ JUXTA SYSTEMA NEWTONIANUM. 4to. 2s. 6d.

25. —— TABULÆ MOTUUM SOLIS ET LUNÆ. 1770. 4to. 5s.

26. —— ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS MADE AT GOTTINGEN, from 1756 to 1761. 1826. Folio. 7s. 6d.

27. NAUTICAL ALMANACS, from 1767 to 1855. 8vo. 2s. 6d. each.

28. —— —— SELECTIONS FROM THE ADDITIONS up to 1812. 8vo. 5s. 1834–54. 8vo. 5s.

29. —— —— SUPPLEMENTS, 1828 to 1833, 1837 and 1838. 8vo. 2s. each.

30. —— —— TABLE requisite to be used with the N.A. 1766, 8vo. 2s. 6d.

31. —— —— Second Edition, enlarged. 1781. 8vo. 5s.

32. —— —— Third Edition, corrected. 1802. 8vo. 5s.

33. POND’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 1811 to 1835. 4to. 21s. each.

34. RAMSDEN’S ENGINE for Dividing Mathematical Instruments. 4to. 5s.

35. —— ENGINE for Dividing Straight Lines. 4to. 5s.

36. SABINE’S PENDULUM EXPERIMENTS to Determine the Figure of the Earth. 1825. 4to. 40s.

37. SHEPHERD’S TABLES for Correcting Lunar Distances. 1772. Royal 4to. 21s.

38. —— TABLES, GENERAL, of the MOON’S DISTANCE from the SUN, and 10 STARS. 1787. Folio. 5s. 6d.

39. TAYLOR’S SEXAGESIMAL TABLE. 1780. 4to. 15s.

40. —— TABLES OF LOGARITHMS. 4to. 3l..

41. TIARK’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS for the Longitude of Madeira. 1822. 4to. 5s.

42. —— CHRONOMETRICAL OBSERVATIONS for Differences of Longitude between Dover, Portsmouth, and Falmouth. 1823. 4to. 5s.

43. VENUS and JUPITER: Observations of, compared with the Tables. London, 1822. 4to. 2s.

44. WALES’ AND BAYLY’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 1777. 4to. 21s.

45. WALES’ REDUCTION OF ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS made in the Southern Hemisphere. 1764–1771. 1788. 4to. 10s. 6d.

AUSTIN’S (Mrs.) Fragments from German Prose Writers. Translated, with Biographical Notes. Post. 8vo. 10s.

—— Translation of Ranke’s Political and Ecclesiastical History of the Popes of Rome. Third Edition. 2 Vols. 8vo. 24s.

BABBAGE’S (Charles) Economy of Machinery and Manufactures. Fourth Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6s.

—— Table of the Logarithms of the Natural Numbers from 1 to 108000. Fourth Edition. Royal 8vo. 6s.

—— Ninth Bridgewater Treatise. Second Edition. 8vo. 9s. 6d.

—— Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on some of its Causes. 4to. 15s.

—— Exposition of 1851; or, Views of the Industry, the Science, and the Government of England. Second Edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

BANKES’ (Right Hon. G.) STORY OF CORFE CASTLE, with documents relating to the Time of the Civil Wars, &c. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 1Os. 6d.

BASSOMPIERRE’S Memoirs of his Embassy to the Court of England in 1626. Translated, with Notes, 8vo. 9s. 6d.

BARROW’S (The late Sir John) Autobiographical Memoir, including Reflections, Observations, and Reminiscences at Home and Abroad. From Early Life to Advanced Age. Portrait. 8vo. 16s.

—— Voyages of Discovery and Research within the Arctic Regions, from 1818 to the present time, in search of a North-West Passage: with Two Attempts to reach the North Pole. Abridged and arranged from the Official Narratives. 8vo. 15s.

—— (John) Naval Worthies of Queen Elizabeth’s Reign, their Gallant Deeds, Daring Adventures, and Services in the infant state of the British Navy. 8vo. 14s.

—— Life and Voyages of Sir Francis Drake. With numerous Original Letters. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Tour in Austrian Lombardy, the Northern Tyrol, and Bavaria. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d.

BEES AND FLOWERS. Two Essays reprinted from the “Quarterly Review.” Fcap. 8vo. 1s. each.

BELL’S (Sir Charles) Anatomy and Philosophy of Expression as connected with the Fine Arts. Fourth Edition. Plates. Impl. 8vo. 21s.

—— Mechanism and Vital Endowments of the Hand as evincing Design. The Bridgewater Treatise. Fifth Edition. Plates. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

BENEDICT’S (Jules) Sketch of the Life and Works of Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy. Second Edition. 8vo. 2s. 6d.

BERTHA’S Journal during a Visit to her Uncle in England. Containing a Variety of Interesting and Instructive Information. Seventh Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. 7s. 6d.

—— The Heiress in her Minority; or, the Progress of Character. By Author of “Bertha’s Journal.” 2 Vols. 12mo. 18s.

BETHUNE’S (J. E. D.) Specimens of Swedish and German Poetry. Crown 8vo. 12s.

BIRCH’S (Samuel) History of Ancient Pottery: Egyptian, Asiatic, Greek, Roman, Etruscan, and Celtic. With Illustrations. 8vo. (Nearly Ready.)

BIRT’S (W. R.) Hurricane Guide. Being an Attempt to connect the Rotatory Gale, or Revolving Storm, with Atmospheric Waves. With Circles on Cards. Post 8vo. 3s.

BIOSCOPE (The); or, the Dial of Life explained. By Granville Penn. Second Edition. With Plate. 12mo. 12s.

BLAINE (Roberton) on the Laws of Artistic Copyright and their Defects, for Artists, Engravers, Printsellers, &c. 8vo. 3s. 6d.

BLUNT’S (Rev. J. J.) Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings of the Old and New Testament, an Argument of their Veracity: with an Appendix containing Undesigned Coincidences between the Gospels, Acts, and Josephus. Fourth Edition. 8vo. 9s.

—— Principles for the proper understanding of the Mosaic Writings, stated and applied, together with an Incidental Argument for the truth of the Resurrection of our Lord. Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1832. Post 8vo. 6s. 6d.

BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. With 1000 Illustrations of Borders, Initials, and Woodcut Vignettes. A New Edition. Medium 8vo. 21s. cloth, 31s. 6d. calf, or 42s. morocco.

BORROWS (George) Lavengro; The Scholar—Gipsy—and Priest. With Portrait. 3 Vols. Post 8vo, 30s.

—— Bible in Spain; or the Journeys, Adventures, and Imprisonments of an Englishman in an Attempt to circulate the Scriptures in the Peninsula. 3 Vols. Post 8vo. 27s., or Cheap Edition, 16mo, 5s.

—— Zincali, or the Gipsies of Spain; their Manners, Customs, Religion, and Language. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s., or Cheap Edition, 16mo. 5s.

BOSWELL’S (James) Life of Dr. Samuel Johnson. Including the Tour to the Hebrides, with Notes by Sir W. Scott. Edited by the Right Hon. John Wilson Croker. A New Edition, with much additional Matter. Portraits. One Volume Royal 8vo. 15s.

BRAY’S (Mrs.) Life of Thomas Stothard, R.A. With Personal Reminiscences. Illustrated with Portrait and 60 Woodcuts of his chief works. 4to. 21s.

BREWSTER’S (Sir David) Martyrs of Science, or the Lives of Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 4s. 6d.

BRITISH ASSOCIATION REPORTS. York and Oxford, 1831–32, 13s. 6d. Cambridge, 1833, 12s. Edinburgh, 1834, 15s. Dublin, 1835, 13s. 6d. Bristol, 1836, 12s. Liverpool, 1837, 16s. 6d. Newcastle, 1838, 15s. Birmingham, 1839, 13s. 6d. Glasgow, 1840, 15s. Plymouth, 1841, 13s. 6d. Manchester, 1842, 10s. 6d. Cork, 1843, 12s. York. 1844, 20s. Cambridge, 1845, 12s. Southampton, 1846, 15s. Oxford, 1847, 18s. Swansea, 1848, 9s. Birmingham, 1849, 10s. Edinburgh, 1850, 15s. Ipswich, 1851, 16s. 6d. 8vo.

BROGDEN’S (Rev. Jas.) Illustrations of the Liturgy and Ritual of the United Church of England and Ireland. Being Sermons and Discourses selected from the Works of eminent Divines of the 17th Century. 3 Vols. Post 8vo. 27s.

—— Catholic Safeguards against the Errors, Corruptions, and Novelties of the Church of Rome. Being Sermons and Tracts selected from the Works of eminent Divines of the 17th Century. Second Edition. With Preface and Index. 3 Vols. 8vo. 36s.

⁂ The Second and Third Volumes may be had separately, 14s. each.

BROOKE’S (Sir James) Journals of Events in Borneo, including the Occupation of Labuan, and a Visit to the Celebes. Together with the Expedition of H.M.S. Iris. By Capt. Rodney Mundy, R.N. Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 32s.

BUBBLES FROM THE BRUNNEN OF NASSAU. By an Old Man. Sixth Edition. 16mo.

BUNBURY’S (C. J. F.) Journal of a Residence at the Cape of Good Hope; with Excursions into the Interior, and Notes on the Natural History and Native Tribes of the Country. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 9s.

BUNYAN (John) and Oliver Cromwell. Select Biographies. By Robert Southey. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

BURGHERSH’S (Lord) Memoir of the Operations of the Allied Armies under Prince Schwarzenberg and Marshal Blucher during the latter end of 1813–14. 8vo. 21s.

—— Early Campaigns of the Duke of Wellington in Portugal and Spain. 8vo. 8s. 6d.

BURN’S (Lieut.-Col.) Naval and Military Technical Dictionary of the French Language. French and English—English and French. Crown 8vo. 15s.

BURNES’ (Sir Alexander) Journey to and Residence in the City of Cabool. Second Edition. Plates. 8vo. 18s.

BURNS’ (Robert) Life. By John Gibson Lockhart. Fifth Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 3s.

BURR’S (G. D.) Instructions in Practical Surveying, Topographical Plan-drawing, and on sketching ground without Instruments. Second Edition. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

BUXTON’S (Sir Fowell) Memoirs. With Selections from his Correspondence. By his Son. Fourth Edition. 16mo. 7s. 6d.

BYRON’S (Lord) Life and Letters. By Thomas Moore. Plates. 6 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 18s.

—— Complete in One Volume. Portraits. Royal 8vo. 12s.

—— Poetical Works. Plates. 10 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 30s.

—— Complete in One Volume. Portrait. Royal 8vo. 12s.

—— Poetical Works. 8 Vols. 24mo. 2s. 6d. each.

Sold separately as follows:

Childe Harold.

Dramas, 2 Vols.

Tales and Poems.

Miscellanies, 2 Vols.

Beppo and Don Juan, 2 Vols.

—— Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage. With Portrait of Ada, and 30 Vignettes. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.

—— (Beauties of Lord Byron’s Writings), Prose and Verse. Selected by a Clergyman. Fcap. 8vo. 3s.

BUTTMAN’S LEXILOGUS; or, a Critical Examination of the Meaning and Etymology of numerous Greek Words and Passages, intended principally for Homer and Hesiod. Translated, and edited, with Explanatory Notes and copious Indexes, by Rev. J. R. Fishlake. Third Edition. 8vo. 14s.

—— Catalogue of Irregular Greek Verbs; With all the Tenses extant—their Formation, Meaning, and Usage, accompanied by an Index. Translated, with Notes, by Rev. J. R. Fishlake. Second Edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

CALVIN’S (John) Life. With Extracts from his Correspondence. By Thomas H. Dyer. Portrait. 8vo. 15s.

CALLCOTT’S (Lady) Little Arthur’s History of England. Seventeenth Edition. Woodcuts. 18mo. 2s. 6d.

CARÈME’S FRENCH COOKERY. Translated by W. Hall. Second Edition. Plates. 8vo. 15s.

CARMICHAEL’S (A. N.) Greek Verbs. Their Formations, Irregularities, and Defects. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 8s. 6d.

CARNARVON’S (Lord) Portugal, Gallicia, and the Basque Provinces. From Notes made during a Journey to those Countries. Third Edition. Post 8vo. 5s.

CAMPBELL’S (Lord) Lives of the Lord Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal of England. From the Earliest Times to the Death of Lord Eldon in 1838. Third Edition. 7 Vols. 8vo. 102s.

The Work may also be had as follows.

1st Series. From the Earliest Times to the Revolution of 1688. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42s.

2nd Series. From the Revolution of 1688 to the Death of Lord Thurlow in 1806. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s.

3rd Series. From the Birth of Lord Loughborough, in 1733, to the Death of Lord Eldon, in 1838. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s.

——Lives of the Chief Justices of England. From the Norman Conquest to the Death of Lord Mansfield. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s.

——Life of Lord Chancellor Bacon. Fcap. 8vo. 2s.

——(George). Modern India. A Sketch of the System of Civil Government. With some Account of the Natives and Native Institutions. Second Edition. 8vo. 16s.

——India as it may be. An Outline of a proposed Government and Policy. 8vo. 12s.

——(Thos.) Specimens of the British Poets. With Biographical and Critical Notices, and an Essay on English Poetry. Third Edition. Portrait. Royal 8vo. 15s.

——Short Lives of the British Poets. With an Essay on English Poetry. Post 8vo. 5s.

CASTLEREAGH (The) DESPATCHES, from the commencement of the official career of the late Viscount Castlereagh to the close of his life. Edited by the Marquis of Londonderry. 12 Vols. 8vo. 14s. each.

The Work was published as follows:—

1st Series. The Irish Rebellion. 4 Vols.

2nd Series. Military and Miscellaneous. 4 Vols.

3rd Series. Military and Diplomatic. Leipsig—Paris—Waterloo, &c. 4 Vols.

CATHCART’S (Major-General) Commentaries on the War in Russia and Germany, 1812–13. Plans. 8vo. 14s.

CHARMED ROE (The); or, The Story of the Little Brother and Sister. By Otto Speckter. Plates. 16mo. 5s.

CLARENDON (Lord Chancellor); Lives of his Friends and Contemporaries, illustrative of Portraits in his Gallery. By Lady Theresa Lewis. Portraits. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42s.

CLARK (Sir James) On the Sanative Influence of Climate, with an Account of the Best Places for Invalids in the South of Europe, &c. Fourth Edition. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d.

CLAUSEWITZ’S (General Carl Von) Campaign of 1812, in Russia. Translated from the German. Map. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

CLIVE’S (Lord) Life. By Rev. G. R. Gleig, M.A. Post 8vo. 5s.

COLERIDGE’S (Samuel Taylor) Specimens of Table-Talk. Fourth Edition. Portrait. Fcap. 8vo. 6s.

—— (Henry Nelson) Introductions to the Study of the Greek Classic Poets. Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 6d.

COLONIAL LIBRARY. [See Home and Colonial Library.]

COMBER’S (Dean) Friendly Advice to the Roman Catholics of England. By Rev. Dr. Hook. Fcap. 8vo. 3s.

COOKERY (Modern Domestic). Founded on Principles of Economy and Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private Families. New and Cheaper Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5s.

CRABBE’S (Rev. George) Life and Letters. By his Son. Portrait. Fcap. 8vo. 3s.

—— and Poetical Works. Plates. 8 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 24s.

—— Complete in One Volume. Portrait and Vignette. Royal 8vo. 10s. 6d.

CUMMING’S (R. Gordon) Five Years of a Hunter’s Life in the Far Interior of South Africa. Third Edition. With Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 24s.

CURZON’S (Hon. Robert) Visits to the Monasteries of the Levant. Fourth Edition. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 15s.

—— ARMENIA AND ERZEROUM. A Year on the Frontiers of RUSSIA, TURKEY, and PERSIA. Map and Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

CUNNINGHAM’S (Allan) Life of Sir David Wilkie. With his Journals, and Critical Remarks on Works of Art. Portrait. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42s.

—— Poems and Songs. Now first collected and arranged, with Biographical Notice. 24mo. 2s. 6d.

—— (Capt. J. D.) History of the Sikhs. From the Origin of the Nation to the Battle of the Sutlej. Second Edition. Maps. 8vo. 15s.

—— (Peter) London—Past and Present. A Handbook to the Antiquities, Curiosities, Churches, Works of Art, Public Buildings, and Places connected with interesting and historical associations. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 16s.

—— Modern London. A complete Guide for Visitors to the Metropolis. Map. 16mo. 5s.

—— Environs of London. Including a circle of 30 miles round St. Paul’s. With Hints for Excursions by Rail,—Road,—and River. Post 8vo. In the Press.

—— Westminster Abbey. Its Art, Architecture, and Associations. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 1s.

—— Works of Oliver Goldsmith. A New Library Edition, now first printed from the last editions which passed under the Author’s own eye. Vignettes. 4 vols. 8vo. 7s. 6d. each. (Murray’s British Classics.)

CROKER’S (Right Hon. J. W.) Progressive Geography for Children. Fourth Edition. 18mo. 1s. 6d.

—— Stories for Children Selected from the History of England. Fifteenth Edition. Woodcuts. 16mo. 2s. 6d.

—— Boswell’s Life of Johnson. Including the Tour to the Hebrides. A New Edition. Portraits. Royal 8vo. 15s.

—— Lord Hervey’s Memoirs of the Reign of George the Second, from his accession to the death of Queen Caroline. Edited with Notes. Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo.

—— History of the Guillotine. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 1s.

CROMWELL (Oliver) and John Bunyan. Select Biographies. By Robert Southey. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

DARWIN’S (Charles) Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries visited during a Voyage round the World. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

DATES AND DISTANCES; Showing what may be done in a Tour of Sixteen Months upon the Continent of Europe. Post 8vo. 8s. 6d.

DAVY’S (Sir Humphry) Consolations in Travel; or, Last Days of a Philosopher. Fifth Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 6s.

—— Salmonia; or, Days of Fly Fishing. With some Account of the Habits of Fishes belonging to the genus Salmo. Fourth Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 6s.

DENNIS’ (George) Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria; or, the extant Local Remains of Etruscan Art. Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 42s.

—— Summer in Andalusia. New Edition. Post 8vo. In the Press.

DEVEREUX’S (Hon. Capt., R.N.) Lives and Letters of the Devereux Earls of Essex, in the Reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., 1540–1646. Chiefly from unpublished documents. Portraits. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s.

DE VERE’S (Aubrey) English Misrule and Irish Misdeeds. Four Letters from Ireland, addressed to an English M.P. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

DODGSON’S (Rev. C.) Controversy of Faith; or, Advice to Candidates for Holy Orders. Containing an Analysis and Exposition of the Argument by which the Catholic Interpretation of the Baptismal Services is to be vindicated. 12mo. 8s.

DOG-BREAKING; the Most Expeditious, Certain, and Easy Method, whether great excellence or only mediocrity be required. By Lieut.-Col. Hutchinson. Second Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

DOMESTIC MODERN COOKERY. Founded on Principles of Economy and Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private Families. New and Cheaper Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5s.

DOUGLAS’S (General Sir Howard) Treatise on Improved Gunnery: with Descriptions of the New Guns introduced since the War. Third Edition, revised. Plates. 8vo.

—— Treatise on the Principle and Construction of Military Bridges, and the Passage of Rivers in Military Operations. Third Edition, with much new matter. Plates. 8vo. 21s.

DRAKE’S (Sir Francis) Life, Voyages, and Exploits, by Sea and Land. By John Barrow. Third Edition. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

DRINKWATER’S (John) History of the Siege of Gibraltar. 1779–1783. With a Description and Account of that Garrison from the Earliest Periods. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

DRUMMOND’S (Henry) Abstract Principles of Revealed Religion. Post 8vo. 9s. 6d.

DRYDEN’S (John) Works. A New Edition, based upon Sir Walter Scott’s Edition, entirely revised. 8vo. In Preparation.

DUDLEY’S (Earl of) Letters to the late Bishop of Llandaff. Second Edition. Portrait. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

DURHAM’S (Admiral Sir Philip) Naval Life and Services. By Capt. Alexander Murray. 8vo. 5s. 6d.

DYER’S (Thomas H.) Life and Letters of John Calvin. Compiled from authentic Sources. Portrait. 8vo. 15s.

EASTLAKE (Sir Charles) The Schools of Painting in Italy. From the Earliest times. From the German of Kugler. Edited, with Notes. Second Edition. Illustrated with 100 Engravings from the Old Masters. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 24s.

—— Contributions to the Literature of the Fine Arts. 8vo. 12s.

EDWARDS’ (W. H.) Voyage up the River Amazon, including a Visit to Para. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

EGERTON’S (Hon. Capt. Francis) Journal of a Winter’s Tour in India; with a Visit to Nepaul. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s.

ELDON’S (Lord Chancellor) Public and Private Life, with Selections from his Correspondence and Diaries. By Horace Twiss. Third Edition. Portrait. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21s.

ELLESMERE’S (Lord) Two Sieges of Vienna by the Turks. Translated from the German. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Second Campaign of Radetzky in Piedmont. The Defence of Temeswar and the Camp of the Ban. From the German. Post 8vo. 6s. 6d.

—— Life and Character of the Duke of Wellington; a Discourse. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6d.

—— Campaign of 1812 in Russia, from the German of General Carl Von Clausewitz. Map. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

ELPHINSTONE’S (Hon. Mountstuart) History of India—the Hindoo and Mahomedan Periods. Third Edition. Map. 8vo. 18s.

ELWIN’S (Rev. W.) Lives of Eminent British Poets. From Chaucer to Wordsworth. 4 Vols. 8vo. In the Press.

ENGLAND (History of) From the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Versailles, 1713–83. By Lord Mahon. Library Edition, 6 Vols., 8vo, 78s.; or, Popular Edition, 6 Vols. Post 8vo, 36s.

—— From the First Invasion by the Romans, down to the 14th year of Queen Victoria’s Reign. By Mrs. Markham. 68th Thousand. Woodcuts. 12mo. 6s.

—— As it is: Social, Political, and Industrial, in the Middle of the 19th Century. By W. Johnston. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s.

—— and France under the House of Lancaster. With an Introductory View of the Early Reformation. 8vo. 15s.

ERSKINE’S (Capt., R.N.) Journal of a Cruise among the Islands of the Western Pacific, including the Fejees and others inhabited by the Polynesian Negro Races. Plates. 8vo. 16s.

ESKIMAUX (The) and English Vocabulary, for the use of Travellers in the Arctic Regions. 16mo. 3s. 6d.

ESSAYS FROM “THE TIMES.” Being a Selection from the Literary Papers which have appeared in that Journal. Reprinted by Permission. 5th Thousand. First and Second Series. Fcap. 8vo. 4s. each.

ESSEX (The Earls of) Their Lives and Letters. 1540–1646. Founded upon Documents chiefly unpublished. By the Hon. Capt. Devereux, R.N. Portraits. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s.

EXETER’S (Bishop of) Letters to the late Charles Butler, on the Theological parts of his Book of the Roman Catholic Church; with Remarks on certain Works of Dr. Milner and Dr. Lingard, and on some parts of the Evidence of Dr. Doyle. Second Edition. 8vo. 16s.

—— Sermons. Preached during the Visitation of the Bishop of Exeter in 1845. Published by Request. 12mo. 6s.

FAIRY RING (The), A Collection of Tales and Stories for Young Persons. From the German. by J. E. Taylor. Illustrated by Richard Doyle. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo.

FALKNER’S (Fred.) Muck Manual for the Use of Farmers. A Treatise on the Nature and Value of Manures. Second Edition, with a Glossary of Terms and an Index. Fcap. 8vo. 5s.

FAMILY RECEIPT-BOOK. A Collection of a Thousand Valuable and Useful Receipts. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 6d.

FANCOURT’S (Col.) History of Yucatan, from its Discovery to the Close of the 17th Century. With Map. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

FARINI’S (Luigi Carlo) History of the Roman State, 1815–50. Translated from the Italian. By Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. Vols. 3 & 4. 8vo. 12s. each.

FEATHERSTONHAUGH’S (G. W.) Tour through the Slave States of North America, from the River Potomac, to Texas and the Frontiers of Mexico. Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 26s.

FELLOWS’ (Sir Charles) Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, more particularly in the Province of Lycia. New Edition. Plates. Post 8vo. 9s.

FERGUSON’S (Robert, M.D.) Essays on the Diseases of Women. Part I. Puerperal Fever. Post 8vo. 9s. 6d.

FERGUSSON’S (James) Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored: an Essay on Ancient Assyrian and Persian Architecture. With 45 Woodcuts. 8vo. 16s.

—— Peril of Portsmouth; or French Fleets and English Forts. Third Edition. Plan. 8vo. 3s.

—— Handbook of Architecture. Being a Concise and Popular Account of the Different Styles prevailing in all Ages and Countries in the World. With a Description of the most remarkable Buildings. With 1000 Illustrations. 8vo. In the Press.

FEUERBACH’S Remarkable German Crimes and Trials. Translated from the German by Lady Duff Gordon. 8vo. 12s.

FISHER’S (Rev. George) Elements of Geometry, for the Use of Schools. Third Edition. 18mo. 3s.

—— First Principles of Algebra, for the Use of Schools. Third Edition. 18mo. 3s.

FISHLAKE’S (Rev. J. R.) Translation of Buttman’s Lexilogus; A Critical Examination of the Meaning and Etymology of numerous Greek Words and Passages, intended principally for Homer and Hesiod. With Explanatory Notes and Copious Indexes. Third Edition. 8vo. 14s.

—— Translation of Buttman’s Catalogue of Irregular Greek Verbs; with all the Tenses extant—their Formation, Meaning, and Usage. With Explanatory Notes, and accompanied by an Index. Second Edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

FLOWER GARDEN (The). An Essay reprinted from the “Quarterly Review.” Fcap. 8vo. 1s.

FORD’S (Richard) Handbook for Spain, Andalusia, Ronda, Valencia, Catalonia, Granada, Gallicia, Arragon, Navarre, &c. 2 Vols. Post 8vo.

—— Gatherings from Spain. Post 8vo. 6s.

FORSYTH’S (William) Hortensius, or the Advocate: an Historical Essay on the Office and Duties of an Advocate. Post 8vo. 12s.

—— History of Napoleon at St. Helena. From the Letters and Journals of Sir Hudson Lowe. Portrait and Maps. 3 Vols. 8vo. 45s.

FORTUNE’S (Robert) Narrative of Two Visits to China, between the years 1843–52, with full Descriptions of the Culture of the Tea Plant. Third Edition. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s.

FRANCE (History of). From the Conquest by the Gauls to the Death of Louis Philippe. By Mrs. Markham. 30th Thousand. Woodcuts. 12mo. 6s.

FRENCH (The) in Algiers; The Soldier of the Foreign Legion—and the Prisoners of Abd-el-Kadir. Translated by Lady Duff Gordon. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

GALTON’S (Francis) Exploring Expedition in Tropical South Africa. Plates. Post 8vo. 12s.

GEOGRAPHICAL (The) Journal. Published by the Royal Geographical Society of London. 8vo.

GERMANY (History of). From the Invasion by Marius, to the present time. On the plan of Mrs. Markham. 6th Thousand. Woodcuts. 12mo. 6s.

GIBBON’S (Edward) Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Edited with Notes by Milman and Guizot. A New Edition. Preceded by the Autobiography of Gibbon. Edited with additional Notes by Dr. Wm. Smith. With Portrait and Maps. 8 Vols. 8vo. 7s. 6d. each. (Murray’s British Classics.)

—— Life and Correspondence. By Dean Milman. Portrait. 8vo. 9s.

GIFFARD’S (Edward) Visit to the Ionian Islands, Athens, and the Morea. Plates. Post 8vo. 12s.

—— Deeds of Naval Daring; or, Anecdotes of the British Navy. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.

GILLY’S (Rev. Dr.) Romaunt Version of the Gospel of St. John, originally in use among the old Waldenses. Edited from the MSS., with Notes. 8vo. 5s. 6d.

GISBORNE’S (Thomas) Essays on Agriculture. Post 8vo. 5s.

GLADSTONE’S (Right Hon. W. E.) Prayers arranged from the Liturgy for Family Use. Second Edition. 12mo. 2s. 6d.

—— Farini’s History of the Roman State. From the Italian. Vols. 3 and 4. 8vo.

GODLEY’S (John Robert) Letters from America. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 16s.

GOLDSMITH’S (Oliver) Works. New Library Edition, now first printed from the last editions which passed under the Author’s own eye. Edited by Peter Cunningham. With Vignettes. 4 Vols. 8vo. 7s. 6d. each. (Murray’s British Classics).

GLEIG’S (Rev. G. R.) Campaigns of the British Army at Washington and New Orleans. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Story of the Battle of Waterloo. Compiled from Public and Authentic Sources. Post 8vo. 5s.

—— Narrative of Sir Robert Sale’s Brigade in Afghanistan, with an Account of the Seizure and Defence of Jellalabad: Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Life of Robert Lord Clive. Post 8vo. 5s.

—— Life and Letters of General Sir Thomas Munro. Post 8vo. 5s.

GOOCH (Robert, M.D.), On the most Important Diseases peculiar to Women. Second Edition. 8vo. 12s.

GORDON’S (Sir Alex. Duff) Sketches of German Life, and Scenes from the War of Liberation. From the German. Post 8vo. 5s.

—— (Lady Duff), Amber-Witch: the most interesting Trial for Witchcraft ever known. From the German. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— French in Algiers. 1. The Soldier of the Foreign Legion. 2. The Prisoners of Abd-el-Kadir. From the French. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Remarkable German Crimes and Trials. From the German. 8vo. 12s.

GOSPEL STORIES FOR CHILDREN. An Attempt to render the Chief Events of the Life of Our Saviour intelligible and profitable. Second Edition. 18mo. 3s. 6d.

GRANT’S (Asahel), Nestorians, or the Lost Tribes; confining Evidence of their Identity, their Manners, Customs, and Ceremonies; with Sketches of Travel in Ancient Assyria, Armenia, and Mesopotamia; and Illustrations of Scripture Prophecy. Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6s.

GRENVILLE (The) LETTERS AND DIARIES; being the Public and Private Correspondence of George Grenville, his Friends and Contemporaries, during a period of 30 years.—Including his Diary Of Political Events while First Lord of the Treasury. Edited, with Notes, by W. J. SMITH. 4 Vols. 8vo. 16s. each.

GREEK GRAMMAR FOR SCHOOLS. Abridged from Matthiæ. By the Bishop of London. Seventh Edition, revised by Rev. J. Edwards. 12mo. 3s.

—— Accidence for Schools. Abridged from Matthiæ. By the Bishop of London. Fourth Edition, revised by Rev. J. Edwards. 12mo. 2s.

GROTE’S (George) History of Greece, From the Earliest Period to the Accession of Philip of Macedon (B. C. 403–359). Maps. Vols. 1 to 10. 8vo. 16s. each. The Work may be had as follows:—

VOLS. I.–II.—Legendary Greece. Grecian History to the Reign of Peisistratus at Athens.

VOLS. III.–IV.—History of Early Athens, and the Legislation of Solon. Grecian Colonies. View of the Contemporary Nations surrounding Greece. Grecian History down to the first Persian Invasion, and the Battle of Marathon.

VOLS. V.–VI.—Persian War and Invasion of Greece by Xerxes. Period between the Persian and the Peloponnesian Wars. Peloponnesian War down to the Expedition of the Athenians against Syracuse.

VOLS. VII.–VIII.—The Peace of Nikias down to the Battle of Knidus (B. C. 421 to 394). Socrates and the Sophists.

VOLS. IX.–XI.—From the Restoration of the Democracy at Athens down to the Death of Philip of Macedon (B. C. 403–359).

GUIZOT (M.), on the Causes of the Success of the English Revolution of 1640–1688. 8vo. 6s.; or Cheap Edition, 12mo, 1s.

—— Democracy in France. Sixth Edition. 8vo. 3s. 6d.

GURWOOD’S (Col.) Despatches of the Duke of Wellington during his various Campaigns. Compiled from Official and Authentic Documents. New, enlarged, and complete Edition. 8 vols. 8vo. 21s. each.

—— Selections from the Wellington Despatches and General Orders. New Edition. 8vo. 18s.

—— Speeches in Parliament of the Duke of Wellington. 2 Vols. 8vo. 42s.

GUSTAVUS VASA (History of), King of Sweden. With Extracts from his Correspondence. Portrait. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

HALFORD’S (Sir Henry) Popular Essays and Orations. Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. 6d.

—— Nugæ Metricæ. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. 6d.

HALLAM’S (Henry) Constitutional History of England, from the Accession of Henry the Seventh to the Death of George the Second. Sixth Edition. 2 Vols. 8vo. 24s.

—— History of Europe during the Middle Ages. Tenth Edition. Including the Supplemental Notes. 3 Vols. 8vo. 30s.

—— Introduction to the Literary History of Europe, during the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. Fourth Edition. 3 Vols. 8vo. 36s.

—— Literary Essays and Characters. Selected from the larger work. Fcap. 8vo. 2s.

HAMILTON’S (Walter) Facts to Assist the Memory in various Sciences. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. 6d.

—— Hindostan, Geographically, Statistically and Historically. Map. 2 Vols. 4to. 94s. 6d.

—— (W. J.) Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia; with some Account of the Antiquities and Geology of those Countries. Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 38s.

HAMPDEN’S (Bishop) Essay on the Philosophical Evidence of Christianity, or the Credibility obtained to a Scripture Revelation from its Coincidence with the Facts of Nature. 8vo. 9s. 6d.

HARCOURT’S (Edward Vernon) Sketch of Madeira; with Map and Plates. Post 8vo. 8s. 6d.

HART’S (Major) ARMY LIST. 8vo. (Published Quarterly and Annually.)

HASE’S ANCIENT GREEKS; their Public and Private Life, Manners, and Customs. Translated from the German. By Mrs. Austin. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 6d.

HAY’S (J. H. Drummond) Western Barbary, its wild Tribes and savage Animals. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

HAND-BOOK OF TRAVEL-TALK; or, Conversations in English, German, French, and Italian. Intended for Englishmen travelling abroad, or Foreigners visiting Great Britain. 18mo. 3s. 6d.

—— BELGIUM AND THE RHINE. Maps. Post 8vo. 5s.

—— NORTH GERMANY AND HOLLAND—including Belgium and the Rhine. Map. Post 8vo. 9s.

—— SOUTH GERMANY—Bavaria, Austria, Salzberg, the Austrian and Bavarian Alps, the Tyrol, and the Danube, from Ulm to the Black Sea. Map. Post 8vo. 9s.

—— SWITZERLAND—the Alps of Savoy, and Piedmont. Maps. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

—— FRANCE—Normandy, Brittany, the French Alps, the Rivers Loire, Seine, Rhone, and Garonne, Dauphiné, Provence, and the Pyrenees. Maps. Post 8vo. 9s.

—— SPAIN—Andalusia, Ronda, Granada, Valencia, Catalonia, Gallicia, Arragon, and Navarre. Maps. 2 Vols. Post 8vo.

—— PAINTING—the German, Dutch, Spanish, and French Schools. Translated in part from the German of Kugler. Edited, with Notes, by Sir Edmund Head. With Illustrations. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 24s.

—— MADEIRA AND PORTUGAL. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo, 12s.

—— NORTH ITALY—Florence, Sardinia, Genoa, the Riviera, Venice, Lombardy, and Tuscany. Map. Post 8vo. 9s.

—— CENTRAL ITALY—Part I. South Tuscany and the Papal States.—Part II. Rome and its Environs. Maps. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 7s. each.

—— SOUTHERN ITALY—the Continental Portion of the Two Sicilies, including Naples, Pompeii, Herculaneum, Vesuvius, Bay of Naples, &c. Map. Post 8vo. 15s.

—— PAINTING—the Italian Schools. From the German of Kugler. Edited by Sir Charles Eastlake. With Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 24s.

—— GREECE—the Ionian Islands, Albania, Thessaly, and Macedonia. Maps. Post 8vo. 15s.

—— TURKEY, ASIA MINOR, and CONSTANTINOPLE, Armenia, Mesopotamia, &c. Maps. Post 8vo.

—— MALTA, EGYPT—Thebes, the Nile, Alexandria, Cairo, the Pyramids, Mount Sinai, &c. Map. Post 8vo. 15s.

—— SYRIA AND THE HOLY LAND. Maps. Post 8vo. (Preparing.)

—— DENMARK, NORWAY, AND SWEDEN. Maps. Post 8vo. 12s.

—— THE BALTIC, RUSSIA, AND FINLAND. Maps. Post 8vo. 12s.

—— ENGLAND AND WALES.—Part I. Devon and Cornwall. 6s.

—— LONDON, Past and Present. Being an Alphabetical Account of all the Antiquities, Curiosities, Churches, Works of Art, Places, and Streets connected with Interesting and Historical Associations. Post 8vo. 16s.

HAND-BOOK—MODERN LONDON. A Guide to all objects of interest in the Metropolis. Map. 16mo. 5s.

—— ENVIRONS OF LONDON. Including a Circle of 30 Miles round St. Paul’s. Maps. Post 8vo. (Nearly ready.)

—— BRITISH MUSEUM; Its Antiquities and Sculpture. 300 Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

—— PICTURE GALLERIES in and near London. With Critical Notices. Post 8vo. 10s.

—— WESTMINSTER ABBEY—its Art, Architecture, and Associations. Woodcuts. 16mo. 1s.

—— HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY, Alphabetically arranged. 8vo. (Nearly Ready.)

—— (OFFICIAL). Giving an Historical Account of the Duties attached to the various Civil and Ecclesiastical Departments of the Government. Post 8vo. 6s.

—— FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS. Chiefly from English Authors. A New Edition with an Index. Fcap. 8vo. 5s.

—— ARCHITECTURE. Being a Concise and Popular Account of the Different Styles prevailing in all Ages and Countries in the World. With a Description of the most remarkable Buildings. By James Fergusson. Illustrations. 8vo. In the Press.

—— CATHEDRALS OF ENGLAND. With Plates. Post 8vo. In the Press.

—— MEDIÆVAL ART. Translated from the French of M. Jules Labarthe, and Edited by Mrs. Palliser. With Illustrations. 8vo. In the Press.

HEAD’S (Sir Francis) Rough Notes of some Rapid Journeys across the Pampas and over the Andes. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Bubbles from the Brunnen of Nassau. By an Old Man. Sixth Edition. 16mo. 5s.

—— Emigrant. Sixth Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Stokers and Pokers, or the London and North-Western Railway. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Defenceless State of Great Britain. A series of Descriptive Sketches, containing—1. Military Warfare. 2. Naval Warfare. 3. The Invasion of England. 4. The Capture of London by a French Army. 5. The Treatment of Women in War. 6. How to Defend Great Britain. Post 8vo. 12s.

—— Paris in 1851—a Faggot of French Sticks. Second Edition. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 24s.

—— Fortnight in Ireland. Second Edition. Map. 8vo. 12s.

—— (Sir George) Forest Scenes and Incidents in Canada. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 10s.

—— Home Tour through the Manufacturing Districts of England, Scotland, and Ireland, including the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. Third Edition. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 12s.

—— (Sir Edmund) Handbook of Painting—the German, Dutch, Spanish and French Schools. Partly from the German of Kugler. With Illustrations. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 24s.

HEBER’S (Bishop) Parish Sermons; on the Lessons, the Gospel, or the Epistle, for every Sunday in the Year, and for Weekday Festivals. Sixth Edition. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 16s.

—— Sermons Preached in England. Second Edition. 8vo. 9s. 6d.

—— Hymns Written and adapted for the weekly Church Service of the Year. Twelfth Edition. 16mo. 2s.

—— Poetical Works. Fifth Edition. Portrait. Fcap. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

—— Journey through the Upper Provinces of India. From Calcutta to Bombay, with a Journey to Madras and the Southern Provinces. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 10s.

HEIRESS (The) in Her Minority; or, The Progress of Character. By the Author of “Bertha’s Journal.” 2 Vols. 12mo. 18s.

HERODOTUS. A New English Version. Translated from the Text of Gaisford, and Edited with Notes, illustrating the History and Geography of Herodotus, from the most recent sources of information. By Rev. G. Rawlinson, Colonel Rawlinson, and Sir J. G. Wilkinson. 4 Vols. 8vo. In Preparation.

HERSCHEL’S (Sir J. W. F.) Manual of Scientific Enquiry, for the Use of Travellers. By various Writers. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d.

HERVEY’S (Lord) Memoirs of the Reign of George the Second, from his Accession to the Death of Queen Caroline. Edited, with Notes, by Right Hon. J. W. Croker. Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo.

HICKMAN’S (Wm.) Treatise on the Law and Practice of Naval Courts Martial. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

HILL (General Lord) Life of. By Rev. Edwin Sidney. Second Edition. Portrait. 8vo. 12s.

—— (Frederic) On Crime: its Amount, Causes, and Remedies. 8vo. 12s.

HILLARD’S (G. S.) Six Months in Italy. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 16s.

HISTORY OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE under the House of Lancaster. With an Introductory View of the Early Reformation. 8vo. 15s.

—— the late War: with Sketches of Nelson, Wellington, and Napoleon. By J. G. Lockhart. 18mo. 2s. 6d.

HOLLAND’S (Rev. W. B.) Psalms and Hymns, selected and adapted to the various Solemnities of the Church. 24mo. 1s. 3d.

HOLMES’ (Mrs. Dalkeith) Ride on Horseback through France and Switzerland to Florence. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s.

HOLLWAY’S (J. G.) Month in Norway during the Autumn of 1852. Fcap. 8vo. 2s.

HONEY BEE (The). An Essay Reprinted from the “Quarterly Review.” Fcap. 8vo. 1s.

HOME AND COLONIAL LIBRARY. Complete in 76 Parts. Post 8vo, or bound in 37 Volumes, cloth.

CONTENTS OF THE SERIES.

THE BIBLE IN SPAIN. By George Borrow.

JOURNALS IN INDIA. By Bishop Heber.

TRAVELS IN THE HOLY LAND. By Captains Irby and Mangles.

THE SIEGE OF GIBRALTAR. By John Drinkwater.

MOROCCO AND THE MOORS. By J. Drummond Hay.

LETTERS FROM THE BALTIC. By a Lady.

THE AMBER WITCH. By Lady Duff Gordon.

OLIVER CROMWELL & JOHN BUNYAN. By Robert Southey.

NEW SOUTH WALES. By Mrs. Meredith.

LIFE OF SIR FRANCIS DRAKE. By John Barrow.

FATHER RIPA’S MEMOIRS OF THE COURT OF CHINA.

A RESIDENCE IN THE WEST INDIES. By M. G. Lewis.

SKETCHES OF PERSIA. By Sir John Malcolm.

THE FRENCH IN ALGIERS. By Lady Duff Gordon.

BRACEBRIDGE HALL. By Washington Irving.

VOYAGE OF A NATURALIST. By Charles Darwin.

HISTORY OF THE FALL OF THE JESUITS.

LIFE OF LOUIS PRINCE CONDE. By Lord Mahon.

GIPSIES OF SPAIN. By George Borrow.

THE MARQUESAS. By Hermann Melville.

LIVONIAN TALES. By a Lady.

MISSIONARY LIFE IN CANADA. By Rev. J. Abbott.

SALE’S BRIGADE IN AFFGHANISTAN. By Rev. G. R. Gleig.

LETTERS FROM MADRAS. By a Lady.

HIGHLAND SPORTS. By Charles St. John.

JOURNEYS ACROSS THE PAMPAS. By Sir F. B. Head.

GATHERINGS FROM SPAIN. By Richard Ford.

SIEGES OF VIENNA BY THE TURKS. By Lord Ellesmere.

SKETCHES OF GERMAN LIFE. By Sir A. Gordon.

ADVENTURES IN THE SOUTH SEAS. By Hermann Melville.

STORY OF BATTLE OF WATERLOO. By Rev. G. R. Gleig.

A VOYAGE UP THE RIVER AMAZON. By W. H. Edwards.

THE WAYSIDE CROSS. By Capt. Milman.

MANNERS & CUSTOMS OF INDIA. By Rev. C. Acland.

CAMPAIGNS AT WASHINGTON. By Rev. G. R. Gleig.

ADVENTURES IN MEXICO. By G. F. Ruxton.

PORTUGAL AND GALLICIA. By Lord Carnarvon.

LIFE OF LORD CLIVE. By Rev. G. R. Gleig.

BUSH LIFE IN AUSTRALIA. By H. W. Haygarth.

THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF HENRY STEFFENS.

TALES OF A TRAVELLER. By Washington Irving.

SHORT LIVES OF THE POETS. By Thomas Campbell.

HISTORICAL ESSAYS. By Lord Mahon.

LONDON & NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY. By Sir F. B. Head.

ADVENTURES IN THE LYBIAN DESERT. By Bayle St. John.

A RESIDENCE AT SIERRA LEONE. By a Lady.

LIFE OF GENERAL MUNRO. By Rev. G. R. Gleig.

MEMOIRS OF SIR FOWELL BUXTON. By his Son.

LIFE OF OLIVER GOLDSMITH. By Washington Irving.

HOOK’S (Rev. Dr.) Church Dictionary. Seventh Edition. 8vo. 16s.

—— Discourses on the Religious Controversies of the Day. 8vo. 9s.

—— Advice to the Roman Catholics. By Dean Comber. A New Edition. With Notes. Fcap. 8vo. 3s.

—— (Theodore) Life. From the “Quarterly Review.” Fcap. 8vo. 1s.

HOOKER’S (J. D.) Himalayan Journals; or, Notes of an Oriental Naturalist in Bengal, the Sikkim and Nepal Himalayas, the Khasia Mountains, &c. Maps, Plates, and Woodcuts. 2 vols. 8vo. 36s.

HOOPER’S (Lieut.) Ten Months among the Tents of the Tuski; with Incidents of an Arctic Boat Expedition in Search of Sir John Franklin. By Lieut. Hooper, R.N. Plates 8vo. 14s.

HORACE (Works of). Edited by Dean Milman. New Edition. With 300 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 21s.

—— (Life of). By Dean Milman. New Edition. With Woodcuts, and coloured Borders. 8vo.

HORNER’S (Francis) Memoirs and Letters. By his Brother. Second Edition. Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s.

HOUSTOUN’S (Mrs.) Yacht Voyage to Texas and the Gulf of Mexico. Plates. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21s.

HUMBOLDT’S (Alex.) Cosmos; or, a Physical Description of the World. Translated by Col. and Mrs. Sabine. Seventh Edition. 3 Vols. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d.

—— Aspects of Nature in different Lands and in different Climates. Translated by Col. and Mrs. Sabine. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 5s.

HUTCHINSON (Colonel) on Dog-Breaking; the most expeditious, certain, and easy Method, whether great Excellence or only Mediocrity be required. Second Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

INKERSLEY’S (Thos.) Gothic Architecture in France; Being an Inquiry into the Chronological Succession of the Romanesque and Pointed Styles; with Notices of some of the principal Buildings, and an Index. 8vo. 12s.

IRBY AND MANGLES’ (Captains) Travels in Egypt, Nubia, Syria, and the Holy Land, including a Journey round the Dead Sea, and through the Country east of the Jordan. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

JAMES’ (Rev. Thomas) Fables of Æsop. A New Version, for Old and Young. With 100 Original Designs, by John Tenniel. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

JAMESON’S (Mrs.) Handbook to the Picture Galleries in and near London. With Historical, Biographical, and Critical Notices. Post 8vo. Second Edition. 10s.

JAPAN AND THE JAPANESE. Described from the Accounts of Recent Dutch Travellers. New Edition. Post 8vo. 6s.

JERVIS’S (Lieut.) Manual of Military Operations, for the Use of Officers. Post 8vo. 9s. 6d.

JESSE’S (Edward) Visits to Spots of Interest in the Vicinity of Windsor and Eton. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 12s.

—— Scenes and Occupations of Country Life. With Recollections of Natural History. Third Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo.

—— Gleanings in Natural History. With Anecdotes of the Sagacity and Instinct of Animals. Sixth Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. 6d.

JOCELYN’S (Lord) Six Months with the Chinese Expedition; or, Leaves from a Soldier’s Note-Book. Seventh Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 6d.

JOHNSON’S (Dr. Samuel) Life: By James Boswell. Including the Tour to the Hebrides, with Notes by Sir W. Scott. Edited by the Right Hon. John Wilson Choker. A New Edition, with much additional matter. 1 Vol. Portraits. Royal 8vo. 15s.

—— Lives of the Poets. A New Edition. Edited and annotated. By Peter Cunningham. 3 vols. 8vo. In the Press.

JOHNSTON’S (Wm.) England as it is: Social, Political, and Industrial, in the Middle of the 19th Century. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s.

JONES’S (Rev. Richard) Essay on the Distribution of Wealth, and on the Sources of Taxation. Part 1.—RENT. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

JOURNAL OF A NATURALIST. Fourth Edition. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 9s. 6d.

JOWETT’S (Rev. B.) St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans. With critical Notes and Dissertations. 8vo. In the Press.

JUKES’ (J. B.) Excursions in and about Newfoundland during the Years 1839–40. Map. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21s.

KING EDWARD VIth’s Latin Grammar; or, an Introduction to the Latin Tongue, for the Use of Schools. Eighth Edition. 12mo. 8s. 6d.

—— Latin Accidence; or, Elements of the Latin Tongue, for the Use of Junior Classes. 12mo. 2s.

KINNEAR’S (John G.) Cairo, Petra, and Damascus, described from Notes made during a Tour in those Countries: with Remarks on the Government of Mehemet Ali, and on the present prospects of Syria. Post 8vo. 9s. 6d.

KNIGHT’S (Charles) Once upon a Time. 2 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 12s.

KUGLER’S (Dr. Franz) Handbook to the History of Painting (the Italian Schools). Translated from the German. Edited, with Notes, by Sir Charles Eastlake. Second Edition. With Woodcuts from the Old Masters. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 24s.

—— (the German, Dutch, Spanish, and French Schools). Partly Translated from the German. Edited, with Notes, by Sir Edmund Head, Bart. With Woodcuts from the Old Masters. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 24s.

LABORDE’S (Leon De) Journey through Arabia Petræa, to Mount Sinai, and the Excavated City of Petræa,—the Edom of the Prophecies. Second Edition. With Plates. 8vo. 18s.

LAMBERT’S (Miss) Church Needlework. With Practical Remarks on its Preparation and Arrangement. Plates. Post 8vo. 9s. 6d.

—— My Knitting Book. Woodcuts. Two parts. 16mo. 3s.

—— My Crochet Sampler. Woodcuts. Two parts. 16mo. 4s.

—— Hints on Decorative Needlework. 16mo. 1s. 6d.

LANE’S (E. W.) Arabian Nights. Translated with Explanatory Notes. With Woodcuts. Royal 8vo. 21s.

LATIN GRAMMAR (King Edward the VIth’s.) For the Use of Schools. Eighth Edition. 12mo. 3s. 6d.

—— Accidence (King Edward VI.); or, Elements of the Latin Tongue, for the Use of Junior Classes. 12mo. 2s.

LAYARD’S (Austen H.) Nineveh and its Remains. Being a Narrative of Researches and Discoveries amidst the Ruins of Assyria. With an Account of the Chaldean Christians of Kurdistan; the Yezedis, or Devil-worshippers; and an Enquiry into the Manners and Arts of the Ancient Assyrians. Fifth Edition. Plates and Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 36s.

—— Nineveh and Babylon; being the Result of a Second Expedition to Assyria. Fourteenth Thousand. Plates and Woodcuts. 8vo. 21s. Or Fine Paper. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s.

—— Monuments of Nineveh. Illustrated by One Hundred Engravings. Imperial Folio, 10l. 10s.

—— Second Series. Illustrated by Seventy Plates. Imperial Folio. 10l. 10s.

—— Popular Account of Nineveh. 15th Edition. With Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 5s.

LEAKE’S (Col. W. Martin) Topography of Athens, with Remarks on its Antiquities; to which is added, the Demi of Attica. Second Edition. Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s.

—— Travels in Northern Greece. Maps. 4 Vols. 8vo. 60s.

—— Greece at the End of Twenty-three Years Protection. 8vo. 6d.

—— Peloponnesiaca: A Supplement to Travels in the Morea. 8vo. 15s.

—— Thoughts on the Degradation of Science in England. 8vo. 3s. 6d.

LETTERS FROM THE SHORES OF THE BALTIC. By a Lady. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Madras; or, First Impressions of Life and Manners in India. By a Lady. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Sierra Leone, written to Friends at Home. By a Lady. Edited by Mrs. Norton. Post 8vo. 5s.

LEWIS’ (G. Cornewall) Essay on the Government of Dependencies. 8vo. 12s.

—— Glossary of Provincial Words used in Herefordshire and some of the adjoining Counties. 12mo. 4s. 6d.

—— Essay on the Origin and Formation of the Romance Languages: Second Edition. 8vo. 12s.

—— (Lady Theresa) Friends and Contemporaries of the Lord Chancellor Clarendon, illustrative of Portraits in his Gallery. With an Introduction, containing a Descriptive Catalogue of the Pictures, and an Account of the Origin of the Collection. Portraits. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42s.

—— (M. G.) Journal of a Residence among the Negroes in the West Indies. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

LEXINGTON (The) PAPERS; or, Some Account of the Courts of London and Vienna at the end of the 17th Century. Extracted from the Official and Private Correspondence of Robert Sutton (Lord Lexington) while Minister at Vienna, 1694–1698. Edited by Hon. H. Manners Sutton. 8vo. 14s.

LINDSAY’S (Lord) Sketches of the History of Christian Art. 3 Vols. 8vo. 31s. 6d.

—— Lives of the Lindsays; or, a Memoir of the Houses of Crawford and Balcarres. To which are added, Extracts from the Official Correspondence of Alexander, sixth Earl of Balcarres, during the Maroon War; together with Personal Narratives, by his Brothers, the Hon. Robert, Colin, James, John, and Hugh Lindsay; and by his Sister, Lady Anne Barnard. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42s.

—— Progression by Antagonism. A Theory, involving Considerations touching the Present Position, Duties, and Destiny of Great Britain. 8vo. 6s.

—— (Rev. Henry) Practical Lectures on the Historical Books of the Old Testament. 2 Vols. 16mo. 10s.

LITTLE ARTHUR’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By Lady Callcott. Seventeenth Edition. 18mo. 2s. 6d.

LIVONIAN TALES.—The Disponent.—The Wolves.—The Jewess. By the Author of “Letters from the Baltic.” Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

LOCH’S (Capt. G. C.) Events of the Closing Campaign in China. Map. Post 8vo. 8s. 6d.

LOCKHART’S (J. G.) Ancient Spanish Ballads; Historical and Romantic. Translated, with Notes. New Edition, with Illuminated Titles, Borders, &c. 4to. Or Cheap Edition. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Life of Robert Burns. Fifth Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 3s.

—— History of the Late War: with Sketches of Nelson, Wellington, and Napoleon. 18mo. 2s. 6d.

LONG’S (George) Essays on the Conduct of Life, and Moral Nature of Man. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 6s. each.

LOUDON’S (Mrs.) Ladies’ Gardener; or, Instructions in Gardening. With Directions for Every Month in the Year, and a Calendar of Operations. Eighth Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5s.

—— Modern Botany for Ladies; or, a Popular Introduction to the Natural System of Plants. Second Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 6s.

LOWE’S (Sir Hudson) Letters and Journals, during the Captivity of Napoleon at St. Helena. By William Forsyth. Portrait. 3 Vols. 8vo. 45s.

LUSHINGTON’S (Mrs.) Narrative of a Journey from Calcutta to Europe, by way of Egypt. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 8s. 6d.

LYELL’S (Sir Charles) Principles of Geology; or, the Modern Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants considered as illustrative of Geology. Ninth Edition. Woodcuts. 8vo. 18s.

—— Manual of Elementary Geology; or, the Ancient Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants illustrated by its Geological Monuments. Fifth Edition. Woodcuts. 8vo. In the Press.

—— Travels in North America, 1841–2; with Observations on the United States, Canada, and Nova Scotia. Plates. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21s.

—— Second Visit to the United States of North America, 1845–6. Second Edition. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s.

MAHON’S (Lord) History of England, from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Versailles, 1713–83 Third Edition revised. Vols. I. to VI. Library Edition. 8vo. 78s. Popular Edition. Post 8vo. 36s.

—— “Forty-Five;” or, a Narrative of the Rebellion in Scotland. Post 8vo. 3s.

—— History of the War of the Succession in Spain. Second Edition. Map. 8vo. 15s.

—— Spain under Charles the Second; or, Extracts from the Correspondence of the Hon. Alexander Stanhope, British Minister at Madrid from 1690 to 1700. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 6s. 6d.

—— Life of Louis Prince of Condé, surnamed the Great. Post 8vo. 5s.

—— Life of Belisarius. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d.

—— Historical and Critical Essays. Post 8vo. 5s.

—— Story of Joan of Arc. Fcap. 8vo. 1s.

McCULLOCH (J. R.); Collected Edition of Ricardo’s Political Works. With Notes and Memoir. Second Edition. 8vo. 16s.

MACFARLANE’S (Charles) Travels in Turkey during the Years 1847–8. 2 Vols. 8vo. 28s.

MALCOLM’S (Sir John) Sketches of Persia. Third Edition. Post 8vo. 5s.

MANTELL’S (Gideon A.) Thoughts on Animalcules; or, the Invisible World, as revealed by the Microscope. Second Edition. Plates 16mo. 6s.

MANUAL OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY, Prepared for the Use of Officers and Travellers in general. By various Writers. Edited by Sir J. Herschel, Bart. Second Edition. Maps. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. (Published by order of the Lords of the Admiralty.)

MARKHAM’S (Mrs.) History of England. From the First Invasion by the Romans, down to the fourteenth year of Queen Victoria’s Reign. New and Cheaper Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. 6s.

—— History of France. From the Conquest by the Gauls, to the Death of Louis Philippe. New and Cheaper Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. 6s.

—— History of Germany. From the Invasion by Marius, to the present time. New and Cheaper Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. 6s.

—— History of Greece. With Chapters on the Literature, Art, and Domestic Manners of the Greeks. By Dr. Wm. Smith. Woodcuts. 12mo. 7s. 6d.

—— History of Rome. 12mo. In Preparation.

—— Sermons for Children. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 3s.

MARKLAND’S (J.H.) Remarks on English Churches, and Sepulchral Memorials. Fourth Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. 6d.

—— Reverence due to Holy Places. Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 2s.

MARRYAT’S (Joseph) History of Pottery and Porcelain, in the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. With a Description of the Manufacture, a Glossary, and a List of Monograms. With Coloured Plates and Woodcuts. 8vo. 31s. 6d.

⁂ A few copies on India Proofs, mounted on large Paper. 4to. 5l. 5s.

MATTHIÆ’S (Augustus) Greek Grammar for Schools. Abridged from the Larger Grammar. By the Bishop of London. Seventh Edition. revised by Rev. J. Edwards. 12mo. 8s.

—— Greek Accidence for Schools. Abridged by the Bishop OF London. Fourth Edition, revised by Rev. J. Edwards. 12mo. 2s.

—— Index of Quotations from Greek Authors contained in Matthiæ’s Greek Grammar. Second Edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

MAUREL’S (Jules) Essay on the Character, Actions, and Writings of the Duke of Wellington. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 1s. 6d.

MAWE’S (H. L.) Journal of a Passage from the Pacific to the Atlantic, crossing the Andes in the Northern Provinces of Peru, and descending the great River Maranon. 8vo. 12s.

MAXIMS AND HINTS for an Angler, and the Miseries of Fishing. By Richard Penn. Second Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. 5s. MAYO’S (Dr.) Pathology of the Human Mind. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 6d.

MELVILLE’S (Hermann) Typee and Omoo; or, Adventures amongst the Marquesas and South Seas. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 10s.

MENDELSSOHN’S (Felix Bartholdy) Life. By Jules Benedict. 8vo. 2s. 6d.

MERRIFIELD (Mrs.) on the Arts of Painting in Oil, Miniature, Mosaic, and Glass; Gilding, Dyeing, and the Preparation of Colours and Artificial Gems, described in several old Manuscripts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s.

MEREDITH’S (Mrs. Charles) Notes and Sketches of New South Wales, during a Residence from 1839 to 1844. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Tasmania, during a Residence of Nine Years. With Illustrations. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s.

MILFORD’S (John) Norway and her Laplanders in 1841; with a Few Hints to the Salmon Fisher. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

MITCHELL’S (Thomas) Plays of Aristophanes. With English Notes. 8vo.—1. CLOUDS, 10s.—2. WASPS, 10s.—3. FROGS, 15s.

MODERN DOMESTIC COOKERY. Founded on Principles of Economy and Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private Families. New and Cheaper Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5s.

MILMAN’S (Dean) History of Christianity, from the Birth of Christ to the Extinction of Paganism in the Roman Empire. 3 Vols. 8vo. 36s.

—— History of Latin Christianity; including that of the Popes to the Pontificate of Nicholas V. Vols. I. to III. 8vo.

—— Character and Conduct of the Apostles considered as an Evidence of Christianity. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

—— Edition of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New Edition, with Additional Notes by Dr. Wm. Smith. Portrait and Maps. 8 Vols. 8vo. 7s. 6d. each.

—— Life and Correspondence of Edward Gibbon. Portrait. 8vo. 9s.

—— Life and Works of Horace. New Edition. With 300 Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Crown 8vo. 30s.

—— Poetical Works. Second Edition. Plates. 3 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 18s.

—— Fall of Jerusalem. Fcap. 8vo. 1s.

—— (Capt. E. A.) Wayside Cross; or, the Raid of Gomez. A Tale of the Carlist War. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

MOORE’S (Thomas) Life and Letters of Lord Byron. Plates. 6 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 18s.

—— Complete in One Volume. Portrait and Vignette. Royal 8vo. 12s.

MUCK MANUAL (The) for the Use of Farmers. A Practical Treatise on the Chemical Properties, Management, and Application of Manures. By Frederick Falkner. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6s.

MUIRHEAD (J. P.). James Watt, an Historical Eloge. By M. Arago. Translated, with Notes. 8vo, 8s. 6d.

—— Correspondence of James Watt on his Discovery of the Theory of the Composition of Water, with a Letter from his Son. Portrait. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

MULLER’S DORIANS; The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race. Translated by the Right Hon. Henry Tufnell and George Cornewall Lewis, Esq. Second Edition. Maps. 2 Vols. 8vo. 26s.

MUNDY’S (Capt. Rodney) Events in Borneo, including the Occupation of Labuan and Visit to the Celebes. Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 32s.

MUNRO’S (General Sir Thomas) Life and Letters. By the Rev. G. R. Gleig. Post 8vo. 5s.

MURCHISON’S (Sir Roderick) Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains; Geologically Illustrated. With Coloured Maps, Plates, Sections, &c. 2 Vols. Royal 4to. 8l. 8s.

—— Siluria; or, a History of the Oldest Rocks containing Organic Remains. With Map and Plates. 8vo.

MURRAY’S (Capt. A.) Naval Life and Services of Admiral Sir Philip Durham. 8vo. 5s. 6d.

MURRAY’S RAILWAY READING. Published occasionally; varying in size and price, and suited for all classes of Readers.

[The following are published:]

Wellington. By Lord Ellesmere. 6d.

Nimrod on the Chase, 1s.

Essays From “The Times.” 2 Vols. 8s.

Music and Dress. 1s.

Layard’s Popular Account of Nineveh. 5s.

Milman’s Fall of Jerusalem. 1s.

Mahon’s “Forty-Five.” 3s.

Life of Theodore Hook. 1s.

Deeds of Naval Daring. 2 Vols. 5s.

The Honey Bee. 1s.

James’ Æsop’s Fables. 2s. 6d.

Nimrod on the Turf. 1s. 6d.

Oliphant’s Nepaul. 2s. 6d.

Art of Dining. 1s. 6d.

Hallam’s Literary Essays. 2s.

Mabon’s Joan of Arc. 1s.

Head’s Emigrant. 2s. 6d.

Nimrod on the Road. 1s.

Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians. 12s.

Croker on the Guillotine. 1s.

Hollway’s Norway. 2s.

Maurel’s Wellington. 1s. 6d.

Campbell’s Life of Bacon. 2s.

The Flower Garden. 1s.

Lockhart’s Spanish Ballads. 2s. 6d.

Lucas on History. 6d.

Beauties of Byron. 3s.

MUSIC AND DRESS. Two Essays reprinted from the “Quarterly Review.” Fcap. 8vo. 1s.

NAUTICAL ALMANACK (The). (Published by Order of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.) Royal 8vo. 2s. 6d.

NAVY LIST (The Royal). (Published Quarterly, by Authority.) 12mo. 2s. 6d.

NEALE’S (E. V.) Feasts and Fasts: an Essay on the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Laws relating to Sundays and other Holidays, &c. Fcap. 8vo. 9s. 6d.

NEVILLE’S (Hon. R. C.) Saxon Obsequies; illustrated by Ornaments and Weapons discovered in a Cemetery near Little Wilbraham, Cambridgeshire. With short Descriptions. Illustrated by 40 Plates. 4to. 84s.

NEWBOLD’S (Lieut.) Straits of Malacca, Penang, Malacca, and Singapore. 2 Vols. 8vo. 26s.

NIMROD On the Chace—The Turf—and The Road. Reprinted from the “Quarterly Review.” Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. 6d.

NORTON’S (Hon. Caroline) Letters from Sierra Leone. By a Lady, written to Friends at Home. Edited by Mrs. Norton. Post 8vo. 5s.

O’BYRNE’S (W. R.) Naval Biographical Dictionary, comprising the Life and Services of every Living Officer in H. M. Navy, from the Rank of Admiral to that of Lieutenant. Compiled from Authentic and Family Documents. Royal 8vo. 42s.

O’CONNOR’S (R.) Field Sports of France; or, Hunting, Shooting, and Fishing on the Continent. Woodcuts. 12mo. 7s. 6d.

OLIPHANT’S (Laurence) Journey to Katmandu, with Visit to the Camp of the Nepaulese Ambassador. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.

OXENHAM’S (Rev. W.) English Notes for Latin Elegiacs; designed for early Proficients in the Art of Latin Versification, with Prefatory Rules of Composition in Elegiac Metre. Second Edition. 12mo. 4s.

PAGET’S (John) Hungary and Transylvania. With Remarks on their Condition, Social, Political, and Economical. Second Edition. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 24s.

PALLISER’S (John) Solitary Rambles and Adventures of a Hunter in the Prairies. Woodcuts. Post 8vo.

PARISH’S (Sir Woodbine) Buenos Ayres and the Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. Their First Discovery and Conquest, Present State, Trade, Debt, &.c. Second Edition. Map and Woodcuts. 8vo. 15s.

PARIS’S (T. C.) Letters from the Pyrenees during Three Months’ Pedestrian Wanderings amidst the Wildest Scenes of the French and Spanish Pyrenees. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d.

PARKYNS’ (Mansfield) Personal Narrative of Three Years’ Residence and Adventures in Abyssinia. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s.

PEILE’S (Rev. Dr.) Agamemnon of Æschylus. A New Edition of the Text, with Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Philological, for the Use of Students. Second Edition. 8vo. 9s.

—— Choephoræ of Æschylus. A New Edition of the Text, with Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Philological, for the Use of Students. Second Edition. 8vo. 9s.

PELLEW’S (Dean of Norwich) Life of Lord Sidmouth, with his Correspondence. Portraits. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42s.

PENN’S (Richard) Maxims and Hints for an Angler, and the Miseries of Fishing. To which is added, Maxims and Hints for a Chess-player. Second Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 6s.

—— (Granville) Bioscope; or, Dial of Life Explained. To which is added, a Translation of St. Paulinus’ Epistle to Celantia on the Rule of Christian Life; and an Elementary View of General Chronology. Second Edition. With Dial Plate. 12mo. 12s.

PENROSE’S (Rev. John) Lives of Vice-Admiral Sir C. V. Penrose, and Captain James Trevenen. Portraits. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

—— Sermons for Households, or Fifty-four Sermons Written for Sunday Reading in Families. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

—— (F. C.) Principles of Athenian Architecture, and the Optical Refinements exhibited in the Construction of the Ancient Buildings at Athens, from a Survey. With 40 Plates. Folio. 5l. 5s. (Published under the direction of the Dilettanti Society.)

PENNINGTON (G. J.) On the Pronunciation of the Greek Language. 8vo. 8s. 6d.

PHILLIPS’ (John) Memoirs of William Smith, LL.D., (the Geologist). Portrait. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

—— Geology of Yorkshire. The Yorkshire Coast, and the Mountain-Limestone District. Plates 4to. Part I., 31s. 6d.—Part II., 52s. 6d.

—— Rivers, Mountains, and Sea Coast of Yorkshire; with Essays on the Climate, Scenery and Ancient Inhabitants of the County. Plates. 8vo. 15s.

PHILOSOPHY IN SPORT MADE SCIENCE IN EARNEST; or, the First Principles of Natural Philosophy inculcated by aid of the Toys and Sports of Youth. Seventh Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

PHILPOTT’S (Bishop) Letters to the late Charles Butler, on the Theological parts of his “Book of the Roman Catholic Church;” with Remarks on certain Works of Dr. Milner and Dr. Lingard, and on some parts of the Evidence of Dr. Doyle. Second Edition. 8vo. 16s.

PHIPPS’ (Hon. Edmund) Memoir, Correspondence, Literary and Unpublished Diaries of Robert Plumer Ward. Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo. 28s.

POOLE’S (R. S.) Horæ Egyptiacæ: or, the Chronology of Ancient Egypt, discovered from Astronomical and Hieroglyphic Records upon its Monuments. Plates. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

—— (Rev. G. A.) Handbook for the Cathedrals of England. Containing Descriptions of each. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. In the Press.

POPE’S (Alexander) WORKS. An entirely New Edition. Edited by the Right Hon. John Wilson Croker and Peter Cunningham, F.S.A. 6 vols. 8vo. In the Press.

PORTER’S (G. R.) Progress of the Nation, in its various Social and Economical Relations, from the beginning of the Nineteenth Century. Third Edition. 8vo. 24s.

—— (Mrs. G. R.) Rational Arithmetic for Schools and for Private Instruction. 12mo. 3s. 6d.

POWELL’S (Rev. W. P.) Latin Grammar simplified. 12mo. 3s. 6d.

PRAYER-BOOK (The), Illuminated with 1000 Illustrations of Borders, Initials, Vignettes, &c. Medium 8vo. Cloth, 21s.; Calf, 31s. 6d. Morocco, 42s.

PROGRESS OF RUSSIA IN THE EAST. An Historical Summary, continued to the Present Time. With Map by Arrowsmith. Third Edition. 8vo. 6s. 6d.

PUSS IN BOOTS. Suited to the Tastes of Little and Grown Children. By Otto Speckter. Second Edition. Plates. 16mo. 5s.

QUARTERLY REVIEW (The). 8vo. 6s.

RANKE’S (Leopold) Political and Ecclesiastical History of the Popes of Rome, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Translated from the German by Mrs. Austin. Third Edition. 2 Vols. 8vo. 24s.

—— History of Prussia; or, Memoirs of the House of Brandenburgh. Translated from the German by Sir Alexander Duff Gordon Bart. 3 Vols. 8vo. 36s.

RAWLINSON’S (Rev. George) Herodotus. A New English Version. Translated from the Text of Gaisford, and Edited with Notes, illustrating the History and Geography of Herodotus, from the most recent sources of information, embodying the chief Results, Historical and Ethnographical, which have been arrived at in the progress of Cuneiform and Hieroglyphical Discovery. Assisted by Colonel Rawlinson, and Sir J. G. Wilkinson. 4 Vols. 8vo. In the Press.

REJECTED ADDRESSES (The). By James and Horace Smith. With Biographies of the Authors, and additional Notes. Twenty-second Edition. Portraits. Fcap. 8vo. 5s.

RICARDO’S (David) Political Works. With a Notice of his Life and Writings. By J. R. McCulloch. New Edition. 8vo. 16s.

RIDE on Horseback to Florence through France and Switzerland. Described in a Series of Letters. By a Lady. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s.

RIPA’S (Father) Memoirs during Thirteen Years’ Residence at the Court of Peking, in the Service of the Emperor of China. Translated from the Italian. By Fortunato Prandi. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

ROBERTSON’S (Lord) Leaves from a Journal, and other Fragments in Verse. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

—— (Rev. J. C.) History of the Christian Church, to the Pontificate of Gregory the Great: a Manual for general Readers as well as for Students in Theology. 8vo. 12s.

ROMILLY’S (Sir Samuel) Memoirs and Political Diary. By his Sons. Third Edition. Portrait. 2 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 12s.

ROSS’S (Sir James) Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions during the years 1839–43. Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 36s.

ROYAL SOCIETY OF LITERATURE (The). Transactions. Plates. Vols. I. to III. 8vo. 12s. each.

RUNDELL’S (Mrs.) Modern Domestic Cookery, founded on Principles of Economy and Practice, and adapted for Private Families. New and Cheaper Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5s.

RUXTON’S (George F.) Travels in Mexico; with Adventures among the Wild Tribes and Animals of the Prairies and Rocky Mountains, Post 8vo. 5s.

SALE’S (Lady) Journal of the Disasters in Affghanistan. Eighth Edition. Post 8vo. 12s.

—— (Sir Robert) Brigade in Affghanistan, With an Account of the Seizure and Defence of Jellalabad. By Rev. G. R. Gleig. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

SAXON (The) in Ireland. Being Notes of the Rambles of an Englishman in the West of Ireland, in search of a Settlement. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo.

SCROPE’S (William) Days of Deer-Stalking in the Forest of Atholl; with some Account of the Nature and Habits of the Red Deer. Third Edition. Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 20s.

—— Days and Nights of Salmon Fishing in the Tweed; with a short Account of the Natural History and Habits of the Salmon. Second Edition. Woodcuts. Royal 8vo.

—— (G. P.) Memoir of Lord Sydenham, and his Administration in Canada. Second Edition. Portrait. 8vo. 9s. 6d.

SENTENCES FROM THE PROVERBS. In English, French, Italian, and German. For the Daily Use of Young Persons. By A Lady. 16mo. 3s. 6d.

SERMONS. Preached during the Visitation of the Bishop of Exeter in 1845. Published by Request. 12mo. 6s.

SEWELL’S (Rev. W.) Evidences of Christianity; or, Dialogues between a Brahmin and a Christian. Fcap. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

SHAW’S (Thos. B.) Outlines of English Literature, for the Use of Young Students. Post 8vo. 12s.

SIDMOUTH’S (Lord) Life and Correspondence. By the Hon. and Rev. George Pellew, Dean of Norwich. Portraits. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42s.

SIDNEY’S (Rev. Edwin) Life of Lord Hill. Second Edition. Portrait. 8vo. 12s.

SIERRA LEONE; Described in a Series of Letters to Friends at Home. By A Lady. Edited by Mrs. Norton. Post 8vo. 5s.

SMITH’S (Wm., LL.D.) Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Second Edition. With 500 Woodcuts. 8vo. 42s.

—— Smaller Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, abridged from the above Work. Second Edition. With 200 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

—— Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. With 500 Woodcuts. 3 Vols. 8vo. 5l. 15s. 6d.

—— Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. Woodcuts. Vol. I. 8vo. 36s. (To be completed in 2 Vols.)

—— Classical Dictionary for Schools. Compiled from the above works. Second Edition. 8vo. 15s.

—— Smaller Classical Dictionary. Second Edition. With 200 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

—— New Latin-English Dictionary, founded on the best and most recent authorities. 8vo. In Preparation.

—— Edition of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. With Notes by Milman and Guizot. Portrait and Map. 8 Vols. 8vo. 7s. 6d. each.

—— (Wm. Jas.) Grenville Letters and Diaries, including Mr. Grenville’s Diary of Political Events, while First Lord of the Treasury. Edited with Notes. 4 Vols. 8vo. 64s.

—— (James & Horace) Rejected Addresses. Twenty-second Edition. Portrait. Fcap. 8vo. 5s.

SOMERVILLE’S (Mary) Physical Geography. Third Edition. Portrait. 2 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 12s.

—— Connexion of the Physical Sciences. Eighth Edition. Plates. Fcap. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

SOUTHEY’S (Robert) Book of the Church; with Notes containing the Authorities, and an index. Sixth Edition. 8vo. 12s.

—— Lives of John Bunyan & Oliver Cromwell. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

SPECKTER’S (Otto) Puss in Boots; or, the Story of the Marquis of Carabas. Illustrated. Second Edition. 16mo. 5s.

—— Charmed Roe; or, the Story of the Little Brother and Sister. Illustrated. 16mo. 5s.

STANLEY’S (Edward, D.D., Bp. of Norwich) Addresses and Charges. With a Memoir of his Life. By His Son. Second Edition. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

—— (Arthur P.) St. Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians. Edited with Critical Notes and Dissertations, &c. 8vo. In the Press.

ST. JOHN’S (Charles) Field Notes of a Sportsman and Naturalist in Sutherland. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s.

—— Wild Sports and Natural History of the Highlands. Post 8vo. 5s.

—— (Bayle) Adventures in the Libyan Desert and the Oasis of Jupiter Ammon. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d.

STAUNTON’S (Sir George) Miscellaneous Notices relating to China, and our Commercial Intercourse with that Country. Including a few Translations from the Chinese Language, and some Observations on our Intercourse with that Country. Third Edition. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

STEPHENS’ (J. L.) Incidents of a First and Second Visit to Central America and Yucatan. New Edition. Post 8vo. In Preparation.

STEVENS’ (Wm., M.D.) Observations on the Healthy and Diseased Properties of the Blood. 8vo. 15s.

STISTED’S (Mrs. Henry) Letters from the Bye-Ways of Italy. Plates. 8vo. 18s.

STOTHARD’S (Thos., R. A.) Life. With Personal Reminiscences. By Mrs. Bray. With Portrait, and 60 Woodcuts. 4to. 21s.

STRIFE FOR THE MASTERY. Two Allegories. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 6s.

SUNLIGHT THROUGH THE MIST; or, Practical Lessons drawn from the Lives of Good Men, intended as a Sunday Book for Children. By A Lady. 16mo. 3s. 6d.

SUTTON (Hon. H. Manners). Some Account of the Courts of London and Vienna, at the end of the Seventeenth Century, extracted from the Official and Private Correspondence of Robert Sutton (late Lord Lexington) while British Minister at Vienna, 1694–98. 8vo. 14s.

SUVERN’S ARISTOPHANES. The Birds and the Clouds. Translated by W. R. Hamilton, F.R.S. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 9s.

SWIFT’S (Jonathan) Works. New Edition, based upon Sir Walter Scott’s Edition, entirely revised. 8vo. In the Press.

SYDENHAM’S (Lord) Memoirs. With his Administration in Canada. By G. Poulet Scrope, M.P. Second Edition. Portrait. 8vo. 9s. 6d.

TAIT’S (Dean) Suggestions to the Theological Student under present Difficulties. Post 8vo. 6s. 6d.

TALBOT’S (H. Fox) English Etymologies. 8vo. 12s.

TAYLOR’S (Henry) Notes from Life and Books. Third Edition. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 15s.

—— (J. E.) Fairy Ring. A Collection of Stories for Young Persons. From the German. With Illustrations by Richard Doyle. Second Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

—— Michael Angelo considered as a Philosophic Poet. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 5s.

TENNENT’S (Sir J. E.) Christianity in Ceylon. Its Introduction and Progress under the Portuguese, Dutch, British, and American Missions. With an Historical Sketch of the Brahmanical and Buddhist Superstitions. Woodcuts. 8vo. 14s.

THEOPHILUS’ Essay upon Various Arts; forming an Encyclopædia of Christian Art of the 11th Century. Translated with Notes, by Robert Hendrie. 8vo. 21s.

THORNTON’S (Wm. T.) Plea for Peasant Proprietors; with the Outlines of a Plan for their Establishment in Ireland. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

THREE-LEAVED MANUAL OF FAMILY PRAYER; arranged so as to save the trouble of turning the Pages backwards and forwards. Royal 8vo. 2s.

THRESHOLD (The) OF LIFE. A Series of Letters addressed to a Son on his Entrance into the World. Fcap. 8vo. In the Press.

TICKNOR’S (George) History of Spanish Literature. With Criticisms on particular Works, and Biographical Notices of Prominent Writers. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42s.

TREMENHEERE’S (H. S.) Political Experience of the Ancients, in its bearing on Modern Times. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— Notes on Public Subjects, made during a Tour in the United States and Canada. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d.

—— Constitution of the United States compared with our own. Post 8vo. 9s. 6d.

TURNBULL’S (P. E.) Narrative of Travels in Austria, with Remarks on its Social and Political Condition. 2 Vols. 8vo. 24s.

TWISS’ (Horace) Public and Private Life of Lord Chancellor Eldon, with Selections from his Correspondence. Portrait. Third Edition. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21s.

VAUGHAN’S (Rev. Dr.) Sermons on Various Occasions. 8vo. 12s. 6d.

—— Sermons preached in Harrow School. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

—— Nine New Sermons. 12mo. 5s.

VAUX’S (W. S. W.) Handbook to the Antiquities in the British Museum; being a Description of the Remains of Greek, Assyrian. Egyptian, and Etruscan Art preserved there. With 300 Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.

VENABLES’ (Rev. R. L.) Domestic Manners of the Russians. Described from a Year’s Residence in that Country. Post 8vo. 9s. 6d.

VOYAGE to the Mauritius and back, touching at the Cape of Good Hope, and St. Helena. By Author of “Paddiana.” Post 8vo. 9s. 6d.

WAAGEN’S (Dr.) Treasures of Art in Great Britain. Being an Account of the Chief Collections of Paintings, Sculpture, Manuscripts, Miniatures, &c. &c., in this Country. Obtained from Personal Inspection during Visits to England. 3 Vols. 8vo.

WAKEFIELD’S (E. J.) Adventures in New Zealand, 1839–1844. With some Account of the Beginning of the British Colonisation of the Island. Map. 2 Vols. 8vo. 28s.

WALKS AND TALKS. A Story-book for Young Children. By Aunt Ida. With Woodcuts. 16mo. 5s.

WARD’S (Robert Plumer) Memoir, Correspondence, Literary and Unpublished Diaries and Remains. By the Hon. Edmund Phipps. Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo. 28s.

WATT (James); an Historical Eloge. By M. Arago. Translated, with Notes, by J. P. Muirhead. 8vo. 8s. 6d.; or 4to. 21s.

—— Correspondence on his Discovery of the Theory of the Composition of Water. Edited, with Notes, by J. P. Muirhead. Portrait. 8vo. 10s. 6d.; or 4to. 24s.

—— The Origin and Progress of his Inventions. Illustrated by his correspondence with his friends. Edited by J. P. Muirhead. 2 vols. 8vo. Plates, 4to. In the Press.

WELLESLEY’S (Rev. Dr.) Anthologia Polyglotta; a Selection of Versions in various Languages chiefly from the Greek Anthology. 8vo. 15s.; or 4to. 42s.

WELLINGTON (The Duke of); his Character, his Actions, and his Writings. By Jules Maurel. Second Edition with Additions. 1s. 6d.

—— His Despatches during his various Campaigns. Compiled from Official and other Authentic Documents. By Col. Gurwood, C.B. New, Enlarged Edition. 8 Vols. 8vo. 21s. each.

—— Selections from the Wellington Despatches. 8vo. 18s.

—— Speeches in Parliament. Collected and Arranged with his sanction. 2 Vols. 42s.

WILBERFORCE’S (Archdeacon) Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ in its relation to Mankind. Fourth Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6s.

—— Doctrine of Holy Baptism, with Remarks upon the Rev. W. Goode’s Effects of Infant Baptism. Third Edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

—— Sermons on the New Birth of Man’s Nature. 8vo. 8s.

—— History of Erastianism. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 3s.

WILKIE’S (Sir David) Life, Journals, Tours, and Critical Remarks on Works of Art, with a Selection from his Correspondence. By Allan Cunningham. Portrait. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42s.

WILKINSON’S (Sir J. G.) Popular Account of the Private Life, Manners, and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. With 500 Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 12s.

—— Dalmatia and Montenegro; with a Journey to Mostar in Hertzegovina, and Remarks on the Slavonic Nations. Plates and Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 42s.

—— Handbook for Egypt.—Thebes, the Nile, Alexandria, Cairo, the Pyramids, Mount Sinai, &c. Map. Post 8vo. 15s.

—— (Matthew, D.D.) School Sermons, preached in the Chapel of Marlborough College. 8vo. 9s.

—— (G. B.) Working Man’s Handbook to South Australia; with Advice to the Farmer, and Detailed Information for the several Classes of Labourers and Artisans. Map. 18mo. 1s. 6d.

WOOD’S (Lieut.) Voyage up the Indus to the Source of the River Oxus, by Kabul and Badakhshan. Map. 8vo. 14s.

WORDSWORTH’S (Rev. Dr.) Athens and Attica. New Edition. Plates. Post 8vo. In the Press.

—— Fac-Similes of Ancient Writings on the Walls of Pompeii. Second Edition. 8vo. 2s. 6d.

—— King Edward VIth’s Latin Grammar, for the Use of Schools. Seventh Edition, revised. 12mo. 3s. 6d.

—— Accidence, for the Use of Junior Classes. 12mo. 2s.

WORSAAE’S (J. J. A.) Account of the Danes and Northmen in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Woodcuts. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

YOUNG’S (Dr. Thos.) Miscellaneous Works, now first collected and edited, with a Memoir of his Life. 4 Vols. 8vo. In the Press.

BRADBURY AND EVANS, PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

Page | Changed from | Changed to
34 | elect have nothing to do, in order to an interest | elect have nothing to do, in order to have an interest
171 | or φενώλιον: the old brasses in England | or φινώλιον: the old brasses in England
299 | adherence to the right of baptism with trine | adherence to the rite of baptism with trine
475 | bishop, expelled the Church. After this | bishop, expelled from the Church. After this
537 | most part of the things related in it fell out | the most part of the things related in it fell out
572 | priest’s right between both their hands | priest’s right hand between both their hands
592 | side the Alps began to go to Rome, to | side of the Alps began to go to Rome, to
647 | the said churches as he or they should | of the said churches as he or they should
649 | daily attending and dwelling in any their | daily attending and dwelling in any of their

- Moved “WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR” to the beginning of the advertising section at the back.

- Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.

- Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last chapter.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A CHURCH DICTIONARY ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

- A CHURCH DICTIONARY.

- PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.

- PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION.

- A CHURCH DICTIONARY.

- THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE