A Church Dictionary | Project Gutenberg (2025)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 74523 ***

The Church Dictionary, of which the Sixth Edition is now published, appearedoriginally in the shape of monthly tracts, intended by the writer to explainto his parishioners the more important doctrines of the Church, and thefundamental verities of our religion. The title of Church Dictionary wasadopted from a work published with a similar object in America, by the Rev.Mr. Staunton; and the work itself assumed the character of short dissertationson those theological terms and ecclesiastical practices, which were misrepresentedor misunderstood by persons who had received an education externalto the Church.

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

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

But as this publication has no pretensions beyond those of an elementarywork, it has been thought, for the most part, sufficient only to refer to secondaryauthorities, such as Bingham, Comber, Wheatly, Palmer, &c., inwhose learned works the reader, who wishes to investigate any subject morethoroughly, will find the further references which he may require.

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

It was found impossible, within the limits prescribed, to act upon anothersuggestion, and to introduce the biographies of our great divines. This, therefore,has been done in a separate publication, entitled “An EcclesiasticalBiography.”[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, ofGray’s Inn, Esq., barrister-at-law.

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

The original dissertations remain unaltered; but the circumstances of theChurch of England have changed considerably from what they were when theChurch Dictionary was first published. At that time the Protestantism ofthe Church of England was universally recognised, and the fear was lest herpretensions to Catholicity should be ignored. But now an affectation of repudiatingour Protestantism is prevalent, while by ignorant or designing menProtestantism is misrepresented as the antithesis, not, as is the case, to Romanism,but to Catholicism; at the same time, Catholicism is confounded withRomanism, primitive truth with mediæval error, and the theology of theSchools with that of the Fathers: while, therefore, the articles bearing on thecatholicity, orthodoxy, and primitive character of the Church of England areretained, the articles relating to the heresies and peculiarities of the Churchof Rome have been expanded; and strong as they were in former editions incondemnation of the papal system, they have been rendered more useful, underthe present exigencies of the Church, by a reference to the decisions of theso-called Council of Trent, so as to enable the reader to see what the peculiartenets 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 theRev. James Craigie Robertson, M. A.;[2] the Ritual articles, by the Rev. JohnJebb, 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’sedition of the Book of Common Prayer, and to his other learned works,and to Mr. Robins’s excellent treatise entitled “Evidences of Scripture againstthe Claims of the Romish Church,” reference is frequently made. Authoritieshave been fully given, except when articles have been taken with only slightalterations from Broughton or Bingham, or translated from Suicer.

July, 1854.

ABACUS. The upper member of acapital. (See Capital.)

In semi-Norman and early English architecture,the abacus of engaged shafts isfrequently returned along the walls, in acontinued horizontal string: perhaps thelast lingering recognition of the effect of thecapital in representing that horizontal line,which was so decided in the classic architrave,and to which the spirit of Gothicarchitecture is in the main so greatly opposed.

ABBA. A Syriac word signifying Father,and expressive of attachment andconfidence. St. Paul says, Ye have receivedthe Spirit of adoption, whereby we cryAbba, Father. (Rom. viii. 15; comp. Gal.iv. 6.) The word is derived from the HebrewAb: and, if we may ascend still higher,that word itself (as many others which occurin that language) proceeds from thevoice of nature; being one of the mostobvious sounds, to express one of the firstand most obvious ideas.

ABBÉ. The designation assumed inFrance, before the Revolution, by certainpersons, who, whether in the higher ordersof the ministry or not, ostensibly devotedthemselves to theological studies, in thehope that the king would confer upon thema real abbey, i.e. a certain portion of therevenues of a real abbey. Hence it becamethe common title of unemployed secularpriests. In Italy the word Abate wassimilarly used, to designate one who merelyadopted the clerical habit. [Vocabolariodella Crusca.]

ABBEY. The habitation of a societydevoted to religion. It signifies a monastery,of which the head was an Abbot orAbbess. (See Abbot.) Of cathedral abbeysthe bishop was considered to be virtuallythe abbot: and therefore the PresbyteralSuperior of these establishmentswas styled Prior. The abbey of Ely wasconstituted a cathedral in 1109: when theAbbot Harvey was made bishop. Theabbacy was henceforward united to thebishopric: and therefore it is that thebishops of Ely still occupy the first stall onthe right side of the choir, usually assignedto the dean: the dean’s stall being thefirst on the left side, formerly occupied bythe prior. (See Monasteries.)

Cranmer begged earnestly of HenryVIII. that he would save some of the abbeys,to be reformed and applied to holyand religious uses, but his petition, andthe exertions of Latimer for the same purpose,were in vain. For the arrangementof the several buildings of an abbey, seeCathedral and Monastery.

ABBOT. The Father or Superior ofan abbey of monks, or male persons, livingunder peculiar religious vows. The wordabbot comes, through the late Latin abbas,from the Syriac abba—father. (See Abba.)The word Father, in its various forms ofPapa, Abbas, Padre, Père, &c., has in allcountries and all ages of Christianity beenapplied as a title of respect to the superiorclergy and priesthood. In some parts ofthe East and in Ireland, this term, abbasor abbat, was frequently confounded withthat of bishop, from the fact of the abbotsbeing in the early times bishops also.

Among the abbeys in England before thedissolution, were some which gave the titleof Mitred Abbot [or Abbots general, or sovereign]to the superiors of them. These mitredabbots sat and voted in the House of Lords.They held of the king in capite per baroniam,their endowments being at least anentire barony, which consisted of thirteenknights’ fees. The following are the abbeyswhich conferred this distinction ontheir abbots: St. Alban’s, Glastonbury, St.Peter’s, Westminster; St. Edmondsbury,2St. 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 whichwas added, not long before the Reformation,Tavistock. All mitred abbots wereof the Benedictine order, except those ofWaltham and Cirencester, who were Augustinians.This fact Fuller has overlooked.(See Dugdale’s Monasticon.)

But it is to be observed, that there weretwo other lords of parliament, heads of religioushouses, who were not abbots: (1.)The prior of St. John’s of Jerusalem, ofthe Knights Hospitallers in England. Heranked before the mitred abbots, and wasconsidered the first baron in England. (2.)The prior of Coventry; a solitary instancein England of the presbyteral head of acathedral being a spiritual peer. Of theabbots, the abbot of Glastonbury had theprecedence, till A. D. 1154, when PopeAdrian VII., an Englishman, from the affectionhe entertained for the place of hiseducation, assigned this precedence to theabbot of St. Alban’s. In consequence, Glastonburyranked next after him, and Readinghad the third place.

According to the ancient laws of Christendom,confirmed by general councils, allheads of monasteries, whether abbots orpriors, owed canonical obedience to theirdiocesan. And the same law subsisted tillthe Reformation, wherever special exemptionshad not been granted, which, however,were numerous. Cowell, as quotedby Johnson in his Dictionary, (voce Abbot,)erroneously says that the mitred abbotswere exempted from episcopal jurisdiction,but that the other sorts (i. e. the non-mitred)were subject to their diocesans. Thetruth is, that the former endeavoured aftertheir own aggrandizement in every possibleway, but had no inherent right of exemptionfrom the fact of their being lordsof parliament, or being invested with themitre. Thus it appears from Dugd. Monast.that Gloucester, Winchcomb, andTewkesbury were subject to the visitationand jurisdiction of the bishop of Worcester,till the Reformation; Croyland, Peterborough,Bardney, and Ramsey to thebishop of Lincoln; St. Mary in York, andSelby, to the archbishop of York, and Coventryto the bishop of Lichfield. The abbots,unless specially exempted, took the oathof canonical obedience to their diocesan, andafter election, were confirmed by him, andreceived his benediction. [Fuller, Collier,Willis’s Mitred Abbeys.] In Ireland theabbots 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 ofthe Cistercian order, except the abbot ofSt. Thomas, who was of St. Victor. Theother parliamentary lords, heads of religioushouses, were the cathedral priorsof Christ Church, Dublin, and of Downpatrick;the priors of Allhallows, Dublin;Conall, Kells, (in Kilkenny,) Louth, Athassel,Killagh, Newton, and Rathboy. Allthese were of the Augustinian order, exceptthe prior of Down, who was a Benedictine,the preceptor of the KnightsHospitallers at Wexford, and the prior ofthe Knights Hospitallers at Kilmainham.(See Monks.)

ABBESS. The Mother or Superior of anabbey of nuns, or female persons living underpeculiar religious vows and discipline.

ABECEDARIAN HYMNS. Hymnscomposed in imitation of the acrostic poetryof the Hebrews, in which each verse, oreach part, commenced with the first andsucceeding letters of the alphabet, in theirorder. This arrangement was intended asa help to the memory. St. Augustinecomposed a hymn in this manner, for thecommon people to learn, against the errorof the Donatists. (See Acrostics.)

ABEYANCE, from the French bayer,to expect, is that which is in expectation,remembrance, and intendment of law. Bya principle of law, in every land there is afee simple in some body, or else it is inabeyance; that is, though for the presentit be in no man, yet it is in expectancybelonging to him that is next to enjoy theland.—Inst.

Thus if a man be patron of a church,and presenteth a clerk to the same; thefee of the lands and tenements pertainingto the rectory is in the parson; but if theparson die, and the church becometh void,then is the fee in abeyance, until there bea new parson presented, admitted, andinducted. For the frank tenement of theglebe of a parsonage, during the time theparsonage is void, is in no man; but inabeyance or expectation, belonging to himwho is next to enjoy it.—Terms of the Law.

ABJURATION. A solemn renunciationin public, or before a proper officer,of some doctrinal error. A formal abjurationis often considered necessary by theChurch, when any person seeks to be receivedinto her communion from heresy or3schism. A form for admitting Romish recusantsinto the Church of England wasdrawn up by one of the Houses of Convocationof 1714, but did not receive theroyal sanction. It is as follows:

A Form for admitting Converts from theChurch of Rome, and such as shall renouncetheir errors.

The bishop, or some priests appointedby him for that purpose, being at the communiontable, and the person to be reconciledstanding without the rails, thebishop, or such priest as is appointed, shallspeak to the congregation as followeth:

Dearly beloved,

We are here met together for the reconcilingof a penitent (lately of the Churchof Rome, or lately of the separation) tothe Established Church of England, as toa true and sound part of Christ’s holyCatholic Church. Now, that this weightyaffair may have its due effect, let us in thefirst place humbly and devoutly pray toAlmighty God for his blessing upon us inthat pious and charitable office we are goingabout.

Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doingswith thy most gracious favour, and furtherus with thy continual help, that in thisand all other our works, begun, continued,and ended in thee, we may glorify thyholy name, and finally by thy mercy obtaineverlasting life, through Jesus Christ ourLord.

Almighty God, who showest to themthat be in error the light of thy truth, tothe intent that they may return into theway of righteousness; grant unto all themthat are or shall be admitted into thefellowship of Christ’s religion, that theymay eschew those things that are contraryto their profession, and follow all suchthings as are agreeable to the same, throughour Lord Jesus Christ.

Psalm cxix. 161.

Let my complaint come before thee, OLord; give me understanding accordingto thy word.

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

My lips shall speak of thy praise, whenthou 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 havechosen thy commandments.

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

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

I have gone astray, like a sheep that islost; O seek thy servant, for I do not forgetthy 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 publicansand sinners for to hear him. And thePharisees and Scribes murmured, saying,This man receiveth sinners, and eateth withthem. And he spake this parable untothem, saying, What man of you having anhundred sheep, if he lose one of them,doth not leave the ninety and nine in thewilderness, and go after that which is lost,until he find it? and when he hath foundit, he layeth it on his shoulders rejoicing;and when he cometh home, he calleth togetherhis friends and his neighbours, sayingunto them, Rejoice with me, for I havefound my sheep which was lost. I sayunto you, that likewise joy shall be in heavenover one sinner that repenteth, morethan over ninety and nine just personswhich need no repentance.

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

Psalm cxv. to ver. 10.

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

Wherefore shall the heathen say: Whereis now their God?

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

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

They have mouths, and speak not; eyeshave they, and see not; they have ears,and hear not; noses have they, and smellnot; they have hands, and handle not;feet have they, and walk not; neitherspeak they through their throat.

They that make them are like untothem, and so are all such as put theirtrust in them.

But thou, house of Israel, trust thou inthe 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, Wewill go into the house of the Lord.

Our feet shall stand in thy gates, OJerusalem.

Jerusalem is built as a city that is atunity in itself.

4For thither the tribes go up, even thetribes of the Lord, to testify unto Israel,to give thanks unto the name of the Lord.

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

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

Peace be within thy walls, and plenteousnesswithin thy palaces.

For my brethren and companions’ sakeI wish thee prosperity.

Yea, because of the house of the Lordour 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 thepriest standing, shall speak to the penitent,who is to be kneeling, as follows:

Dear brother, or sister,

I have good hope that you have wellweighed and considered with yourself thegreat work you are come about, before thistime; but inasmuch as with the heart manbelieveth unto righteousness, and with themouth confession is made unto salvation,that you may give the more honour toGod, and that this present congregationof Christ here assembled may also understandyour mind and will in these things,and that this your declaration may themore confirm you in your good resolutions,you shall answer plainly to thesequestions, which we in the name of Godand of his Church shall propose to youtouching the same:

Art thou thoroughly persuaded thatthose books of the Old and the New Testament,which are received as canonicalscriptures by this Church, contain sufficientlyall doctrine requisite and necessaryto eternal salvation through faith in JesusChrist?

Answer. I am so persuaded.

Dost thou believe in God the FatherAlmighty, Maker of heaven and earth, andin Jesus Christ, his only begotten Sonour Lord, and that he was conceived ofthe Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, wascrucified, dead, and buried, that he wentdown into hell, and also did rise again thethird day, that he ascended into heaven,and sitteth at the right hand of God theFather Almighty, and from thence shallcome again, at the end of the world, tojudge the quick and the dead?

And dost thou believe in the HolyGhost, the holy Catholic Church, the communionof saints, the remission of sins, theresurrection of the flesh, and everlastinglife after death?

Answer. All this I stedfastly believe.

Art thou truly sorrowful that thou hastnot followed the way prescribed in theseScriptures for the directing of the faithand practice of a true disciple of ChristJesus?

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

Dost thou embrace the truth of the gospelin the love of it, and stedfastly resolveto live godly, righteously, and soberly inthis present world all the days of thy life?

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

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

Answer. This I earnestly desire.

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

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

Answer. I do from my heart renouncethem all.

If the penitent from the Church of Romebe in holy orders, let these further questionsbe asked:

Dost thou in particular renounce thetwelve last articles added in the confession,commonly called “the Creed of Pope PiusIV.,” after having read them, and duly consideredthem?

Answer. I do upon mature deliberationreject them all, as grounded upon no warrantof Scripture, but rather repugnant tothe word of God.

Dost thou acknowledge the supremacyof the kings and queens of this realm, asby law established, and declared in thethirty-seventh article of religion?

Answer. I do sincerely acknowledge it.

Wilt thou then give thy faithful diligencealways so to minister the doctrineand sacraments, and the discipline ofChrist, as the Lord hath commanded,and as this Church and realm hath receivedthe same, according to the commandmentsof God, so that thou mayestteach the people with all diligence to keepand observe the same?

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

Wilt thou conform thyself to the liturgyof the Church of England, as by lawestablished?

Answer. I will.

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

5Dost thou allow and approve of theorders of bishops, priests, and deacons [aswhat have been in the Church of Christfrom the time of the apostles]; and wiltthou, as much as in thee lieth, promote alldue regard to the same good order andgovernment of the Church of Christ?

[Note. That within the crotchets is to beused only when the penitent hath beena teacher in some separate congregation.]

Answer. I do approve it, and will endeavourthat it may be so regarded, asmuch as in me lieth.

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

Answer. I will do so by the help ofGod.

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

Art thou heartily sorry, that when thouwast in the way of truth, thou didst so littlewatch over thy own heart, as to sufferthyself to be led away with the shows ofvain doctrine? and dost thou stedfastlypurpose 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 myformer unstedfastness, and am fully determinedby God’s grace to walk more circumspectlyfor the time to come, and to continuein this my profession to my life’s end.

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

Almighty God, who hath given you asense of your errors, and a will to do allthese things, grant also unto you strengthand power to perform the same, that hemay accomplish his work, which he hath begunin you, through Jesus Christ. Amen.

The Absolution.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father,who of his great mercy hath promised forgivenessof sins to all them that with heartyrepentance and true faith turn unto him,have mercy upon you, pardon and deliveryou from all your sins, confirm andstrengthen you in all goodness, and bringyou to everlasting life, through JesusChrist our Lord. Amen.

Then the bishop, or priest, taking thepenitent by the right hand, shall say untohim:

I N., bishop of ——, or I A. B., do uponthis thy solemn profession and earnest requestreceive thee into the holy communionof the Church of England, in thename of the Father, and of the Son, andof the Holy Ghost.

People: Amen.

Then the bishop, or priest, shall say theLord’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 andmagnify thy holy name for thy great mercyand goodness in bringing this thy servantinto the communion of this Church: givehim (or her) we beseech thee, stabilityand perseverance in that faith of which he(or she) hath in the presence of God andof this congregation witnessed a goodconfession. Suffer him (or her) not to bemoved from it by any temptations of Satan,enticements of the world, the scoffs ofirreligious men, or the revilings of thosewho are still in error; but guard him (orher) by thy grace against all these snares,and make him (or her) instrumental inturning others from the errors of theirways, to the saving of their souls fromdeath, and the covering a multitude ofsins. And in thy good time, O Lord,bring, we pray thee, into the way of truthall such as have erred and are deceived;and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, tothy flock, that there may be one fold underone Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ;to whom with the Father and the HolySpirit be all honour and glory, worldwithout 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 goodnessof God proceeded thus far, I must putyou in mind, that you take care to go onin that good way into which you are entered;and for your establishment andfurtherance therein, that, if you have notbeen confirmed, you endeavour to be sothe next opportunity, and receive the holysacrament of the Lord’s supper. Andmay God’s Holy Spirit ever be with you.Amen.

The peace of God, which passeth allunderstanding, keep your heart and mindby Christ Jesus. Amen.—Cardwell’sSynodalia. Wilkins’s Concilia.

ABSOLUTION. (See Confession, Penance.)The power of absolution consistsin removing the guilt and punishment ofsin, and receiving the guilty person intofavour, as if he were perfectly innocent.This is variously expressed in holy Scripture.6It is sometimes made the same withjustification, which is the acquitting aperson from guilt, and looking upon himas perfectly righteous. It is opposed tocondemnation, which is a laying of sin tohis charge. This power is expressed byremitting or retaining of sin, which is thepardoning or punishing of it. It is calledsometimes the power of opening and shuttingthe kingdom of heaven, which is byadmitting into, or excluding out of, theChurch; for none can be received into thekingdom of glory hereafter but such asare admitted into the church or kingdomof grace here: called therefore the powerof the keys. It is called in St. Matthewthe power of binding and loosing, (xvi. 19,)“Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth,” &c.Sinners are said to be “tied and bound withthe chain of their sins,” to be “holdenwith cords,” and to be “in the bond ofiniquity.” Now to loosen this bond, tountie those cords, and so be freed fromthese chains, is done by what we call thepower of absolution, or remission of sins:and so the words of St. Matthew are thesame in effect with those of St. John,“Whose soever sins ye remit,” &c. Thispower of pardoning is annexed to someacts of religion, instituted by God for thispurpose, and executed only by Christ’sministers. As, 1. Baptism was ordainedfor the remission of sins; so St. Peter toldhis converts, (Acts ii. 38,) “Repent, andbe baptized, every one of you,” &c. 2. Theholy sacrament of the eucharist was institutedfor this purpose: as we read, Matt.xxvi. 28, where Christ’s body is said tobe broken, and “his blood shed for manyfor the remission of sins.” 3. The preachingthe word is for the proclaiming ofpardon, called therefore the ministry, orword, of reconciliation. (2 Cor. v. 18.)4. The prayer of the elders over the sickhath joined to it the forgiveness of sins.(Jas. v. 14.) Now these ministerial actsfor the “remission of sins,” are peculiaronly to the “priest’s office:” neither is thevirtue or effect of them to be imparted toany other; for to them it is said, and tono other, “whose sins ye remit,” &c.; andtherefore a pardon pronounced by themmust be of greater efficacy than by anyordinary person.—Hole.

The authority and power of conferringabsolution on penitents, wherewith ourgracious Saviour hath so clearly vestedhis ministerial successors, “whose soeversins ye remit,” &c., having been abusedby the Church of Rome into a lucrativemarket of pardons and indulgences, it isno wonder that Luther, and all our firstreformers, should have taken infinite offenceat a practice so flagitious, and sodirectly contrary to the command ofChrist, “freely ye have received, freelygive.” This, however, should not havebeen a reason, as it was with too many,for rejecting all absolutions. The truedoctrine is, and must be, this: For theconsolation of his Church, and particularlyof such as class with the penitent publicanin the gospel, Christ hath left with hisbishops and presbyters a power to pronounceabsolution. This absolution is oncondition of faith and repentance in theperson or persons receiving it. On sufficientappearance of these, and on confessionmade with these appearances in particularpersons, the bishop or presbyter,as the messenger of Christ, is to pronounceit. But he cannot search theheart; God only, who can, confirms it.The power of absolution is remarkablyexercised by St. Paul, though absent, anddepending on both report and the informationof the Holy Spirit, in regard tothe Corinthian excommunicated for incest.The apostle, speaking in the character ofone to whom the authority of absolutionhad been committed, saith to the Church ofCorinth, “to whom ye forgave anything,I forgive also.” (2 Cor. ii. 10.) Thus thepenitent was pardoned and restored tocommunion by delegated authority, in theperson of Christ, lest such an one shouldbe swallowed up with over-much sorrow,and lest Satan should get an advantageover us. As these reasons for compassionstill remain, it seems evident that theChurch should still retain the same powerof showing that compassion, as far as humanunderstanding may direct its application.—Skelton.

Sacerdotal absolution does not necessarilyrequire any particular or auricularconfession of private sins; forasmuch asthat the grand absolution of baptism wascommonly given without any particularconfession. And therefore the Romanistsvainly found the necessity of auricular confessionupon those words of our Saviour,Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remittedunto them: as if there could be no absolutionwithout particular confession; whenit is so plain, that the great absolution ofbaptism (the power of which is foundedby the ancients upon this very place) requiredno such particular confession. Wemay hence infer, that the power of anysacerdotal absolution is only ministerial;because the administration of baptism,(which is the most universal absolution,)so far as man is concerned in it, is no7more than ministerial. All the office andpower of man in it is only to minister theexternal form, but the internal power andgrace 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 wholeChristian Church have ever used to absolveall that truly repented, and at this day itis retained in our Church as a part of thedaily office; which being so useful, sonecessary, and founded on holy Scripture,needs not any arguments to defend it, butthat the ignorance and prejudice of somemake them take offence at it, and principallybecause it hath been so muchabused by the Papal Church. We maydeclare our abhorrency of these evil usesof absolution; though in that sober, moderate,and useful manner we do performit, we do not vary from the prime intentionof Christ’s commission, and the practiceof antiquity: absolution was instituted byJesus, and if it have been corrupted bymen, 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 thesoul by its guilt and power, and hinders itfrom free converse with God, yea, makesit liable to eternal condemnation: but Jesuscame to unloose these bonds, and actuallydid so to divers, when he was uponearth, and left this power to his apostlesand their successors, when he went toheaven; and this unloosing men from thebond of their sins is that which we properlycall absolution, and it is a necessaryand most comfortable part of the priest’soffice. But the sectaries do wholly disownthis power, and are so bold as to derideus for the use thereof: yet it is certainthat Christ did give his disciples thepower of binding and loosing, (Matt. xvi.19; xviii. 18,) or, as it is elsewhere called,of remitting sins, (John xx. 22, 23,) frequentlyrepeating this commission, andsolemnly promising to ratify in heavenwhat they did on earth. It is plain also,that the apostles exercised this power,(Acts ii. 38; 2 Cor. ii. 10,) and gave theirsuccessors a charge to use it also (Gal. vi.1; James v. 14, 15); and the primitivehistories do abundantly testify they did sovery often; so that they must cancel allthose lines of Scripture, and records ofantiquity also, before they can take awaythis power. Nor can they fairly pretendit was a personal privilege dying with theapostles, since the Church hath used itever since, and penitents need a comfortableapplication of their pardon now, aswell as they did then: and whereas theyobject with the Jews, that “none can forgivesins but God only,” (Luke v. 21,) wereply, that God alone can exercise thispower in his own right, but he may andhath communicated it to others, who didit 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 towhom he hath granted the power of absolution.”—Comber.

Calvin’s liturgy has no form of absolutionin it: but he himself says that it was anomission in him at first, and a defect in hisliturgy; which he afterwards would haverectified and amended, but could not. Hemakes this ingenuous confession in one ofhis epistles: “There is none of us,” sayshe, “but must acknowledge it to be veryuseful, that, after the general confession,some remarkable promise of Scriptureshould follow, whereby sinners might beraised to the hopes of pardon and reconciliation.And I would have introducedthis custom from the beginning, but somefearing that the novelty of it would giveoffence, I was over-easy in yielding tothem; so the thing was omitted.” I mustdo that justice to Calvin here, by the way,to say, that he was no enemy to privateabsolution neither, as used in the Churchof England. For in one of his answers toWestphalus he thus expresses his mindabout it: “I have no intent to deny theusefulness of private absolution: but as Icommend it in several places of my writings,provided the use be left to men’sliberty, and free from superstition, so tobind men’s consciences by a law to it, isneither lawful nor expedient.” Here wehave Calvin’s judgment, fully and entirely,for the usefulness both of public andprivate absolution. He owns it to be adefect in his liturgy, that it wants a publicabsolution.—Bingham.

Calvin’s own account of his facilitymerits attention. In his character, flexibilityof disposition appears to be a lineamenteither so faint, or so obscured bymore prominent features of a differentcast, that it has generally escaped vulgarobservation. His panegyrist, the learnedtranslator of Mosheim’s Eccles. Hist., [Maclaine,]describes him as surpassing most ofthe reformers “in obstinacy, asperity, andturbulence.”—Shepherd.

This penitence our Church makes nota new sacrament, (as doth the Church ofRome,) but a means of returning to thegrace of God bestowed in baptism. “Theywhich in act or deed sin after baptism,8(saith our homily,) when they turn to Godunfeignedly, they are likewise washed bythis sacrifice from their sins.”—Puller.

If our confession be serious and hearty,this absolution is as effectual as if God didpronounce it from heaven. So says theConfession of Saxony and Bohemia, andso says the Augustan Confession; and,which is more, so says St. Chrysostom inhis fifth homily upon Isaiah, “Heavenwaits and expects the priest’s sentencehere on earth; the Lord follows the servant,and what the servant rightly bindsor looses here on earth, that the Lordconfirms 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 onearth, in his name and stead to retain orremit sins.” St. Augustine and Cyprian,and generally all antiquity, say the same;so does our Church in many places, particularlyin the form of absolution for thesick; but, above all, holy Scripture isclear, (St. John xx. 23,) “Whose soeversins ye remit, they are remitted untothem.” Which power of remitting sinswas not to end with the apostles, but is apart of the ministry of reconciliation, asnecessary now as it was then, and thereforeto continue as long as the ministry ofreconciliation; that is, to the end of theworld. (Eph. iv. 12, 13.) When thereforethe priest absolves, God absolves, ifwe be truly penitent. Now, this remissionof sins granted here to the priest, towhich God hath promised a confirmationin heaven, is not the act of preaching, orbaptizing, or admitting men to the holycommunion. But this power of remittingsins, mentioned John xx., was not granted(though promised, Matt. xvi. 19) till now,that is, after the resurrection, as appearsby the ceremony of breathing, signifyingthat then it was given: and secondly, bythe word receive, used in that place, (ver.22,) which he could not properly haveused, if they had been endued with thispower before. Therefore the power ofremitting, which here God authorizes, andpromises certain assistance to, is neitherpreaching nor baptizing, but some otherway of remitting, viz. that which theChurch calls absolution. And if it be so,then, to doubt of the effect of it, (supposingwe be truly penitent, and such as Godwill pardon,) is to question the truth ofGod: and he that, under pretence ofreverence to God, denies or despises thispower, does injury to God, slighting hiscommission, and is no better than a Novatian,says St. Ambrose.—Sparrow.

Our Church has not appointed theindicative form of absolution to be usedin all these senses, but only once in theoffice of the sick, and that may reasonablybe interpreted, (according to the accountgiven out of St. Jerome,) a declaration ofthe sinner’s pardon, upon the apparentevidences of a sincere repentance, and thebest judgment the minister can make ofhis condition; beyond which none can go,but the searcher of hearts, to whom alonebelongs the infallible and irreversible sentenceof absolution. The indicative form,“I absolve thee,” may be interpreted tomean no more than a declaration of God’swill to a penitent sinner, that, upon thebest judgment the priest can make of hisrepentance, he esteems him absolved beforeGod, and accordingly pronounces and declareshim absolved. As St. Jerome observes,the priests under the old law weresaid to cleanse a leper, or pollute him; notthat they were the authors of his pollution,but that they declared him to be polluted,who before seemed to many to have beenclean. As, therefore, the priest makes theleper clean or unclean, so the bishop orpresbyter here binds or looses, not properlymaking the guilty or the guiltless;but according to the tenor of his office,when he hears the distinction of sins, heknows who is to be bound, and who is tobe loosed. Upon this also, the master ofthe sentences (following St. Jerome) observes,that the priests of the gospel havethat right and office which the legal priestshad of old under the law in curing thelepers. These, therefore, forgive sins, orretain them, whilst they show and declarethat they are forgiven or retained by God.For the priests “put the name of theLord” upon the children of Israel, but itwas he himself that blessed them, as it isread in Num. vi. 27.—Bingham.

Our Church maintains, appealing toScripture for the proof of it, that somepower of absolving or remitting sins, derivedfrom the apostles, remains with theirsuccessors in the ministry; and accordingly,at the ordination of priests, the words ofour Saviour, on which the power is founded,are solemnly repeated to them by thebishop, and the power at the same timeconferred. We do not pretend it is in anysort a discretionary power of forgivingsins, for the priest has no discernment ofthe spirit and hearts of men, as the apostleshad, but a power of pronouncing authoritatively,in the name of God, who hascommitted to the priest the ministry ofreconciliation, his pardon and forgivenessto all true penitents and sincere believers.9That God alone can forgive sins, that heis the sole author of all blessings, spiritualas well as temporal, is undeniable: butthat he can declare his gracious assuranceof pardon, and convey his blessings to us,by what means and instruments he thinksfit, is no less certain. In whatever wayhe vouchsafes to do it, it is our duty humblyand thankfully to receive them; notto dispute his wisdom in the choice ofthose means and instruments; for, in thatcase, he that despiseth, despiseth not man,but God.—Waldo.

The following remarks on our forms ofabsolution occur in “Palmer’s OriginesLiturgicæ.”

“An absolution followed the confessionformerly in the offices of the Englishchurches, for prime, or the first hour ofthe day. We may, perhaps, assign to theabsolution thus placed, an antiquity equalto that of the confession, though GemmaAnimæ and Durandus do not appear expresslyto mention it. The sacerdotalbenediction of penitents was in the earliesttimes conveyed in the form of a prayer toGod for their absolution; but, in afterages, different forms of benediction wereused, both in the East and West. Withregard to these varieties of form, it doesnot appear that they were formerly consideredof any importance. A benedictionseems to have been regarded as equallyvalid, whether it was conveyed in theform of a petition or a declaration, whetherin 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 toGod is a most ancient form of blessing;but the use of a precatory, or an optativeform, by no means warrants the inference,that the person who uses it is devoid ofany divinely instituted authority to blessand absolve in the congregation of God.Neither does the use of a direct indicativeform of blessing or absolution imply anythingbut the exercise of an authoritywhich God has given, to such an extent,and under such limitations, as Divine revelationhas declared.”

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

The Absolution in the Order for Morningand Evening Prayer was first insertedin the Second Book of King Edward VI.It can be pronounced by the priest only oralone. At the last review the word Ministerin the rubric preceding the absolution,was changed into Priest: this change beingobviously adopted from the ScotchPrayer Book in Charles I.’s time, wherethe word in the same place is Presbyter.The other two absolutions are coeval withour reformed Prayer Book. The ministerialabsolution of persons unquiet in conscience,before receiving the holy communion,is mentioned in the first exhortationon giving notice of the communion; andthe absolution of excommunicated personsin the 65th Canon.

ABSTINENCE. (See Fasting.) In theRomish Church, fasting and abstinenceadmit of a distinction, and different daysare appointed for each of them. On theirdays of fasting, they are allowed but onemeal in four and twenty hours; but, ondays of abstinence, provided they abstainfrom flesh, and make but a moderate meal,they are indulged in a collation at night.The times by them set apart for the firstare, all Lent, except Sundays, the Emberdays, the vigils of the more solemn feasts,and all Fridays except those that fallwithin the twelve days of Christmas, andbetween Easter and the Ascension. Theirdays of abstinence are all the Sundays inLent, St. Mark’s day, if it does not fall inEaster week, the three Rogation days, allSaturdays throughout the year, with theFridays before excepted, unless either happento be Christmas day. The reasonwhy they observe St. Mark as a day ofabstinence is, as we learn from their ownbooks, in imitation of St. Mark’s disciples,the first Christians of Alexandria, who,under this saint’s conduct, were eminentfor their great prayer, abstinence, and sobriety.They further tell us, that St. Gregorythe Great, the apostle of England,first set apart this day for abstinence andpublic prayer, as an acknowledgment ofthe Divine mercy, in putting a stop to amortality in his time at Rome.

We do not find that the Church ofEngland makes any difference betweendays of fasting and days of abstinence. Itis true, in the title of the table of Vigils,&c., she mentions fasts and days of abstinenceseparately; but when she comes toenumerate the particulars, she calls themall days of fasting or abstinence, withoutdistinguishing between the one and theother. Nor does she anywhere point outto us what food is proper for such timesor seasons, or seem to place any part ofreligion in abstaining from any particularkinds of meat. It is true, by a statute,(5 Eliz. 5,) none were allowed to eat flesh10on fish-days, (which are there declared tobe all Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdaysin the year,) without a licence firstobtained, for which they are to pay ayearly fine, (except such as are sick, whomay be licensed either by the bishop orminister,) under penalty of three pounds’forfeiture, or three months’ imprisonmentwithout bail, and of forty shillings’ forfeiturefor any master of a family that suffersor conceals it. But then this is declaredto be a mere political law, for theincrease of fishermen and mariners, andrepairing of port towns and navigation,and not for any superstition to be maintainedin the choice of meats. For, by thesame act, whosoever, by preaching, teaching,writing, &c., affirms it to be necessaryto abstain from flesh for the saving of thesoul of man, or for the service of God,otherwise than other politic laws are orbe, is to be punished as a spreader of falsenews. That is, he must suffer imprisonmenttill he produce the author; and, ifhe cannot produce him, must be punishedat the discretion of the king’s council.The sections of this act which relate toeating fish on Wednesdays, were repealedby 27 Eliz. c. 11.

With us, therefore, neither Church norState makes any difference in the kinds ofmeat; but as far as the former determinesin the matter, she seems to recommend anentire abstinence from all manner of foodtill the time of fasting be over; declaringin her homilies, that fasting (by the decreeof the six hundred and thirty fathers,assembled at the Council of Chalcedon,which was one of the four first generalcouncils, who grounded their determinationupon the sacred Scriptures, and long-continuedusage or practice both of theprophets and other godly persons, beforethe coming of Christ, and also of the apostlesand other devout men in the New Testament)is a withholding of meat, drink,and all natural food from the body, for thedetermined time of fasting.—Wheatly.

ABYSSINIA. The Abyssinian Churchwas founded early in the fourth century.Its first bishop, Frumentius, received consecrationfrom St. Athanasius, bishop ofAlexandria, and to this day the Abund ofAbyssinia is consecrated by the Alexandrianpatriarch. In the sixth century theChristians of Abyssinia fell into the heresyof the Monophysites, in which they stillremain; and they also agree with theGreek Church in denying the processionof the Holy Ghost from the Son. In thefifth, and again in the seventeenth, century,attempts were made to reduce theAbyssinian Christians to obedience to theRoman see, but the attempt in both instancesutterly failed. The number ofChristians in Abyssinia is said to amountto three millions.

ACŒMETÆ. (Ἁκοιμηταί, Watchers.)An order of monks instituted at the beginningof the fifth century at Constantinople,who were divided into three classes, whoperformed the Divine service by rotation,and so continued night and day withoutintermission.

ACEPHALI. (ἀ and κεφαλὴ, literally,without a head.) The name given to those ofthe Egyptian Eutychians, who, after PeterMagus, bishop of Alexandria, had signedthe Henoticon of Zeno, A. D. 482, formed aseparate sect. (See Henoticon.) The wordis also applied to those bishops who wereexempt from the jurisdiction of a metropolitanor patriarch.

ACOLYTH, or ACOLYTE, (ἀκολουθος,)in our old English called Collet, was aninferior church servant, who, next underthe subdeacon, waited on the priests anddeacons, and performed the meaner officesof lighting the candles, carrying the breadand wine, &c. He was allowed to wearthe cassock and surplice. In the Church ofRome it was accounted one of the minororders. In the Greek Church it is supposedto be another name for the order ofsubdeacons, according to Bingham.—Jebb.

ACROSTIC. A form of poetical compositionamong the Hebrews, composed oftwenty-two lines, or stanzas, according tothe number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet,each line or stanza beginning witheach letter in its order. Of the severalpoems of this character, there are twelvein all, in the Old Testament, viz. Psalmsxxv., xxxiv., xxxvii., cxi., cxii., cxix., cxlv.Part of Proverbs xxxi. Lament. i., ii.,iii., iv. Psalm cxix. is the most remarkablespecimen. It still retains in the Bibletranslation the name of the several lettersof the Hebrew alphabet, to mark its severaldivisions. This Psalm consists of twenty-twostanzas, (the number of the lettersof the Hebrew alphabet,) each divisionconsisting of eight couplets; the first lineof each couplet beginning with that letterof the alphabet which marks the division.Psalm xxxvii. consists of twenty-two quatrains;the first line only of each quatrainbeing acrostical. Lam. i. and ii., of twenty-twotriplets, the first line of each only beingacrostical. Lam. iii., of twenty-twotriplets also, but with every line acrostical.Lam. iv. and Psalms xxv., xxxiv., andcxv., and part of Prov. xxxi., of twenty-twocouplets, the first line only of each11being acrostical. Psalms cxi. and cxii., oftwenty-two lines each, in alphabetical order.The divisions of the Hebrew poetryinto lines, not metrical, but rhythmical andparallel in sentiment, is very much elucidatedby the alphabetical or acrosticalpoems.—Jebb.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Oneof the canonical books of the New Testament.It contains a great part of thelives of St. Peter and St. Paul, beginningat our Lord’s ascension, and continueddown to St. Paul’s arrival at Rome, afterhis appeal to Cæsar; comprehending inall about thirty years. St. Luke has beengenerally considered the author of thisbook; and his principal design in writingit was to obviate the false Acts, and falsehistories, which began to be dispersed upand down the world. The exact time ofhis writing it is not known; but it musthave been written at least two years afterSt. Paul’s arrival at Rome, because it informsus that St. Paul “dwelt two wholeyears in his own hired house.” Perhapshe wrote it while he remained with St.Paul, during the time of his imprisonment,Acts xxviii. 30.

St. Luke wrote this work in Greek; andhis language is generally purer, and moreelegant, than that of the other writers of theNew Testament. Epíphanius (Hæres. xxx.chap. 3 and 6) tells us that this book wastranslated by the Ebionites out of Greekinto Hebrew, that is, into Syriac, whichwas the common language of the Jews inPalestine; but that those heretics corruptedit with a mixture of many falsitiesand impieties, injurious to the memory ofthe apostles. St. Jerome assures us, that acertain priest of Asia added to the true,genuine Acts, the voyages of St. Pauland St. Thecla, and the story of baptizinga lion. Tertullian (de Baptismo, chap.xvii.) tells us that St. John the evangelist,having convicted this priest of varyingfrom the truth in this relation, the goodman excused himself, saying, he did itpurely out of love to St. Paul.

The Marcionites and Manichæans, becausethey were sensible that this book tooplainly condemned their errors, rejectedit out of the Canon of Scripture. (Tertull.contra Marcion, lib. 5.)

There were several spurious Acts ofThe Apostles; particularly, I. The Actsof the Apostles, supposed to be written byAbdias, the pretended bishop of Babylon,who gave out, that he was ordained bishopby the apostles themselves, when they wereupon their journey into Persia. II. TheActs of St. Peter: this book came originallyfrom the school of the Ebionites. III.The Acts of St. Paul, which is entirelylost. Eusebius, who had seen it, pronouncesit of no authority. IV. The Actsof St. John the Evangelist; a book madeuse of by the Encratites, Manichæans, andPriscillianists. V. The Acts of St. Andrew;received by the Manichæans, Encratites,and Apotactics. VI. The Acts of St.Thomas the Apostle; received particularlyby the Manichæans. VII. The Acts of St.Philip: this book the Gnostics made useof. VIII. The Acts of St. Matthias. Somehave imagined that the Jews for a longtime had concealed the original Acts of theLife and Death of St. Matthias, written inHebrew; and that a monk of the abbeyof St. Matthias at Treves, having got themout of their hands, procured them to betranslated into Latin, and published them.But the critics will not allow them to begenuine and authentic.—Cotelerius. FabriciusApocr. N. T. Tillemont, Hist. Eccles.

ADAMITES. A sect of Christian hereticswho imitated Adam’s nakedness beforehis fall, believing themselves as innocentsince their redemption by the death ofChrist, and therefore met together nakedupon all occasions, asserting that if Adamhad not sinned, there would have been nomarriages. They sprang from the Carpocratiansand Gnostics, and followed theerrors of an infamous person called Prodicus.They gave the name of deity tothe four elements, rejected prayer, andsaid it was not necessary to confess JesusChrist. This sect was renewed in Flandersby one Tanchelm, (1115–1124,) whobeing followed by 3000 soldiers, committedall kinds of vice, calling their villaniesby a spiritual name. In the 15th centuryone Picard, so called from the country ofhis birth, renewed it in Bohemia, fromwhence the sect spread into Poland: itwas said they met in the night, and usedthese words, (originally ascribed to thePriscillianists in the 4th century,) Swear,forswear, and discover not the secret.

ADMINISTRATOR. An ancient officerof the Church, whose duty was to defendthe cause of the widows, orphans,and all others who might be destitute ofhelp.

ADMINISTRATION, in an ecclesiasticalsense, is used to express the giving ordispensing the sacrament of our Lord.—Inits more general use it signifies the distributionof the personal effects of intestates,which is made by the ordinary accordingto the enactment of sundry statutes; theprincipal of which is 22 and 23 Car. II.cap. x.

12ADMONITION. The first step of ecclesiasticalcensure, according to the wordsof the apostle, “a man that is an heretic,after the first and second admonition, reject.”(Tit. iii. 10.) This part of episcopaldiscipline always precedes excommunication;which, however, must necessarilyfollow, if the offender continue contumacious,and hardened in his error or crime.Vide Canon 64, &c. The word also occursin the Ordination Service: “following witha glad mind and will their godly admonition.”—Jebb.

ADMONITIONISTS. Certain Puritansin the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who wereso called from being the authors of the“Admonition to the Parliament,” 1571, inwhich everything in the Church of Englandwas condemned, which was not afterthe fashion of Geneva. They requiredevery ceremony to be “commanded in theWord,” and set at nought all general rulesand canons of the Church.

ADOPTIANS. Heretics in several partsof Spain, who held that our Saviour wasGod only by adoption. Their notionswere condemned at Frankfort in the year794.

ADOPTION. To adopt is to make hima son who was not so by birth. The Catechismteaches us that it is in holy baptismthat “we are made members of Christ,children of God, and inheritors of thekingdom of heaven.” God sent forth hisSon to redeem them that were under thelaw, that we might receive the adoption ofsons. (Gal. iv. 4, 5.)

ADORATION. This word signifies aparticular sort of worship, which the Pagansgave to their deities: but, amongstChristians, it is used for the general respectand worship paid to God. The heathenspaid their regard to their gods, by puttingtheir hands to their mouths, and kissingthem. This was done in some places standing,and sometimes kneeling; their faceswere usually covered in their worship, andsometimes they threw themselves prostrateon the ground. The first Christians intheir public prayers were wont to stand;and this they did always on Sundays, andon the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost,in memory of our Lord’s resurrection,as is still common in the EasternChurches. They were wont to turn theirfaces towards the east, either because theEast is a title given to Christ in the OldTestament, (as by Zachariah, vi. 12, accordingto the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate,)or else to show that they expectedthe coming of Christ at the last day fromthe east.

ADULT BAPTISM. (See Baptism.)

ADVENT. For the greater solemnityof the three principal holidays, Christmasday, Easter day, and Whit-Sunday, theChurch hath appointed certain days toattend them: some to go before, andothers to come after them. Before Christmasare appointed four “Advent Sundays,”so called because the design of themis to prepare us for a religious commemorationof the advent or coming of Christ inthe flesh. The Roman ritualists wouldhave the celebration of this holy season tobe apostolical, and that it was institutedby St. Peter. But the precise time of itsinstitution is not so easily to be determined;though it certainly had its beginningbefore the year 450, becauseMaximus Taurinensis, who lived aboutthat time, writ a homily upon it. And itis to be observed, that, for the more strictand religious observation of this season,courses of sermons were formerly preachedin several cathedrals on Wednesdays andFridays, as is now the usual practice inLent. And we find by the SalisburyMissal, that, before the Reformation, therewas a special Epistle and Gospel relating toChrist’s advent, appointed for those daysduring all that time.—Wheatly.

It should be observed here, that it isthe peculiar computation of the Church, tobegin her year, and to renew the annualcourse of her service, at this time of Advent,therein differing from all other accountsof time whatsoever. The reasonof which is, because she does not numberher days, or measure her seasons, so muchby the motion of the sun, as by the courseof our Saviour; beginning and countingon her year with him, who, being the true“Sun of righteousness,” began now to riseupon the world, and, as “the Day-star onhigh,” to enlighten them that sat in spiritualdarkness.—Bp. Cosin, Wheatly.

The lessons and services, therefore, forthe four first Sundays in her liturgical year,propose to our meditations the two-foldadvent of our Lord Jesus Christ; teachingus that it is he who was to come, anddid come, to redeem the world; and thatit is he also who shall come again, to beour judge. The end proposed by theChurch in setting these two appearances ofChrist together before us, at this time, isto beget in our minds proper dispositionsto celebrate the one and expect the other;that so with joy and thankfulness we maynow “go to Bethlehem, and see this greatthing which is come to pass, which theLord hath made known to us,” even theSon of God come to visit us in great13humility; and thence, with faith unfeignedand hope immoveable, ascend in heart andmind to meet the same Son of God in theair, coming in glorious majesty to judgethe quick and dead.—Bp. Horne.

ADVOCATE, the word used in ourBibles as a translation of the Greek παράκλητος,(see Paraclete,) which signifies onewho exhorts, defends, comforts; also onewho prays or intercedes for another. Itis an appellation given to the Holy Spiritby our Saviour. (John xiv. 16;xv. 26.)

ADVOCATES are mentioned in the96th, 131st, and 133rd English Canons, asregular members of the EcclesiasticalCourts. The pleaders, or superior practitioners,in all the English and IrishChurch Courts are so called. In Londonthey form a corporation, or college, calledDoctors’ Commons; because all Advocatesmust be Doctors of Law, and they formerlylived together in a collegiate manner, witha common table, &c. The candidate Advocatesobtain a fiat from the archbishopof Canterbury, and are admitted by thejudge to practise. In Ireland they do notform a college: they must be Doctors ofLaw, but generally practise in the commonlaw or equity courts, besides. Theyare admitted to practise by the judge ofthe Prerogative Court. The pleaders inthe supreme courts in Scotland, and generallythroughout Europe, are called Advocates.The institution of the order isvery ancient. About the time of theemperor Alexander Severus (see Butler’sLife of L’Hopital) three ranks of legalpractitioners were established: the orators,who were the pleaders; the advocates, whoinstructed the orators in points of law;and the cognitores, or procuratores, whodischarged much the same office as proctorsor attorneys now. The first ordergradually merged into the second.—Jebb.

ADVOWSON, is the right of patronageto a church, or an ecclesiastical benefice;and he who has the right of advowson iscalled the patron of the church, from hisobligation to defend the rights of thechurch from oppression and violence. Forwhen lords of manors first built churchesupon their own demesnes, and appointedthe tithes of those manors to be paid tothe officiating ministers, which before weregiven to the clergy in common, the lord,who thus built a church and endowed itwith glebe or land, had of common righta power annexed of nominating suchminister as he pleased (provided he werecanonically qualified) to officiate in thatchurch, of which he was the founder, endower,maintainer, or, in one word, thepatron.

Advowsons are of two sorts, advowsonsappendant, and advowsons in gross. Whenannexed to a manor or land, so as to passwith them, they are appendant; for so longas the church continues annexed to thepossession of the manor, as some have donefrom the foundation of the church to thisday, the patronage or presentation belongsto the person in possession of the manoror land. But when the property of theadvowson has been once separated fromthat of the manor by legal conveyance, itis called an advowson in gross, or at large,and exists as a personal right in the personof its owner, independent of his manor orland. Advowsons are also either presentative,collative, donative, or elective. Anadvowson presentative is where the patronhas a right to present the parson to thebishop or ordinary to be instituted andinducted, if he finds him canonically qualified.An advowson collative is where thebishop is both patron and ordinary. Anadvowson donative is where the king, orany subject by his licence, founds a churchor chapel, and ordains that it shall bemerely in the gift or disposal of the patron;subject to his visitation only, and not tothat of the ordinary; and vested absolutelyin the clerk by the patron’s deed of donation,without presentation, institution, orinduction.

As to presentations to advowsons: wherethere are divers patrons, joint-tenants, ortenants in common, and they vary in theirpresentment, the ordinary is not bound toadmit any of their clerks; and if the sixmonths elapse within which time they areto present, he may present by the lapse;but he may not present within the sixmonths; for if he do, they may agree andbring a quare impedit against him, and removehis clerk. Where the patrons areco-parceners, the eldest sister, or her assignee,is entitled to present; and then, atthe next avoidance, the next sister shallpresent, and so by turns one sister afteranother, till all the sisters, or their heirs,have presented, and then the eldest sistershall begin again, except they agree topresent together, or by composition topresent in some other manner. But if theeldest presents together with another ofher sisters, and the other sisters every oneof them in their own name, or together, theordinary is not bound to receive any oftheir clerks, but may suffer the church tolapse. But in this case, before the bishopcan take advantage of the lapse, he mustdirect a writ to inquire the right of patronage.14Where an advowson is mortgaged,the mortgager alone shall present,when the church becomes vacant: and themortgagee can derive no advantage fromthe presentation in reduction of his debt.If a woman has an advowson, or part of anadvowson, to her and her heirs, and marries,the husband may not only present jointlywith his wife, during the coverture, butalso after her death the right of presentingduring his life is lodged in him, as tenantby courtesy, if he has children by her.And even though the wife dies withouthaving had issue by her husband, so thathe is not tenant by courtesy, and the churchremains vacant at her death, yet the husbandshall present to the void turn; andif in such case he does not present, hisexecutor may. If a man, seized of an advowson,takes a wife, and dies, the heirshall have two presentations, and the wifethe third, even though her husband mayhave granted away the third turn. Or, ifa manor, to which an advowson is appendant,descends to the heir, and he assignsdower to his mother of the third part ofthe manor, with the appurtenances, she isentitled to the presentation of the thirdpart of the advowson; the right of presentationbeing a chose in action which is notassignable. If an advowson is sold, whenthe church is vacant, it is decided that thegrantee is not entitled to the benefit of thenext presentation. If, during the vacancyof a church, the patron die, his executor,or personal representative, is entitled tothat presentation, unless it be a donativebenefice, in which case the right of donationdescends to the heir. But if the incumbentof a church be also seized in fee of the advowsonof the same church, and die, hisheir, and not his executors, shall present.

As to the manner in which advowsonsdescend, it has been determined, that advowsonsin gross cannot descend from thebrother to the sister of the entire blood,but they shall descend to the brother ofthe half blood, unless the first had presentedto it in his lifetime, and then itshall descend to the sister, she being thenext heir of the entire blood.

ÆONS. (Αίῶνες, ages.) The namegiven by some of the Gnostic heretics tothe spiritual beings, whom they supposedto have emanated from the Divinity. (SeeValentinus.)

AERIANS. A small sect founded byAërius, a presbyter of Sebaste, in the lesserArmenia, about A. D. 355. St. Augustinetells us that Aërius, the author of thisheresy, was mortified at not attaining theepiscopate; and having fallen into theheresy of Arius, and having been led intomany strange notions by impatience of thecontrol of the Church, he taught, amongother things, that no difference ought tobe recognised between a bishop and a presbyter;whereas, until then, even all sectarieshad acknowledged the episcopate as asuperior order, and had been careful at theiroutset to obtain episcopal ordination fortheir ministers. Thus Aërius revengedhimself upon the dignity to which he hadunsuccessfully aspired; and he has left hishistory and his character to future ages,as an argument almost as forcible as directreasoning and evidence, of the apostolicalordinance of the episcopate.

AFFINITY. (From affinis.) Relationby marriage. Relation contracted by thehusband to the kindred of the wife, andby the wife to those of the husband. Itis opposed to consanguinity, or relation bybirth.—Johnson. (See Consanguinity.)

AFFUSION. Although dipping orplunging into the water were the moreancient practice, and more universal in theprimitive times, yet sprinkling or pouringwater on the head of the baptized personwas of great antiquity in the Church likewise.It had its beginning in the cases ofsick persons chiefly, who could not cometo the public baptistery, nor could theweakness of their constitution admit oftheir being dipped all over in the water;and, therefore, the sprinkling or pouringof a small quantity of water upon the faceor head was judged sufficient. In thefourth and fifth centuries aspersion wasmore common. After the heathen nationswere converted to Christianity, and by thatmeans the baptisms of adults were less frequent,the tenderness of children’s bodies,especially in the colder countries, not enduringto be dipped in water, the use ofsprinkling generally succeeded in theChurch, instead of that of dipping. And,indeed, during the more early ages of theChurch, and when adults were frequentlybaptized, there were some particular caseswhen aspersion was used instead of immersion;as in that of some young womennoticed by St. Chrysostom. Our Church,with great moderation, does not totally layaside immersion, if the strength of thechild will bear it, as indeed it seldom willwithout danger in our cold country; inwhich case she admits aspersion only, ratherthan occasion any injury or danger to thebody of a tender babe; wisely considering,that, in the sight of God, “mercy isbetter than sacrifice.”—Dr. Nicholls.

Either of these modes of administeringbaptism is sufficient. For it is not in this15spiritual washing, as it is in the bodily,where, if the bath be not large enough toreceive the whole body, some parts maybe foul, when the rest are cleansed. Thesoul is cleansed after another manner; alittle water can cleanse the believer, aswell as a whole river. The old fashionwas to dip or sprinkle the person “thrice,”to signify the mystery of the Trinity. TheChurch so appointed then because of someheretics that denied the Trinity: upon thesame ground, afterwards, it was appointedto do it but once, (signifying the unity ofsubstance in the Trinity,) lest we shouldseem to agree with the heretics that didit thrice. This baptizing is to be at the“font.”—Bp. Sparrow.

It should here be noticed, that ourChurch doth not direct sprinkling or aspersion,but affusion or “pouring of water”upon the children to be baptized. It istrue the quantity of water to be used isnowhere prescribed, nor is it necessarythat it should be; but, however the quantitybe left to the minister’s discretion, yetit must be understood to determine itselfthus far: first, that the action be such asis properly a “washing,” to make the administrationcorrespond with the institution;and this we should observe as ministersof Christ at large: secondly, that theaction be such, as is properly a “pouringof water,” which is the rubrical directionto express that washing at all times when“dipping” is not practised; and this weare bound to observe as ministers of theChurch of England in particular; takingit always for granted, that there is a reasonfor whatever is prescribed in a rubric,and such an one as is not to be contradictedby our private practice, or rejectedfor the sake of any modes or customsbrought in we know not how.

And we should the rather keep to thisrule of affusion, because we have in a mannerlost that more primitive way of baptizingby immersion. Custom having “certified”in general, that it is the opinionand judgment of all, who bring their childrento the font, that they are “too weakto endure dipping.” Or, if we would havetheir sentiments certified more explicitly,there being a rubric to that purpose, weare sure, as Dr. Wall observes, to find acertificate of the children’s weakness intheir dress; and to ask for further satisfactionwould be a mighty needless inquiry.I mention this observation of his, as thebest apology I know of for our presentpractice of baptizing by affusion, withoutany formal declaration being made, accordingto rubric, of the danger of “dipping.”It is not said we shall ask anyquestions. And, when we are sure beforehandwhat would be the answer if thequestion were asked, we seem under noobligation, as we are under no direction,to put it at all.—Archdeacon Sharp. (SeeAspersion.)

AGAPÆ. Love feasts, or feasts ofcharity, among the early Christians, wereusually celebrated in connexion with theLord’s supper, but not as a necessary partof it. The name is derived from theGreek word ἀγαπὴ, which signifies love orcharity. In the earliest accounts whichhave come down to us, we find that thebishop or presbyter presided at thesefeasts. It does not appear whether thefood was dressed in the place appointedfor the celebration of the feast, or was previouslyprepared by individual membersof the Church at their own homes; butperhaps either of these plans was adoptedindifferently, according to circumstances.Before eating, the guests washed theirhands, and a public prayer was offered up.A portion of Scripture was then read, andthe president proposed some questionsupon it, which were answered by the personspresent. After this, any accountswhich had been received respecting theaffairs of other Churches were recited; for,at that time, such accounts were regularlytransmitted from one community to another,by means of which all Christiansbecame acquainted with the history andcondition of the whole body, and were thusenabled to sympathize with, and in manycases to assist, each other. Letters frombishops and other eminent members of theChurch, together with the Acts of the Martyrs,were also recited on this occasion;and hymns or psalms were sung. At theclose of the feast, money was also collectedfor the benefit of widows and orphans, thepoor, prisoners, and persons who had sufferedshipwreck. Before the meetingbroke up, all the members of the Churchembraced each other, in token of mutualbrotherly love, and the whole ceremonywas concluded with a philanthropic prayer.

As the number of Christians increased,various deviations from the original practiceof celebration occurred; which calledfor the censures of the governors of theChurch. In consequence of these irregularities,it was appointed that the presidentshould deliver to each guest hisportion separately, and that the largerportions should be distributed among thepresbyters, deacons, and other officers ofthe Church.

While the Church was exposed to persecution,16these feasts were not only conductedwith regularity and good order, butwere made subservient to Christian edification,and to the promotion of brotherlylove, and of that kind of concord andunion which was specially demanded bythe circumstances of the times.

At first these feasts were held in privatehouses, or in other retired places, whereChristians met for religious worship. Afterthe erection of churches, these feasts wereheld within their walls; until, abuseshaving occurred which rendered the observanceinconsistent with the sanctity ofsuch places, this practice was forbidden.In the middle of the fourth century, theCouncil of Laodicea enacted “that agapæshould not be celebrated in churches;” aprohibition which was repeated by theCouncil of Carthage, in the year 391; andwas afterwards strictly enjoined duringthe sixth and seventh centuries. By theefforts of Gregory of Neocæsarea, Chrysostom,and others, a custom was generallyestablished of holding the agapæ onlyunder trees, or some other shelter, in theneighbourhood of the churches; and fromthat time the clergy and other principalmembers of the Church were recommendedto withdraw from them altogether.

In the early Church it was usual to celebrateagapæ on the festivals of martyrs,agapæ natalitiæ, at their tombs; a practiceto which reference is made in the epistleof the church of Smyrna, concerning themartyrdom of Polycarp.

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

The celebration of the agapæ was frequentlymade a subject of calumny andmisrepresentation by the enemies of theChristian faith, even during the earliestand best ages of the Church. In reply tothese groundless attacks, the conduct ofthe Christians of those times was successfullyvindicated by Tertullian, MinuciusFelix, Origen, and others. But real disordershaving afterwards arisen, and havingproceeded to considerable lengths, it becamenecessary to abolish the practicealtogether; and this task was eventuallyeffected, but not without the applicationof various means, and only after a considerablelapse of time.—Riddle, from Augustiand Siegel.

AGAPETÆ. In St. Cyprian’s timecertain ascetics (who wished, perhaps, toadd to their religious celibacy the additionalmerit of a conquest over a specialand greater temptation) chose persons ofthe other sex, devoted like themselves toa life of celibacy, with whom they livedunder the sanction of a kind of spiritualnuptials, still maintaining their chastity,as they professed, though living, in allthings else, as freely together as marriedpersons. These were called Agapetæ, Subintroductæ,Συνείσακτοι. This practice, howeverpure in intention, gave rise to the utmostscandal in the Church; and thosewho had adopted it were condemned severely,both by the individual authority ofSt. Cyprian, and afterwards by the decreesof councils. See Dodwell’s DissertationesCyprianicæ.

AGISTMENT. The feeding of cattlein a common pasture for a stipulated price;and hence tithe of agistment is the tithedue for the profit made by agisting. TheIrish parliament, in the last century, mostiniquitously declared that man an enemyof his country who should demand tithe ofagistment.—Jebb.

AGNOETES or AGNOETÆ. (ἀ andγνῶμι.) A sort of Christian heretics aboutthe year 370, followers of Theophroniusthe Cappadocian, who joined himself withEunomius; they called in question theomniscience of God, alleging that he knewnot things past in any other way than bymemory, nor things to come but by anuncertain prescience.

AGNOETES. Another sort of hereticsabout the year 535, who followed the errorsof Themistius, deacon of Alexandria, whobelieved that Christ knew not when theday of judgment should happen.

AGNUS DEI. A cake of wax, usedin the Romish Church, stamped with thefigure of a lamb supporting the banner ofthe cross. The name literally signifiesThe Lamb of God. These cakes, beingconsecrated 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, cutin the form of a heart, and carry them verydevoutly in their processions. From sellingthese Agnus Deis to some, and presentingthem to others, the Romish clergyand religious officers derive considerablepecuniary advantage. The practice ofblessing the Agnus Dei took its rise aboutthe seventh or eighth century. It was commonin those times to mark converts withthe sign of the cross after baptism; andin order to distinguish the converted fromheathens, they were commanded to wearabout their necks pieces of white waxstamped with the figure of a lamb. Thiswas done in imitation of the heathenishpractice of hanging amulets around theneck, as preservatives against accidents,17diseases, or any sort of infection. Thoughthe efficacy of an Agnus Dei has not beendeclared by Romish councils, the belief inits virtue has been strongly and universallyestablished in the Church of Rome. PopeUrban V. sent to John Palæologus, emperorof the Greeks, an Agnus folded infine paper, on which were written versesexplaining all its properties. These versesdeclare that the Agnus is formed of balmand wax mixed with chrism, and that beingconsecrated by mystical words, it possessesthe power of removing thunder and dispersingstorms, of giving to women withchild an easy delivery, of preventing shipwreck,taking away sin, repelling thedevil, increasing riches, and of securingagainst fire.

AISLE. (Ala.) The lateral divisions ofa church, or of any part of it, as nave, choir,or transept, are called its aisles. (SeeChurch.) Where there is but one aisle toa transept, it is always at the east. Inforeign churches the number of aisles isfrequently two on either side of the naveand choir; at Cologne there are three.This arrangement is very ancient, since itis found in the Basilicas of St. John,Lateran, and St. Paul, at Rome. In Englandthis was never perhaps the originalplan. All, except one on each side, areclearly additions at Chichester, Manchester,St. Michael’s, Coventry, Spalding, andseveral other churches.

The last bay to the west, or that westwardof the porch in the south aisle, isgenerally a little earlier in character thanthe rest. It frequently happens, too, thatthe north aisle is of an earlier type thanthe south, where there is no reason to supposethem of different dates. There is nosufficient reason assigned for this. Theword has been very commonly, but incorrectly,applied to the open space in thenave of churches between the seats of thecongregation.

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

ALB. An ample linen tunic withsleeves, named from its colour, (albus,white,) worn next over the cassock andamice. It was at first loose and flowing,afterwards bound with a zone, mysticallysignifying continence, according to someritualists; but more probably for thegreater convenience of ministering at thecommunion office. It has been in otherpoints considerably altered from its primitiveform in the continental churches subjectto Rome; in the Greek churches itmore nearly resembles the form of the surpliceused in the English Church. CardinalBona admits that the alb, as wellas the surplice, was anciently talaris, thatis, reaching to the feet, and it was thereforecalled podéris in the Greek Church.It was made originally of white linen; andwas probably the same as the surplice,from which it now differs only in the formof the sleeves, which are not flowing, butclosed at the wrists.

The rubrics of King Edward VI.’s FirstBook prescribed the alb to be worn at thecommunion by the principal minister andhis assistants, and by the bishop at alltimes of his public ministrations. Theserubrics are referred to in our presentPrayer Book, in the notice preceding theMorning Prayer: “And here it is to benoted, that such ornaments of the Church,and of the ministers thereof at all times oftheir ministrations, shall be retained andbe in use as were in this Church of Englandby the authority of parliament, inthe second year of the reign of King EdwardVI.” Most of our most eminent ritualists,and constitutional lawyers, haveconsidered the rubric of King Edward VI.as still binding in strictness of law. The58th Canon apparently, but not really, contradictsthese rubrics, as it prescribes asurplice with sleeves, to be used at the communionas well as at other services. Butit is to be observed that an alb is, in fact,a surplice with sleeves; and by these veryrubrics the terms seem to be almost convertible,as the bishop is enjoined to wear asurplice or alb: and in the rubric after thecommunion, regulating the Wednesdayand Friday services, the priest is to wear aplain alb or surplice. But even if thecanon did contradict the rubric, it oughtto be remembered that the rubric of 1662is the final enactment of the Church, andplainly ought to supersede the enactmentof 1604. The English alb is enjoined to beplain, that is, not ornamental with lace, orgold, as was the mediæval custom.—Jebb.

ALBATI. A sort of Christian hermits(so called from the white linen which theywore). Anno 1399, in the time of PopeBoniface IX., they came down from theAlps into several provinces of Italy, havingfor their guide a priest clothed all inwhite, and a crucifix in his hand: he pretendedso much zeal and religion, that hewas taken for a saint, and his followersmultiplied so fast, that the pope, growingjealous of their leader’s aiming at his chair,sent soldiers, who apprehended and puthim to death, upon which his followers18dispersed. They professed sorrow andweeping for the sins and calamities of thetimes, they ate together in the highways,and slept promiscuously like beasts.

ALBIGENSES. Certain religionistswho sprung up in the twelfth century.They received their name from a town inAquitaine, called Albigia or Alby, wheretheir tenets were first condemned in acouncil held in the year 1176. The Albigensesgrew so formidable, that the courtof Rome determined upon a league orcrusade against them. Pope Innocent III.,desirous to put a stop to their progress,stirred up the great men of France tomake war upon them. After sufferingcruelly from their persecutors, they dwindledby little and little, till the time ofthe Reformation; when such of them aswere left fell in with the Vaudois, andconformed to the doctrine of Zuingliusand the disciples of Geneva. The Albigenseshave been frequently confoundedwith the Waldenses; from whom howeverit is said that they differed in manyrespects, both as being prior to them inpoint of time, as having their origin in adifferent country, and as being chargedwith 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 landsand goods as have become the property ofthe Church. These being looked uponas devoted to God and his service, topart with them, or divert them to anyother use, may be considered as no lessthan the sin of sacrilege. Upon some extraordinaryoccasions, however, as theredemption of captives from slavery, or therelief of the poor in the time of famine,this was permitted; in which cases it wasnot unusual to sell even the sacred vesselsand utensils of the church. Some canons,if the annual income of the church wasnot sufficient to maintain the clergy, allowedthe bishop to sell certain goods ofthe church for that purpose. By subsequentcanons, however, this was prevented,unless the consent of the clergy was obtained,and the sanction of the metropolitan,lest, under the pretence of necessityor charity, any spoil or devastationshould be made on the revenues of thechurch. See Bing. Orig. Eccl. lib. v. ch.vi. s. 6.

ALIENATION IN MORTMAIN, isthe conveying or making over lands ortenements to any religious house or othercorporate body.

ALLELUIA, or HALLELUJAH. Thisis a Hebrew word signifying Praise theLord, or Praise to the Lord. It occursat the beginning and at the end of manyof the Psalms, and was always sung bythe Jews on solemn days of rejoicing. Anexpression very similar in sound seems tohave been used in many nations, who canhardly be supposed to have borrowed itfrom the Jews. Hence it has been supposedto be one of the most ancient wordsof devotion. St. John retains the wordwithout translation (Rev. xix. 1, 3, 4, 6);and among the early Christians it was sousual to sing Hallelujah, that St. Jeromesays 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, precededthe daily Psalms with Alleluia, orPraise ye the Lord. In the Roman andunreformed offices it was disused duringcertain penitential seasons; while Alleluiawas used in other parts of the service alsoduring the Easter season, &c. In the FirstBook of King Edward VI., Allelujah wassung after “Praise ye the Lord,” fromEaster to Trinity Sunday. The response,“The Lord’s name be praised,” was addedat the last review. It had been insertedin the Scotch Liturgy in King Charles I.’stime. (See Gloria Patri.)—Jebb.

ALL SAINTS’ DAY. The festival ofAll Saints is not of very high antiquity.About the year 610, the bishop of Romeordered that the heathen Pantheon, atemple dedicated to all the gods, shouldbe converted into a Christian church.This was done, and it was appropriatelydedicated to the honour of All Martyrs;hence came the origin of All Saints, whichwas then celebrated on the first of May.In the year 834 it was changed to November1st, on which day it is still observed.Our Church having, in the course of heryear, celebrated the memories of the holyapostles, and the other most eminent saintsand martyrs of the first days of the gospel,deems it unnecessary to extend her calendarby any other particular festivals, but closesher course with this general one. It shouldbe the Christian’s delight, on this day, to reflect,as he is moved by the appointed scriptures,on the Christian graces and virtueswhich have been exhibited by that goodlyfellowship of saints who, in all ages, havehonoured God in their lives, and glorifiedhim in their deaths; he should pray forgrace to follow them “in all virtuous andgodly living;” he should meditate on theglorious rest that remains for the peopleof God, on which they have entered; he19should gratefully contemplate that communionof saints which unites him to theirholy fellowship, even while he is heremilitant, if he be a faithful disciple of theSaviour in whom they trusted; he shouldearnestly seek that grace whereby, after ashort further time of trial, he may beunited with them in the everlasting servicesof the Church triumphant. TheChurch of England seems to have beeninduced to sum up the commemoration ofmartyrs, confessors, doctors, and saints inthis one day’s service, from the circumstanceof the great number of such daysin the Church of Rome having led to grossabuses, some of which are enumerated inthe preface to the Book of CommonPrayer.

This day was popularly called “Allhallowsday.” “Hallow E’en” in Scotland,and “Holy Eve” in Ireland, means the eveof all Saints’ Day. This day is celebratedas a high festival, or scarlet day, at theUniversities of Oxford and Cambridge.

ALL SOULS. A festival or holiday ofthe Romish Church, on which special prayersare made for the benefit of the souls of thedeparted. Its observance has been tracedback to the year 998; about which time,we are told, a certain monk, whose curiosityhad led him to visit Mount Ætna,which he, in common with others of thatage, verily believed to be the mouth ofhell, returned to his abbot with the gravestory that he had overheard “the devilswithin complain, that many departed soulswere taken out of their hands by theprayers of the Cluniac monks.” (SeeClugni.) The compassionate abbot tookthe hint, and set apart the second day ofNovember, to be annually kept by hismonks as a day of prayer for All Soulsdeparted. This local appointment wasafterwards changed by the pope into ageneral one, obligatory on all the WesternChurches. The ceremonies observed onthis day were in good keeping with thepurpose of its institution. In behalf of thedead, persons arrayed in black perambulatedthe cities and towns, each providedwith a loud and dismal-toned bell, whichthey rang in public places by way of exhortationto the people to remember thesouls in purgatory, and give them the aidof their prayers. In France and Italy, atthe present day, the annual Jour des Mortsis observed, by the population resumingtheir mourning habits, and visiting thegraves of their friends for many yearsafter their decease. At the period of theReformation, the Church of England abrogatedaltogether the observance of thisday, as based on false doctrine, and asoriginating in a falsehood.

ALMONER. An officer in monasteries,who had the care of the Almonry. In thecathedral of St. Paul, London, the Almonerhad the distribution of the alms, andthe care of the burial of the poor. Healso educated eight boys in music and inliterature, for the service of the Church.The office afterwards was practically thatof 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 theoffice of Dean of the Chapel Royal wasrevived, he had the care of the King’sChapel; his office being then analogousto that of the Grand Almoner of France.See Heylin’s Life of Laud.

ALMONRY. A room where alms weredistributed, generally near to the church,or a part of it. The Almonries in the principalmonasteries were often great establishments,with endowments specially appropriatedto their sustentation, having achapel, hall, and chambers for the accommodationof the poor and infirm. Theremains of the Almonry at Canterbury, forexample, are extensive and interesting.—Jebb.

ALMS. In the primitive Church, thepeople who were of sufficient substanceused to give alms to the poor every Sunday,as they entered the church. And thepoor, who were approved and selected bythe deacons or other ministers, were exhortedto stand before the church doors toask for alms, as the lame man, who washealed by Peter and John, at the BeautifulGate of the temple. The order in ourChurch is, that these alms should be collectedat that part of the communion servicewhich is called the Offertory, whilethe sentences are in reading which followthe place appointed for the sermon. Theintention of the compilers of our servicewas, that these alms should be collectedevery Sunday, as is plain from the directionsin the rubric; and this, whetherthere was a communion or not. It is muchto be regretted that the decay of charityhas caused this good custom to fall intotoo general disuse; and it is one which allsincere churchmen should endeavour torestore. The alms are, and have immemoriallybeen, collected every Sunday inIreland.

ALMS-CHEST. Besides the alms collectedat the offertory, it may be supposed20that devout persons would make contributionsto the poor on entering the church,or departing from it, at evening service;and to receive these alms, it is appointedby the 84th Canon, that a chest be providedand placed in the church.

ALOGIANS. Heretics in the secondcentury, who denied the Divine Logos, orWord, and attributed the writings of St.John, in which the Second Person of theGodhead is so styled, to Cerinthus.

ALTAR. Altar was the name by whichthe holy board was constantly distinguishedfor the first three hundred years afterChrist; during all which time it doesnot appear that it was above once called“table,” and that was in a letter of Dionysiusof Alexandria to Xystus of Rome.And when, in the fourth century, Athanasiuscalled it a “table,” he thought himselfobliged to explain the word, and to letthe reader know that by table he meantaltar, that being then the constant andfamiliar name. Afterwards, indeed, bothnames came to be promiscuously used; theone having respect to the oblation of theeucharist, the other to the participation:but it was always placed altar-wise in themost sacred part of the church, and fencedin with rails to secure it from irreverenceand disrespect.—Wheatly.

In King Edward’s first service-book theword altar was permitted to stand, as beingthe name that Christians for manyhundred years had been acquainted withal.Therefore, when there was such pullingdown of altars and setting up of tables inQueen Elizabeth’s reign, she was fain tomake an injunction to restrain such ungodlyfury, and appointed decent andcomely tables covered to be set up againin the same place where the altars stood,thereby giving an interpretation of thisclause in our communion-book. For theword “table” here stands not exclusively,as if it might not be called an altar, butto show the indifferency and liberty of thename; as of old it was called “mensaDomini,” the table of the Lord; the onehaving reference to the participation, theother to the oblation, of the eucharist.—Bp.Cosin.

It is called an altar, 1. Because, theholy eucharist being considered as a sacrifice,we offer up the commemoration ofthat sacrifice which was offered upon thecross. 2. We offer, with the action, prayersto God for all good things, and we neednot fear to call the whole action by thename of a sacrifice, seeing part of it is anoblation to God of hearty prayers, and itis not unusual for that to be said of thewhole, which is exactly true but of onepart; and as the word sacrifice may beused without danger, so also the ancientChurch did understand it.

And it is called a table, the eucharistbeing considered as a sacrament; which isnothing else but a distribution and applicationof the sacrifice to the receivers;and the proper use of a table is to set foodupon, and to entertain guests, both whichare applicable to this.—Clutterbuck.

But at the beginning of the Reformationan unhappy dispute arose, viz. whetherthose tables of the altar fashion, which hadbeen used in the Popish times, and onwhich masses had been celebrated, shouldstill be continued? This point was firststarted by Bishop Hooper, who in a sermonbefore the king, in the third year ofhis reign, declared, “that it were well, ifit might please the magistrate to havealtars turned into tables; to take away thefalse persuasion of the people, which theyhave of sacrifice, to be done upon altars;because as long,” says he, “as altars remain,both the ignorant people and priestswill dream of sacrifice.” This occasionednot only a couple of letters from the kingand council, one of which was sent to allthe bishops, and the other to Ridley,bishop of London, in both which they wererequired to pull down the altars; but alsothat, when the liturgy was reviewed in1551, the above-said rubric was altered,and in the room of it the priest was directedto stand on the north side of thetable. But this did not put an end to thecontroversy. Another dispute arising, viz.whether the table, placed in the room ofthe altar, ought to stand altar-wise; i. e. inthe same place and situation as the altarformerly stood? This was the occasionthat in some churches the tables wereplaced in the middle of the chancels, inothers at the east part thereof, next to thewall. Bishop Ridley endeavoured to compromisethis matter, and therefore, in St.Paul’s cathedral, suffered the table tostand in the place of the old altar; butbeating down the wainscot partition behind,laid all the choir open to the east,leaving the table then to stand in the middleof the chancel. Under this diversityof usage, things went on till the death ofKing Edward; when, Queen Mary comingto the throne, altars were again restoredwherever they had been demolished; buther reign proving short, and Queen Elizabethsucceeding her, the people, (just gotfree again from the tyranny of Popery,)through a mistaken zeal fell in a tumultuousmanner to the pulling down of altars;21though, indeed, this happened for the generalityonly in private churches, they notbeing meddled with in any of the queen’spalaces, and in but very few of the cathedrals.And as soon as the queen was sensibleof what had happened in other places,she put out an injunction to restrain thefury of the people, declaring it to be nomatter of great moment, whether therewere altars or tables, so that the sacramentwas duly and reverently administered; butordering, that where altars were takendown, holy tables should be decently made,and set in the place where the altars stood,and so to stand, saving when the communionof the sacrament was to be distributed;at which time the same was to beso placed in good sort within the chancel,as thereby the minister might be moreconveniently heard of the communicantsin his prayer and ministration, and thecommunicants also more conveniently andin more number communicate with thesaid minister. And after the communion,done from time to time, the same holytable was to be placed where it stood before.Pursuant hereunto, this part of thepresent rubric was added to the liturgy,in the first year of her reign, viz. that “thetable, at the communion time, having afair white linen cloth upon it, shall standin the body of the church, or in the chancel,where morning and evening prayer areappointed to be said:” which was in thosetimes generally in the choir. But then itis plain from the aforesaid injunction, aswell as from the eighty-second Canon ofthe Church, (which is almost verbatim thesame,) that there is no obligation arisingfrom this rubric to move the table at thetime of the communion, unless the peoplecannot otherwise conveniently hear andcommunicate. The injunction declares,that the holy tables are to be set in thesame place where the altars stood, whichevery one knows was at the east end ofthe chancel. And when both the injunctionand canon speak of its being movedat the time of the communion, it supposesthat the minister could not otherwise beheard: the interposition of a belfry betweenthe chancel and body of the churchhindering the minister in some churchesfrom being heard by the people, if he continuedin the church. And with the sameview seems this rubric to have been added,and which therefore lays us under noobligation to move the table, unless necessityrequires. But whenever the churchesare built so as the minister can be heard,and conveniently administer the sacramentat the place where the table usually stands,he is rather obliged to administer in thechancel, (that being the sanctum sanctorum,or most holy place, of the church,) as appearsfrom the rubric before the Commandments,as also from that before theAbsolution, by both which rubrics thepriest is directed to turn himself to thepeople. From whence I argue, that if thetable be in the middle of the church, andthe people consequently round about theminister, the minister cannot turn himselfto the people any more at one time thananother. Whereas, if the table be closeto the east wall, the minister stands onthe north side, and looks southward, andconsequently, by looking westward, turnshimself to the people.—Wheatly.

Great dispute has been raised in the lastage about the name of the communiontable, whether it was to be called the HolyTable or an Altar. And indeed anythingwill afford matter of controversy to men ina disputing age. For the ancient writersused both names indifferently; some callingit Altar, others the Lord’s Table, the HolyTable, the Mystical Table, the TremendousTable, &c., and sometimes both Tableand Altar in the same sentence... Ignatiususes only the name θυσιαστήριον, altar,in his genuine Epistles... Irenæus andOrigen use the same name... Tertullianfrequently applies to it the name of AraDei and Altare... Cyprian uses bothnames; but most commonly Altar... Itis certain they did not mean by the altarwhat the Jews and heathens meant; eitheran altar dressed up with images, or analtar for bloody sacrifices. In the firstsense they rejected altars, both name andthing. But for their own mystical, unbloodysacrifice, as they called the eucharist,they always owned they had an altar....In Chrysostom it is most usuallytermed, “the mystical and tremendoustable,” &c. St. Austin usually gives it thename of Mensa Domini, the Lord’s Table.It were easy to add a thousand other testimonies,where the altar is called theHoly Table, to signify to us their notionof the Christian sacrifice and altar at once,that it was mystical and spiritual, and hadno relation either to the bloody sacrificesof the Jews, or the idolatries of the Gentiles,but served only for the service of theeucharist, and the oblations of the people.—Bingham.

In the First Book of King Edward, theterms used for this holy table are theAltar, and God’s Board. In our presentPrayer Book, it is styled the Table, theHoly Table, and the Lord’s Table. Thephrase communion table occurs in the Canons22only, as in the 20th, and the 82nd.The word altar is used in the CoronationService. It is employed without scrupleby Bishop Overall, one of the commissionersfor the revision of the Liturgyin King James I.’s reign, and by thosewho were employed in the last Review in1662, who of course understood the realspirit of the Church of England. For example,the following are the words of BishopSparrow, one of the Reviewers.

“That no man take offence at the wordAltar, let him know, that anciently boththese names, Altar, or Holy Table, wereused for the same thing; though most frequentlythe fathers and councils use theword Altar. And both are fit names forthat holy thing. For the holy eucharistbeing considered as a sacrifice, in the representationof the breaking of the bread,and pouring forth of the cup, doing thatto the holy symbols which was done toChrist’s body and blood, and so showingforth and commemorating the Lord’sdeath, and offering upon it the same sacrificethat was offered upon the cross, orrather the commemoration of that sacrifice,(St. Chrysost. in Heb. x. 9,) it may fitlybe called an Altar; which again is as fitlycalled an Holy Table, the Eucharist beingconsidered as a Sacrament, which isnothing else but a distribution and applicationof the sacrifice to the several receivers.”

And Bishop Cosins, who (Nicholl’s add.notes, p. 42) speaks of the king and queenpresenting their offering “on their kneesat God’s altar:” though he adds afterwards,(p. 50,) on the passage “This oursacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,”—“Inwhich regard and divers others besides,the eucharist may by allusion, analogy,and extrinsical denomination, be fitly calleda sacrifice, and the Lord’s table an altar,the one relating to the other; though neitherof them can be strictly and properlyso called.... The sacrament of the eucharistcarries the name of a sacrifice; andthe table, whereon it is celebrated, analtar of oblation, in a far higher sense thanany of their former sacrifices did, whichwere but the types and figures of thoseservices, which are performed in recognitionand memory of Christ’s own sacrifice,once offered upon the altar of hiscross.”

Again, Bishop Beveridge, on the necessity,&c., of frequent communion, uses the word;“Upon Sundays and holy days, althoughthere be not such a number, and thereforeno communion, yet, however, the priestshall go up to the altar,” &c.

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

Hence, though not presuming to disputethe wisdom of the Reviewers, or, to speakmore reverently, the dispositions of God’sprovidence, whereby the use of the wordaltar was withheld from our Prayer Book,there can be no doubt that the employmentof the word can be justified, if we understandit as the ancient Church understoodit.—Jebb.

According to Bingham, the ancient altarswere of wood; and he considers that thefashion of stone altars began in the timeof Constantine. Stone altars were enjoinedby the Council of Epone, (or Albon,) inFrance, A. D. 509 or 517; and throughoutthe whole of the time to which we lookfor architectural examples, altars were ofstone.

The place of the high altar was uniformly,in England at least, at the east of thechurch; but in large churches room is leftfor processions to pass behind it, and incathedral churches of Norman foundationfor the bishop’s throne. Where the endof the church was apsidal, the high altarwas placed in the chord of the apse.Chantry altars, not being connected with aservice in which processions were used,were placed against the wall, and scarcelyan aisle or a transept was without one ormore. In form the high altar was generallylarge and plain, relying for decorationwholly on the rich furniture with which itwas loaded; very rarely its front waspanelled or otherwise ornamented. Chantryaltars were, perhaps, in ninety-ninecases in a hundred, mere slabs built intothe wall. At Jervaulx, however, at theend of each aisle, is a large plain altarbuilt up of separate stones, much in theform of a high tomb. In situ but fewhigh altars remain, but chantry altars insitu are frequent enough. They are not,however, often found in the aisles andtransepts of our churches, but in placeswhere they would more readily escape observation,as, for instance, under the eastwindow (or forming its sill) of a vestry, orof a parvise, or in a gateway to a monastery,or in private chapels and chapels ofcastles. Altar stones not in situ, but usedin pavements and all places, are almostinnumerable, sometimes two or three ormore occurring in a single small church.They may be recognised by five littlecrosses, one in the centre, and one at eachcorner. The multiplication of altars inthe same church is still strictly forbiddenin the Eastern Church, as it was in ancient23times. (Vide Bingham, book viii. c. 6,§ 16.)—Poole.

ALTARAGE, a legal term used to denotethe profits arising to the priest or parsonof the parish on account of the altar, calledobventio altaris. Since the Reformationthere has been much dispute as to the extentof the vicar’s claim upon tithes asaltarage. In the 21st Eliz. it was decidedthat the words Alteragium cum mansocompetenti would entitle him to the smalltithes; but it has since been holdenand now generally understood, that theextent of the altarage depends entirelyupon usage and the manner of endowment.

ALTAR CLOTH. By the 82nd Canonit is appointed that the table provided forthe celebration of the holy communionshall be covered, in time of divine service,with a carpet of silk, or other decent stuffthought meet by the ordinary of the place,if any question be made of it; and with afair linen cloth at the time of the ministration,as becometh that table. The sovereignsof England, at their coronation,present, as their first oblation, a pall oraltar cloth of gold, &c.

ALTAR PIECE. A picture placed overthe altar. It is not uncommon in Englishchurches to place paintings over the altar,although it is a practice of modern introduction,and although there would be aprejudice against placing paintings in otherparts of the church. The English Reformerswere very strongly opposed to the introductionof paintings into the sanctuary.In Queen Elizabeth’s reign, a proclamationwas issued against pictures as well as imagesin churches; and Dean Nowell fell underher Majesty’s displeasure for procuring forher use a Prayer Book with pictures. ThePuritans, who formed the religious worldof King Charles’s time, both in the Churchand out of it, destroyed pictures whereverthey could find them, as relics of Popery.We may add that the feeling against picturesprevailed not only in modern times,but in the first ages of the primitive Church.In the various catalogues of church furniturethat we possess, we never read ofpictures. There is a particular breviat ofthe things found by the persecutors in thechurch of Paul, bishop of Cirta, in Numidia,(A. D. 303,) where we find mention madeof cups, flagons, two candlesticks, and vestments;but of images and pictures thereis not a syllable. In Spain, at the Councilof Eliberis, A. D. 305, there was a positivedecree against them. And, at the end ofthis century, Epiphanius, passing throughAnablatha, a village of Palestine, found aveil there, hanging before the doors of thesanctuary in the church, whereon waspainted the image of Christ, or some saint,which he immediately tore in pieces, andgave it as a winding-sheet for the poor,himself replacing the hanging by one fromCyprus. The first mention of pictureswe find at the close of the fourth century;when Paulinus, bishop of Nola, to keepthe country people employed, when theycame together to observe the festival ofthe dedication of the church of St. Felix,ordered the church to be painted withthe images of saints, and stories fromScripture history, such as those of Estherand Job, and Tobit and Judith. (Paulinus,Natal. 9. Felicis, p. 615.) The readerwill find a learned historical investigationof this subject in note B to the translationof Tertullian’s Apology in the Library ofthe Fathers, which is thus summed up: 1.In the first three centuries it is positivelystated that Christians had no images. 2.Private individuals had pictures, but it wasdiscouraged. (Aug.) 3. The cross, not thecrucifix, was used; the first mention of thecross in a church is in the time of Constantine.4. The first mention of pictures inchurches, except to forbid them, is at theend of the fourth century, and these historicalpictures from the Old Testament, orof martyrdoms, not of individuals. 5. Noaccount of any picture of our Lord beingpublicly used occurs in the six first centuries;the first is A. D. 600. 6. Outwardreverence to pictures is condemned. Wefind frequent allusion to pictures in thewritings of St. Augustine. We thus seethat the use of pictures in churches is tobe traced to the fourth century; and wemay presume that the practice of the age,when the Church was beginning to breatheafter its severe persecutions, when thegreat creed of the Church Universal wasdrawn up, and when the canon of Scripturewas fixed, is sufficient to sanction theuse of pictures in our sanctuaries. Thatin the middle ages, pictures as well asimages were sometimes worshipped, asthey are by many Papists in the presentday, is not to be denied. It was thereforenatural that the Reformers, seeing theabuse of the thing, should be stronglyprejudiced against the retention of picturesin our churches. But much of Romisherror consists in the abuse of what wasoriginally good or true. We may, in thepresent age, return to the use of what wasoriginally good; but being warned thatwhat has led to Popish corruptions maylead to them again, we must be very carefulto watch against the recurrence of those24evil practices to which these customs havebeen abused or perverted.

ALTAR RAILS, as such, and as distinguishedfrom the chancel screen, werenot known in the Western Church beforethe Reformation. We probably owe themto Archbishop Laud, who, in order to guardagainst a continuance of the profanationsto which the holy table had been subjected,while standing in the nave of thechurch, or in the middle of the chancel,ordered that it should be placed at theeast end of the chancel, and protected fromrude approach by rails. As the use ofaltar rails arose out of, and visibly signifiedrespect for, the great mysteries celebratedat the altar, they were, of course, amark for the hostility of the Puritans; andaccordingly, in the journal of WilliamDowsing, parliamentary visitor of churchesin the great rebellion, we find that theywere everywhere destroyed. They havegenerally, however, been restored; andthere are now few churches in Englandwhere they are not found. In the East,the altar has been enclosed by a screen oran enclosure resembling our rails, fromancient times. These were at first onlythe cancelli, or κίγκλιδες, or, as Eusebiusstyles them, reticulated wood-work. Theywere afterwards enlarged into the holydoors, which now wholly conceal the altar,and which Goar admits to be an innovationof later times. (pp. 17, 18.) Theseare not to be confounded with the enclosureof the choir; which, like the chancelscreen, was originally very low, a merebarrier, but was enlarged afterwards intothe high screens which now shut out thechoir from the church.—Jebb.

ALTAR SCREEN. A screen behindthe altar, bounding the presbytery eastward,and in our larger churches separatingit from the parts left free for processionsbetween the presbytery and the LadyChapel, when the latter is at the east end.(See Cathedral.) These screens were ofcomparatively late invention. They completelyinterfered with the ancient arrangementof the Apsis. (See Apsis.) Themost magnificent specimens of altar screensare at Winchester cathedral, and at St.Alban’s abbey. In college chapels, andchurches where an apse would be altogetherout of place, and where an eastwindow cannot be inserted, as at New College,and Magdalene, Oxford, they are asappropriate as they are beautiful.—Jebb.

AMBO. A kind of raised platform orreading desk, from which, in the primitiveChurch, the Gospel and Epistle were readto the people, and sometimes used inpreaching. Its position appears to havevaried at different times; it was most frequentlyon the north side of the entranceinto the chancel. Sometimes there wasone on each side, one for the Epistle,the other for the Gospel, as may stillbe seen in the ancient churches of St.Clement and St. Lawrence, at Rome, &c.The word Ambo has been popularly employedfor a reading desk within memory,as in Limerick cathedral, where the deskfor the lessons in the centre of the choirwas so called. The singers also hadtheir separate ambo, and in many of theforeign European churches it is employedby the precentor and principal singers;being placed in the middle of the choir,like an eagle, but turned towards thealtar.—Jebb.

AMBROSIAN OFFICE. A particularoffice used in the church of Milan. Itderives its name from St. Ambrose, whowas bishop of Milan in the fourth century,although it is not certain that he took anypart in its composition. Originally eachchurch had its particular office; and evenwhen Pope Pius V. took upon him to imposethe Roman office on all the Westernchurches, that of Milan sheltered itselfunder the name and authority of St. Ambrose,and the Ambrosian Ritual has continuedin use.—Brouqhton, Gueranger.

AMEDIEU, or Friends of God. Akind of religious congregation in theChurch of Rome, who wore grey clothesand wooden shoes, had no breeches, girdingthemselves with a cord; they began in1400, and grew numerous; but Pius V.united their society partly with that of theCistercians, and partly with the Soccolanti.—Jebb.

AMEN. This, in the phraseology of theChurch, is denominated orationis signaculum,or devotæ conscionis responsio, thetoken for prayer—the response of the worshippers.It intimates that the prayer ofthe speaker is heard, and approved by himwho gives this response. It is also usedat the conclusion of a doxology. (Rom. ix.5.) Justin Martyr is the first of the fatherswho speaks of the use of the response. Inspeaking of the sacrament he says, that, atthe close of the benediction and prayer,all the assembly respond, “Amen,” which,in the Hebrew tongue, is the same as, “Solet it be.” According to Tertullian, nonebut the faithful were permitted to join inthe response.

In the celebration of the Lord’s supperespecially, each communicant was requiredto give this response in a tone of earnestdevotion. Upon the reception, both of25the bread and of the wine, each uttered aloud “Amen;” and at the close of theconsecration by the priest, all joined inshouting a loud “Amen.” But the practicewas discontinued after the sixth century.

At the administration of baptism also,the witnesses and sponsors uttered thisresponse in the same manner. In theGreek Church it was customary to repeatthis response as follows: “This servant ofthe Lord is baptized in the name of theFather, Amen; and of the Son, Amen;and of the Holy Ghost, Amen; both nowand for ever, world without end;” to whichthe people responded, “Amen.” Thisusage is still observed by the Greek Churchin Russia. The repetitions were giventhrice, with reference to the three personsof the Trinity.—Coleman’s Christian Antiquities.

It signifies truly or verily. Its importvaries slightly with the connexion or positionin which it is placed. In the NewTestament it is frequently synonymouswith “verily,” and is retained in someversions without being translated. At theconclusion of prayer, as the Catechismteaches, it signifies So be it; after therepetition 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 Romanletter, but of others, and indeed generally,in Italics—“Amen.” This seems not tobe done without meaning, though unfortunatelythe distinction is not correctlyobserved in all the modern Prayer Books.The intention, according to Wheatly, isthis: At the end of all the collects andprayers, which the priest is to repeat orsay alone, it is printed in Italic, a differentcharacter from the prayers themselves, probablyto denote that the minister is tostop at the end of the prayer, and to leavethe “Amen” for the people to respond.But at the end of the Lord’s Prayer, Confessions,Creeds, &c., and wheresoever thepeople are to join aloud with the minister,as if taught and instructed by him what tosay, there it is printed in Roman, i. e. inthe same character with the Confessionsand Creeds themselves, as a hint to theminister that he is still to go on, and bypronouncing the “Amen” himself, to directthe people to do the same, and so toset their seal at last to what they had beenbefore pronouncing.

AMERICA. (See Church in America.)

AMICE. An oblong square of finelinen used as a vestment in the ancientChurch by the priest. At first introducedto cover the shoulders and neck, it afterwardsreceived the addition of a hood tocover the head until the priest came beforethe altar, when the hood was thrownback. We have the remains of this in thehood.

The “grey amice,” a tippet or cape offur, was retained for a time by the Englishclergy after the Reformation; but, as therewas no express authority for this, it wasprohibited by the bishops in the reign ofElizabeth.

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

By most ritualists, the Amictus, orAmicia, and the Almutium, of the WesternChurches were considered the same.But W. Gilbert French, in an interestingand curiously illustrated Essay on “TheTippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical,” considersthat there is a distinction betweenthe amice and the almuce. The former heidentifies with the definition given above.The latter he considers to be the choirtippet, worn by all members of cathedralchurches, of materials varying with theecclesiastical rank of the wearer. Thehood part of the almuce was in thecourse of time disused, and a square capsubstituted; and the remaining parts gaverise to the modern cape, worn in foreignchurches, and to the ornament resemblingthe stole, like the ordinary scarf worn in ourchurches. The almuce, or “aumusse,” isnow an ornament of fur or other materialscarried over the arm by the canons ofmany French and other continental cathedrals.In the Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique(Lymr. 1787) it is defined as anornament which was first borne on thehead, afterwards carried on the arm. CardinalBona only mentions the amictus, describingit as in the first paragraph of thisarticle. He identifies it, but certainlywithout any reason, with the Jewishephod. There seems nothing improbablein the various terms above mentionedhaving been originally identical. (SeeBand, Hood, Scarf, and Tippet.)—Jebb.

AMPHIBALUM. (See Chasible.)

ANABAPTISTS. (See Baptists.) Certainsectaries whose title is compoundedof two Greek words, (ἀνα and βαπτιζω,)one of which signifies “anew,” and theother “to baptize;” and whose distinctivetenet it is, that those who have been baptizedin their infancy ought to be baptizedanew.

26John of Leyden, Münzer, Knipperdoling,and other German enthusiasts about thetime of the Reformation, were called by thisname, and held that Christ was not theson of Mary, nor true God; that we wererighteous by our own merits and sufferings,that there was no original sin, and thatinfants were not to be baptized. Theyrejected, also, communion with otherchurches, magistracy, and oaths; maintaineda communion of goods, polygamy,and that a man might put away his wife ifnot of the same religion with himself; thatthe godly should enjoy monarchy hereon earth; that man had a free will inspiritual things; and that any man mightpreach and administer the sacraments.The Anabaptists of Moravia called themselvesapostolical, going barefoot, washingone another’s feet, and having communityof goods; they had a common steward, whodistributed equally things necessary; theyadmitted none but such as would get theirlivelihood by working at some trade; theyhad a common father for their spirituals,who instructed them in their religion, andprayed with them every morning beforethey went abroad; they had a generalgovernor of the church, whom none knewbut themselves, they being obliged to keepit secret. They would be silent a quarterof an hour before meat, covering theirfaces with their hands, and meditating,doing the like after meat, their governorobserving them in the mean time, to reprovewhat was amiss; they were generallyclad in black, discoursing much of thelast judgment, pains of hell, and crueltyof devils, teaching that the way to escapethese was to be rebaptized, and to embracetheir religion. They caused considerabledisturbance in Germany, but were at lengthsubdued. To this sect allusion is made inour 38th Article. By the present Anabaptistsin England, the tenets subversiveof civil government are no longer professed.

The practice of rebaptizing proselyteswas used by some ancient heretics, andother sectaries, as by the Montanists, theNovatians, and the Donatists. In thethird century, the Church was much agitatedby the question whether baptism receivedout of the Catholic communionought to be acknowledged, or whetherconverts to the Church ought to be rebaptized.Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and theAfricans generally, held that baptism withoutthe Church was null, as did also Firmilian,bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, andthe Asiatics of his time. On this account,Stephen, bishop of Rome, declined communionwith the Churches of Africa andof the East. To meet the difficulty, amethod was devised by the Council ofArles, Can. 8, viz. to rebaptize those newlyconverted, if so be it was found that theyhad not been baptized in the name of theFather, Son, and Holy Ghost; and sothe first Council of Nice, Can. 19, orderedthat the Paulianists, or followers of Paulof Samosata, and the Cataphrygians shouldbe 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 infantbaptism, which is the foundation ofthe modern Anabaptism, was not taughtuntil the twelfth century, when PeterallBruis, a Frenchman, preached it.

ANABATA. A cope, or sacerdotalvestment, to cover the back and shouldersof a priest. This is no longer used inthe English Church.

ANALOGY OF FAITH, [translatedin our version, proportion of faith,] is theproportion that the doctrines of the gospelbear to each other, or the close connexionbetween the truths of revealed religion.(Rom. xii. 6.)

ANAPHORA. That part of the liturgyof the Greek Church, which follows theintroductory part, beginning at the Sursumcorda, or, Lift up your hearts, to theend, including the solemn prayers of consecration,&c. It resembles, but does notexactly correspond to, the Roman Canon.(See Renandot.)—Jebb.

ANATHEMA, imports whatever is setapart, separated, or divided; but is mostusually meant to express the cutting offof a person from the communion of thefaithful. It was practised in the primitiveChurch against notorious offenders. Severalcouncils, also, have pronounced anathemasagainst such as they thought corruptedthe purity of the faith. The Churchof England in her 18th Article anathematizesthose who teach that eternal salvationis to be obtained otherwise thanthrough the name of Christ, and in herCanons excommunicates all who say thatthe Church of England is not a true andapostolic Church.—Can. 3. All impugnersof the public worship of God, establishedin the Church of England.—Can. 4.All impugners of the rites and ceremoniesof the Church.—Can. 6. All impugnersof episcopacy.—Can. 7. All authors ofschism.—Can. 9. All maintainers ofschismatics.—Can. 10. All these personslie under the anathema of the Church ofEngland.

ANCHORET. A name given to a hermit,27from his dwelling alone, apart fromsociety (Ἀναχωρητής). The anchoret isdistinguished from the cœnobite, or themonk who dwells in a fraternity, or Κοινόβια.(See Monks.)

ANDREW’S (Saint) DAY. This festivalis celebrated by the Church of England,Nov. 30, in commemoration of St.Andrew, who was, first of all, a disciple ofSt. John the Baptist, but being assured byhis master that he was not the Messias,and hearing him say, upon the sight of ourSaviour, “Behold the Lamb of God!” heleft the Baptist, and being convinced himselfof our Saviour’s divine mission, byconversing with him some time at theplace of his abode, he went to his brotherSimon, afterwards surnamed Peter by ourSaviour, and acquainted him with hishaving found out the Messias; but he didnot become our Lord’s constant attendantuntil a special call or invitation. Afterthe ascension of Christ, when the apostlesdistributed themselves in various partsof the world, St. Andrew is said to havepreached the gospel in Scythia, in Epirus,in Cappadocia, Galatia, Bithynia, and thevicinity of Byzantium, and finally, to havesuffered death by crucifixion, at Ægea, byorder of the proconsul of the place. Theinstrument of his death is said to havebeen in the form of the letter X, being across decussate, or saltier, two pieces oftimber crossing each other in the middle;and hence usually known by the name ofSt. Andrew’s cross.

ANGEL. (See Idolatry, Mariolatry,Invocation of Saints.) By an angel ismeant a messenger who performs the willof a superior. The scriptural words, bothin Hebrew and Greek, mean a messenger.Thus, in the letters addressed bySt. John to the seven churches in AsiaMinor, the bishops of those churches areaddressed as angels; ministers not appointedby the people, but sent by God.But the word is generally applied to thosespiritual beings who surround the throneof glory, and who are sent forth to ministerto them that be heirs of salvation. Itis supposed by some that there is a subordinationof angels in heaven, in the severalranks of seraphim, cherubim, thrones,dominions, principalities, &c. We recognisein the service of the Church, the threeorders of archangels, cherubim, and seraphim.The only archangel, as BishopHorsley remarks, mentioned in Scripture,is St. Michael. (See Cherub.) The wordseraph signifies in the Hebrew to burn.It is possible that these two orders ofangels are alluded to in Psal. civ. 4, “Hemaketh his angels spirits; and his ministersa flaming fire.” The worship ofangels is one of the sins of the RomishChurch. It was first invented by a sect inthe fourth century, who, for the purposeof exercising this unlawful worship, heldprivate meetings separate from those ofthe Catholic Church, in which it was notpermitted. The Council of Laodicea, thedecrees of which were received and approvedby the whole Church, condemnedthe sect in the following terms: “Christiansought not to forsake the Church ofGod, and depart and call on angels, andmake meetings, which are forbidden. Ifany one, therefore, be found, giving himselfto this hidden idolatry, let him beanathema, because he hath left the LordJesus Christ, the Son of God, and hathbetaken himself to idolatry.” The sameprinciple applies to prayers made to anycreated being. The worship of the creaturewas regarded by the Church in thefourth century as idolatry. See BishopBeveridge’s Expos. of Acts xxii.: see alsoBishop Bull, on the Corruption of theChurch of Rome, sect. iii., who, whilstshowing that the ancient fathers and councilswere express in their denunciation ofit, (e. g. the Council of Laodicea, Theodoret,Origen, Justin Martyr, &c.,) says,“It is very evident that the Catholic Christiansof Origen’s time made no prayers toangels or saints, but directed all theirprayers to God, through the alone mediationof Jesus Christ our Saviour. Indeed,against the invocation of angels andsaints we have the concurrent testimoniesof all the Catholic Fathers of the firstthree centuries at least.” Bishop Bullthen refers to his own Def. Fid. Nic. ii. to 8,for a refutation of Bellarmine’s unfair citationof Justin Martyr, (Apol. i. 6, p. 47,)where he says, “I have evidently provedthat that plan of Justin, so far from givingcountenance to the religious worship ofangels, makes directly against it.” Alsothe most ancient Liturgies, &c.

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

ANGELICI. A sort of Christian heretics,who were supposed to have their risein the apostles’ time, but who were mostnumerous about A.D. 180. They worshippedangels, and from thence had their name.

ANGELITES. A sort of Sabellian28heretics, so called from Agelius or Angelius,a place in Alexandria, where theyused to meet.

ANGLO-CATHOLIC CHURCH. (SeeChurch of England.) Any branch of theChurch reformed on the principles of theEnglish Reformation.

In certain considerations of the firstspiritual importance, the Church of Englandoccupies a singularly felicitous position.The great majority of Christians—theRoman, Greek, and Eastern Churches—regardEpiscopacy as indispensable tothe integrity of Christianity; the Presbyteriansand others, who have no bishops,nor, as far as we can judge, any meansof obtaining the order, regard episcopacyas unnecessary. Supposing for a momentthe question to be dubious, the position ofthe Presbyterian is, at the best, unsafe;the position of the member of the Churchof England is, at the worst, perfectly safe:at the worst, he can only be in the sameposition at last as the Presbyterian is in atpresent. On the Anti-episcopalian’s ownground, the Episcopalian is on this pointdoubly fortified; whilst, on the oppositeadmission, the Presbyterian is doubly condemned,first, in the subversion of a Divineinstitution; and, secondly, in the invalidityof the ordinances of grace. Proceeding,therefore, on mere reason, it would bemost unwise for a member of the Churchof England to become a Presbyterian; hecan gain nothing by the change, and maylose everything. The case is exactly thereverse with the Presbyterian.

Again: by all apostolic Churches theapostolic succession is maintained to be asine quâ non for the valid administrationof the eucharist and the authoritative remissionof sins. The sects beyond the paleof the apostolic succession very naturallyreject its indispensability; but no one isso fanatical as to imagine its possessioninvalidates the ordinances of the Churchpossessing it. Now, of all branches of theCatholic Church, the Church of England ismost impregnable on this point; she unitesin her priesthood the triple successions ofthe ancient British, the ancient Irish, andthe ancient Roman Church. Supposing,therefore, the apostolic Churches to holdthe right dogma on the succession, themember of the Church of England hasnot the slightest occasion to disturb hissoul; he is trebly safe. Supposing, onthe other hand, the apostolic succession tobe a fortunate historical fact, not a divinelyperpetuated authority, he is still, at theleast, as safe as the dissenter; whereas, ifit is, as the Church holds, the only authorityon earth which the Saviour has commissionedwith his power, what is thespiritual state of the schismatic who usurps,or of the assembly that pretends to bestow,what God alone can grant and has grantedto his Church only. No plausible inducementto separate from the Church ofEngland can counterbalance this necessityfor remaining in her communion: and herchildren have great cause to be gratefulfor being placed by her in a state of suchcomplete security on two such essentialarticles of administrative Christianity.—Morgan.

ANNATES, or FIRST-FRUITS.These are the profits of one year of everyvacant bishopric in England, claimed atfirst by the pope, upon a pretence of defendingthe Christians from the infidels;and paid by every bishop at his accession,before he could receive his investiture fromRome. Afterwards the pope prevailed onall those who were spiritual patrons tooblige their clerks to pay these annates;and so by degrees they became payable bythe clergy in general. Some of our historianstell us that Pope Clement was thefirst who claimed annates in England, inthe reign of Edward I.; but Selden, in ashort account which he has given us of thereign of William Rufus, affirms that theywere claimed by the pope before thatreign. Chronologers differ also about thetime when they became a settled duty.Platina asserts that Boniface IX., whowas pope in the first year of Henry IV.,Annalarum usum beneficiis ecclesiasticisprimum imposuit (viz.) dimidium annuiproventus fisco apostolico persolvere. Walsinghamaffirms it to be above eighty yearsbefore that time,(viz.) in the time of PopeJohn XXII., who was pope about themiddle of the reign of Edward II., andthat he reservavit cameræ suæ primos fructusbeneficiorum. But a learned bishop ofWorcester has made this matter more clear.He states that the old and accustomed feespaid here to the feudal lords were calledbeneficia; and that the popes, assuming tobe lords or spiritual heads of the Church,were not contented with an empty thoughvery great title, without some temporaladvantage, and therefore Boniface VIII.,about the latter end of the reign of Edward I.,having assumed an absolute dominionin beneficiary matters, made himselfa kind of feudal lord over the beneficesof the Church, and as a consequence thereof,claimed a year’s profits of the Church,as a beneficiary fee due to himself, thechief lord. But though the usurped powerof the pope was then very great, the king29and the people did not comply with thisdemand; insomuch that, by the statute ofCarlisle, which was made in the last yearof his reign, and about the beginning ofthe popedom of Clement V., this was calleda new imposition gravis et intolerabilis,et contra leges et consuetudines regni; andby reason of this powerful opposition thematter rested for some time: but the successorsof that pope found more favourableopportunities to insist on this demand,which was a year’s profits of each vacantbishopric, at a reasonable valuation, viz. amoiety of the full value; and having obtainedwhat they demanded, they afterwardsendeavoured to raise the value, but wereopposed in this likewise by the parliament,in the 6th of Henry IV., and a penalty wasinflicted on those bishops who paid morefor their first-fruits than was accustomed.But, notwithstanding these statutes, suchwas the plenitude of the pope’s power, andso great was the profit which accrued tohim by this invention, that in little morethan half a century, the sum of £16,000was paid to him, under the name of annates,for expediting bulls of bishoprics only.The payment of these was continued tillabout the 25th year of Henry VIII., andthen an act was made, reciting, that sincethe beginning of that parliament anotherstatute had been made (which act is notprinted) for the suppressing the exactionof annates of archbishops and bishops.But the parliament being unwilling toproceed to extremities, remitted the puttingthat act in execution to the king himself:that if the pope would either putdown annates, or so moderate the paymentthat they might no longer be a burthen tothe people, the king, by letters patent,might declare the act should be of no force.

The pope, having notice of this, andtaking no care to reform those exactions,that statute was confirmed; and because itonly extended to annates paid for archbishopricsand bishoprics, in the next yearanother statute was made, (26 Henry VIII.cap. 3,) that not only those first-fruits formerlypaid by bishops, but those of everyother spiritual living, should be paid tothe king. Notwithstanding these laws,there were still some apprehensions, that,upon the death of several prelates whowere then very old, great sums of moneywould be conveyed to Rome by their successors;therefore, Anno 33 Henry VIII.,it was enacted, that all contributions ofannates for bishoprics, or for any bulls tobe obtained from the see of Rome, shouldcease; and if the pope should deny anybulls of consecration by reason of this prohibition,then the bishop presented shouldbe consecrated in England by the archbishopof the province; and if it was inthe case of an archbishop, then he shouldbe consecrated by any two bishops to beappointed by the king; and that, insteadof annates, a bishop should pay to thepope £5 per cent. of the clear yearly valueof his bishopric. But before this time(viz. 31 Henry VIII. cap. 22) there wasa court erected by the parliament, for thelevying and government of these first-fruits,which court was dissolved by QueenMary; and in the next year the paymentwas ordered to cease as to her. But inthe first of Elizabeth they were again restoredto the crown, and the statute 32Hen. VIII., which directed the grant andorder of them, was recontinued; and thatthey should be from thenceforth withinthe government of the exchequer. Butvicarages not exceeding £10 per annum,and parsonages not exceeding ten marks,according to the valuation in the first-fruits’office, were exempted from paymentof first-fruits; and the reason is becausevicarages, when this valuation was made,had a large revenue, arising from voluntaryoblations which ceased upon the dissolution,&c., and therefore they had thisfavour of exemption allowed them afterwards.By the before-mentioned statute,a new officer was created, called a remembrancerof the first-fruits, whose businessit was to take compositions for the same;and to send process to the sheriff againstthose who did not pay it; and by the act26 Henry VIII. he who entered into aliving without compounding, or paying thefirst-fruits, was to forfeit double the value.

To prevent which forfeiture, it wasusual for the clerk newly presented, togive four bonds to pay the same, withintwo years next after induction, by fourequal payments. But though these bondswere executed, yet if the clergyman died,or was legally deprived before the paymentsbecame due, it was a good dischargeby virtue of the act 1 Elizabeth before-mentioned.And thus it stood, untilQueen Anne, taking into considerationthe insufficient maintenance of the poorclergy, sent a message to the House ofCommons by one of her principal secretaries,signifying her intention to grant thefirst-fruits for the better support of theclergy; and that they would find out somemeans to make her intentions more effectual.Thereupon an act was passed, bywhich the queen was to incorporate persons,and to settle upon them and theirsuccessors the revenue of the first-fruits;30but that the statutes before-mentionedshould continue in force, for such intentsand purposes as should be directed in hergrant; and that this new act should notextend to impeach or make void anyformer grant made of this revenue. Andlikewise any person, except infants andfemme-coverts, without their husbands,might, by bargain and sale enrolled, disposelands or goods to such corporation,for the maintenance of the clergy officiatingin the Established Church, withoutany settled competent provision; and thecorporation might also purchase lands forthat purpose, notwithstanding the statuteof mortmain. Pursuant to this law, thequeen (in the third year of her reign) incorporatedseveral of the nobility, bishops,judges, and gentry, &c., by the name ofthe Governors of the Bounty of QueenAnne, for the augmentation of the maintenanceof the poor clergy, to whom shegave the first-fruits, &c., and appointedthe governors to meet at the Prince’sChamber, in Westminster, or in any otherplace in London or Westminster, to beappointed by any seven of them; of whichnumber a privy-counsellor, a bishop, ajudge, or counsellor at law, must be one;there to consult about the distribution ofthis bounty. That four courts shall beheld by these governors in every year, viz.in the months of December, March, June,and September; and that seven of thesaid governors (quorum tres, &c.) shall bea court, and that the business shall bedespatched by majority of votes: that suchcourts may appoint committees out of thenumber of the governors, for the bettermanaging their business; and at their firstor any other meeting, deliver to the queenwhat methods they shall think fit for thegovernment of the corporation; whichbeing approved under the great seal, shallbe the rules of the government thereof.That the lord keeper shall issue out writsof inquiry, at their request, directed tothree or more persons, to inquire, uponoath, into the value of the maintenance ofpoor parsons who have not £80 per annum,and the distance of their churches fromLondon; and which of them are in marketor corporate towns, or not; and how thechurches are supplied; and if the incumbentshave more than one living; thatcare may be taken to increase their maintenance.That after such inquiry made,they do prepare and exhibit to the queena true state of the yearly value of themaintenance of all such ministers, and ofthe present yearly value of the first-fruitsand arrears thereof, and of such pensionsas are now payable out of the same, byvirtue of any former grants. That thereshall be a secretary, and a treasurer, whoshall continue in their office during thepleasure of the corporation; that theyshall take an oath before the court for thefaithful execution of their office. Thatthe treasurer must give security to accountfor the money which he receives; and thathis receipt shall be a discharge for whathe receives; and that he shall be subjectto the examination of four or more of thegovernors. That the governors shall collectand receive the bounties of other persons;and shall admit into their corporationany contributors, (whom they think fitfor so pious a work,) and appoint personsunder their common seal, to take subscriptions,and collect the money contributed;and that the names of the benefactors shallbe registered in a book to be kept for thatpurpose.

Owing mainly to the exertion of DeanSwift, a similar remission of the first-fruitswas made in Ireland during the reign ofQueen Anne, and a corporation for thedistribution of this fruit was appointedunder the designation of the Board of First-fruits,consisting of all the archbishops andbishops of Ireland, the dean of St. Patrick’s,and the chief officers of the Crown. TheBoard was dissolved by the act of parliamentwhich established the first EcclesiasticalCommission, which now dischargesits functions.

ANNIVELAIS, or Annualais. Thechantry priests, whose duty it was to sayprivate masses at particular altars, wereso called; as at Exeter cathedral, &c.They were also called chaplains.

ANNUNCIADA. A society foundedat Rome, in the year 1460, by CardinalJohn Turrecremata, for the marrying ofpoor maids. It now bestows, every Lady-day,sixty Roman crowns, a suit of whiteserge, and a florin for slippers, to above400 maids for their portion. The popeshave so great a regard for this charitablefoundation, that they make a cavalcade,attended with the cardinals, &c., to distributetickets for these sixty crowns, &c.,for those who are to receive them. If anyof the maids are desirous to be nuns, theyhave each of them 120 crowns, and aredistinguished by a chaplet of flowers ontheir head.

ANNUNCIADE, otherwise called theOrder of the Ten Virtues, or Delights, ofthe Virgin Mary; a Popish order of women,founded by Queen Jane, of France, wife toLewis XII., whose rule and chief businesswas to honour, with a great many beads31and rosaries, the ten principal virtues ordelights of the Virgin Mary; the first ofwhich they make to be when the angelGabriel annunciated to her the mystery ofthe incarnation, from whence they havetheir name; the second, when she saw herson Jesus brought into the world; thethird, when the wise men came to worshiphim; the fourth, when she found him disputingwith the doctors in the temple, &c.This order was confirmed by the pope in1501, and by Leo X. again in 1517.

ANNUNCIATION of the BLESSEDVIRGIN MARY. This festival is appointedby the Church, in commemorationof that day on which it was announced toMary, by an angel, that she should be themother of the Messiah. The Church ofEngland observes this festival on the 25thof March, and in the calendar the day iscalled the “Annunciation of our Lady,”and hence the 25th of March is calledLady-day. It is observed as a “scarletday” at the Universities of Cambridge andOxford.

ANOMŒANS. (From ἄνομοιος, unlike.)The name of the extreme Ariansin the fourth century, because they heldthe essence of the Son of God to be unlikeunto that of the Father. These hereticswere condemned by the semi-Arians, atthe Council of Seleucia, A. D. 359, but theyrevenged themselves of this censure a yearafter, at a pretended synod in Constantinople.

ANTELUCAN. In times of persecution,the Christians being unable to meetfor divine worship in the open day, heldtheir assemblies in the night. The likeassemblies were afterwards continued fromfeelings of piety and devotion, and calledAntelucan, or assemblies before daylight.

ANTHEM. A hymn, sung in partsalternately. Such, at least, would appearto be its original sense. The word is derivedfrom the Greek Ἀντιφωνὴ, which signifies,as Isidorus interprets it, “Vox reciproca,”&c., one voice succeeding another;that is, two choruses singing by turns. (SeeAntiphon.) In the Greek Church it wasmore particularly applied to one of theAlleluia Psalms sung after those of theday. In the Roman and unreformedWestern offices it is ordinarily applied to ashort sentence sung before and after oneof the Psalms of the day: so called, accordingto Cardinal Bona, because it givesthe tone to the Psalms which are sungantiphonely, or by each side of the choiralternately; and then at the end bothchoirs join in the anthem. The sameterm is given to short sentences said orsung at different parts of the service;also occasionally to metrical hymns. Thereal reason of the application of the termin these instances seems to be this, thatthese sentences are a sort of response to,or alternation with, the other parts of theoffice. The preacher’s text was at the beginningof the Reformation sometimescalled the Anthem. (Strype, Ann. of theRef. chap. ix. A. D. 1559.) In this senseit is applied in King Edward’s First Bookto the sentences in the Visitation of theSick, “Remember not,” &c., &c., “OSaviour of the world,” &c., which were obviouslynever intended to be sung. Inthe same book it is applied to the hymnspeculiar to Easter day, and to the prayerin the Communion Service, “Turn thouus,” &c., both of which are prescribed tobe said or sung. In our present PrayerBook it occurs only in reference to theEaster Hymn, and in the rubrics after thethird Collects of Morning and EveningPrayer. These rubrics were first insertedat the last Review, though there is nodoubt that the anthem had always beencustomarily performed in the same place.To the anthem so performed Milton alludedin the well-known words, “In service highand anthems clear;” these expressions, aswell as the whole phraseology of that unrivalledpassage, being technically correct:the service meaning the Church Hymns,set to varied harmonies; the anthem, (ofwhich two were commonly performed inthe full Sunday morning service,) the compositionsnow in question.

The English Anthem, as the term haslong been practically understood, sanctionedby the universal use of the Churchof England, has no exact equivalent in theservice of other Churches. It resembles,but not exactly, the Motets of foreignchoirs, and occasionally their Responsoriesor Antiphons. There are a few metricalanthems, corresponding to the hymns ofthose choirs. But, generally speaking, theEnglish anthem is set to words from HolyScripture, or the Liturgy; sung, not to achant, or an air, like that of a hymn, butto varied consecutive strains, admitting ofevery diversity of solo, verse, and chorus.The Easter-day Anthem, at the time ofthe last Review, was not usually sung, asnow, to a chant, but to varied harmonies,(as is still the case at Salisbury cathedral,)—andin the sealed book it is to be observed,that it is not printed like thePsalms, in verses, but in paragraphs.Properly speaking, our services, technicallyso called, (see Service,) are anthems; as arealso the hymns in the Communion and32Burial Service. The responses to theCommandments, and the sentence “OLord, arise,” &c., in the Liturgy, give atolerably correct notion of the Roman Antiphon.

The Church of England anthems consistof three kinds: Full; or those sungthroughout by the whole choir. Full withverse; that is, consisting of a chorus forthe most part, but with an occasional passagesung by but a few voices. Verse;consisting mainly of solos, duets, trios, &c.,the chorus being the appendage, not thesubstance. Objections have been made oflate to verse anthems; but there is noquestion that they are nearly, if not quite,coeval with the Reformation.

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

An anthem in choirs and places wherethey sing is appointed by the rubric inthe daily service in the Prayer Book, afterthe third Collect, both at Morning andEvening Prayer.

ANTHOLOGIUM. (In Latin, Florilegium.)The title of a book in the GreekChurch, divided into twelve months, containingthe offices sung throughout thewhole year, on the festivals of our Saviour,the Virgin Mary, and other remarkablesaints. It is in two volumes; the firstcontains six months, from the first day ofSeptember to the last day of February;the second comprehends the other sixmonths. It is observable from this bookthat the Greek Church celebrates Easterat the same time with the Church of England,notwithstanding that they differ fromus in the lunar cycle.—Broughton.

ANTHROPOLATRÆ. (Man-worshippers.)A name of abuse given tochurchmen by the Apollinarians, becausethey maintained that Christ, whom bothadmitted to be the object of the Christian’sworship, was a perfect man, of a reasonablesoul and human flesh subsisting. Thisthe Apollinarians denied. It was alwaysthe way with heretics to apply to churchmenterms of reproach, while they assumedto themselves distinctive appellations ofhonour: thus the Manichees, for instance,while they called themselves the elect, theblessed, and the pure, gave to the churchmenthe name of simple ones. It is notless a sign of a sectarian spirit to assumea distinctive name of honour, than to imposeon the Church a name of reproach,for both tend to divided communion inspirit or in fact. There is this good, however,to be gathered from these slanderousand vain-glorious arts of heretics; thattheir terms of reproach serve to indicatesome true doctrine of the Church: as, forinstance, that of Anthropolatræ determinesthe opinion of Catholics touching Christ’shuman nature; while the names of distinctionwhich heretics themselves assume,usually serve to throw light on the historyof their own error.

ANTHROPOMORPHITES. Hereticswho were so called because they maintainedthat God had a human shape.They are mentioned by Eusebius as theopponents of Origen, and their accusationof Origen implies their own heresy.“Whereas,” they said, “the sacred Scripturestestify that God has eyes, ears, hands,and feet, as men have, the partisans ofDioscorus, being followers of Origen, introducethe blasphemous dogma that Godhas not a body.” The Anthropomorphiteerror was common among the monks ofEgypt about the end of the fourth century.Dioscorus was a leader of the oppositeparty.

ANTICHRIST. The man of sin, whois to precede the second advent of ourblessed Saviour Jesus Christ. “Littlechildren,” saith St. John, “ye have heardthat Antichrist shall come.” And St. Paul,in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians,describes him: “That day (the day of ourLord’s second advent) shall not comeexcept there come a falling away first,and that man of sin be revealed, the son ofperdition, who opposeth and exalteth himselfabove all that is called God, or that isworshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth inthe temple of God, showing himself thathe is God. Then shall that wicked berevealed, whom the Lord shall consumewith the spirit of his mouth, and shalldestroy with the brightness of his coming;even him whose coming is after the workingof Satan, with all power and signs andlying wonders, and with all deceivablenessof unrighteousness in them that perish.”

Under the image of a horn that hadeyes, and a mouth that spake very greatthings; that made war with the saints, andprevailed against them till the Ancient ofdays came; and under the image of a littlehorn, which attacked the very heavens,and trod down and trampled on the state,Daniel is supposed to predict Antichrist.

St. John in the Apocalypse describesAntichrist as a beast that ascendeth out ofthe bottomless pit, and maketh war uponthe saints; as a beast rising out of the sea,with two horns and two crowns upon his33horns, and upon his heads the name ofblasphemy. In another place, he speaksof the number of the beast, and says, it issix hundred threescore and six.

It is not the purpose of this dictionaryto state the various ways in which thisprophecy has been understood. We thereforepass on to say, that Antichrist is tolay the foundation of his empire in Babylon,i. e. (as many have supposed,) in Rome,and he is to be destroyed by the secondcoming of our Lord.

ANTINOMIANS. The Antinomiansderive their name from ἀντὶ, against, νόμος,law, their distinguishing tenet being, thatthe law is not a rule of life to believersunder the gospel. The founder of theAntinomian heresy was John Agricola, aSaxon divine, a contemporary, a countryman,and at first a disciple, of Luther. Hewas of a restless temper, and wrote againstMelancthon; and having obtained a professorshipat Wittemberg, he first taughtAntinomianism there, about the year 1535.The Papists, in their disputes with theProtestants of that day, carried the meritof good works to an extravagant length;and this induced some of their opponents,as is too often the case, to run into theopposite extreme. The doctrine of Agricolawas in itself obscure, and perhapsrepresented worse than it really was byLuther, who wrote with acrimony againsthim, and first styled him and his followersAntinomians—perhaps thereby “intending,”as Dr. Hey conjectures, “to disgracethe notions of Agricola, and make evenhim ashamed of them.” Agricola stoodin his own defence, and complained thatopinions were imputed to him which hedid not hold.

About the same time, Nicholas Amsdorf,bishop of Naumburg in Saxony, fell underthe same odious name and imputation,and seems to have been treated more unfairlythan even Agricola himself. Thebishop died at Magdeburg in 1541, andsome say that his followers were called fora time Amsdorfians, after his name.

This sect sprung up among the Presbyteriansin England, during the Protectorateof Oliver Cromwell, who was himselfan Antinomian of the worst sort. Thesupporters of the Popish doctrines deducinga considerable portion of the argumentson which they rested their defencefrom the doctrines of the old law, Agricola,in the height of his zeal for reformation,was encouraged by the success ofhis master, Luther, to attack the veryfoundation of their arguments, and to denythat any part of the Old Testament wasintended as a rule of faith or practice tothe disciples of Christ.

He is said to have taught that the lawought not to be proposed to the people asa rule of manners, nor used in the Churchas a means of instruction; and, of course,that repentance is not to be preached fromthe Decalogue, but only from the gospel;that the gospel alone is to be inculcatedand explained, both in the churches andthe schools of learning; and that goodworks do not promote our salvation, norevil works hinder it.

Some of his followers in England, in theseventeenth century, are said to have expresslymaintained, that as the elect cannotfall from grace, nor forfeit the Divinefavour, the wicked actions they commitare not really sinful, nor are they to beconsidered as instances of their violationof the Divine law; and that, consequently,they have no occasion either to confesstheir sins, or to seek renewed forgiveness.According to them, it is one of the essentialand distinctive characters of the elect,that they cannot do anything displeasingto God, or prohibited by the law. “Letme speak freely to you, and tell you,” saysDr. Tobias Crisp, (who may be styled theprimipilus of the more modern scheme ofAntinomianism, and was the great Antinomianopponent of Baxter, Bates, Howe,&c.,) “that the Lord hath no more to layto the charge of an elect person, yet in theheight of his iniquity, and in the excess ofriot, and committing all the abominationsthat 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’scharge, than God hath to lay to thecharge of a believer: nay, God hath nomore to lay to the charge of such a personthan he hath to lay to the charge of a sainttriumphant in glory. The elect of God,they are the heirs of God; and as they areheirs, so the first being of them puts theminto the right of inheritance, and there is notime but such a person is the child of God.”

That the justification of sinners is animmanent and eternal act of God, not onlypreceding all acts of sin, but the existenceof the sinner himself, is the opinion ofmost of those who are styled Antinomians,though some suppose, with Dr. Crisp, thatthe elect were justified at the time ofChrist’s death. In answer to the question,“When did the Lord justify us?” Dr.Crisp says, “He did, from eternity, inrespect of obligation; but in respect ofexecution, he did it when Christ was onthe cross; and in respect of application,he doth it while children are yet unborn.”

34The other principal doctrines which atpresent bear the appellation of Antinomian,are said to be as follows:

1. That justification by faith is no morethan a manifestation to us of what wasdone before we had a being.

2. That men ought not to doubt of theirfaith, or question whether they believe inChrist.

3. That by God’s laying our iniquitiesupon Christ, and our being imputed righteousthrough him, he became as completelysinful as we, and we as completely righteousas Christ.

4. That believers need not fear eithertheir own sins or the sins of others, sinceneither can do them any injury.

5. That the new covenant is not madeproperly 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 onChrist’s; and that he repented, believed,and obeyed for us.

6. That sanctification is not a properevidence of justification—that our righteousnessis nothing but the imputation ofthe righteousness of Christ—that a believerhas no holiness in himself, but inChrist only; and that the very moment heis justified, he is wholly sanctified, and heis neither more nor less holy from thathour to the day of his death.

Justification by a faith not necessarilyproductive of good works, and righteousnessimputed to such a faith, arethe doctrines by which the membersof this denomination are chiefly distinguished.

While the Socinian Unitarians place thewhole of their religion in morality, in disregardof Christian faith, the Antinomiansrely so on faith as to undervalue morality.Their doctrines at least have toomuch that appearance.

In short, according to Dr. Williams,Dr. Crisp’s scheme is briefly this: “Thatby God’s mere electing decree all savingblessings are by Divine obligation madeours, and nothing more is needful to ourtitle to these blessings: that on the crossall the sins of the elect were transferred toChrist, and ceased ever after to be theirsins: that at the first moment of conceptiona title to all those decreed blessings ispersonally applied to the elect, and theyare invested actually therein. Hence theelect have nothing to do, in order to have an interestin any of those blessings, nor oughtthey to intend the least good to themselvesin what they do: sin can do them no harmbecause it is none of theirs; nor can Godafflict them for any sin.” And all the restof his opinions “follow in a chain,” addsDr. W., “to the dethroning of Christ,enervating his laws and pleadings, obstructingthe great design of redemption, opposingthe very scope of the gospel, andthe ministry of Christ and his prophets andapostles.”—Adams.

High Calvinism, or Antinomianism, absolutelywithers and destroys the consciousnessof human responsibility. It confoundsmoral with natural impotency,forgetting that the former is a crime, thelatter only a misfortune; and thus treatsthe man dead in trespasses and sins, as ifhe were already in his grave. It prophesiessmooth things to the sinner going onin his transgressions, and soothes to slumberand the repose of death the souls ofsuch as are at ease in Zion. It assumesthat, because men can neither believe, repent,nor pray acceptably, unless aided bythe grace of God, it is useless to call uponthem to do so. It maintains that the gospelis only intended for elect sinners, andtherefore it ought to be preached to nonebut such. In defiance, therefore, of thecommand of God, it refuses to preach theglad tidings of mercy to every sinner. Inopposition to Scripture, and to everyrational consideration, it contends that itis not man’s duty to believe the truth ofGod—justifying the obvious inference, thatit is not a sin to reject it. In short, itswhole tendency is to produce an impressionon the sinner’s mind, that if he is not savedit is not his fault, but God’s; that if he iscondemned, it is more for the glory of theDivine Sovereignty, than as the punishmentof his guilt.

So far from regarding the moral cure ofhuman nature as the great object and designof the gospel, Antinomianism doesnot 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 aseverything—the spiritual design or effectas nothing. Hence its opposition to progressiveand its zeal for imputed sanctification:the former is intelligible and tangible,but the latter a mere figment of theimagination. Hence its delight in expatiatingon the eternity of the Divine decrees,which it does not understand, but whichserve to amuse and to deceive; and itsdislike to all the sober realities of God’spresent dealings and commands. It exultsin the contemplation of a Christ who is akind of concretion of all the moral attributesof his people; to the overlooking ofthat Christ who is the Head of all that in35heaven and on earth bear his likeness. Itboasts in the doctrine of the perseveranceof the saints, while it believes in no saintbut one, that is, Jesus, and neglects to persevere.—Orme’sLife of Baxter, vol. ii. p.311.

ANTI-PÆDOBAPTISTS. (From ἀντὶ,against, παῖς, child, βάπτισμα, baptism.)Persons who are opposed to the baptismof infants. In this country, this sect arrogateto themselves the title of Baptistspar excellence, as though no other body ofChristians baptized: just as the Sociniansextenuate their heresy by calling themselvesUnitarians: thereby insinuating thatthose who hold the mystery of the HolyTrinity do not believe in one God. (SeeAnabaptists, Baptism.)

ANTIPHON, or ANTIPHONY. (ἀντὶand φωνὴ.) The chant or alternate singingof a Christian choir. This is the mostancient form of church music. Diodorusand Flavian, the leaders of the orthodoxparty at Antioch during the ascendency ofArianism, in the fourth century, and St.Ambrose at Milan, instead of leaving thechanting to the choristers, as had beenusual, divided the whole congregation intotwo choirs, which sang the psalms alternately.That the chanting of the psalmsalternately is even older than Christianity,cannot be doubted, for the custom prevailedin the Jewish temple. Many of thepsalms are actually composed in alternateverses, evidently with a view to their beingused in a responsive manner. “I makeno doubt,” says Nicholls, “but that it is tothis way of singing used in the temple,that that vision in Isaiah vi. alluded, whenhe saw the two cherubims, and heard themsinging, ‘Holy, holy,’ &c. For thesewords cannot be otherwise explained, thanof their singing anthem-wise; ‘they calledout this to that cherubim,’ properly relatesto the singing in a choir, one voiceon one side, and one on the other.” Inthe earlier days of the Christian Church,this practice was adopted, and becameuniversal. The custom is said, by Socratesthe historian, to have been first introducedamong the Greeks by Ignatius.St. Basil tells us that, in his time, aboutA. D. 470, the Christians, “rising fromtheir prayers, proceeded to singing ofpsalms, dividing themselves into two parts,and singing by turns.” Tertullian remarks,that “when one side of the choir sing tothe other, they both provoke it by a holycontention, and relieve it by a mutual supplyand change.” For these or similarreasons, the reading of the Psalter is, inplaces where there is no choir, divided betweenthe minister and people. In the cathedralworship of the Church Universal, thepsalms of the day are chanted throughout.And in order to preserve their responsivecharacter, two full choirs are stationed oneon each side of the church. One of thesehaving chanted one or two verses (theusual compass of the chant-tune) remainssilent, while the opposite choir replies inthe verses succeeding; and at the end ofeach psalm, (and of each division of the119th Psalm,) the Gloria Patri is sung bythe united choirs in chorus, accompaniedby the peal of the great organ. The usage,now prevalent in foreign churches subjectto Rome, of chanting one verse by a singlevoice, and the other by the full choir, is notancient, and is admitted to be incorrect bysome continental ritualists themselves. Thismethod is quite destructive of the genuineeffect of antiphonal chanting, which oughtto be equally balanced on each side of thechoir. It may indeed be accepted as asort of modification of the ordinary parochialmode; but in regular choirs it wouldbe a clear innovation, a retrograde movement,instead of an improvement. Insome choirs the Gloria Patri is sung antiphonally,but always to the great organ.—Jebb.

ANTIPHONAR. The book which containsthe invitatories, responsories, verses,collects, and whatever else is sung in thechoir; but not including the hymns peculiarto the Communion Service, whichare contained in the Gradual, or Grail.—Jebb.

ANTI-POPE. He that usurps the popedomin opposition to the right pope. Geddesgives the history of no less than twenty-fourschisms in the Roman Church causedby anti-popes. Some took their rise froma diversity of doctrines or belief, whichled different parties to elect each theirseveral pope; but they generally tooktheir rise from dubious controverted rightsof election. During the great schism,which, commencing towards the close ofthe 14th century, lasted for fifty years,there was always a pope and anti-pope;and as to the fact which of the two rivalswas pope, and which anti-pope, it is impossibleeven now to decide. The greatestpowers of Europe were at this timedivided in their opinions on the subject.As is observed by some Roman Catholicwriters, many pious and gifted persons,who are now numbered among the saintsof the Church, were to be found indifferentlyin either obedience; which sufficientlyproved, as they assert, that theeternal salvation of the faithful was not,36in this case, endangered by their error.The schism began soon after the electionof Urban VI., and was terminated by theCouncil of Constance. By that Councilthree rival popes were deposed, and thepeace of the Church was restored by theelection of Martin V.

ANTI-TYPE. A Greek word, properlysignifying a type or figure correspondingto some other type: the word iscommonly used in theological writings todenote the person in whom any prophetictype is fulfilled: thus, our blessed Saviouris called the Anti-type of the Paschallamb under the Jewish law.

APOCALYPSE. A revelation. Thename sometimes given to the last book ofthe 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 NewTestament. It was written, according toIrenæus, about the year of Christ 96, inthe island of Patmos, whither St. Johnhad been banished by the emperor Domitian;but Sir Isaac Newton fixes the timeof writing this book earlier, viz. in the timeof Nero. In support of this opinion healleges the sense of the earliest commentators,and the tradition of the Churchesof Syria preserved to this day in the titleof the Syriac version of that book, whichis this: “The Revelation which was madeto John the Evangelist by God in theisland of Patmos, into which he was banishedby Nero the Cæsar.” This opinion,he tells us, is further confirmed by the allusionsin the Apocalypse to the temple,and altar, and holy city, as then standing;as also by the style of it, which is fuller ofHebraisms than his Gospel; whence it maybe inferred, that it was written when Johnwas newly come out of Judea. It is confirmedalso by the many Apocalypsesascribed to the apostles, which appearedin the apostolic age: for Caīus, who wascontemporary with Tertullian, tells us,that Cerinthus wrote his Revelation in imitationof St. John’s, and yet he lived soearly that he opposed the apostles at Jerusalemtwenty-six years before the death ofNero, and died before St. John. To thesereasons he adds another, namely, that theApocalypse seems to be alluded to in theEpistles of St. Peter, and that to the Hebrews;and if so, must have been writtenbefore them. The allusions he means, arethe discourses concerning the high priestin the heavenly tabernacle; the σαββατισμὸς,or the millennial rest; the earth,“whose end is to be burned,” &c.; whencethis learned author is of opinion, thatPeter and John stayed in Judea and Syriatill the Romans made war upon their nation,that is, till the twelfth year of Nero;that they then retired into Asia, and thatPeter went from thence by Corinth toRome; that the Romans, to prevent insurrectionsfrom the Jews among them,secured their leaders, and banished St.John into Patmos, where he wrote hisApocalypsis; and that very soon after, theEpistle to the Hebrews and those of Peterwere written to the churches, with referenceto this prophecy, as what they wereparticularly concerned in. Some attributethis book to the arch-heretic Cerinthus:but the ancients unanimously ascribe it toJohn the son of Zebedee, and brother ofJames. The Revelation has not at alltimes been esteemed canonical. Therewere many Churches of Greece, as St. Jeromeinforms us, which did not receive it;neither is it in the catalogue of the canonicalbooks prepared by the Council ofLaodicea; 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, andfollowing centuries, quote the Revelationsas a book then acknowledged to be canonical.

It is a part of this prophecy, that itshould not be understood before the lastage of the world; and therefore it makesfor the credit of the prophecy that it isnot yet understood.—The folly of interpretershas been to foretell times andthings by this prophecy, as if God designedto make them prophets. By thisrashness, they have not only exposed themselves,but brought the prophecy also intocontempt. The design of God was muchotherwise. He gave this, and the propheciesof the Old Testament, not to gratifymen’s curiosities by enabling them toforeknow things, but that, after they werefulfilled, they might be interpreted by theevent; and his own providence, not the interpreters,be then manifested thereby tothe world.—There is already so much ofthe prophecy fulfilled, that as many as willtake pains in this study, may see sufficientinstances of God’s providence.

The Apocalypse of John is written inthe same style and language with the propheciesof Daniel, and hath the same relationto them which they have to one another:so that all of them together makebut one consistent prophecy, pointing outthe various revolutions that should happenboth to the Church and the State, and atlength the final destruction and downfalof the Roman empire.

37APOCRYPHA. (See Bible, Scriptures.)From ἀπὸ and κρύπτω, to hide, “becausethey were wont to be read not openly andin common, but as it were in secret andapart.” (Bible of 1539, Preface to Apocrypha.)Certain books appended to thesacred writings. There is no authority,internal or external, for admitting thesebooks into the sacred canon. They werenot received as portions of the Old Testamentby the Jews, to whom “were committedthe oracles of God;” they are notcited and alluded to in any part of theNew Testament; and they are expresslyrejected by St. Athanasius and St. Jeromein the fourth century, though these twofathers speak of them with respect. Thereis, therefore, no ground for applying thebooks of the Apocrypha “to establish anydoctrine,” but they are highly valuable asancient writings, which throw considerablelight upon the phraseology of Scripture,and upon the history and manners of theEast; and as they contain many noblesentiments and useful precepts, the Churchof England doth read them for “exampleof life and instruction of manners.” (Art.VI.) They are frequently quoted with greatrespect in the Homilies, although partieswho bestow much praise upon the Homiliesare wont to follow a very contrarycourse. The corrupt Church of Rome, atthe fourth session of the Council of Trent,admitted them to be of equal authority withScripture. Thereby the modern Churchof Rome differs from the Catholic Church;and by altering the canon of Scripture,and at the same time making her dictumthe rule of communion, renders it impossiblefor those Churches which defer toantiquity to hold communion with her.Divines differ in opinion as to the degreeof respect due to those ancient writings.The reading of the Apocryphal books inchurches formed one of the grievancesof the Puritans: our Reformers, however,have made a selection for certain holydays; and for the first lesson from theevening of the 27th of September, till themorning of the 23rd of November, inclusive.Some clergymen take upon themselvesto alter these lessons; but for sodoing they are amenable to the ordinary,and should be presented by the churchwardens,at the yearly episcopal or archidiaconalvisitation; to say nothing of theirmoral obligation. There were also Apocryphalbooks of the New Testament; butthese were manifest forgeries, and of coursewere not used or accepted by the Church.(See the Acts of the Apostles.)

APOLLINARIANS. An ancient sectwho were followers of Apollinaris or Apollinarius,bishop of Laodicea, about themiddle of the fourth century. He deniedthat our Saviour had a reasonable humansoul, and asserted that the Logos or Divinenature supplied the place of it. This isone of the sects we anathematize when weread the Athanasian Creed. The doctrineof Apollinaris was condemned by severalprovincial councils, and at length by theGeneral Council of Constantinople, in 381.In short, it was attacked at the same timeby the laws of the emperors, the decrees ofcouncils, and the writings of the learned,and sunk, by degrees, under their unitedforce.

APOLOGY. A word derived from twoGreek words, signifying from and speech,and thus in its primary sense, and alwaysin theology, it means a defence from attack;an answer to objections. Thus theGreek word, ἀπολογία, from which itcomes, is, in Acts xxii. 1, translated bydefence; in xxv. 16, by answer; and in2 Cor. vii. 11, by “clearing of yourselves.”There were several Apologies for Christianitycomposed in the second century,and among these, those of Justin Martyrand Tertullian are best known.

APOSTASY. (ἀποστάσις, falling away.)A forsaking or renouncing of our religion,either formally, by an open declaration inwords, or virtually, by our actions. Theword has several degrees of signification.The primitive Christian Church distinguishedseveral kinds of apostasy: thefirst, of those who went entirely from Christianityto Judaism. The second, of thosewho mingled Judaism and Christianity together.The third, of those who compliedso far with the Jews, as to communicatewith them in many of their unlawful practices,without formally professing their religion;and the fourth, of those who, afterhaving been some time Christians, voluntarilyrelapsed into Paganism. It is expresslyrevealed in Holy Scripture thatthere will be a very general falling awayfrom Christianity, or an apostasy, beforethe second coming of our Lord.(2 Thess. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 1; 2 Tim. iv.3, 4.)

In the Romish Church the term apostasyis also applied to a renunciation of themonastic vow.

APOSTLE. A missionary, messenger,or envoy. The highest order in the ministrywere at first called Apostles; but theterm is now generally confined to thosefirst bishops of the Church who receivedtheir commission from our blessed Lordhimself, and who were distinguished from38the bishops who succeeded them, by theirhaving acted under the immediate inspirationof the Holy Spirit, and by theirhaving frequently exercised the power ofworking miracles. Matthias was choseninto the place of Judas Iscariot, when it wasnecessary that “another should take hisbishopric,” (Acts i. 20,) and is called anapostle. St. Paul also and St. Barnabasare likewise styled apostles. So that,when we speak of the twelve apostles, weallude to them only as they were whenour Lord was on earth. Afterwards,even in the restricted sense, there weremore than twelve. But both while therewere but eleven, and afterwards whenthere were more, they were called thetwelve, as the name of their college, so tospeak; as the LXXII. translators of theOld Testament into Greek are called theLXX. All the apostles had equal power;a fact which is emphatically asserted bySt. Paul.

Our Lord’s first commission to his apostleswas in the third year of his publicministry, about eight months after theirsolemn election; at which time he sentthem out by two and two. (Matt. x. 5, &c.)They were to make no provision of moneyfor their subsistence in their journey, butto expect it from those to whom theypreached. They were to declare, thatthe kingdom of heaven, or the Messiah,was at hand, and to confirm their doctrineby miracles. They were to avoid goingeither to the Gentiles or the Samaritans,and to confine their preaching to the peopleof Israel. In obedience to their Master,the apostles went into all the parts ofPalestine inhabited by the Jews, preachingthe gospel, and working miracles.(Mark vi. 12.) The evangelical historyis silent as to the particular circumstancesattending this first preaching of the apostles,and only informs us, that they returned,and told their Master all that theyhad done. (Luke ix. 10.)

Their second commission, just beforeour Lord’s ascension into heaven, was ofa more extensive and particular nature.They were now not to confine their preachingto the Jews, but to “go and teach allnations, baptizing them in the name ofthe Father, and of the Son, and of theHoly Ghost.” (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) Accordinglythey began publicly, after ourLord’s ascension, to exercise the office oftheir ministry, working miracles daily inproof of their mission, and making greatnumbers of converts to the Christian faith.(Acts ii. 42–47.) This alarmed the JewishSanhedrim; whereupon the apostles wereapprehended, and, being examined beforethe high priest and elders, were commandednot to preach any more in thename of Christ. But this injunction didnot terrify them from persisting in theduty of their calling; for they continueddaily, in the temple, and in privatehouses, teaching and preaching the gospel.(Acts ii. 46.)

After the apostles had exercised theirministry for twelve years in Palestine,they resolved to disperse themselves indifferent parts of the world, and agreed todetermine by lot what parts each shouldtake. (Clem. Alex. Apollonius.) Accordingto this division, St. Peter wentinto Pontus, Galatia, and those other provincesof the Lesser Asia. St. Andrewhad the vast northern countries of Scythiaand Sogdiana allotted to his portion. St.John’s was partly the same with St. Peter’s,namely the Lesser Asia. St. Philip hadthe Upper Asia assigned to him, with someparts of Scythia and Colchis. ArabiaFelix fell to St. Bartholomew’s share.St. Matthew preached in Chaldæa, Persia,and Parthia. St. Thomas preached likewisein Parthia, as also to the Hyrcanians,Bactrians, and Indians. St. James theLess continued in Jerusalem, of whichChurch he was bishop. St. Simon had forhis portion Egypt, Cyrene, Libya, andMauritania; St. Jude, Syria and Mesopotamia;and St. Matthias, who was chosenin the room of the traitor Judas, Cappadociaand Colchis. Thus, by the dispersionof the apostles, Christianity was very earlyplanted in a great many parts of the world.We have but very short and imperfect accountsof their travels and actions.

In order to qualify the apostles for thearduous task of converting the world tothe Christian religion, (Acts ii.,) they were,in the first place, miraculously enabled tospeak the languages of the several nationsto whom they were to preach; and, in thesecond place, were endowed with thepower of working miracles, in confirmationof the doctrines they taught; gifts whichwere unnecessary, and therefore ceased, inthe future ages of the Church, when Christianitycame to be established by the civilpower.

The several apostles are usually representedwith their respective badges or attributes;St. Peter with the keys; St.Paul with a sword; St. Andrew with across; St. James the Less with a fuller’spole; St. John with a cup, and a wingedserpent flying out of it; St. Bartholomewwith a knife; St. Philip with a long staff,whose upper end is formed into a cross;39St. Thomas with a lance; St. Matthewwith a hatchet; St. Matthias with a battle-axe;St. James the Greater with a pilgrim’sstaff, and a gourd-bottle; St. Simonwith a saw; and St. Jude with a club.

APOSTLES’ CREED is used by theChurch between the third part of the dailyservice, namely, the lessons, and the fourthpart, namely, the petitions, that we mayexpress that faith in what we have heard,which is the ground of what we are aboutto 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 callupon him, in whom we have not believed?”(Rom. x. 14.) But as all the doctrines ofScripture, though equally true, are not ofequal importance, the more necessaryarticles have been, from the beginning ofChristianity, collected into one body, calledin Scripture, “the form of sound words”(2 Tim. i. 13); “the words of faith” (1Tim. iv. 6); “the principles of the doctrineof Christ” (Heb. vi. 1); but in ourcommon way of speaking at present, “theCreed,” from the Latin word, credo, whichsignifies “I believe.” Now the ancientChurches had many such creeds; somelonger, some shorter; differing on severalheads in phrase, but agreeing in methodand sense, of which that called “the Apostles’Creed” is one. And it deserves thisname, not so much from any certainty, orgreat likelihood, that the apostles drew itup in these very expressions; though some,pretty early, and many since, have imaginedthey did; as because it contains the chiefapostolic doctrines, and was used by aChurch which, before it grew corrupt, wasjustly respected as the chief apostolic settlement,I mean, the Roman.—Abp. Secker.

The opinion which ascribes the framingof this Creed to the apostles in person,though as ancient as the first account wehave of the Creed itself from Ruffinus, inthe year 390, is yet rendered highly improbable,as by many collateral reasons, soespecially by this argument, that it is notappealed to in elder times as the sacredand unalterable standard. And thereforeour excellent Church with due cautionstyles it, in her 8th Article, “that which iscommonly called the Apostles’ Creed.”But though it seems not to have been compiledor formally drawn up by the apostlesthemselves, yet is its authority of sufficientstrength; since it may still be demonstratedto be the apostles’, or rather the apostolic,creed, in three several respects. First, asit is drawn from the fountains of apostolicalScripture. Secondly, as it agreesin substance with the confessions of allorthodox Churches, which make up theApostolic Church in the extended meaningof the word. Thirdly, as it was the creedof an Apostolic Church in the restrainedsense of that term, denoting a Churchfounded by the apostles, as was that ofRome.—Kennet.

Though this Creed be not of the apostles’immediate framing, yet it may be trulystyled apostolical, not only because it containsthe sum of the apostles’ doctrine, butalso because the age thereof is so great,that its birth must be fetched from thevery apostolic times. It is true, the exactform of the present Creed cannot pretendto be so ancient by four hundred years;but a form, not much different from it,was used long before. Irenæus, the scholarof Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, wherehe repeats a creed not much unlike toours, assures us, that “the Church, dispersedthroughout the whole world, hadreceived this faith from the apostles andtheir disciples;” which is also affirmed byTertullian of one of his creeds, that “thatrule of faith had been current in the Churchfrom the beginning of the gospel:” and,which is observable, although there was sogreat a diversity of creeds, as that scarcetwo Churches did exactly agree therein,yet the form and substance of every creedwas in a great measure the same; so that,except there had been, from the veryplantation of Christianity, a form of soundwords, or a system of faith, delivered bythe first planters thereof, it is not easy toconceive how all Churches should harmonize,not only in the articles themselvesinto which they were baptized, but, in agreat measure also, in the method and orderof them.—Lord Chancellor King.

The Creed itself was neither the workof one man, nor of one day; but the composureof it was gradual. First, severalof the articles therein were derived fromthe very days of the apostles: these werethe articles of the existence of God, theTrinity; that Jesus was Christ, or theSaviour of the world; the remission ofsins; and the resurrection of the dead.Secondly, the others were afterwards addedby the primitive doctors and bishops,in opposition to gross heresies and errorsthat sprung up in the Church.—It hathbeen received in all ages with the greatestveneration and esteem. The ancients declaretheir respect and reverence for it withthe most noble and majestic expressions;and in these latter times, throughout severalcenturies of years, so great a deference40hath been rendered thereunto, that it hathnot only been used in baptism, but inevery public assembly it hath been usually,if not always, read as the standard andbasis 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 authorityfrom being founded on Scripture. Nor isit in the power of any man, or number ofmen, either to lessen or increase the fundamentalarticles of the Christian faith:which yet the Church of Rome, not contentwith this its primitive creed, hath profanelyattempted, adding twelve articles more,founded on its own, that is, on no authority,to the ancient twelve, which stand onthe authority of God’s word. (See Creedof Pope Pius IV.) But our Church hathwisely refused to go a step beyond theoriginal form; since all necessary truthsare briefly comprehended in it, which it isthe duty of every one of us firmly to believe,and openly to profess. “For withthe heart man believeth unto righteousness,and with the mouth confession ismade unto salvation.” (Rom. x. 10.)—Abp.Secker.

The place of the Creed in our liturgy is,first, immediately after the lessons of HolyScripture, out of which it is taken; andsince faith comes by hearing God’s word,and the gospel doth not profit withoutfaith, therefore it is very fit, upon hearingthereof, we should exercise and profess ourfaith. Secondly, the Creed is placed justbefore the prayers, as being the foundationof our petitions; we cannot “call on him,on whom we have not believed” (Rom. x.14); and since we are to pray to God theFather in the name of the Son, by theassistance of the Spirit, for remission ofsins and a joyful resurrection, we oughtfirst to declare that we believe in Godthe Father, the Son, and the HolyGhost, and that there is remission hereand resurrection hereafter to be had forall true members of the Catholic Church,and then we may be said to pray in faith.And hence St. Ambrose and St. Augustineadvise Christians to say it daily in theirprivate devotions; and so our old Saxoncouncils command all to learn and use it,not as a prayer, (as some ignorantly ormaliciously object,) but as a ground forour prayers, and a reason for our faith andhope of their acceptance: upon which accountalso, as soon as persecution ceased,and there was no danger of the heathensoverhearing it, the Creed was used in thepublic service.

And there are many benefits which wemay receive by this daily use of it. For,first, this fixes it firmly in our memories,that we may never forget this blessed ruleof our prayers, nor be at any time withoutthis necessary touchstone to try all doctrinesby. Secondly, thus we daily renewour profession of fidelity to Almighty God,and repeat that watchword which was givenus when we were first listed under Christ’sbanner, declaring thereby that we retainour allegiance to him and remain his faithfulservants and soldiers; and no doubtthat will move him the sooner to hear theprayers which we are now making to himfor his aid. Thirdly, by this we declareour unity amongst ourselves, and showourselves to be members of that holyCatholic Church, by and for which thesecommon prayers are made. Those whohold this one faith, and those only, have aright to pray thus; nor can any other expectto be admitted to join in them; andtherefore this Creed is the symbol andbadge to manifest who are fit to makethese prayers, and receive the benefit ofthem.

Wherefore, in our daily use of this sacredform, let us observe these rules:—First, tobe heartily thankful to God for revealingthese divine, mysterious, and saving truthsto us; and though the Gloria be only set atthe end of St. Athanasius’s Creed, yet theduty of thanksgiving must be performedupon every repetition of this Creed also. Secondly,we must give our positive and particularassent to every article as we goalong, and receive it as an infallible oraclefrom the mouth of God; and for thisreason we must repeat it with an audiblevoice after the minister, and in our mindannex that word, “I believe,” to everyparticular article; for, though it be butonce expressed in the beginning, yet itmust be supplied and is understood inevery article; and to show consent themore evidently, we must stand up whenwe repeat it, and resolve to stand up stoutlyin defence thereof, so as, if need were, todefend it, or seal the truth of it, with ourblood. Thirdly, we must devoutly applyevery article, as we go along, to be both aground for our prayers and a guide to ourlives; for if we rightly believe the powerof the Father, the love of the Son, and thegrace of the Holy Ghost, it will encourageus (who are members of the CatholicChurch) to pray heartily for all spiritual andtemporal blessings, and give us very livelyhopes of obtaining all our requests.Again, since these holy principles werenot revealed and selected out from allother truths, for any other end but to make41us live more holily, therefore we mustconsider, how it is fit that man should live,who believes that God the Father is hisCreator, God the Son his Redeemer, andGod the Holy Ghost his Sanctifier; whobelieves that he is a member of that CatholicChurch, wherein there is a communionof saints, and remission for sins,and shall be a resurrection of the body,and a life everlasting afterwards. No manis so ignorant but he can tell what mannerof persons they ought to be who believethis; and it is evident, that whoever firmlyand fully believes all this, his faith willcertainly and necessarily produce a holylife.—Dean Comber.

In the First Book of King Edward VI.,the Apostles’ Creed followed the lesserlitany, “Lord, have mercy upon us,”—andimmediately after it was repeated theLord’s Prayer. The alteration, as it atpresent stands, was made in the SecondBook.—Jebb.

APOSTOLIC, APOSTOLICAL, somethingthat relates to the apostles, or descendsfrom them. Thus we say, the apostolicalage, apostolical character, apostolicaldoctrine, constitutions, traditions, &c. Inthe primitive Church it was an appellationgiven to all such Churches as were foundedby the apostles, and even to the bishopsof those Churches, as the reputed successorsof the apostles. These were confined tofour: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, andJerusalem. In succeeding ages, the otherChurches assumed the same title, on account,principally, of the conformity oftheir doctrine with that of the Churcheswhich were apostolical by foundation, andbecause all bishops held themselves successorsof the apostles, or acted in theirrespective dioceses with the authority ofapostles. The first time the term apostolicalis attributed to bishops, is in a letterof Clovis to the Council of Orleans, held in511; though that king does not in it expresslydenominate them apostolical, butapostolicâ sede dignissimi, highly worthy ofthe apostolical see. In 581, Guntram callsthe bishops, assembled at Macon, apostolicalpontiffs. In progress of time, thebishop of Rome increasing in power abovethe rest, and the three patriarchates ofAlexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem havingfallen into the hands of the Saracens, thetitle apostolical came to be restricted to thepope and his Church alone. At lengthsome of the popes, and among them Gregorythe Great, not content to hold thetitle by this tenure, began to insist that itbelonged to them by another and peculiarright, as the successors of St. Peter. In1046, the Romish Council of Rheimsdeclared, that the pope was the soleapostolical primate of the UniversalChurch.

APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONSAND CANONS. These two collectionsof ecclesiastical rules and formularies wereattributed, in the early ages of the Churchof Rome, to Clement of Rome, who wassupposed to have committed them to writingfrom the mouths of the apostles, whosewords they pretended to record. Theauthority thus claimed for these writingshas, however, been entirely disproved;and it is generally supposed by critics, thatthey were chiefly compiled during thesecond and third centuries; or that, atleast, the greater part must be assigned toa period before the first Nicene Council.We find references to them in the writingsof Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Athanasius,writers of the third and fourth centuries.A modern critic supposes them not to haveattained their present form until the fifthcentury. The Constitutions are comprisedin eight books. In these the apostles arefrequently introduced as speakers. Theycontain rules and regulations concerningthe duties of Christians in general, theconstitution of the Church, the offices andduties of ministers, and the celebration ofDivine worship. The tone of moralitywhich runs through them is severe andascetic. They forbid the use of all personaldecorations and attention to appearance,and prohibit the reading of the works ofheathen authors. They enjoin Christiansto assemble twice every day in the churchfor prayers and psalmody, to observevarious fasts and festivals, and to keep thesabbath (i. e. the seventh day of the week)as well as the Lord’s day. They requireextraordinary marks of respect and reverencetowards the ministers of religion;commanding Christians to honour a bishopas a king or a prince, and even as a kindof God upon earth, to render to him absoluteobedience, to pay him tribute, and toapproach him through the deacons or servantsof the Church, as we come to Godonly through Christ! This latter kind of(profane) comparison is carried to a stillgreater extent, for the deaconesses are declaredto resemble the Holy Spirit, inasmuchas they are not able to do anythingwithout the deacons. Presbyters are saidto represent the apostles; and the rank ofChristian teachers is declared to be higherthan that of magistrates and princes. Wefind here, also, a complete liturgy or formof worship for Christian churches; containingnot only a description of ecclesiastical42ceremonies, but the prayers to be used attheir celebration.

This general description of the contentsof the books of Constitutions is aloneenough to prove that they are no productionsof the apostolic age. Mention alsooccurs of several subordinate ecclesiasticalofficers, such as readers and exorcists, whowere not introduced into the Church untilthe third century. And there are manifestcontradictions between several parts of thework. The general style in which theConstitutions are written is such as hadbecome prevalent during the third century.

It is useless to inquire who was the realauthor of this work; but the date andprobable design of the forgery are of moreimportance, and may be more easily ascertained.Epiphanius, towards the end ofthe fourth century, appears to be the firstauthor who speaks of these books undertheir present title, Apostolical Constitutions.But he refers to the work only asone containing much edifying matter, withoutincluding it among the writings of theapostles; and indeed he expressly saysthat many persons had doubted of itsgenuineness. One passage, however, towhich Epiphanius refers, speaks a languagedirectly the reverse of what we findin the corresponding passage of the worknow extant; so that it appears probablethat the Apostolical Constitutions, whichthat author used, have been corrupted andinterpolated since his time. On the whole,it appears probable, from internal evidence,that the Apostolical Constitutionswere compiled during the reigns of theheathen emperors, towards the end of thethird century, or at the beginning of thefourth; and that the compilation was thework of some one writer (probably abishop) of the Eastern Church. The advancementof episcopal dignity and powerappears to have been the chief design ofthe forgery.

If we regard the Constitutions as a productionof the third century, (containingremnants of earlier compositions,) the workpossesses a certain kind of value. It contributesto give us an insight into the stateof Christian faith, the condition of theclergy and inferior ecclesiastical officers,the worship and discipline of the Church,and other particulars, at the period towhich the composition is referred. Thegrowth of episcopal power and influence,and the derivation of the episcopal authorityfrom the apostles, is here clearly shown.Many of the regulations prescribed, andmany of the moral and religious remarks,are good and edifying; and the prayersespecially breathe, for the most part, aspirit of simple and primitive Christianity.But the work is by no means free fromtraces of superstition; and it is occasionallydisfigured by mystical interpretationsand applications of Holy Scripture, and byneedless refinements in matters of ceremony.We find several allusions to theevents of apostolical times; but occurrencesrelated exclusively in such a work,are altogether devoid of credibility, especiallyas they are connected with the designof the compiler to pass off his bookas a work of the apostles.

The Canons relate chiefly to various particularsof ecclesiastical polity and Christianworship; the regulations which theycontain being, for the most part, sanctionedwith the threatening of depositionand excommunication against offenders.The first allusion to this work by name, isfound in the Acts of the Council which assembledat Constantinople in the year 394,under the presidency of Nectarius, bishopof that see. But there are expressions inearlier councils, and writers of the samecentury, which appear to refer to the Canons,although not named. In the beginningof the sixth century, fifty of theseCanons were translated from the Greek intoLatin by the Roman abbot, Dionysius theYounger; and, about the same time, thirty-fiveothers were appended to them in acollection made by John, patriarch of Constantinople.Since that time, the wholenumber have been regarded as genuine inthe East; while only the first fifty havebeen treated with equal respect in theWest. It appears highly probable, thatthe original collection was made about themiddle of the third century, or somewhatlater, in one of the Asiatic Churches. Theauthor may have had the same design asthat which appears to have influenced thecompiler of the Apostolical Constitutions.The eighty-fifth Canon speaks of the Constitutionsas sacred books; and from acomparison of the two books, it is plainthat they are either the production of oneand the same writer, or that, at least, thetwo authors were contemporary, and hada good understanding with each other.The rules and regulations contained in theCanons are such as were gradually introducedand established during the secondand third centuries. In the canon or listof sacred books of the New Testament,given in this work, the Revelation of St.John is omitted; but the two Epistles ofSt. Clement and Apostolical Constitutionsare inserted.—Augusti.

43APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. An appellationusually given to the writers ofthe first century, who employed their pensin the cause of Christianity. Of thesewriters, Cotelerius, and after him Le Clerc,have published a collection in two volumes,accompanied both with their own annotationsand the remarks of other learnedmen. Among later editions may be particularlymentioned that by the Rev. Dr.Jacobson, Regius Professor of Divinity atOxford, which, however, does not includeBarnabas or Hermas. See also The GenuineEpistles of the Apostolic Fathers, by ArchbishopWake, and a translation of themin one volume 8vo, by the Rev. TempleChevallier, B. D., formerly Hulsean lecturerin the University of Cambridge. Thenames of the apostolical fathers are, Clement,bishop of Rome, Ignatius, bishop ofAntioch, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, andHermas. To these Barnabas the apostleis usually added. The epistles and otherwritings of these eminent men are still extant.A more admirable appendix to thepure word of God, and a more trustworthycomment on the principles taught by inspiredmen, cannot be conceived. As eye-witnessesof the order and discipline of theChurch, while all was fresh and new fromthe hands of the apostles, their testimonyforms the very summit of uninspired authority.None could better know thesethings than those who lived and wrote atthe very time. None deserve a greaterreverence than they who proclaimed thegospel, while the echo of inspired tonguesyet lingered in the ears of the people.

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. (SeeSuccession.) The line in which the ministryof the Church is handed on from ageto age: the corporate lineage of the Christianclergy, just as in the Jewish Churchthere was a family lineage. The Churchof England maintains the apostolical successionin the preface to her OrdinationService. Those are said to be in apostolicalsuccession who have been sent tolabour in the Lord’s vineyard, by bishopswho were consecrated by those who, intheir turn, were consecrated by others, andthese by others, until the derived authorityis traced to the apostles, and throughthem to the great Head of the Church.The apostolical succession of the ministryis essential to the right administration ofthe holy sacraments. The clergy of theChurch of England can trace their connexionwith the apostles by links, not oneof which is wanting, from the times of St.Paul and St. Peter to our own.—See Appendixto Rose’s Commission and consequentDuties of the Clergy: Perceval’s Doctrineof the Apostolical Succession, 2nd edition;Sinclair (Rev. John) on the Episcopal Succession;and Courayer’s Defence of theEnglish Ordinations.

APOSTOLICI, or APOTACTICI. Hereticsin Christianity, who sprung fromthe Encratites and Cathari, and took thesenames because they pretended to be theonly followers of the apostles, and becausethey made a profession of never marrying,and renounced riches. Epiphanius observes,that these vagabonds, who appearedabout the year 260, for the most part madeuse of the apocryphal Acts of St. Andrewand St. Thomas. There was another sectof this name, about the twelfth century,who were against marriage, and neverwent without lewd women: they also despisedinfant baptism, would not allow ofpurgatory, invocation of saints, and prayersfor the dead, and called themselves thetrue body of the Church, condemning alluse of flesh with the Manichæans.—Bingham,Antiq. Chr. Ch.

APOTACTITÆ, or APOTACTICI.(See Apostolici.)

APPARITOR. Apparitors (so calledfrom the principal branch of their office,which consists in summoning persons toappear) are officers appointed to executethe orders and decrees of the ecclesiasticalcourts. The proper business and employmentof an apparitor is to attend in court;to receive such commands as the judgeshall please to issue forth; to convene andcite the defendants into court; to admonishor cite the parties to produce witnesses,and the like. Apparitors are recognisedby the 138th English Canon, which whollyrelates to them.—Jebb.

APPEAL. The provocation of a causefrom an inferior to a superior judge. (1Kings xviii.; Acts xxv.) Appeals aredivided into judicial and extra-judicial.Judicial appeals are those made from theactual sentence of a court of judicature.In this case the force of such sentence issuspended until the cause is determinedby the superior judge. Extra-judicial appealsare those made from extra-judicialacts, by which a person either is, or islikely to be, wronged. He therefore resortsto the legal protection of a superiorjudge. By the civil law, appeals oughtto be made gradatim; but by the canonlaw, as it existed before the Reformation,they might be made omisso medio, and immediatelyto the pope; who was reputedto be the ordinary judge of all Christiansin all causes, having a concurrent powerwith all ordinaries. Appeals to the pope44were first sent from England to Rome inthe reign of King Stephen, by the pope’slegate, Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester(A. D. 1135–1154). Prior to thatperiod, the pope was not permitted to enjoyany appellate jurisdiction in England.William the Conqueror refused to do himhomage. Anglo-Saxon Dooms do not somuch as mention the pope’s name: andthe laws of Edward the Confessor assertthe royal supremacy in the following words:—“Rexautem, qui vicarius Summi Regisest, ad hoc constitutus est, ut regnum etpopulum Domini, et super omnia sanctamecclesiam, regat et defendat ab injuriosis;maleficos autem destruat et evellat.” ThePenitential of Archbishop Theodore (A. D.668–690) contains no mention of appealsto Rome; and in the reign of Henry II.,at the Council of Clarendon, (A. D. 1164,)it was enacted, “De appellationibus siemerserint ab archidiacono debebit procediad episcopum, ab episcopo ad archiepiscopum,et si archiepiscopus defuerit injustitia exhibenda, ad dominum regem perveniendumest postremo, ut præcepto ipsiusin curia archiepiscopi controversiaterminetur; ita quod non debeat ultraprocedi absque assensu domini regis.”Notwithstanding this law, and the statutesmade against “provisors” in the reigns ofEdward I., Edward III., Richard II., andHenry V., appeals used to be forwarded toRome until the reign of Henry VIII.,when, by the statutes of the 24 HenryVIII. c. 12, and the 25 Henry VIII. c.19, all appeals to the pope from Englandwere legally abolished. By these statutes,appeals were to be finally determined bythe High Court of Delegates, to be appointedby the king in chancery under thegreat seal. This jurisdiction was, in 1832,by 2 & 3 William IV. c. 92, transferredfrom the High Court of Delegates to theJudicial Committee of the Privy Council;whose “report or recommendation,” whensanctioned by the Crown, is a final judgment.

The Crown, however, used to have thepower to grant a commission of reviewafter the decision of an appeal by the HighCourt of Delegates. (26 Henry VIII. c.1; 1 Eliz. c. 1, Goodman’s case in Dyer’sReports.) This prerogative Queen Maryexercised by granting a review after areview in Goodman’s case, regarding thedeanery of Wells. (See Lord Campbell’sJudgment in the Court of Queen’s Benchin Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter.) Itis a remarkable fact that, although thestatutes for restraint of appeals had beenrepealed on Queen Mary’s accession, noappeal in Goodman’s case was permittedto proceed out of England to the pope.

The commissions of review were notgranted by Queen Mary under the authorityof Protestant enactments, but byvirtue of the common law, regarding theregalities of the Crown of England. Itdoes not appear that by the 2 & 3 WilliamIV. c. 92, 3 & 4 William IV. c. 41,7 & 8 Vict., the prerogative is interferedwith; and that the Crown is compelled toadopt the “report or recommendation” ofthe Judicial Committee of the PrivyCouncil: on the contrary, the sovereign isquite free to sanction or reject such report,which only becomes valid as a decisionon the royal assent being given.The ancient Appellant Court of Delegatesstill subsists in Ireland.

APPELLANT. Generally, one who appealsfrom the decision of an inferior courtto a superior. Particularly those amongthe French clergy were called appellants,who appealed from the bull Unigenitus,issued by Pope Clement in 1713, either tothe pope better informed, or to a generalcouncil. This is one of the many instancesin which the boasted unity of the Romanobedience has been signally broken; thewhole body of the French clergy, and theseveral monasteries, being divided intoappellants and non-appellants.

APPROPRIATION is the annexing ofa benefice to the use of a spiritual corporation.This was frequently done in Englandafter the Norman Conquest. Thesecular clergy were then Saxons or Englishmen;and most of the nobility, bishops,and abbots being Normans, they had nokind of regard to the secular clergy, butreduced them as low as they could toenrich the monasteries; and this was thereason of so many appropriations. Butsome persons are of opinion, that it is aquestion undecided, whether princes orpopes first made appropriations: thoughthe oldest of which we have any accountwere made by princes; as, for instance,by the Saxon kings, to the abbey of Crowland;by William the Conqueror, to BattleAbbey; and by Henry I., to the church ofSalisbury. It is true the popes, who werealways jealous of their usurped supremacyin ecclesiastical affairs, did in their decretalsassume this power to themselves, andgranted privileges to several religiousorders, to take appropriations from laymen:but in the same grant they wereusually required to be answerable to thebishop in spiritualibus, and to the abbotor prior in temporalibus, which was thecommon form of appropriations till the45latter end of the reign of Henry II. Forat first those grants were not in propriosusus: it was always necessary to presenta clerk to the bishop upon the avoidanceof a benefice, who, upon his institution,became vicar, and for that reasonan appropriation and a rectory werethen inconsistent. But because the formationof an appropriation was a thingmerely spiritual, the patron usually petitionedthe bishop to appropriate thechurch; but the king was first to give licenceto the monks that, quantum in nobisest, the bishop might do it. The king beingsupreme ordinary, might of his own authoritymake an appropriation without the consentof the bishop, though this was seldomdone. Appropriations at first were madeonly to spiritual persons, such as werequalified to perform Divine service; thenby degrees they were extended to spiritualcorporations, as deans and chapters; andlastly to priories, upon the pretence thatthey had to support hospitality; and lestpreaching should by this means be neglected,an invention was found out to supplythat defect by a vicar, as aforesaid; andit was left to the bishop to be a moderatorbetween the monks and the vicar, for hismaintenance out of the appropriated tithes;for the bishop could compel the monasteryto which the church was appropriated toset out a convenient portion of tithes, andsuch as he should approve, for the maintenanceof the vicar, before he confirmedthe appropriation.

It is true the bishops in those daysfavoured the monks so much, that theyconnived at their setting out a portion ofsmall tithes for the vicar, and permittedthem to reserve the great tithes to themselves.This was a fault intended to beremedied by the statute 15 Rich. II.cap. 6; by which it was enacted, thatin every licence made of an appropriationthis clause should be contained, viz. thatthe diocesan should ordain that the vicarshall be well and sufficiently endowed.But this statute was eluded; for the abbotsappointed one of their own monks to officiate;and therefore the parliament, inthe 4th year of Henry IV. cap. 12, providedthat the vicar should be a secularclergyman, canonically instituted and inductedinto the church, and sufficientlyendowed; and that no regular should bemade vicar of a church appropriate. Butlong before the making of these statutesthe kings of England made appropriationof the churches of Feversham and Miltonin Kent, and other churches, to the abbeyof St. Augustine in Canterbury, by thesewords: “Concessimus, &c., pro nobis, &c.,abbati et conventui, &c., quod ipsi ecclesiaspredictas appropriare ac eas sic appropriatasin proprios usus tenere possintsibi et successoribus in perpetuum.” Thelike was done by several of the Normannobility, who came over with the king,upon whom he bestowed large manors andlands; and out of which they found titheswere then paid, and so had continued tobe paid even from the time they werepossessed by the Saxons: but they didnot regard their law of tithing, and thereforethey held it reasonable to appropriateall, or at least some part of, those tithes tothose monasteries which they had founded,or to others as they thought fit; and insuch cases they reserved a power to providefor him who served the cure; andthis was usually paid to stipendiary curates.But sometimes the vicarages were endowed,and the very endowment was expressedin the grant of the appropriation,viz. that the church should be appropriatedupon condition that a vicarageshould be endowed; and this was left tothe care of the bishop. But whenever thevicar had a competent subsistence by endowment,the monks took all opportunitiesto lessen it; and this occasioned severaldecretals prohibiting such usage withoutthe bishop’s consent, and that no customshould be pleaded for it, where he thatserved the cure had not a competent subsistence.And it has been a questionwhether an appropriation is good whenthere is no endowment of a vicarage, becausethe statute of Henry IV. positivelyprovides that vicarages shall be endowed.But it is now settled, that if it is a vicaragein reputation, and vicars have been institutedand inducted to the church, it shallbe presumed that the vicarage was originallyendowed. Thus much for thetithes: but the abbot and convent had notonly the tithes of the appropriate churches,but the right of patronage too; for thatwas extinct, as to the former patron, bythe appropriation, unless he had reservedthe presentation to himself; and that madethe advowson disappropriate, and thechurch presentable as before, but not bythe old patron, but by the abbot andconvent, who were then bound, upon avacancy, to present a person to the bishop.Sometimes the bishop would refuse theperson presented unless they consented tosuch an allowance for his maintenance ashe thought fit, and therefore they wouldpresent none. This occasioned the makinganother decretal, which gave the bishoppower to present; but this did not often46happen, because the monks were favouredby the bishops; that is, the poorer sort,for the rich would not accept his kindness.They always got their appropriations confirmedby the pope, and their churchesexempted from the jurisdiction of thebishop. But now all those exemptionsare taken away by the statute 31 HenryVIII. cap. 13, and the ordinary is restoredto his ancient right. Before giving anaccount of that statute, it will not be improperto mention the forms of appropriationsboth before and since that time.A licence being obtained of the king assupreme ordinary, and the consent fromthe diocesan, patron, and incumbent, thereuponthe bishop made the grant.

By the aforesaid statute, those appropriationswhich were made formerly bybishops, and enjoyed only by religioushouses, are now become the inheritance oflaymen; and though the bishop’s power insuch cases is not mentioned in the statute,yet the law leaves all matters of right justas they were before; for when those religioushouses were surrendered, the kingwas to have the tithes in the same manneras the abbots had them in right of theirmonasteries; and there is a saving of therights and interests of all persons; so that,if before the dissolution the vicar had anantecedent right to a competent maintenance,and the bishop had power to allowit, it is not taken away now.

This is the law of England, and it isfounded on good reason: for tithes wereoriginally given for the service of theChurch, and not for the private use ofmonasteries; and it may be a question,whether a monastery was capable of takingan appropriation, because it is not an ecclesiasticalbody; for by the canons theycould not preach, baptize, or visit the sick,and they had no cure of souls. This matterwas disputed between St. Bernard, aCistercian monk, and Peter the Venerable:the first was dissatisfied that monks shouldtake tithe from the secular clergy, whichwas given to support them in attendingthe cure of souls; the other answered him,that monks prayed for souls, but titheswere not only given for prayers, but forpreaching, and to support hospitality.Upon the whole matter, appropriations maybe made by the joint consent of the queen,the ordinary, and the patron who hath theinheritance of the advowson; and he musthave the queen’s licence, because she hathan interest in it as supreme ordinary: forit might happen that the presentation maybe devolved on her by lapse, and suchlicence was usually granted when thechurch was void; but if it is granted whenthe church is full, it does not make theappropriation void, though such grantshould be in general words, because, whereit may be taken in two intents, the onegood, the other not, it shall be expoundedin that sense which may make the grantgood. It is true, the best way is to give alicence in particular words, importing thatthe appropriation shall take effect after thedeath of the incumbent: however, if it isa license per verba de præsenti, yet it isgood for the reason already mentioned.The bishop must likewise concur, for hehas an interest in the presentation, whichmay come to him by lapse before it can bevested in the queen. Besides, an appropriationdeprives him of institution, for itnot only carries the glebe and tithes, butgives to the corporation a spiritual function,and supplies the institution of theordinary: for in the very instrument ofappropriation it is united and given to thebody corporate in proprios usus, that is,that they shall be perpetual parsons there:this must be intended where there are novicarages endowed, and yet they cannothave the cure of souls because they are abody politic; but the vicar who is endowedand comes in by their appointment, hasthe cure.

APSE, or APSIS. A semicircular orpolygonal termination of the choir, orother portion of a church. The word signifiesin Greek a spherical arch. It wascalled in Latin testudo, or concha, from thesame reason that a hemispherical recess inthe school-room at Westminster was calledthe shell. The ancient Basilicas, as maystill be seen at Rome, had universally asemicircular apse, round which the superiorclergy had their seats; at the upper endwas the bishop’s throne; the altar wasplaced on the chord of the arc; the transept,or gallery, intervened between theapse or the choir. There the inferior clergy,singers, &c., were stationed, and there thelessons were read from the ambos. (SeeChoir and Chaunt.) This form was generallyobserved, at least in large churches,for many ages, of which Germany affordsfrequent specimens. And as Mr. Nealehas shown in his very valuable remarkson the Eastern churches, (Hist. of the HolyGreek Church,) the apse is the almost invariableform even in parish churches inthe East. Of this arrangement there aretraces in England. Then large Saxonchurches, as we collect from history, generallyhad an eastern apse at least, andoften several others. In Norman churchesof large size, the apse was very frequent,47and it was repeated in several parts of thechurch. These inferior apses representedthe oriental exedræ, which usually terminatetheir sacristies. Norwich and Peterboroughcathedrals convey a good impressionof the general character of Normanchurches in this respect. Traces ofthe apse are found also at Winchester,Rochester, Ely, Lincoln, Ripon, Gloucester,and Worcester cathedrals, besides St. Alban’s,Tewkesbury, and other conventualchurches. So also at Canterbury, wherethe apse seems to have been disturbed bysubsequent arrangements. But it is remarkablethat the ancient archiepiscopalchair stood behind the altar in a sort ofapse till late in the last century. Tracesof the ancient apse at Chester have beendiscovered of late years. In small churches,as Steetley, Derbyshire, and Birkin, Yorkshire,the eastern apse alone is found, noris this at all a universal feature. See Mr.Hussey’s Notice of recent discoveries inChester Cathedral. There are three veryinteresting English specimens in Herefordshire,viz. as at Kilpech, Moccas, andPeter Church; all small parish churches,and of Norman date; and with regularchancel below the apse. In the earlyBritish and Irish churches there is notrace of an apse, even in those which thelearned Dr. Petrie, in his essay on roundtowers, attributes to the 5th and 6th centuries.With the Norman style the apsewas almost wholly discontinued, thoughan early English apse occurs at Tidmarsh,Berkshire, and a decorated apse at LittleMaplestead; the latter is, however, altogetheran exceptional case. There seemsto have been some tendency to reproducethe apse in the fifteenth century, as atTrinity church, Coventry, and Henry VII.’schapel, Westminster; but the latter examplesentirely miss the breadth andgrandeur of the Norman apse. Yet thelater styles might have had one great advantagein the treatment of this feature intheir flying buttresses spanning the outeraisle of the apse, which is often so strikinga feature in foreign churches, and to whichthe perpendicular clerestory to the Normanapse of Norwich makes some approach.Some writers have confounded the apsewith the choir or chancel; and think that,according to primitive usage, the holytable ought to stand between the latterand the nave: whereas in fact it alwaysstood above the choir; so that in churcheswhere there is no apse (and none was requiredwhen there were no collegiate or capitularclergy) its proper place is close to theeastern wall of the church. See Cathedral.

AQUARII. A sect of heretics whoconsecrated their pretended eucharist withwater only, instead of wine, or wine mingledwith water. This they did under thedelusion that it was universally unlawfulto drink wine; although, as St. Chrysostomsays, our blessed Lord instituted theholy eucharist in wine, and himself drankwine at his communion table, and afterhis resurrection, as if by anticipation tocondemn this pernicious heresy. It is lamentableto see so bold an impiety revivedin the present day, when certain men,under the cloak of temperance, pretenda eucharist without wine, or any fermentedliquor. These heretics are not to be confoundedwith those against whom St. Cypriandiscourses at large in his letter toCæcilian, who, from fear of being discovered,from the smell of wine, by theheathen in times of persecution, omittedthe wine in the eucharist cup. It wasindeed very wrong and unworthy of theChristian name, but far less culpable thanthe pretence of a temperance above thatof 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. Hereticswho 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 thatthey were to be raised together at the lastday.

ARCADE. In church architecture, aseries of arches supported by pillars orshafts, whether belonging to the construction,or used in relieving large surfaces ofmasonry: the present observations will beconfined to the latter, that is, to ornamentalarcades.

These were introduced early in theNorman style, and were used very largelyto its close, the whole base story of exteriorand interior alike, and the upperportions of towers and of high walls beingoften quite covered with them. Theywere either of simple or of intersectingarches: it is needless to say that the latterare the most elaborate in work, and themost ornamental; they are accordinglyreserved in general for the richer portionsof the fabric. There is, moreover, another,and perhaps even more effective, way ofcomplicating the arcade, by placing anarcade within and behind another, so thatthe wall is doubly recessed, and the play oflight and shadow greatly increased. The48decorations of the transitional, until verylate in the style, are so nearly those of theNorman, that we need not particularize thesemi-Norman arcade. In the next stylethe simple arcade is, of course, most frequent.This, like the Norman, oftencovers very large surfaces. Foil arches areoften introduced at this period, and greatlyvary the effect. The reduplication of arcadesis now managed differently from theformer style. Two arcades, perfect in alltheir parts, are set the one behind the other,but the shaft of the outer is opposite tothe arch of the inner series, the outerseries is also more lofty in its proportions,and the two are often of differently constructedarches, as at Lincoln, where theouter series is of trefoil, the inner of simplearches, or vice versâ, the two always beingdifferent. The effect of this is extremelybeautiful.

But the most exquisite arcades are thoseof the Geometrical period, where each archis often surmounted by a crocketted pediment,and the higher efforts of sculptureare tasked for their enrichment, as in theglorious chapter-house of Salisbury, Southwell,and York; these are, however, usuallyconfined to the interior. In the Decoratedperiod partially, and in the Perpendicularentirely, the arcade gave place to panelling,greatly to the loss of effect, for no delicacyor intricacy of pattern can compensate forthe bright light and deep shadows of theNorman and Early English arcades.

ARCANI DISCIPLINA. The namegiven to a part of the discipline of the earlyChurch in withdrawing from public viewthe sacraments and higher mysteries of ourreligion: a practice founded on a reverencefor the sacred mysteries themselves, andto prevent their being exposed to theridicule of the heathen. Irenæus, Tertullian,and Clement of Alexandria are thefirst who mention any such custom in theChurch. And the Disciplina Arcani graduallyfell into disuse after the time ofConstantine, when Christianity had nothingto fear from its enemies.—Bingham.Augusti.

ARCH. All architecture may be dividedinto the architecture of the entablatureand of the arch, and as the very termsdenote, the arch is the differential of thelatter. Romanesque and Gothic fall underthis head. Our view of the arch is limitedto a description of its several forms; anestimate of its effects on style, and itsmechanical construction, being beyond ourprovince.

The Saxon and the Norman arch werealike semicircular in their normal form,though in Norman buildings we often finda greater arc of a circle, or “horse-shoe”arch, or the semicircle is “stilted:” to oneor other of which constructions it wasnecessary to resort when an arch of higherproportion than a semicircle was required.In the middle of the twelfth century thepointed arch was introduced. It was usedfor a long time together with the semicircle,and often with an entire absenceof all but Norman details; and it is worthyof note that the pointed arch is first used49in construction, as in the great pier arches,and evidently, therefore, from an appreciationof its mechanical value, and nottill afterwards in lighter portions, as windowsand decorative arcades. The pointedarch has three simple forms, the equilateral,the lancet, and the drop arch; the firstdescribed from the angles at the base ofan equilateral, the second of a trianglewhose base is greater, the third of atriangle whose base is less, than the sides.These forms are common to every style,from Early English downwards. In thePerpendicular period a more complex archwas introduced, struck from four centres,all within or below the base of the arch.This modification of the arch is of greatimportance, as involving differences ofconstruction in the fabric, especially in thevaulting, so that it has a place in the historyof Gothic architecture only inferior tothe introduction of the pointed arch.

There are, besides, other modificationsof the arch, struck from more than twocentres, but these are either of less frequentoccurrence, or merely decorative. We maymention the foil and the ogee arch; theformer struck from four centres, two withoutand two within the resulting figure,and flowing into one another; the latterfrom several centres, according to thenumber of foils, all generally within theresulting figure, and cutting one another.The foil arch precedes in history the foliationor cusping of arches and tracery,which it no doubt suggested; the ogeearch came in with ogee forms of traceryand of cusping, and outlived them.

ARCHBISHOP. An archbishop is thechief of the clergy in a whole province;and has the inspection of the bishops ofthat province, as well as of the inferiorclergy, and may deprive them on notoriouscauses. The archbishop has also hisown diocese wherein he exercises episcopaljurisdiction, as in his province heexercises archiepiscopal. As archbishop,he, upon the receipt of the king’s writ, callsthe bishops and clergy within his provinceto meet in convocation. To him all appealsare made from inferior jurisdictionswithin his province; and, as an appeal liesfrom the bishops in person to him in person,so it also lies from the consistory courtsof his diocese to his archiepiscopal court.During the vacancy of any see in his provincehe is guardian of the spiritualitiesthereof, as the king is of the temporalities;and, during such vacancy, all episcopalrights belong to him. The archbishops inEngland have from time to time exerciseda visitatorial power over their suffragans,in use till the time of Archbishop Laud.The archbishops of Ireland have immemoriallyvisited their suffragans triennially:the Episcopal Visitation beingthere annual. (See Stephens’ Edition ofthe Book of Common Prayer, with notes,vol. i. pp. 26–30.)

Some learned men are of opinion, thatan archbishop is a dignity as ancient asthe apostles’ time, for there were primiepiscopi then, though the name of archbishopwas not known until some agesafterwards; and that the apostle himselfgave the first model of this government inthe Church, by vesting Titus with a superintendencyover all Crete. Certain it isthat there were persons soon after thattime, who, under the name of metropolitans,50exercised the same spiritual and ecclesiasticalfunctions as an archbishop; asfor instance the bishop of Carthage, whocertainly assembled and presided in provincialcouncils, and had ecclesiasticaljurisdiction over the bishops of Africa;and the bishops of Rome, who had thelike primacy in the suburbiconian provinces,viz. middle and southern Italy,with Sicily, and other adjacent islands.Moreover, the Apostolical Canons, whichwere the rule of the Greek Church in thethird century, mention a chief bishop inevery province, and most of them aboutthe eighth century assumed the title ofarchbishops; some of which were so in amore eminent degree, viz. those of Rome,Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria,which were the four principal cities of theempire. To these the archbishop of Jerusalemwas added by the Council of Chalcedon,in 451, because that was the capitalcity of the Holy Land, and these five werecalled patriarchs.

The archbishop of Canterbury is styledprimate of all England and metropolitan,and the archbishop of York primate ofEngland. They have the title of Grace,and Most reverend Father in God byDivine Providence. There are two provincesor archbishoprics in England, Canterburyand York. The archbishop of Canterburyhas the precedency of all theother clergy; next to him the archbishopof York. Each archbishop has, withinhis province, bishops of several dioceses.The archbishop of Canterbury has underhim, within his province, Rochester, London,Winchester, Norwich, Lincoln, Ely,Chichester, Salisbury, Exeter, Bath andWells, Worcester, Lichfield, Hereford,Landaff, St. David’s, Bangor, and St.Asaph; and four founded by King HenryVIII., erected out of the ruins of dissolvedmonasteries, viz. Gloucester and Bristol,now united into one, Peterborough, andOxford. The archbishop of York has underhim six, viz. the bishop of Chester,erected by Henry VIII., and annexed byhim to the archbishopric of York, thebishops of Durham, Carlisle, Ripon, andManchester, and the Isle of Man, annexedto the province of York by King HenryVIII. The dioceses of Ripon and Manchesterhave been formed in the provinceof York within the last few years, by actof parliament. The archbishop of Armaghis styled primate of all Ireland. The archbishopof Dublin, primate of Ireland. Beforethe late diminution of the Irish episcopate,there were two other archbishops,viz. of Cashel, styled primate of Munster,and Tuam, primate of Connaught. UnderArmagh were the bishoprics of *Meath,*Down, *Derry, Dromore, Raphoe, *Kilmore,and Clogher. Under Dublin, Kildare,Ferns, and *Ossory. Under Cashel,*Limerick, *Cork, Cloyne, *Killaloe, andWaterford. Under Tuam, Clonfert, Elphin,and Killala. At present Cashel is a suffraganof Dublin, Tuam of Armagh; andonly those suffragan bishoprics markedwith an asterisk are retained. The bishopsof Calcutta and Sydney, being metropolitans,are archbishops in reality, thoughnot in title.

ARCHDEACON. In the English branchof the united Church, and most EuropeanChurches, each diocese is divided into archdeaconriesand parishes. Sometimes a diocesehas but one archdeaconry; sometimesfour or five. But in Ireland there is butone archdeacon to each diocese (severaldioceses being often united under onebishop); and archdeaconries, as ecclesiasticaldivisions, are there unknown. Thedioceses of Dublin and Ardfert may beregarded as exceptions, but not with justice:as the archdeaconry of Glendalochin the former, and of Aghadoe in the latter,belonged originally to separate dioceses,which have been drawn into theadjacent ones: so that the dividing boundariesare now unknown. (Jebb.) Over thediocese the bishop presides; over the archdeaconryone of the clergy is appointedby the bishop to preside, who must be apriest, 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 earlyperiod in the Christian Church.

The antiquity of this office is held to beso high by many Roman Catholic writers,that they derive its origin from the appointmentof the seven deacons, and supposethat St. Stephen was the first archdeacon:but there is no clear authority towarrant this conclusion. Mention is alsomade of Laurentius, archdeacon of Rome,who suffered A. D. 260; but although hewas called archdeacon, (according to Prudentius,)he was no more than the principalman of the seven deacons who stoodat the altar. “Hic primus è septem virisqui stant ad aram proximi.” (Prudent.Hymn. de St. Steph.) At Carthage theoffice appears to have been introducedwithin the last forty years of the thirdcentury, as St. Cyprian does not mentionit, whereas in the persecution of DiocletianCecilian is described as archdeacon,under the bishop Mensurius. St. Jerome51says, “that the archdeacon was chosen outof the deacons, and was the principal deaconin every church, just as the archpresbyterwas the principal presbyter.”

But even in St. Jerome’s time, the officeof archdeacon had certainly grown to greatimportance. His proper business was, toattend the bishop at the altar; to directthe deacons and other inferior officers intheir several duties, for their orderly performanceof Divine service; to attend thebishop at ordinations, and to assist him inmanaging and dispensing the revenues ofthe Church: but without anything thatcould be called “jurisdiction,” in the presentsense of the word, either in the cathedralor out of it.

After the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 360,when it was ordained that no bishop shouldbe placed in country villages, the archdeacon,being always near the bishop, andthe person mainly intrusted by him, grewinto great credit and power, and came bydegrees, as occasion required, to be employedby him in visiting the clergy ofthe diocese, and in the despatch of othermatters relating to the episcopal care.

He was the bishop’s constant attendantand assistant, and, next to the bishop, theeyes of the whole Church were fixed uponhim; it was therefore by no means unusualfor him to be chosen the bishop’ssuccessor before the presbyters, and St.Jerome records, “that an archdeaconthought himself injured if he was ordaineda presbyter.” (“Certe qui primus fueritministrorum, quia per singula concionaturin 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 τῷἀρχιερεῖ; and St. Ambrose informs us, inthe account which he gives of Laurentius,archdeacon of Rome, that it belonged tohim “to minister the cup to the peoplewhen the bishop celebrated the eucharist,and had administered the bread beforehim.”—Ambros. de Offic. lib. i. c. 41.

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

But the authority of the archdeacon, inancient times, was chiefly a power of inquiryand inspection; and the gradualgrowth of his “jurisdiction,” properly socalled, during the middle ages, is a subjectof difficult inquiry. Pope Clement V. givesan archdeacon the title of “oculus Episcopi,”saying that “he is in the bishop’splace, to correct and amend all such mattersas ought to be corrected and amendedby the bishop himself, unless they be ofsuch an arduous nature, as that they cannotbe determined without the presence ofhis superior the bishop.”

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

Beyond this, all the rights that anyarchdeacon enjoys, subsist by grants fromthe bishop, made either voluntarily, or ofnecessity, or by composition. (See the caseof composition made between the bishopof Lincoln and his archdeacons, in Gibson’sCodex, vol. ii. p. 1548.)

As to the divisions in England of diocesesinto archdeaconries, and the assignmentof particular divisions to particulararchdeaconries, this is supposed to havebegun a little after the Norman conquest.We meet with no archdeacons vested withany kind of jurisdiction in the Saxon times.Archbishop Lanfranc was the first whomade an archdeacon with power of “jurisdiction,”in his see of Canterbury, andThomas, the first archbishop of York afterthe Conquest, was the first in England thatdivided his diocese into archdeaconries; asdid also Remigius, bishop of Lincoln.When the Norman bishops, by reason oftheir baronies, were tied by the Constitutionsof Clarendon to strict attendanceupon the kings in their parliaments, theywere obliged, for the administration oftheir dioceses, to grant larger delegationsof power to archdeacons, who visited whenthey did not (de triennio in triennium).Archdeacons, therefore, with us, could nothave this power of jurisdiction by commonright, or by immemorial custom; the powerwhich the archdeacon has is derived fromthe bishop, although he himself is an ordinary,and is recognised as such by thebooks of common law, which adjudge anadministration made by him to be good,though it is not expressed by what authority,because, as done by the archdeacon, itis presumed to be done “jure ordinario.”

In the 22nd of Henry I. we have thefirst account of their being summoned toconvocation; and in the 15th of Henry III.,and in the 32nd year of the same king, theywere summoned by express name.

This being the original of archdeacons,it is impossible for them to prescribe to anindependency on the bishop, as it was declaredin a court of law they might, andendeavoured to be proved by the gloss ona legatine constitution, where we read thatan archdeacon may have a customary jurisdictiondistinct from the bishop, and towhich he may prescribe. But the meaning52of it is, not that there can be an archdeaconryby prescription, and independentof the bishop, but that the archdeaconmay prescribe to a particular jurisdiction,exempt from the ordinary; which jurisdictionhas customarily been enjoyed by himand his predecessors time out of mind.

The archdeaconries of St. Alban’s, ofRichmond, and Cornwall, are cases of thiskind; these jurisdictions are founded uponancient customs, but the archdeacon is stillsubordinate to the bishop in various ways;he being, in our law, as he is according tothe canon law, vicarious episcopi.

According to Lyndwood and other canonists,he can inquire into crimes, but notpunish the criminals; he has, in one sense,according to the casuists, a cure of souls,by virtue of his office, though it is in foroexteriori tantum et sine pastorali cura; andhas authority to perform ministerial acts,as to suspend, excommunicate, absolve,&c., therefore by the ecclesiastical law heis obliged to residence. And that may beone reason why he may not be chosen toexecute any temporal office that may requirehis attendance at another place;another reason is because he is an ecclesiasticalperson. But he has no parochialcure, and therefore an archdeaconry is notcomprehended under the name of a beneficewith cure; for if one who has such beneficeaccepts an archdeaconry, it is not void byour law, though it is so by the canon law.And yet, though he has not any parochialcure, he is obliged to subscribe the declarationpursuant to the statute, 14Charles II. It is true, he is not expresslynamed therein, but all persons in holyorders are enjoined to subscribe by thatstatute; and because an archdeacon mustbe in those orders, therefore he must likewisesubscribe, &c. And as he has a jurisdictionin certain cases, so, for the betterexercising the same, he has power to keepa court, which is called the Court of theArchdeacon, or his commissary, and thishe may hold in any place within his archdeaconry.With regard to the Archdeacon’sCourt, it was said by the justices ofthe Common Pleas, 2 & 3 William andMary, in the case of Woodward and Fox,that though it might be supposed originallythat the jurisdiction within the diocesewas lodged in the bishop, yet the Archdeacon’sCourt had, “time out of mind,”been settled as a distinct court, and thatthe statute 24th of Henry VIII. chap. xii.takes notice of the Consistory Court, whichis the bishop’s, and of the Archdeacon’sCourt, from which there lies an appeal tothe bishop’s. (See Appeal.) There is anofficer belonging to this court, called aregistrar, whose office concerns the administrationof justice, and therefore thearchdeacon cannot by law take any moneyfor granting it; if he does, the office willbe forfeited to the queen. Regardingparochial visitations by archdeacons, see“Articles and Directions to the Incumbentsand Churchwardens within the Archdeaconryof Surrey,” in Gibson’s Codex,vol. ii. p. 1551–1555; and see post, “Visitation.”

By 1 & 2 Vict. c. cvi. s. 2, an archdeaconmay hold, with his archdeaconry, twobenefices under certain restrictions; or abenefice and a cathedral preferment.

He is also, whilst engaged in his archidiaconalfunctions, considered to be residenton his benefice. In cathedrals of theold foundation, the archdeacons of the diocese,how numerous soever, were membersof the greater chapter, and had stalls inthe choir. This was the universal customon the continent, and is uniformly the casein Ireland, as it was also in Scotland. Inthe diocese of Dublin, the archdeacon ofDublin has a stall in both of the cathedralsthere, the archdeacon of Glendaloch howeveronly in that of St. Patrick’s.

The archdeacons of Ireland have not fora long time exercised any jurisdiction. Itis however evident from old documentsthat they did exercise it in ancient times.The bishops hold annual visitation.

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

ARCHIMANDRITE. A name formerlygiven to the superior of a monastery:it is derived from the word μάνδρα, bywhich monasteries were sometimes called.The term Archimandrite is still retained inthe Greek Church.

ARCHPRIEST, or ARCHIPRESBYTER.An ancient title of distinction,corresponding to our title, rural dean, revivedunder most unhappy pretensionsamong the Romanists of England, in theyear 1598. These men, finding themselveswithout bishops, importuned the pope,Clement VII., to supply their need; butinstead of sending them, as they desired, anumber of bishops, he gave them but oneecclesiastical superior, Robert Blackwell,who after all was merely a priest; anarchpriest indeed he was called, but as53such having no episcopal power. In theearly times this title was given to thechief presbyter in each church, presidingover the church next under the bishop,and taking care of all things relating tothe church in the bishop’s absence. Inthis case however, instead of being placedin a cathedral church, or discharging theoffice of rural dean, under a bishop orarchdeacon, he was appointed to govern allthe Romish clergy of England and Scotland,without one or the other. Herethen we find Rome, while preserving anold title, inventing an office hitherto unknownto the Christian world. And, whenappointed, what could the archpriest do?He could merely be a rural dean on a largescale. He could merely overlook his brotherclergy. He could not discharge any functionsproperly episcopal. He could notordain priests, confirm children, nor consecratechapels, should circumstances permitor require. It is plain, then, that the archpriestwas a very imperfect and insufficientsubstitute for a bishop. The archpriest inmany foreign churches, in Italy especially,answers to our cathedral dean. In someItalian dioceses, somewhat to our ruraldean.—Darwell.

ARCHONTICS. Heretics who appearedin the second century, about A. D.175, and who were an offshoot of the Valentinians.They held a quantity of idlestories concerning the Divinity and thecreation of the world, which they attributedto sundry authors; and hence they werecalled Archontics, from the Greek wordἀρχων, which means prince or ruler.

ARIANS. (See Councils.) Heretics,so named from Arius, their first founder:they denied the three persons in the HolyTrinity to be of the same essence, and affirmedthe Word to be a creature, and thatonce (although before the beginning oftime) he was not. They were condemnedby the Council of Nice, in 325.

The doctrine of Arius may be thusstated:—The Son sprang not from the natureof the Father, but was created fromnothing: he had, indeed, an existencebefore the world, even before time, butnot from eternity. He is, therefore, inessence different from the Father, and isin the order of creatures, whom he, however,precedes in excellence, as God createdall things, even time, by his instrumentality;whence he was called the Son ofGod, the Logos, or Word of God. As acreature the Son is perfect, and as like tothe Father as a creature can be to theCreator. But as he has received all thingsas a gift, from the favour of the Father,—asthere was a period in which he wasnot,—so there is an infinite distance betweenhim and the nature of the Father;of which nature he cannot even form aperfect idea, but can enjoy only a defectiveknowledge of the same. His will wasoriginally variable, capable of good and ofevil, as is that of all other rational creatures:he is, comparatively at least, freefrom sin; not by nature, but by his gooduse of his power of election; the Father,therefore, foreseeing his perseverance ingood, imparted to him that dignity andsublimity above all other creatures, whichshall continue to be the reward of his virtues.Although he is called God, he isnot so in truth, but was deified in thatsense in which men, who have attained toa high degree of sanctity, may arrive at aparticipation of the Divine prerogatives.The idea then of a generation of the Sonfrom the essence of the Father is to beabsolutely rejected.

This doctrine, which must have correspondedto the superficial understandings,and to the yet half-pagan ideas, of manywho then called themselves Christians,attacked the very soul of the Christiandoctrine of the redemption; for, accordingto this doctrine, it was not God made man,but a changeable creature, who effectedthe great work of the redemption of fallenman. The devout Christian, to whomfaith in the God-man, Christ, the onlyDivine Mediator, opened the way to an intimateunion with God, saw by this doctrinethat his Redeemer and Mediatorwas as infinitely removed from the essenceof God as himself; he saw himself drivenback to the ancient pagan estrangementfrom God, and removed to an unattainabledistance from him.—See Maimbourg, Hist.of Arians. For an account of the revival ofArianism in the last century, see Van Mildert’sLife of Waterland.

ARK OF THE COVENANT. So theJews called a small chest or coffer, threefeet nine inches in length, two feet threeinches in breadth, and two feet threeinches in height, (Prideaux, Connect.Part i. Book iii.,) in which were contained“the golden pot that had manna, andAaron’s rod, and the tables of the covenant,”as well the broken ones (accordingto the Rabbins) as the whole. Heb. ix. 4.Over the ark was the mercy-seat, and itwas the covering of it. It was made ofsolid gold (Exod. xxv. 17–22); and atthe two ends of it were two cherubimslooking inward toward each other, withexpanded wings, which, embracing thewhole circumference of the mercy-seat,54met on each side in the middle. Thewhole (according to the Rabbins) wasmade out of the same mass, without joiningany of the parts by solder. Here itwas that the Shechinah, or Divine presence,rested, both in the tabernacle and in thetemple, and was visibly seen in the appearanceof a cloud over it. And from hencethe Divine oracles were given out, by anaudible voice, as often as God was consultedin the behalf of his people. Andhence it is, that God is said, in Scripture,to dwell between the cherubims, on themercy-seat, because there was the seator throne of the visible appearance of hisglory among them. And for this reasonthe high priest appeared before thismercy-seat once every year, on the greatday of expiation; at which time he wasto make his nearest approach to theDivine presence, to mediate, and makeatonement for the whole people of Israel.—R.Levi, Ben. Gersom, Solomon, &c. Lev.xvi. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 6; 2Kings 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 thatnation, who served God according to theLevitical law; and not only in the temple,when they came thither to worship,but everywhere else, in their dispersionthroughout the whole world, wheneverthey prayed, they turned their faces towardsthe place where the ark stood, anddirected all their devotions that way.Whence the author of the book of Cosrijustly 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 thereinperformed. And therefore had there beennothing else wanting in the second temple,but the ark only, this alone would havebeen reason enough for the old men tohave wept, when they remembered the firsttemple, in which it stood; and for the sayingof Haggai, that the second temple wasas nothing in comparison of the first; sogreat a share had the ark of the covenantin the glory of Solomon’s temple. However,the defect was supplied as to the outwardform: for, in the second temple,there was also an ark, of the same shapeand dimensions with the first, and put inthe same place: but it wanted the tablesof the law, Aaron’s rod, and the pot ofmanna; nor was there any appearance ofthe Divine glory over it, nor any oraclesdelivered from it. The only use that wasmade of it was, to be a representative ofthe former on the great day of expiation,and to be a repository of the Holy Scriptures;that is, of the original copy of thatcollection of them made by Ezra, after thecaptivity. In imitation of which, the Jews,in all their synagogues, have a like ark, orcoffer, in which they keep their Scriptures.1 Kings viii. 48.—Lightfoot, of the Temple,ch. xv. § 4.

The place of the temple where the arkstood, was the innermost and most sacredpart, called the Holy of Holies, and sometimesthe most holy place; which was madeon purpose for its reception. This place,or room, was of an exact cubic form, beingthirty feet square, and thirty feet high. Inthe centre of it, the ark was placed upon astone (say the Rabbins) rising three fingers’breadth above the floor. On the twosides of it stood two cherubims, fifteen feethigh, at equal distance between the centreof the ark and each side of the wall; where,having their wings expanded, with two ofthem they touched the side walls, whilstthe other two met and touched each otherexactly over the middle of the ark.—Yoma,cap. v. § 2.

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

What became of the old ark, on the destructionof the temple by Nebuchadnezzar,is a dispute among the Rabbins. Hadit been carried to Babylon with the othervessels of the temple, it would have beenbrought back again with them, at the endof the captivity. But that it was not so,is agreed on all hands; whence it is probableit was destroyed with the temple.The Jews contend, that it was hid andpreserved by Jeremiah. Some of themwill have it, that King Josiah, being foretoldby Huldah the prophetess that thetemple, soon after his death, would be destroyed,caused the ark to be deposited ina vault, which Solomon, foreseeing thisdestruction, had built on purpose for thepreservation of it.—Buxtorf, de Arca, cap.xxi., xxii.

ARMENIANS. The Christians of Armenia,the first country in which Christianitywas recognised as the nationalreligion, in consequence of the preachingof Gregory, called The Illuminator, in thebeginning of the fourth century. At a latertime the Armenians adopted the Eutychianor Monophysite heresy, asserting that thehuman nature of Christ is swallowed up ofthe Divine; or is no more properly humanthan a drop of vinegar put into the sea can55afterwards be reckoned vinegar. They donot 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 thingsstrangled. They scrupulously observefasting; and fasts so frequently occur, thattheir whole religion seems to consist infasting. They admit infants to the sacramentof the eucharist: they reject purgatoryand prayers for the dead: they fast onChristmas day, and they allow marriage intheir priests. The Armenians were ancientlysubject to the patriarchs of Constantinople,but they now have their ownpatriarchs.

ARMINIANS. A powerful party ofChristians, so called from Arminius, professorof divinity at Leyden, who wasthe first that opposed the then receiveddoctrines in Holland, of an absolute predestination.They took the name ofRemonstrants, from a writing called aRemonstrance, which was presented bythem to the states of Holland, 1609, whereinthey reduced their peculiar doctrines tothese five articles:—

1. That God, from all eternity, determinedto bestow salvation on those who,as he foresaw, would persevere unto the endin their faith in Jesus Christ; and toinflict everlasting punishment on those whoshould 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 offoreseen infidelity and persevering wickedness.

2. On the second point, they taught, ThatJesus Christ, by his suffering and death,made an atonement for the sins of mankindin general, and of every individual inparticular; that, however, none but thosewho believe in him can be partakers ofthat Divine benefit.

3. On the third article they held, Thattrue faith cannot proceed from the exerciseof our natural faculties and powers, norfrom the force and operation of free will;since man, in consequence of his naturalcorruption, is incapable either of thinkingor doing any good thing; and that, therefore,it is necessary to his conversion andsalvation, that he be regenerated and renewedby the operation of the HolyGhost, which is the gift of God, throughJesus Christ.

4. On the fourth they believed, Thatthis Divine grace, or energy of the HolyGhost, begins, advances, and perfectseverything that can be called good inman; and that, consequently, all goodworks are to be attributed to God alone;that nevertheless, this grace, which isoffered to all, does not force men to actagainst their inclinations, but may be resistedand rendered ineffectual by the perversewill of the impenitent sinner.

5. And on the fifth, That God gives tothe truly faithful, who are regenerated byhis grace, the means of preserving themselvesin this state; and, though the firstArminians entertained some doubt withrespect to the closing part of this article,their followers uniformly maintain, Thatthe regenerate may lose true justifyingfaith, fall from a state of grace, and die intheir sins.

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

ARMS. Armorial bearings, whetherborne by individuals or by corporate bodiesand corporations sole: among whichare reckoned bishops, colleges, and otherecclesiastical persons and bodies. Abishop empales his family coat with thearms of his see, to denote his spiritualmarriage with his Church; but the arms ofthe see occupy the dexter side of the escutcheon,or the side of greater honour. Whena bishop is married, he empales the arms ofhis wife with his own family coat, on aseparate escutcheon; and this escutcheonis placed by the sinister side of the shield,empaling his own coat with the arms ofthe see. Many of the arms of bishopricscontain allusions to the spiritual characterof the person who bears them. Thus thearchbishops of Canterbury, Armagh, andDublin, each bear a pall, in right of theirsees; as did the archbishop of York tillhis arms were changed about the beginningof the sixteenth century to two keys crossedsaltierwise, and a crown royal in chief.Colleges often assume the family coat oftheir founder as their arms.

ARTICLES, THE THIRTY-NINE.The Thirty-nine Articles, based on theForty-two Articles framed by ArchbishopCranmer and Bishop Ridley in the reign ofEdward VI., were presented by his Gracethe archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Parker,to the convocation of the province of Canterburywhich was convened with theparliament in January, 1562, and by theconvocation they were unanimously approved.In 1566 a bill was brought intoparliament to confirm them. The billpassed the Commons, but by the queen’scommand was dropped in the Lords. In1571 the convocation revised the articlesof 1562, and made some alterations in them.In the same year an act was passed, “to56provide that the ministers of the Churchshould be of sound religion.” It enactedthat all ecclesiastical persons should subscribeto “all the articles of religion whichonly contained the confession of the truefaith and of the sacraments, comprisedin a book imprinted, entitled ‘Articles,’whereupon it was agreed by the archbishopsand bishops, and the whole clergy in convocationholden at London, in the year ofour Lord God 1562, according to thecomputation of the Church of England, forthe avoiding of diversities of opinions, andfor the establishing of consent touchingtrue religion, put forth by the queen’sauthority.” In 1628 an English editionwas published by royal authority, to whichis prefixed the declaration of Charles I.The English Articles were adopted by theIrish convocation in 1615.

Some have thought that they are onlyarticles of union and peace; that they area standard of doctrine, not to be contradictedor disputed; that the sons of theChurch are only bound to acquiesce silentlyin them; and that the subscription bindsonly to a general compromise upon thosearticles, that so there may be no disputingor wrangling about them. By this meansthey reckon, that though a man shoulddiffer in his opinion from that which appearsto be the clear sense of any of thearticles; yet he may with a good consciencesubscribe them, if the article appearsto him to be of such a nature, that thoughhe thinks it wrong, yet it seems not to beof that consequence, but that it may beborne with and not contradicted.

Now as to the laity, and the whole bodyof the people, certainly to them these areonly the articles of Church communion:so that every person, who does not thinkthat there is some proposition in them thatis erroneous to so high a degree that hecannot hold communion with such as holdit, may, and is obliged to, continue in ourcommunion; for certainly there may bemany opinions held in matters of religion,which a man may believe to be false, andyet may esteem them to be of so little importanceto the chief design of religion,that he may well hold communion withthose whom he thinks to be so mistaken.

But what the clergy are bound to bytheir subscriptions is much more than this.The meaning of every subscription is to betaken from the design of the imposer, andfrom the words of the subscription itself.The title of the Articles bears, that theywere agreed upon in convocation, “for theavoiding of diversities of opinions, and forthe establishing of consent touching truereligion.” Where it is evident that “aconsent in opinion” is designed. If we inthe next place consider the declarationsthat the Church has made in the canons,we shall find, that though by the fifthcanon, which relates to the whole body ofpeople, such only are declared to be excommunicatedipso facto, who shall affirmany of the articles to be erroneous, or suchas he may not with a good conscience subscribeto; yet the thirty-sixth canon isexpress for the clergy, requiring them tosubscribe “willingly and ex animo,” and“acknowledge all and every article to beagreeable to the word of God:” uponwhich canon it is, that the form of thesubscription runs in these words, whichseem expressly to declare a man’s ownopinion, and not a bare assent to an articleof peace, or an engagement to silence andsubmission. The statute of the 13th ofQueen Elizabeth, chap. 12, which givesthe legal authority to our requiring subscriptions,in order to a man’s being capableof a benefice, requires that every clergymanshould read the Articles in the Church,with a declaration of his unfeigned assentto them. These things make it appearvery plain, that the subscriptions of theclergy must be considered as a declarationof their own opinion, and not as a bareobligation to silence.—Bishop Burnet.

We learn from the New Testament, thatthose who first embraced the gospel declaredtheir faith in Jesus, as the promisedMessiah, in simple and general terms (Actsviii. 37); and there is no ground for supposingthat the apostles required this declarationto be made in any one particularform of words. No such formulary istransmitted to us; and, had any ever existed,it would probably have been citedor alluded to in the New Testament, or inthe early apologies for Christianity. Everybishop was authorized to prescribe a formularyfor the use of his own church;and there are still extant in writers wholived near to the apostolic age, several abstractsof Christian faith, which, thoughthey agree in substance, vary in expression.But, when heresies gained ground,and destroyed uniformity of belief amongChristians, it became necessary to have apublic standard of faith; and to this causewe are to attribute the origin of creeds.The design of these creeds was to establishthe genuine doctrines of the gospel, inopposition to the errors which then prevailed;and to exclude from communionwith the orthodox Church of Christ allwho held heretical opinions. New dissensionsand controversies continually arose;57and we have to lament that, in process oftime, “the faith, which was once deliveredunto the saints,” became corrupted in thehighest degree; and that those very councils,which were convened according tothe practice of the apostolic age, for thepurpose of declaring “the truth as it is inJesus,” gave their sanction and authorityto the grossest absurdities and most palpableerrors. These corruptions, supportedby secular power, and favoured by thedarkness and ignorance of the times, werealmost universally received through a successionof many ages, till at last the gloriouslight of the Reformation dispelled theclouds which had so long obscured theChristian world.

At that interesting period the severalChurches, which had separated themselvesfrom the Roman communion, found it expedientto publish confessions of theirfaith; and, in conformity to this practice,Edward the Sixth, the first Protestantking of England, caused to be publishedby his royal authority forty-two “Articles,agreed upon by the bishops and otherlearned and good men, in the convocationheld at London in the year 1552, to rootout the discord of opinions, and establishthe agreement of true religion.” TheseArticles were repealed by Queen Mary,soon after her accession to the throne.But Queen Elizabeth, in the beginning ofher reign, gave her royal assent to thirty-nine[or rather thirty-eight] “Articles,agreed upon by the archbishops and bishopsof both provinces, and the whole clergy, inthe convocation holden at London in theyear 1562, for avoiding diversities of opinion,and for the establishing of consenttouching true religion.” These Articleswere revised, and some small alterationsmade in them, in the year 1571; sincewhich time they have continued to be thecriterion of the faith of the members ofthe Church of England on the subjects towhich they relate. The Articles of 1562were drawn up in Latin only [in realitythe Articles both of 1552 and of 1562 wereset forth in our authorized English version,as well as in Latin]; but, in 1571, theywere subscribed by the members of thetwo houses of convocation, both in Latinand English; and, therefore, the Latin andEnglish copies are to be considered asequally authentic. The original manuscripts,subscribed by the Houses of Convocation,were burnt in the Fire of London;but Dr. Bennet has collated the oldestcopies now extant, and it appears thatthere are no variations of any importance.

It is generally believed that Cranmerand Ridley were chiefly concerned inframing the forty-two Articles, upon whichour thirty-nine are founded. But BishopBurnet says, that “questions relating tothem were given about to many bishopsand divines, who gave in their several answers,which were collated and examinedvery maturely; all sides had a free andfair hearing before conclusions were made.”Indeed, caution and moderation are noless conspicuous in them than a thoroughknowledge of the Scriptures, and of theearly opinions and practice of Christians.

These Thirty-nine Articles are arrangedwith great judgment and perspicuity, andmay be considered under four general divisions:the first five contain the Christiandoctrines concerning the Father, theSon, and the Holy Ghost; in the sixth,seventh, and eighth, the rule of faith isestablished; the ten next relate to Christians,as individuals; and the remainingtwenty-one relate to them, as they aremembers of a religious society. But, as allconfessions of faith have had a referenceto existing heresies, we shall here find, notonly the positive doctrines of the gospelasserted; but also the principal errors andcorruptions of the Church of Rome, andmost of the extravagances into which certainProtestant sects fell at the time of theReformation, rejected and condemned.—Bp.Tomline.

The various forms through which theArticles have passed, may be seen in Cardwell’sSynodalia, and in Hardwick’s Historyof the Articles. In 1615, a set of Articlesof a Calvinistic nature were compiled bythe Irish convocation; but it does not appearthat they ever received the sanctionof parliament. These, however, were supersededin 1635 by the English Articles,which were then adopted by the Irish Convocation.(See Introduction to Stephens’Book of Common Prayer, from the DublinMS., vol. i., xxxvii.–xxxix.) The old Articlesare given at length. In general, theseperfectly agree with the English Articles;but the doctrines of the Lambeth Articlesare introduced.

ARTS. One of the faculties in whichdegrees are conferred in the universities.In the English and Irish universities thereare two degrees in arts, that of Bachelorand that of Master. The whole circle ofthe arts was formerly reduced to seven sciences,grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic,geometry, music, and astronomy; and theseagain were divided into the trivium, includingthe first three, and the quadrivium,including the remaining four. Music isnow considered as a separate faculty at58Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin; as thedegrees of Doctor and Bachelor of Musicare given. Grammar was a separate butsubordinate faculty at Oxford and Cambridge,in which there were three degrees,Doctor, Master, and Bachelor. There isan instance in Wood’s Athenæ Oxon., ofa Doctor in Grammar and Rhetoric (Robt.Whityndon, 1513). The last record ofgrammatical degrees at Oxford is in 1568;at Cambridge in 1539. The faculty ofarts is called that of philosophy in someforeign and more modern universities,there the degrees are Doctor and Candidate.

ASAPH, Psalms of. One of the threeTemple Choirs bore the designation of theSons of Asaph: from Asaph, their leader,in the time of David. They were descendantsof Gershom, the eldest son of Levi.Twelve Psalms are entitled Psalms ofAsaph: 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 oradopted by the above-named Asaph, or byone of the same name, but of later date,or were appropriated to the peculiar useof the Sons of Asaph, in the courses of attendanceat the temple.

ASCENSION DAY. This holy dayhas been kept in the Christian Churchfrom the earliest times. It is reckoned bythe compiler of the Apostolic Constitutionsamong the other great festivals, Christmasday, the Epiphany, Easter, and Whitsunday;and St. Augustine speaks of it aseither instituted by the apostles, or bysome early and numerously attended councilsof the primitive bishops, whose authorityhe considered most beneficial in theChurch. “On this day,” says St. Chrysostom,“the reconciliation between God andmankind was completed, the long enmitywas dissolved, the blasting war broughtto an end.” “On this day, we, who hadbeen shown to be unworthy of earth, wereraised to the hope of heaven; we, whowere not fit to receive dominion even onearth below, were exalted to the kingdomwhich is above; and our nature, kept outby cherubim from an earthly paradise, maynow sit above the cherubim on high.”Christ, the first-fruits of our nature, havingobtained this perfection, we that arehis members may hope to partake the sameglory. This hope the returning day of hisascension should ever bring into our minds,and we should keep it for the sustaining ofour hope, and in thankfulness for the graceit brought. It is one of the days whichthe Church especially recommends for thereceiving of the holy communion. (Seethe Special Preface in the CommunionOffice.) It is difficult to account for thetoo prevalent neglect of this high festivalof our Church, on any other ground thanthe encroachment of worldly principlesupon the minds of men, to the displacingof the principles of the Church. Ascensionday is one of the six holy days for whichspecial psalms are appointed. The threeRogation days are appointed to prepare usfor its right celebration, and yet, becauseit is not marked by worldly festivities,many neglect and pass it by. It is observedas a scarlet day at Oxford andCambridge. It is popularly called HolyThursday. By 27 Henry VI. cap. 5, theholding of fairs or markets was prohibitedon Ascension day, as well as on otherhigh holidays, and on Sundays, &c.; makingan exception however of the fourSundays in harvest: and it was enactedthat the fair should be held on some otherday preceding or following. That part ofthe act which related to Sundays in harvestwas 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 uncommondegrees of sanctity and virtue, and declaredtheir resolution of obeying all the counselsof Christ, in order to their enjoying communionwith God here; and also, in expectationthat, after the dissolution of theirmortal bodies, they might ascend to himwith the greater facility, and find nothingto retard their approach to the supremecentre of happiness and perfection. Theylooked upon themselves as prohibited theuse of things which it was lawful for otherChristians to enjoy, such as wine, flesh,matrimony, and commerce. They thoughtit their indispensable duty to attenuate thebody by watchings, abstinence, labour, andhunger. They looked for felicity in solitaryretreats, in desert places, where, bysevere and assiduous efforts of sublimemeditation, they thought to raise their soulsabove all external objects and all sensualpleasures. Both men and women imposedupon themselves the most severe tasks, themost austere discipline; all which, howeverit might be the fruit of pious intention,was in the issue extremely detrimental toChristianity, and tended to introduce thedoctrine of justification by inherent righteousness.These persons were called ascetics(from ἀσκησις, exercise or discipline)and philosophers; nor were they only distinguishedby their title from other Christians,but also by their garb. In the second59century, indeed, such as embraced thisaustere kind of life submitted themselvesto all these mortifications in private, withoutbreaking asunder their social bonds,or withdrawing themselves from the concourseof men. But in process of time,they retired into deserts; and, after theexample of the Essenes and Therapeutæ,they formed themselves into certain companies.—SeeOrigen, contr. Cels. lib. v.;Can. Apostol. cap. 51; Cyril, Catech. 10, n.9; Bingham, Antiq. Chr. Ch.

ASCETICISM. The practice of theAscetics. We do not consider neglectof the body—meaning by the term ourpresent material organization—a rule ofChristianity. The abnegation of sin is, ofcourse, the root of all religion, and the bodyof sin is a scriptural phrase for our naturein its unredeemed and antagonistic state;but it ceases to be a body of sin, in thissense, when it becomes a member ofChrist: it becomes in baptism a templeof the Holy Ghost. But how are we tojudge that the spirit within is indeed regenerated?Principally by the works ofthe body. The existence of good worksmanifests the operation of the spirit ofgood, and the Christian character thereforetakes for its physical development—labour,activity, perseverance, energy,fortitude, courage; to all of which qualitiesself-denial is the preliminary. Christianity,therefore, does not eradicate thepowers of the body any more than it doesthe feelings of the heart, or the facultiesof the mind; it eradicates their misdevotion.What it aims at effecting is, toassign to each in its sanctified characterits proper place and province. It defineslegitimate objects for the passions, legitimateambitions for the mind, legitimateaspirations for the soul. Simply, Christianityis human nature in rectitude, notlethargy, of action. Nature in every instancetells us that we possess such andsuch powers; the gospel directs their application,and reveals the important resultsdependent on their use or abuse. Theright discipline, therefore, not the destruction,of human capabilities, is inculcatedby the Scriptures. God has for thewisest reasons placed the extirpation ofthese internal organs of action beyond ourpower, but within our power the regulatingthem for good or evil, happiness or misery.The choice is ours; the consequences attendanton the choice are not ours: thesehave been fixed from, and will extend into,eternity.—Morgan.

ASCODRUTES, or ASCODROUTES.An heretical sect of the Marcosians. Theyrejected the sacraments, alleging thatthings spiritual cannot be conveyed in corporealsymbols.—Bingham, Antiq. Chr. Ch.

ASHES. Several religious ceremoniesdepend upon the use of ashes. St. Jeromerelates, that the Jews, in his time, rolledthemselves in ashes, as a sign of mourning.To repent in sackcloth and ashes is a frequentexpression in Scripture, for mourning andbeing afflicted for our sins. Numb. xix. 17.There was a sort of lustral water, made withthe ashes of an heifer, sacrificed on thegreat day of atonement, the ashes whereofwere distributed among the people. Inthe Romish Church, ashes are given amongthe people on Ash-Wednesday: they mustbe made from branches of olive, or someother trees, that have been blessed theforegoing year. (Pescara Cerem. Eccles.Rom.) The sacristan, or vestry-keeper,prepares these ashes, and lays them in asmall vessel on the altar: after which theofficiating priest blesses the ashes, whichare strewed by the deacons, and assistants,on the heads of all that are present, accompaniedwith these words, Memento,homo, quod pulvis es, &c.; Remember, man,that thou art dust, &c.—Religious Ceremoniesof all Nations, vol. iii. (See Ash-Wednesday.)

ASH-WEDNESDAY. (See Lent andCommination.) This day seems to havebeen observed as the first day of Lent inthe time of Gregory the Great. It is supposedby some, that Gregory added threedays at the beginning of Lent, to makethe number forty, in more exact imitationof the number of days in our blessedSaviour’s fast; and that before his timethere were only thirty-six days, the Sundaysbeing always kept as festivals. Itwas called, in his time, Dies cinerum, theday of sprinkling ashes, or Caput jejunii,the beginning of the fast. The custom ofopen penance, which the name of the dayreminds us of, is one of those things whichthe Church of England, at the time of theReformation, wished to see restored; buton account of the prejudices of the time,she could not carry out her wishes. (See theCommination Service in the Prayer Book.)

ASPERGILLUM. An instrument resemblinga brush, used in the RomanCatholic Church for the purpose of sprinklingholy water over objects to be blessed.

ASPERSION. (See Affusion.) Thesprinkling with water in the sacrament ofbaptism. This our rubric permits.

Then the priest shall take the child into hishands, and say to the godfathers andgodmothers,

60Name this child.

And then naming it after them (if they shallcertify him that the child may well endureit) he shall dip it in the water discreetlyand warily, saying,

N. I baptize thee in the name of theFather, and of the Son, and of the HolyGhost. Amen.

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

N. I baptize thee in the name of theFather, and of the Son, and of the HolyGhost. Amen.

It is said by the Anabaptists that thereis no authority in Scripture for thus administeringthe sacrament of baptism. Butwe find in the primitive Church, that althoughbaptism was regularly administeredby 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 excusefor not immersing under certain circumstances,it is still a sufficient excuse, if inour cold climate to immerse our childrenwould be attended with danger.—SeeBingham’s Origines Ecclesiasticæ.

ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES. Thetitle given to a notable assembly held atWestminster, 1st July, 1643, convoked byan ordinance of the Lords and Commons,but forbidden to be held by the king, totake the liturgy, government, and doctrinesof the Church under consideration. Themembers were elected by the knights andburgesses, two being returned for eachcounty. According to Clarendon, theywere most of them men of mean learning,and some of them of scandalous morals.Among the exceptions to this condemnatorysentence were Lightfoot and Selden.Usher was nominated, but with the fewEpiscopalians elected did not serve. TheScottish covenant was taken by this assembly:the confession of faith still received inthe Scottish Presbyterian establishment,and the larger and shorter catechisms, weredrawn up. But the opinions of the membersdiffered so widely on many points,that the assembly broke up without accomplishingthe principal end for which it wasconvened. (See Confessions of Faith.)

ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGINMARY. A festival of the Romish Church,instituted in the seventh century, and fixedto the 15th of August, in honour of theimaginary ascension of the Virgin Maryinto heaven, which, without any authorityfrom Scripture or tradition, some sects inthat corrupt Church teach to have occurredin a miraculous manner, some years afterher death. Such is the corrupt practiceof the Romanists, that in many placeshigher honour is paid to this legendaryfestival than even to the anniversary of thecrucifixion of our Lord. (See VirginMary.)

ASYLUM. A place of refuge. Thisbegan to be a privilege of churches in thetime of Constantine. No persons couldbe arrested in churches. In the middleages this was a great advantage, to preventthe excesses of private revenge. In timesof great civilization it became an abuse,and the privilege was taken away. (SeeSanctuary.)

ATHANASIAN CREED. The learned,at this day, however they may differ intheir opinions about the age, or author,make no question but that the compositionwas originally in Latin. The style andphraseology—its early acceptance with theLatins, while unknown to the Greeks—theantiquity and number of the LatinMSS., and their general agreement witheach other, compared with the lateness, thescarceness, and the disagreement of theGreek copies—all seem to demonstratethis.

As to the antiquity of the AthanasianCreed, it was certainly become so famousin the sixth century as to be commentedupon, together with the Lord’s Prayer andApostles’ Creed, about the year 570, byVenantius Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers,in France. This is certain evidence forthe time specified, and presumptive formuch greater antiquity. For who canimagine that it should grow into such reputeof a sudden?

From the doctrines contained in theCreed, and from its manner of expressingthem, it is probable that it is earlier thanthe times of Nestorius, or the Ephesinecouncil, in 431; the Creed not condemningthe heresy of the Nestorians in suchfull, direct, critical terms as the Catholicsfound to be necessary against the wiles andsubtleties of those men.

From the doctrine of the incarnation,as expressed therein, we may be confidentthat it is not earlier than the rise of theApollinarian heresy, which appeared atfirst about the year 360, and grew to ahead about 370, or a little later. Andthis consideration is against the opinionthat Athanasius made it, either during hisbanishment at Treves, which ended in theyear 338, or during his stay at Rome, inthe year 343; or that he presented it to61either Pope Julius, or Liberius, who wereboth dead before the year 367. And Dr.Waterland, whose researches were so extensive,infers that the Athanasian Creedis not earlier than the year 420.

It is observable that, about the year 426,St. Augustine, then bishop of Hippo, inAfrica, held a close and intimate correspondencewith the Gallican Churches. Forone Leporius, a presbyter, having spreadfalse doctrine in Gaul, chiefly relating tothe incarnation, and being censured for it,fled to Africa, and was there brought to asense of his errors by St. Augustine andsome other African bishops. The livesand characters suiting extremely well withplace, time, occasion, and other circumstances,all these concur to persuade thatthe Creed was composed in Gaul, betweenthe years 426 and 430. And as Honoratusof Marseilles tells us that Hilary, archbishopof Arles, from 429, composed anadmirable “Exposition of the Creed,” andas among the ancient titles given to thisCreed are, “An Exposition of the CatholicFaith,” or, yet nearer, “An Exposition ofthe Apostles’ Creed,” Hilary was probablythe author of this work: or else his Creedis lost.

As to the name of Athanasius, now generallyprefixed to it, it may be remarked,that upon the revival of the Arian controversyin Gaul, under the influence ofthe Burgundian kings, it was natural tocall one side Athanasians, and the otherside Arians; and so also to name the orthodoxfaith the Athanasian faith, as theother, the Arian. This Creed, therefore,being an excellent summary of the Catholicfaith, as maintained by Athanasius, mightin process of time acquire the name of theAthanasian faith, and so in a little whileoccasion the mistake of ascribing it to himas his composition.

His name, together with the intrinsicworth and value of the form itself, gaveit credit enough to be received in Franceas an orthodox formulary, or system ofbelief, about the middle of the sixth century,and into the public offices of theGallican Church about the year 670. InSpain it was known and approved as a ruleof faith about the year 633, and was soonafter taken into the offices of the Churchin that kingdom. In Germany it was receivedat lowest about 787. As to ourown country, we have proof of the Creed’sbeing sung alternately in our churches inthe tenth century, when Abbo of Fleury,an ear-witness of it, was here; and whenthe Saxon versions, still extant, were ofstanding use, for the instruction and benefitboth of clergy and people. These evidencesalone will prove the reception of this Creedin England to have been as early as 950, or930, or the time of Athelstan, whose LatinPsalter has the Creed in it. But other circumstancesmake it probable it was used asearly as 880. About fourscore years afterthis, it was received in Italy. And inRome itself (which was always more desirousof imposing her own offices uponother churches, than of receiving any fromthem) it was received in the tenth century,and probably about the year 930.From which time forwards this Creed hasbeen publicly recited in the Church officesall over the West; and it seems in someparts of the Greek Church also.—Waterland’sCritical History of the AthanasianCreed, &c.

Its reception has been both general andancient. It has been received by Greeksand Latins all over Europe; and if it hasbeen little known among the African andAsian Churches, the like may be said ofthe Apostles’ Creed, which has not beenadmitted, scarce known, in Africa, and butlittle in Asia, except among the Armenians,who are said to receive it. So that, forgenerality of reception, the AthanasianCreed may vie with any, except the Nicene,or Constantinopolitan, the only generalCreed common to all the Churches.

As to the antiquity of its reception intothe sacred offices, it was received in severalcountries, France, Germany, England,Italy, and Rome itself, as soon as theNicene, or sooner; which is a high commendationof it, as gaining ground by itsown intrinsic worth, and without the authorityof any general council to enforceit. And there is this further to be observed,that while the Nicene and Apostles’Creeds were growing up to their presentperfection, in a course of years, or centuriesof years, and not completed tillabout the year 600, this Creed was madeand perfected at once, and is more ancient,if considered as an entire form, thaneither of the others, having received its fullperfection while the others wanted theirs.—Waterland.

In the Greek and Roman Churches itsurvived in the midst of all the corruptionsthat arose: upon the Reformation therewas not a Protestant Church but whatreceived it in its fullest extent: Luther,Calvin, Beza, and all the wisest and bestreformers, acknowledged the AthanasianCreed, and made it their profession offaith: the Puritans, in our own country,the parent stock of all our modern dissenters,embraced it as readily as the62Church of England herself.—Dean Vincent.

This admirable summary of the Christianfaith, as to the great doctrines of theTrinity and the incarnation, has met withthe esteem it deserves among all that haveat heart the welfare of Christianity. Thefaith into which Christians are baptizedis this,—there is but one God, yet thereare three persons,—the Father, the Son,and the Holy Spirit, who are equallyDivine, and must be together the one God,since God is but one. This is the faithwhich has been received in the ChristianChurches from the beginning; and thisfaith, I doubt not, will continue universallyto prevail, till all the chosen peopleare gathered in, and united in onegeneral assembly and church, in the purerealms of blessedness above. In that happycountry, the noise of controversies willcease. All who are brought to stand inthe presence of God, dressed in the unblemishedrobes of innocence and immortality,will know, that all the three Divinepersons were concerned in bringing themthither; and as they owe their happinessto the sacred three, they will join indirecting the same songs of praise to God,the Father of mercies, who chose them tohimself before the foundation of the world;to God the Son, who redeemed them fromwrath, by shedding his own precious blood;and to God the Holy Spirit, who renewedand sanctified them, and conducted themsafe through the wilderness of this world,into the land of uprightness, the countryof rest and pure delight.—Taylor on theTrinity.

On the clauses called damnatory, wemay offer the following observations fromseveral of our standard writers. “Hethat believeth and is baptized shall besaved; but he that believeth not shall bedamned.” (Mark xvi. 16.) These are thewords of him who is ordained of God tobe the judge of quick and dead; of himwho himself shall pronounce the finaldoom of all men; spoken by him at thetime when he was taking his solemn leaveof his apostles, giving them his last andfinal charge, and in which the fate of allthe world is determined. The meek andhumble Jesus makes use of very sharpexpressions, when he warns his disciplesagainst those who should oppose or disputethose truths: “Beware (saith he) of falseprophets;” beware of false teachers, such ascorrupt sound doctrine in the essential andfundamental articles of faith.—Wheatly.

Many unbelievers, and some Christians,suppose opinions to be involuntary, andtherefore harmless. But let them considerhow far this will carry them. Nothing ismore expressly revealed in Holy Scripture,than that he who does not believe theChristian religion shall be condemned. Ifit be said, that unbelief may arise from adisorder or from a defect in the understanding,every such case is, by implication,excepted. This sentence is deemedby us declaratory of the general will ofGod, and does not imply an absolute exclusionof every culpable individual fromhis mercy.—Croft.

The denial of our Lord’s Divinity, as itstands condemned by the laws both of ourChurch and State, so it has, from the verybeginning, been esteemed a “damnableheresy;” and all impugners of it havebeen always excluded from the communionof the Church. Primitive writers call itan “abominable heresy,” “a God-denyingapostasy,” and, in those ages, those whobroached such doctrines were constantlydeposed and excommunicated.—Randolphon the Trinity.

One sometimes finds in persons a wonderfulinattention and a strange indifferencewith regard to the first and mostfundamental doctrines of their religion.It might possibly be with some view tothis kind of conduct, that the compiler ofthe Creed inserted what are called thedamnatory clauses. He was desirous toexcite their attention, and to rouse themfrom this unmeaning slumber; to convincethem that something is to be believed, aswell as practised; and that in matters ofthis importance men should not trifle withGod and their own consciences, and haltbetween two opinions.—Horbery.

These clauses have occasioned muchneedless uneasiness. When such men, Isay not as Chillingworth, for we havejudged him weak in religious reasoning,but as Clarke, Tillotson, Secker, could beuneasy under them, I can ascribe it tonothing but the influence of religious terror;a sentiment which operates in all possibledegrees; which makes us scruple toadmit in religion what would occasion nodifficulty in common affairs, lest our acquiescenceshould be owing to some corruptor indirect motive. Scruples of thiskind are owing to not freely admittingthose limitations which common sense suggestsin the application of every generalproposition. Heresies are very numerous;defiling the purity of the faith, makingmen act on wrong principles, affordinghandles to infidelity, and dividing Christiansamongst themselves, so as to defeatthe ends of religious society, and probably63lose some degree of future happiness; itseems needful, therefore, to draw the erroneousnotions, which are so pernicious,into a small compass, and solemnly rejectthem; that the unwary may be cautioned,and the bold and busy innovator discouraged.And lest the unstable, who aretossed about with every wind of doctrine,should continue to indulge their childishfondness for novelty, and live on withoutany regular and permanent principles, itseems also needful to remind them of thelast solemn declaration of our blessedLord, not surely with a view to bias thejudgment, but only to enforce the duty ofa sober and serious attention to sacredtruth, uninfluenced by passion or caprice.—Hey’sLectures.

These clauses were inserted in this Creed,and in most of the ancient Creeds, theArian as well as others, by no means tointimate the condemnation, for want offaith, of such as had no opportunity of receivingthe Christian religion; but of suchonly 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 betweencondemning with severity, and believingwith sorrow and compassion that anotheris condemned. A man who pronouncesthis sentence, because he sees it pronouncedin the word of God, might die for the conversionand retrieval of those on whom heis forced, by the conviction of his faith, topronounce it.—Skelton.

Damnatory clauses, or anathemas, asthey are angrily called, deriving their authorityfrom Scripture, should be consideredas awful admonitions, which ithath seemed good to Divine wisdom toannounce generally, in order to condemnan indifference of mind in matters of religiousprinciple; to correct a fond admirationof change or novelty; and tointimidate, under the severest penalties ofGod’s displeasure, the vain or interestedfrom broaching their wild and perniciousheresies.—Bishop Cleaver.

Many have argued against the use ofthis Creed; and some, with strange vehemence,partly from the doctrines which itteaches, but chiefly from the condemnationwhich it pronounces on all who disbelievethem. Now the doctrines are undeniablythe same with those that are contained inthe Articles of our Church, in the beginningof our litany, in the conclusions ofmany 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 bothTestaments; only here they are somewhatmore distinctly set forth, to prevent equivocation.—ArchbishopSecker.

Whenever we go contrary to a stream,which has run in one channel for seventeencenturies, we ought to doubt our ownopinions, and at least treat the general andconcurring testimony of mankind with respect.If any one has his doubts on theintricacies of this question, let him firstsearch the Scripture, and settle his principlesfrom thence; if he afterwards wishesto pursue his researches, let him not recurto the crude and hasty publications of thepresent day, in which assertions are rashlymade, without foundation in Scripture,antiquity, or the principles of any Church,but to those learned writers who managedthis controversy fifty years ago in our owncountry; or, if he has learning and leisuresufficient, to the primitive fathers themselves.—DeanVincent.

Whoever wrote this Creed, he meantnothing more than to collect things said invarious Catholic writers, against the variousheresies subsisting, and to simplify andarrange the expressions, so as to form aconfession of faith the most concise, orderly,and comprehensive, possible. Not withany view of explaining any mysterioustruths, but with the sole design of rejectinghurtful or heretical errors. And itmay have been adopted on account of itsexcellence, in bringing the errors whichwere to be shunned into a small compass,in exposing them in a kind of poetic numbers,which strike and possess the ear; andmay have been called “Athanasian,” onlyon account of its containing doctrineswhich have been defended with peculiarforce and brilliancy by the great prelate ofAlexandria.—Hey’s Lectures.

The Athanasian Creed only tells us whatwe must believe, if we believe a Trinity inunity, three persons and one God: and Ichallenge any man, who sincerely professesthis faith, to tell me, what he can leaveout of this exposition, without destroyingthe Divinity of some of the three persons,or the unity of the Godhead. If each personmust be God and Lord, must not eachperson be uncreated, incomprehensible,eternal, almighty? If there be but oneGod, and one Lord, can there be threeseparated, uncreated, incomprehensible,eternal, almighty Gods; which must ofnecessity be three Gods, and three Lords!This Creed does not pretend to explainhow there are three persons, each of whichis God, and yet but one God, but only assertsthe thing, that thus it is, and thus it64must be, if we believe a Trinity in unity;which should make all men, who wouldbe thought neither Arians nor Socinians,more cautious how they express the leastdislike of it.—Sherlock on the Trinity.

Every Divine perfection and substantialattribute 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. TheAthanasian Creed is altogether illustrativeof this economy; and if it be carefullyconsidered under this point of view, I ampersuaded it will appear to be exceedinglyreasonable and judicious. There is somethingin the mere sound of the clauseswhich I doubt not beguiles it of its justpraise. Some have forgotten, perhaps, andsome have never known, its proper history.The numerous sects whose different apprehensionsof the precise nature of the holyTrinity led men in those distant days intoone, at least, of the two great errors, eitherthat of “confounding the persons” or“dividing the substance,” are now perhapsno more. They may indeed subsist underother names; but men have long sinceceased to talk of the Sabellians, Noëtians,Patripassians, Praxeans, Eunomians, Apollinarians,Photinians, Cerinthians, and evenArians, Nestorians, and Eutychians; forthese latter are the sects chiefly opposedin the Athanasian Creed. But there is notone clause of this ancient formulary thatis not directed, in the simplest mannerpossible, against the different errors of allthese several sects; their wild and discordantnotions are all met by the constantreiteration of that one great truth,that though the Christian verity compelsus to acknowledge every person of theholy Trinity to be God and Lord, yet theCatholic religion equally forbids us to saythere be three Gods, or three Lords;though, therefore, each is uncreate, eacheternal, each almighty, each God, and eachLord, yet these attributes, as the exclusiveattributes of Deity, are common to thethree; the omnipotence, the eternity, theDivinity, the power and dominion, the gloryand majesty, is one; “such as the Fatheris, such is the Son, and such is the HolyGhost.”—Nares on the Creeds.

Whilst the Apostles’ Creed compendiouslysums up and declares the main articlesof our Christian faith, and the NiceneCreed explains more fully the articles relatingto the Son and the Holy Ghost,the Athanasian Creed stands as an excellentguard and defence against the subtletiesof most kinds of heretics, who, wereit once removed, would soon find meansto enervate and evade the shorter Creeds,where the Christian faith is more simplydeclared.—Wheatly.

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

The use of it is, to be a standing fenceand preservative against the wiles andequivocations of most kinds of heretics.This was well understood by Luther whenhe called it “a bulwark to the Apostles’Creed;” much to the same purpose withwhat is cited of Ludolphus Saxo (“triasunt symbola; primum Apostolicum, secundumNicenum, tertium Athanasii; primumfactum est ad fidei instructionem,secundum ad fidei explanationem, tertiumad fidei defensionem”). And it was this andthe like considerations that have all alongmade it to be of such high esteem amongall the Reformed Churches, from the daysof their great leader.—Waterland.

The Church of England proposes noCreeds to be believed upon their own authority,but because they are agreeable tothe word of God. The articles of theCreed indeed are proposed as articles offaith. But they are only collections ofsome important truths to which that testimonyis given. They are, at the highest,but extracts which are to be believed becausethere contained; and so to be believedas there delivered. Whatever doctrinesare consonant to the Scriptures, sherecommends to our faith; but what arecontrary to the word of God, she pronouncesnot lawful for the Church to ordain.She expects her members to believenothing as of Divine revelation, but whatthe records of that revelation plainly contain.Nor of the truths there discovered,does she impose the belief of any as a necessaryterm of communion, but what sheapprehends the sacred oracles themselvesto represent as a necessary term of salvation.These were the creeds of the WesternChurch before the Reformation; andbecause, at the Reformation, she withdrewfrom nothing but what was corrupt, therefore,these being catholic and sound, shestill retains them.—Wheatly.

Why, it is often said, are we so zealousin enforcing doctrines merely speculative?65The answer is, we believe them to be inculcatedin Scripture, essential to theChristian religion, and not merely speculative.The Son and the Holy Ghostare each of them said to be sent by theFather, each of them contributes to thegreat work of our salvation. To refusethem Divine honour, is unquestionably todeny their Divine power. We do notpresume to fix limits to Divine mercy; butsurely we endanger our title to it, whenwe reject the conditions upon which it isgranted. The humble Christian hopesfor no benefit from the gospel covenant,but from a firm reliance on the merits ofhis Saviour, and the aid of the HolySpirit.—Croft.

In the sacred Scripture there is no mentionbut of two sorts of men, whereof somebelieve, so that they are saved; somebelieve not, and they are damned. (Markxvi. 16; John iii. 18.) But neither theChurch, nor the individual rehearsing thecreed, is responsible for these denunciations.It is a formulary which happens toexpress suitably and well the exact opinionsof the Church of England, in regardto the two great mysteries of the Trinityand incarnation, as far as they can beunderstood. True it is, indeed, that inher eighth Article she asserts, that the threecreeds, Nicene, Athanasian, and that whichis commonly called the Apostles’ Creed,“ought thoroughly to be received and believed,for they may be proved by mostcertain warrants of Holy Scripture.” Andhas the Church of England no right tomake this declaration? Is she to be theonly society of Christians that shall nothave permission to assert that her faith isthe right faith? What dissenter from theChurch of England would hesitate to assumethis liberty? Who is there thatscruples to speak thus exclusively of hisown mode of thinking? Can anything bemore candidly or unexceptionably stated,than her confidence that these creeds oughtto be believed, because they may be provedby warrants of holy writ? In saying this,does she preclude any man from examination?Does she lock up the volume ofholy writ? She appeals solely to Scripturefor the truth of her doctrine, leavingall 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 kingdomis such to this day, that whoeverpresumes to separate from her, “eo ipsoillis nulla est speranda salus!” She doesnot even venture to assert, with the celebratedreformer Calvin, whose famous Instituteswere written on the model of theApostles’ Creed, and who must, no doubt,have had a view, in saying it, to his ownpeculiar Church, “extra ecclesiæ gremium,”&c.; “out of the bosom of the Churchthere is no hope whatever of salvation, orremission of sins.” We may surely bepermitted to admire that strange course ofthings, and confusion of circumstances,that have lately conspired to render thosepopular whose principles are truly exclusiveand intolerant; and the Church in somerespects unpopular, which is as truly tolerant.Her language is constantly the same,and perfectly apostolic: “Search the Scriptures.”“Prove all things; hold fast thatwhich is good.”—Nares on the Creeds.

Let the gates of our communion beopened as wide as is consistent with thegospel of Christ; yet surely those willstand excluded, who hold errors expresslycondemned in that gospel, and which thatgospel was particularly and purposelywrote to guard against.—Randolph on theTrinity.

The commissioners in 1688, thirty eminentdivines, appointed to review and correctthe liturgy, close the rubric theyhad prepared in the following words,—“Andthe condemning clauses (viz. inthe Athanasian Creed) are to be understoodas relating only to those who obstinatelydeny the substance of the Christianfaith.”

It is no hard matter for witty men toput very perverse senses on Scripture tofavour their heretical doctrines, and todefend them with such sophistry as shalleasily impose upon unlearned and unthinkingmen; and the best way in this case is,to have recourse to the ancient faith ofthe Christian Church, to learn from thencehow these articles were understood andprofessed by them; for we cannot butthink, that those who conversed with theapostles, and did not only receive theScriptures, but the sense and interpretationof them, from the apostles, or apostolicalmen, understood the true Christianfaith much better than those at a fartherremove; and therefore, as long as we canreasonably suppose this tradition to bepreserved in the Church, their authorityis very venerable.—Sherlock on the Trinity.

These contentions were cause of muchevil, yet some good the Church hathreaped by them, in that they occasionedthe learned and sound in faith to explainsuch things as heresy went about to deprave.And in this respect the Creed ofAthanasius, concerning that truth whichArianism so mightily did impugn, was66both in the East and West Churches acceptedas a treasure of inestimable price,by as many as had not given up even thevery ghost of belief. That which heresydid by sinister interpretations go about topervert in the first and most ancient apostolicalcreed, the same being by singulardexterity and plainness cleared from thoseheretical corruptions, partly by this creedof Athanasius. These catholic declarationsof our belief, delivered by them who wereso much nearer than we are unto the firstpublication thereof, and continuing needfulfor all men at all times to know, theseconfessions, as testimonies of our continuancein the same faith to this presentday, we rather use than any other gloss orparaphrase devised by ourselves, which,though it were to the same effect, notwithstandingcould not be of the like authorityand credit.—Hooker.

The doctrinal part of the creed has beencalled a “bulwark;” and if it be maintained,it should be maintained as a fortification.In time of peace, the inconvenienceof keeping up fortifications occasions theirbeing sometimes neglected, but when warbreaks out afresh, every one is clamorousin blaming the imprudence of such neglect.If we are at peace now with thepowers which would attack us where ourcreed would be our defence, we are alwaysliable to be at war with them again. Wehave seen how naturally all the heresiescondemned in the creed arise, when menonce become eager in solving the difficultiesof the Trinity and the incarnation;and such eagerness might at any timearise, or any revolution, or great disturbance,or confusion; and in case of renewedattacks, our present creed would be amuch better defence than any new onethat would be made at the time it waswanted.—Hey’s Lectures.

What the consequence may be, shouldwe part with our creed, may easily be inferredfrom what followed upon the droppinga single word (consubstantial, or, asexpressed in our English creed, “being ofone substance with the Father”) outof the [Nicene] creed at the Council ofAriminum. The Catholics, being deceivedby the great and earnest importunity ofthe Arians for unity and peace, were atlast prevailed upon. The word consubstantialwas left out; and the Ariansboasted over all the world, that the Nicenefaith was condemned and Arianismestablished in a general council. It iscandour, when good Catholics are dividedabout words, to bring them to a rightunderstanding of one another, which willset them at peace and unity again. Butit is tameness to give up the main bulwarksof the faith to fallacious adversariesand designing men, whose arts and aims,however disguised, are always known tostrike at the foundation of religion.—Binghamand Wheatly.

To the sceptic, the Arian, and the Socinian,we do not expect to find such a creedacceptable, because it was designed to restrainthe fantastic and pernicious opinionsstarted on their part upon the subjectscontained in it. But every firm and steadybeliever may still, and indeed ought to,hold high the value of the only creed deliveredto us from antiquity, which statesthat first and great principle of Christianrevelation, the importance and necessity ofa just faith. Upon us, the ministers of theChurch, especially, it is incumbent, as occasionsoffer, to explain and illustrate itsdesign and uses to the more unlearned, aswell as to obviate the crude exceptionsmade against its doctrines or language, toderive its due weight of authority from thevenerable antiquity of its origin, and todraw an argument of its merits from theuniversal approbation with which it hasbeen received. Who would not trembleat the proposal of laying waste a fence,which in any degree hath afforded protectionto what was obtained for us at soinestimable a price; and of inviting, by avoluntary surrender of our present security,renewed instances of insult, in repeatedand incessant attacks to be made uponthe terms and obligations of our Christiancovenant?—Bp. Cleaver.

There are no kinds of heretics but hopeto make the vulgar understand their tenetsrespectively, and to draw them aside fromthe received faith of the Church: and,therefore, it behoves the pastors of theChurch to have a standing form to guardthe people against any such attempts.The Christian Churches throughout theworld, ever since the multiplication ofheresies, have thought it necessary toguard their people by some such forms asthese in standing use amongst them. Andthey are not so much afraid of puzzlingand perplexing the vulgar by doing it, asthey are of betraying and exposing themto the attempts of seducers, should theynot do it. The common people will be inno danger of running either into Sabellianism,or tritheism, if they attend to theCreed itself, (which fully obviates and confutesboth those heresies,) instead of listeningto those who first industriously labourto deceive them into a false constructionof the Creed, and then complain of the67common people’s being too apt to misunderstandit.—Waterland.

Those in authority should be very cautioushow they give in to such schemes as,under the plausible pretence of pruningour vine, and reforming things in theirown nature indifferent and alterable, wouldby degrees overturn our whole establishment.—Randolphon the Trinity.

We may, perhaps, be reminded, thatsome of our own most sanguine friendshave wished to expunge it. But one ofthem lived to retract his opinion, and afriend of truth is not to be overawed byauthority, however respectable, nor silencedby popular clamour.—Croft.

So long as there shall be any men leftto oppose the doctrines which this Creedcontains, so long will it be expedient, andeven necessary, to continue the use of it,in order to preserve the rest; and, I suppose,when we have none remaining tofind fault with the doctrines, there will benone 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 nota controversy about some metaphysicalabstract notions of personality, subsistence,or moral distinctions in the Divine nature;in these there will be always room left fordifferent speculations and sentiments. Itis not a controversy about forms, but it isa controversy about the very object of religiousworship. Should there be a fallingaway from this profession, should there bea denying of the Lord that bought us, orof the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier andComforter, disowning them to be trulyand properly by nature God, of the sameessence and eternity as the Father, andwith him the one God, not three Gods,with too much reason it might be said, theglory is departed from us, whether dissentersor of the Established Church, thathath been counted the head and great supportof the Protestant Churches. Shouldwe, or they, thus fall, those Protestants,whose confessions we have mentioned, yea,and all Christians abroad, must, upon theirprofessed principles, renounce us as notholding the head.—London Ministers’ Cases,Trinity.

The Creed of Athanasius, and that sacredhymn of glory, than which nothing dothsound more heavenly in the ears of faithfulmen, are now reckoned as superfluitieswhich we must in any case pare away, lestwe cloy God with too much service. Yetcause sufficient there is why both shouldremain in use; the one as a most divineexplication of the chiefest articles of ourChristian belief, the other as an heavenlyacclamation of joyful applause to his praisesin whom we believe. Neither the one northe other unworthy to be heard sounding,as they are, in the Church of Christ, whetherArianism live or die.—Hooker. Fora detailed justification of the AthanasianCreed, see Redcliffe on the AthanasianCreed.

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

This Creed is called in the Roman officesthe Psalm, Quicunque vult, and was printedfor antiphonal chanting, as it is now recitedin our choirs; being alternated, likethe Psalms between minister and peoplein parish churches. The right notion thata creed is also a song of thanksgiving isthus significantly cherished. It has beenobjected to the Church of England, thatshe has disingenuously attributed this Creedto St. Athanasius: whereas in fact she hasnot decided the question. It is called indeedthe Creed of St. Athanasius in therubric before the Apostles’ Creed; butthat is plainly an abbreviated term for thefull designation prefixed to the Creeditself, “this confession of our Christianfaith, commonly called the Creed of SaintAthanasius.” And even the running headingdoes not so designate it. The words“the Creed of Saint Athanasius,” was deliberatelyaltered by the correctors of thesealed books for “at Morning Prayer,”the present heading, in which, as in allother corrections, the authentic copy wasfollowed. See the fac-simile of the correctedsealed books in Stephens’s Book ofCommon Prayer with notes. The sameremark may apply to the designation inthe 8th Article, Athanasius’s Creed.

ATHEIST. (From ἀ and θέος, withoutGod.) One who denies the being andmoral government of God. There havebeen but few atheists in the strict sense ofthe word, under any system, and at anytime. Some few perhaps still remain, andadopt the system of Spinosa, which supposesthe universe to be one vast substance,impelled to all its movements by some internalforce, which operates by a blind andirresistible necessity.

The heathen, who vied with heretics ingiving names of opprobrium to true Christians,called the primitive Christians Atheists,because they did not worship theirgods.

ATONEMENT. (See Propitiation, Covenant68of Redemption, Sacrifice, and JesusChrist.) The word atonement signifiesthe satisfying of Divine justice, as mentionedin the Article on the Covenant ofRedemption. The etymology of the wordconveys the idea of two parties, previouslyat variance, being set at one again, andhence at-one-ment, from originally signifyingreconciliation, comes, by a natural metonymy,to denote that by which the reconciliationis effected. The doctrine ofthe atonement is thus stated by the Church:“The Son, which is the Word of the Father,begotten from everlasting of theFather, the very and eternal God, and ofone substance with the Father, tookman’s nature in the womb of the blessedVirgin, of her substance; so that twowhole and perfect natures, that is to say,the Godhead and Manhood, were joinedtogether in one person, never to be divided,whereof is one Christ, very God and veryMan; who truly suffered, was crucified,dead and buried, to reconcile his Fatherto us, and to be a sacrifice, not only fororiginal guilt, but also for actual sins ofmen.”—Article 2.

That our blessed Lord suffered is sufficientlyclear from Scripture, and that itwas not for himself, but for us, that thisGod-man lived so sorrowfully, and diedso painfully, the Scripture is full and clear:and not only in general, that it was forour sakes he did it; but, in particular, itwas for the reconciling his Father to us,and to purchase the pardon of our sins forus,—expressly telling us, that “he hathreconciled both (Jew and Gentile) untoGod, in one body, by the cross, havingslain the enmity thereby.” (Eph. ii. 16.)“Yea, when we were enemies, we werereconciled to God by the death of his Son.”(Rom. v. 10.) “So that us, who weresometimes alienated, and enemies in ourminds by wicked works, now he hath reconciledin the body of his flesh throughdeath, to present us holy, and unblameable,and unreproveable in his sight.” (Col. i.21, 22.) And the reason is, because “itpleased the Father that in him should allfulness dwell;” and, “having made peacethrough the blood of his cross, by him toreconcile all things to himself; by him, Isay, whether they be things in heaven orthings in earth.” (Verse 19, 20.) And thisreconciliation of God to us, he made byoffering up himself a sacrifice for us. For“God sent his Son to be the propitiationfor our sins,” (1 John iv. 10,) “and he isthe propitiation for our sins, and not forours only, but also for the sins of thewhole world.” (Chap. ii. 2.) And thereforewhen we see him sweating great drops ofblood under the burden of sin, we mustnot think they were his own sins that layso heavy upon him: no, they were oursins, which he had taken off from us andlaid upon himself; for he bore our griefs,and carried our sorrows; “He waswounded for our transgressions, he wasbruised for our iniquities; the chastisementof our peace was upon him, and withhis stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah liii. 4,5.) So undoubted a truth is this comfortableassertion, that Jesus Christ by hisdeath and sufferings reconciled his Fatherto us, and therefore was a sacrifice, notonly for “original guilt,” but also for“actual sins of men.”—Beveridge.

ATTRITION. (See Contrition.) Thecasuists of the Church of Rome have madea distinction between a perfect and an imperfectcontrition. The latter they callattrition, which is the lowest degree ofrepentance, or a sorrow for sin arisingfrom a sense of shame, or any temporalinconvenience attending the commissionof it, or merely from fear of the punishmentdue to it, without any resolution tosin no more: in consequence of which doctrine,they teach that, after a wicked andflagitious course of life, a man may bereconciled to God, and his sins forgiven,on his death-bed, by confessing them tothe priest with this imperfect degree ofsorrow and repentance. This distinctionwas settled by the Council of Trent. Itmight, however, be easily shown that themere sorrow for sin because of its consequences,and not on account of its evilnature, is no more acceptable to God thanhypocrisy itself can be.—Conc. Trident.sess. xiv. cap. 4.

AUDIENCE, COURT OF. The Courtof Audience, which belongs to the archbishopof Canterbury, was for the disposalof such matters, whether of voluntary orcontentious litigation, as the archbishopthought fit to reserve for his own hearing.This court was afterwards removed fromthe archbishop’s palace, and the jurisdictionof it exercised by the master-officialof the audience, who held his court in theconsistory palace at St. Paul’s. But nowthe three offices of official-principal of thearchbishop, dean or judge of the peculiars,and official of the audience, being united inthe person of the dean of arches, its jurisdictionbelongs to him. The archbishop ofYork has likewise his Court of Audience.

AUGSBURGH, or AUGUSTAN, CONFESSION.In 1530, a diet of the Germanprinces was convened by the emperorCharles V., to meet in that city, for the69express purpose of pacifying the religioustroubles, by which most parts of Germanywere then distracted. “In his journeytowards Augsburgh,” says Dr. Robertson,“the emperor had many opportunities ofobserving the dispositions of the Germans,in regard to the points in controversy,and found their minds everywhere somuch irritated and inflamed, that nothingtending to severity or rigour ought to beattempted, till the other methods provedineffectual. His presence seems to havecommunicated to all parties an universalspirit of moderation and desire of peace.With such sentiments, the Protestantprinces employed Melancthon, the man ofthe greatest learning, as well as the mostpacific and gentlest spirit among the Reformers,to draw up a confession of faith,expressed in terms as little offensive tothe Roman Catholics as a regard to truthwould admit. Melancthon, who seldomsuffered the rancour of controversy to envenomhis style, even in writings purelypolemical, executed a task, so agreeableto his natural disposition, with moderationand success.”

The singular importance of this documentof Protestant faith seems to require,in this place, a particular mention of itscontents. It consists of twenty-one articles.In the first, the subscribers of itacknowledge the unity of God and thetrinity of persons; in the second, originalsin; in the third, the two natures andunity of person in Jesus Christ, and allthe other articles contained in the symbolof the apostles, respecting the Son of God.They declare in the fourth, that men arenot justified before God by their worksand merits, but by the faith which theyplace in Jesus Christ, when they believethat God forgives their sins out of lovefor his Son. In the fifth, that the preachingof the gospel and the sacraments arethe ordinary means used by God to infusethe Holy Ghost, who produces faith,whenever he wills, in those that hear hisword. In the sixth, that faith producesthe good works to which men are obligedby the commandments of God. In theseventh, that there exists a perpetualChurch, which is the assembly of saints;and that the word of God is taught init with purity, and the sacraments administeredin a legitimate manner; that theunity of this Church consists in the uniformityof doctrine and sacraments; butthat an uniformity of ceremonies is notrequisite. In the eighth, they professthat the word of God and the sacramentshave still their efficacy, although administeredby wicked clergymen. In theninth, that baptism is requisite for salvation,and that little children ought tobe baptized. In the tenth, that, in thesacrament of the last supper, both thebody and blood of the Lord are trulypresent, and distributed to those who partakeof it. In the eleventh, that confessionmust be preserved in the Church, butwithout insisting on an exact enumerationof sins. In the twelfth, that penance consistsof 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 withoutgood works, which are its inseparablefruits. In the thirteenth, that the sacramentsare not only signs of the professionof the gospel, but proofs of the love of Godto men, which serve to excite and confirmtheir faith. In the fourteenth, that avocation is requisite for pastors to teachin the Church. In the fifteenth, that thoseceremonies ought to be observed whichkeep order and peace in the Church; butthat the opinion of their being necessaryto salvation, or that grace is acquired, orsatisfaction done for our sins, by them,must be entirely exploded. In the sixteenth,that the authority of magistrates,their commands and laws, with the legitimatewars in which they may be forced toengage, are not contrary to the gospel.In the seventeenth, that there will be ajudgment, where all men will appear beforethe tribunal of Jesus Christ; andthat the wicked will suffer eternal torments.In the eighteenth, that the powers of free-willmay produce an exterior good conduct,and regulate the morals of men towardssociety; but that, without the grace of theHoly Ghost, neither faith, regeneration,nor true justice can be acquired. In thenineteenth, that God is not the cause ofsin, but that it arises only from the corruptwill of man. In the twentieth, that goodworks are necessary and indispensable;but that they cannot purchase the remissionof sins, which is only obtained inconsideration of faith, which, when it issincere, must produce good works. Inthe twenty-first, that the virtues of thesaints are to be placed before the people,in order to excite imitation; but that theScripture nowhere commands their invocation,nor mentions anywhere any othermediator than Jesus Christ. “This,” saythe subscribers of the Confession, “is thesummary of the doctrine taught amongstus; and it appears from the expositionwhich we have just made, that it containsnothing contrary to Scripture; and that70it agrees with that of the Catholic Church,and even with the Roman Church, as faras is known to us by their writers. Thisbeing so, those who wish that we shouldbe condemned as heretics are very unjust.If there be any dispute between us, it isnot upon articles of faith, but only uponabuses that have been introduced into theChurch, and which we reject. This, therefore,is not a sufficient reason to authorizethe bishops not to tolerate us, since we areagreed in the tenets of faith which wehave set forth: there never has been anexact uniformity of exterior practice sincethe beginning of the Church, and we preservethe greater part of the establishedusages. It is therefore a calumny to say,that we have abolished them all. But, asall the world complained of the abusesthat had crept into the Church, we havecorrected those only which we could nottolerate with a good conscience; and weentreat your Majesty to hear what theabuses are which we have retrenched, andthe reasons we had for doing it. We alsoentreat, that our inveterate enemies, whosehatred and calumnies are the principalcause of the evil, may not be believed.”

They then proceed to state the abusesin the Church of Rome, of which theycomplain. The first is the denial of thecup in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper;the second, the celibacy of the clergy; thethird, the form of the mass. On this headtheir language is very remarkable: “OurChurches,” they say, “are unjustly accusedof having abolished the mass, since theycelebrate it with great veneration: theyeven preserve almost all the accustomedceremonies, having only added a few Germanhymns to the latter, in order that thepeople may profit by them.” But theyobject to the multiplicity of masses, andto the payment of any money to a priestfor saying them. The fourth abuse ofwhich they complain, is the practice ofauricular confession: but, they observe,that they have only taken from it thepenitent’s obligation to make to the priesta particular enumeration of his sins, andthat they had retained the confession itself,and the obligation of receiving absolutionfrom the priest. The fifth abuse is theinjunction of abstinence from particularmeats. Monastic vows they represent asthe sixth abuse. The seventh and lastabuse of which they complain, is that ofecclesiastical power. They say that “aview of the attempts of the popes to excommunicateprinces, and dispose of theirstates, led them to examine and fix thedistinction between the secular and ecclesiasticalpower, to enable themselves togive to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar, andto the popes and bishops what belongs tothem.” That “ecclesiastical power, or thepower of the keys, which Jesus Christgave to his Church, consisted only of thepower of preaching the gospel, of administeringthe sacraments, the forgiveness ofsins, and refusing absolution to a falsepenitent: therefore,” say they, “neitherpopes nor bishops have any power to disposeof kingdoms, to abrogate the laws ofmagistrates, or to prescribe to them rulesfor their government;” and that, “if theredid exist bishops who had the power ofthe sword, they derived this power fromtheir quality of temporal sovereigns, andnot from their episcopal character, or fromDivine right, but as a power conceded tothem by kings or emperors.”

It is not a little remarkable, that considerabledifferences, or various readings,are to be found in the printed texts of thisimportant document, and that it is farfrom certain which copy should be consideredthe authentic edition. The Germancopies printed in 1530, in quarto andoctavo, and the Latin edition printed inquarto in 1531, are in request amongbibliographical amateurs; but there is averbal, and, in some instances, a material,discrepancy among them. The Wittenbergedition, of 1540, is particularlyesteemed, and has been adopted by thepublishers of the “Sylloge ConfessionumDiversarum,” printed in 1804, at the Clarendonpress. [Later editions of the Syllogeinclude also the form of 1531.] One of themost important of these various readingsoccurs in the tenth article. In some of theeditions which preceded that of 1540, it isexpressed, “that the body and blood ofChrist are truly present, and distributedto those who partake of our Lord’s supper;and the contrary doctrine is reprobated.”The edition of 1540 expressesthat, “with the bread and wine, the bodyand blood of Christ are truly given tothose who partake of our Lord’s supper.”

“In the Confession of Augsburgh,” saysDr. Maclaine, the learned translator ofMosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, “thereare three sorts of articles; one sort, adoptedequally by the Roman Catholics and Protestants;another, that consists of certainpropositions, which the papal party consideredas ambiguous and obscure; and athird, in which the doctrine of Luther wasentirely opposite to that of Rome. Thisgave some reason to hope, that, by themeans of certain qualifications and modifications,conducted mutually in a spirit of71candour and charity, matters might beaccommodated at last. For this purpose,select persons were appointed to carry onthe salutary work; at first, seven fromeach party, consisting of princes, lawyers,and divines; which number was afterwardsreduced to three. Luther’s obstinate,stubborn, and violent temper renderinghim unfit for healing divisions, he was notemployed in these conferences; but he wasconstantly consulted by the Protestantparty.”

The Confession was read, at a full meetingof the diet, by the chancellor of theelector of Saxony. It was subscribed bythat elector, and three other princes of theGerman empire, and then delivered to theemperor.—Butler’s Confessions of Faith.Robertson’s Sylloge Confessionum.

AUGUSTINES. A religious order inthe Church of Rome, who followed St. Augustine’spretended rule, ordered them byPope Alexander IV., in 1256. It is dividedinto several branches, as hermits ofSt. Paul, the Jeronymitans, monks of St.Bridget, the Augustines called Chaussez,who go without stockings, begun in 1574,by a Portuguese, and confirmed in 1600and 1602, by Pope Clement VIII. As forthe pretended rules of St. Augustine,they are reduced to three classes, the firstcomprehending that the monks ought topossess nothing in particular, nor call anythingtheir own; that the wealthy whobecame monks ought to sell what they had,and give the money to the poor; thatthose who sued for the religious habitought to pass under trial before they wereadmitted; that the monks ought to subtractnothing from the monastery, norreceive anything whatsoever, without theleave of their superior, to whom they oughtto communicate those points of doctrinewhich they had heard discoursed of withoutthe monastery; that if any one was stubborntowards his superior, after the firstand second correction in secret he shouldbe publicly denounced as a rebel; if ithappened in the time of persecution thatthe monks were forced to retire, theyought immediately to betake themselves tothat place where their superior was withdrawn;and if for the same reason a monkhad saved anything belonging to the monastery,he should give it up as soon aspossible to his superior. The second classimported that they were to love God andtheir neighbour; how they were to recitethe psalms, and the rest of their office; thefirst part of the morning they ought toemploy in manual works, and the rest inreading, and to return in the afternoon totheir work again until the evening; thatthey ought to possess nothing of theirown, be obedient to their superior, keepsilence in eating, have Saturday allowed toprovide themselves with necessaries; andit was lawful for them to drink wine onSundays; that when they went abroadthey must always go two together; thatthey were never to eat out of the monastery;that they should be conscientiousin what they sold, and faithful in whatthey bought; that they ought not to utteridle words, but work with silence; and,lastly, that whoever neglected the practiceof these precepts ought to be correctedand beaten, and that the true observers ofthem must rejoice and be confident of theirsalvation. As for the third, after havingenjoined them to love God and their neighbour,they ought to possess nothing but incommon; the superior ought to distributeeverything in the monastery, according toeach man’s necessity, and they should notincline their hearts to temporal things; thatthey ought to honour God in one another asbeing become his holy temples; they mustattend prayers at canonical hours, andwere not to be hindered at any other time;that they should pray with attention, andsing only what was really appointed to besung; that they ought to apply themselvesto fasting and abstinence with discretion;and that if any of them was not able tofast, he ought not to eat between mealsunless he was sick; that they must mindwhat was read to them while they were attheir meals; that none ought to be enviousto see the sick better treated than the restwere, or that something more delicate wasgiven to those of a weaker constitution;that those who were recovering oughtto make use of comfortable things, and,when recovered, to return to the commonusage; to be grave and modest in theirhabits; never to be far from their companion;to express modesty and stayednessin their outward behaviour; not to cast alustful eye upon women, nor wish to be seenby them; nor when at church to harbourany thoughts of women; that when it wasknown a friar courted any woman, afterhaving been forewarned several times, heought to be corrected; and that if he wouldnot submit to the correction, he should beturned out of the monastery; that allcorrection should be inflicted with charity;that they ought not to receive letters norpresents in secret; they ought to be contentedwith those habits that were giventhem; that all their works should be renderedin common; that if some of theirrelations sent them clothes, it should be in72the superior’s power to give them to whomhe pleased; that he who concealed anythingof his own should be proceededagainst as guilty of robbery; they were towash their own clothes, or have themwashed by others, with the superior’s leave;those who were in any office should servetheir brethren without grudging; thatthey ought to shun all lawsuits; that theyought to ask their brethren forgiveness forany injury done them; to forbear ill languageone to another; the superior was tobe obeyed, but not to be proud of hisdignity; that the monks ought to observethese rules out of love, and not slavish fear;and that this rule ought to be read once aweek in the presence of the monks.

The Augustine monks, (commonly calledBlack Canons,) according to Fuller,were established in England later thanthe Benedictines, that is, in 1105, thoughof older existence in Europe. They werenext to the Benedictines in power andwealth. The members of these two ordersand their branches were called Monks,those of the Mendicant orders, as Dominicansand Franciscans, were called Friars.(See Monastery.) But Canon was the titlemore usually assigned to the Augustinians.This order was more numerous and powerfulin Ireland than the Benedictines, thoughinferior to them in England. The branchesof this order were the Premonstrants, (orWhite Canons,) the Victorines, and theGilbertines. The Arroasians were merelyreformed Augustinians, not a separatebranch of the order. The Augustinianspossessed two mitred abbeys, Walthamand Cirencester; one cathedral priory,Carlisle; one abbey, afterwards convertedinto a cathedral by Henry VIII., Bristol.

AUGUSTINE, or AUSTIN, FRIARS.These are not to be confounded with theabove, being one of the minor Mendicantorders, observing the rule of St. Augustine.Fuller says they first entered Englandin 1252: “and had (if not their first)their finest habitation at St. Peter’s thePoor, London, thence probably taking thedenomination of poverty. They weregood disputants; on which account theyare remembered still at Oxford by an actperformed by candidates for Mastership,called Keeping of Augustines.” This exercise,with other ancient forms, was abolishedby the University Statute towardsthe beginning of the present century.—Jebb.

AURICULAR CONFESSION. (SeeConfession, Absolution.) The confession ofsins at the ear of the priest. The followingis the chapter on confession in theCouncil of Trent which is obligatory on theRomish Church.

“From the institution of the sacramentof repentance already set forth, the Churchhas always understood, that an entire confessionof sins was also appointed by theLord; and that it is of Divine right necessaryto all who have lapsed after baptism.Because our Lord Jesus Christ, whenabout to ascend from earth to heaven, lefthis priests, his vicars, to be, as it were,the presidents and judges, to whom allmortal sins, into which Christ’s faithfulpeople should fall, should be brought; inorder that by the power of the keys theymight pronounce sentence of remission orretention. For it is plain that the priestscannot exercise this judgment, withoutknowledge of the cause, nor can theyobserve equity in enjoining penalties, ifmen declare their sins only generally, andnot rather particularly and separately.From this it is inferred that it is right thatthe penitents should recount in confessionall the deadly sins of which, upon examination,their conscience accuses them, eventhough they be most secret and onlyagainst the two last commandments, whichnot unfrequently grievously wound thesoul, and are more dangerous than thosewhich are openly practised; for as tovenial sins, by which we are not excludedfrom the grace of God, and into which wemore frequently fall, although they maybe declared in confession, rightly, usefully,and without any presumption, as the usageof pious men declares, yet they may bepassed over in silence without offence, andcan be expiated by many other remedies.But since all mortal sins, even thoughts,make men the children of wrath and theenemies of God, it is necessary to seekfrom God the pardon of all, with openand modest confession. When, therefore,Christ’s faithful people desire to confessall the sins which occur to their memory,they expose them all beyond all doubt tothe mercy of God to be pardoned. Butthey who do otherwise, and knowinglykeep back any, propose nothing to the Divinemercy to be pardoned by the priest;for if a sick man is ashamed to uncoverhis wound to the physician, he cannot withmedicine cure that of which he has noknowledge. It is, moreover, inferred thatthose circumstances should be explainedin confession, which change the kind of thesin; because, without these, neither canthe sins themselves be entirely disclosedby the penitents, nor known to the judges;nor can they rightly judge of the grievousnessof the sin, nor impose upon the penitents73the fitting punishments. Whence itis unreasonable to teach that these circumstanceswere sought out by idle men, orthat only one circumstance should be confessed,namely, to have sinned against abrother. But it is impious to call this confessionimpossible, which is appointed tobe performed in this manner, or to style itthe torture of consciences: for it appearsthat nothing else is required of penitentsin the Church, than that, after a man hasdiligently examined himself, and exploredthe recesses and hiding-places of his conscience,he should confess those sins bywhich he remembers that he has mortallyoffended his Lord and God. But theother sins which do not occur to him whentaking diligent thought, are understood tobe included altogether in the same confession;and for these we faithfully saywith the prophet, ‘Cleanse thou me, OLord, from my secret faults.’ But thedifficulty of this sort of confession, and theshame of uncovering sins, would, indeed,appear grievous, if it were not lightenedby the so many and great conveniencesand consolations which are most assuredlyconferred by absolution upon all whorightly approach this sacrament. But asregards the manner of secretly confessingto the priest alone, although Christ hasnot forbidden any man from publicly confessinghis faults, in revenge for his sins,and humiliation of himself, both by way ofexample to others, and for the edificationof the Church which he has offended; thisis not, however, a Divine command, normay it be advisedly enjoined by any humanlaw, that sins, especially secret ones, shouldbe disclosed by open confession. Wherefore,since that secret sacramental confessionwhich the holy Church has used fromthe beginning, and still uses, has alwaysbeen approved of by the holiest and mostancient fathers, with great consent andunanimity, the empty calumny is plainlyrefuted of those who are not ashamed toteach that it is contrary to the Divine command,and a human invention, which hadits origin with the fathers who were assembledin the Lateran Council. For theChurch did not order by the Lateran Councilthat Christ’s faithful people shouldconfess, which she always had understoodto be necessary, and appointed by Divineright, but that the command of confessionshould be complied with at least once inthe year, by all and each who have cometo years of discretion; whence now, in theuniversal Church, that wholesome customof confessing in the sacred, and especiallyacceptable, time of Lent, is observed withgreat benefit to the souls of the faithful;which custom this holy synod highly approves,and receives as pious and worthyto be retained.”

Here an attempt is made to invest theChristian priesthood with the prerogativeof the Most High, who is a searcher of thehearts, and a discerner of the thoughts; inforgetfulness of the very distinction whichGod drew between himself and all men—“manlooketh to the outward part, theLord trieth the heart.” As Christ hasinvested his ministers with no power to dothis of themselves, the Tridentine Fathershave sought to supply what they mustneeds consider a grievous omission on hispart, by enjoining all men to unlock thesecrets of their hearts at the command oftheir priest, and persons of all ages andsexes to submit not only to general questionsas to a state of sin or repentance, butto the most minute and searching questionsas to their most inmost thoughts.

The extent to which the confessors havethought it right to carry these examinationson subjects concerning which theapostle recommends that they be not oncenamed among Christians, and which maybe seen either in “Dens’ Theology,” or“Burchard’s Decrees,” c. 19, Paris, 1549,affords a melancholy, painful, and sickeningsubject for contemplation; especiallywhen it is considered that they were Christianclergy who did this, and that it wasdone in aid, as they supposed, of the Christianreligion. The fearful effects of theseexaminations upon the priests themselves,we will do no more than allude to; he whomay think it necessary to satisfy himselfupon the point, may consult the cases contemplatedand provided for (among others)by Cardinal Cajetan, in his Opuscula,Lugd. 1562, p. 114. In the Bull of PiusIV., Contra solicitantes in confessione, datedAp. 16, 1561, (Bullarium Magn. Luxemb.1727, ii. p. 48,) and in a similar one ofGregory XV., dated Aug. 30, 1622, (GregoryXV. Constit. Rom. 1622, p. 114,) thereis laid open another fearful scene of dangerto female confitents from wicked priests,“mulieres pœnitentes ad actus inhonestosdum earum audiunt confessiones alliciendoet provocando.” Against which flagrantdangers, and the preparatory steps of sappingand undermining the mental modestyof a young person by examinations of particularkinds, it is vain to think that thefeeble bulls of the bishops of Rome canafford any security. These observationsapply to the system of the Roman Church,peculiar to itself, of compelling the disclosureof the most minute details of the74most secret thoughts and actions. As toencouraging persons whose minds are burthenedwith the remembrance of fearfulsins, to ease themselves of the burthen byrevealing it to one at whose hands theymay seek guidance, and consolation, andprayer, it is a totally distinct question, andnothing but wilful art will attempt to confoundthem. On this point we see no reasonto withdraw a regret which we have beforeexpressed as to its disuse in the Church ofEngland; for we cannot but believe that,were it more frequently had recourse to,many a mind would depart the world atpeace with itself and with God, which nowsinks to the grave under a bond of doubtand fear, through want of confidence tomake use of ghostly remedies.—Perceval.

In the sixth canon of the Council ofTrent it runs thus:—“If any shall denythat sacramental confession was institutedand is necessary for salvation by Divineright, or shall say that the custom of confessingsecretly to the priest alone, whichthe Catholic Church has always observedfrom the beginning, and continues to observe,is foreign to the institution andcommand of Christ, and is of human invention,let him be accursed.”

Here sacramental confession is affirmedto be of Divine institution, and auricularconfession likewise, and he is accursedwho shall deny it. This is bravely said;yet the Tridentine Fathers might haverecollected that, in the Latin Church aslate as 813, it was matter of dispute whetherthere was need to confess to a priestat all, as appears from the thirty-thirdcanon of the Council of Cabaillon, whichis as follows: “Quidam Deo solummodoconfiteri debere dicunt peccata, quidamvero sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent:quod utrumque non sine magnofructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam. Itadumtaxat ut et Deo, qui Remissor est peccatorum,confiteamur peccata nostra, etcum David dicamus, Delictum meum cognitumtibi feci, &c., et secundum institutionemapostoli, confiteamur alterutrumpeccata nostra, et oremus pro invicem utsalvemur. Confessio itaque quæ Deo fit,purgat peccata, ea vero quæ sacerdoti fit,docet qualiter ipsa purgentur peccata,” &c.(Conc. vii. 1279.) Was Leo the Thirdasleep, that he could suffer such heresy tobe broached and not denounced? But allthe world knows, that, till 1215, no decreeof pope or council can be adduced enjoiningthe necessary observance of such acustom. Then, at the Council of Lateran,Innocent III. commanded it. As theLatin Church affords no sanction to theassertion of the Tridentine Fathers, so isit in vain to look for it among the Greeks,for there, as Socrates (Hist. Eccles. v. 19)and Sozomen (Hist. Eccles. vii. 16) informus, the whole confessional was abolishedby Nectarius, the archbishop of Constantinople,in the 4th century, by reason ofan indecency which was committed on afemale penitent, when pursuing her penance;which, sure, he would not have venturedto have done had he deemed it aDivine institution. Sozomen, in his accountof the confessional, says, that the publicconfession in the presence of all the people,which formerly obtained, having beenfound grievous, φορτικὸν ὡς εἰκὸς, a wellbred,silent, and prudent presbyter was setin charge of it; thus plainly denoting thechange from public to auricular confessions.It was this penitential presbyterwhose office was abolished by Nectarius,who acted by the advice of Eudæmon,συγχωρῆσαι δὲ ἕκαστον, τῷ ἰδίῳ συνειδότι τῶνμυστηρίων μετέχειν. And the reason he assignedis one which the Church of Romewould 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 metricalversion of several parts of the Bible,by Petrus de Riga, canon of Rheims, inthe 12th century.

AUTOCEPHALI. Αὐτοκεφαλοι, selfheaded,or independent. A name originallygiven to all metropolitans, as havingno ecclesiastical superior, and being amenableonly to the judgment of a synod.After the division of the Church into patriarchates,it was given to such metropolitansas preserved their independence,and were not subject to any patriarch—asthe bishop of Constantia, or Salamis,in Cyprus. Bingham, book ii. chap. 18,specifies three kinds of autocephali. 1. Allmetropolitans, before patriarchates wereestablished. 2. Certain metropolitans afterthe establishment of patriarchates, as thoseof Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Iberia: and theChurches of Britain before the coming ofSt. Augustin. To which may be addedthe Church of Ireland, before its submissionto Rome in the 12th century. 3.Bishops immediately subject to the patriarchof the diocese, who was to them as ametropolitan. There were twenty-five suchsubject to the bishop of Jerusalem. Theimmediate suffragans of Rome are of thesame class. Bingham considers a fourth75class mentioned by Valesius on Euseb. lib.v. c. 23, as very doubtful; viz. bishopswholly independent of all others.

AUTO DA FE (Spanish); an Act ofFaith. In the Spanish Church a solemnday is held by the Inquisition for thepunishment of heretics, and the absolutionof the innocent accused. They usuallycontrive the Auto to fall on some greatfestival, that the execution may pass withthe more awe; and it is always on a Sunday.The Auto da Fe may be called thelast act of the inquisitorial tragedy; it is akind of gaol delivery, appointed as often asa competent number of prisoners in theInquisition are convicted of heresy, eitherby their own voluntary or extorted confession,or on the evidence of certain witnesses.The process is this; in the morningthey 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. Theprocession is led up by Dominican friars,after which come the penitents, being allin black coats without sleeves, and barefooted,with a wax candle in their hands.These are followed by the penitents whohave narrowly escaped being burnt, whoover their black coats have flames painted,with their points turned downwards. Nextcome the negative and relapsed, who areto be burnt, having flames on their habitspointing upwards. After these come suchas profess doctrines contrary to the faithof Rome, who, besides flames pointing upwards,have their picture painted on theirbreasts, with dogs, serpents, and devils, allopen-mouthed, about it. Each prisoneris attended by a familiar of the Inquisition;and those to be burnt have also a Jesuiton each hand, who are continually preachingto them to abjure. After the prisonerscomes a troop of familiars on horseback;and after them the inquisitors, and otherofficers of the court, on mules; last of allthe inquisitor-general on a white horse ledby two men with black hats and green hatbands.A scaffold is erected large enoughfor two or three thousand people; at oneend of which are the prisoners, at the otherthe inquisitors. After a sermon made upof encomiums of the Inquisition, and invectivesagainst heretics, a priest ascends adesk near the scaffold, and, having takenthe abjuration of the penitents, recites thefinal sentence of those who are to be putto death, and delivers them to the seculararm, earnestly beseeching at the sametime the secular power not to touch theirblood, or put their lives in danger. Theprisoners, being thus in the hands of thecivil magistrate, are presently loaded withchains, and carried first to the secular gaol,and from thence, in an hour or two,brought before the civil judge, who, afterasking in what religion they intend to die,pronounces sentence on such as declarethey die in the communion of the Churchof Rome, that they shall be first strangled,and then burnt to ashes; on such as die inany other faith, that they be burnt alive.Both are immediately carried to the Ribera,the place of execution, where thereare as many stakes set up as there areprisoners to be burnt, with a quantity ofdry furze about them. The stakes of theprofessed, that is, such as persist in theheresy, are about four yards high, havinga small board towards the top for the prisonerto be seated on. The negative andrelapsed being first strangled and burnt,the professed mount their stakes by aladder, and the Jesuits, after several repeatedexhortations to be reconciled to theChurch, part with them, telling them thatthey leave them to the devil, who is standingat their elbow to receive their souls,and carry them with him to the flames ofhell. On this a great shout is raised, andthe 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 isaccompanied with the loudest acclamationsof joy. At last fire is set to the furze atthe bottom of the stake, over which theprofessed are chained so high, that the topof the flame seldom reaches higher thanthe seat they sit on, so that they ratherseem roasted than burnt. The same diabolicalceremony was observed in Portugal.

AVE MARIA. A form of devotionused in the Church of Rome, comprisingthe salutation addressed by the angel Gabrielto the Blessed Virgin Mary. (Lukei. 28.) The words “Ave Maria” are thefirst two, in Latin, of the form as it appearsin the manuals of the Romish Church,thus: “Hail Mary, (Ave Maria,) full ofgrace, the Lord is with thee,” &c. Towhich is appended the following petition:“Holy Mary, mother of God, pray forus sinners, now, and in the hour of ourdeath. Amen.” Here we find, first, amisapplication of the words of Scripture,and then an addition to them. It was notused before the Hours, until the 16th century,in the Romish offices. It was thenintroduced into the Breviary by CardinalQuignon. Cardinal Bona admits that it ismodern.

“I cannot but observe,” says Bingham,“that among all the short prayers used by76the ancients before their sermons, there isnever any mention made of an Ave Mary,now so common in the practice of theRomish Church. Their addresses were allto God; and the invocation of the HolyVirgin for grace and assistance beforesermons was a thing not thought of. Theywho are most concerned prove its usecan derive its original no higher than thebeginning of the fifteenth century.” ButMosheim (Eccl. Hist. Cant. xiv. Part ii.ch. iv.) says that Pope John XXII. [1316–33]ordered Christians to add to theirprayers those words with which the angelGabriel saluted the Virgin Mary.

AVOIDANCE. Avoidance is wherethere is a want of a lawful incumbent on abenefice, during which vacancy the Churchis quasi riduata, and the possessions belongingto it are in abeyance. There are manyways by which avoidance may happen;by death; by cession, or acceptance of abenefice incompatible; by resignation; byconsecration; for when a clerk is promotedto a bishopric, all his other prefermentsare void the instant he is consecrated,and the right of presentationbelongs to the Crown, unless he has a dispensationfrom the Crown to hold them incommendam: by deprivation, either first bysentence declaratory in the ecclesiasticalcourt for fit and sufficient causes allowedby the common law, such as attainder oftreason or felony, or conviction of otherinfamous crimes in the king’s courts; forheresy, infidelity, gross immorality, and thelike; or secondly, in pursuance of diverspenal statutes, which declare the beneficevoid, for some nonfeasance or neglect, orelse some malfeasance or crime; as forsimony; for maintaining any doctrine inderogation of the king’s supremacy, or ofthe Thirty-nine Articles, or of the Book ofCommon Prayer: for neglecting after institutionto read the liturgy and articles inthe church, or make the declarations againstPopery, or take the abjuration oath; forusing any other form of prayer than theliturgy of the Church of England: or forabsenting himself sixty days in one yearfrom a benefice belonging to a Popishpatron, to which the clerk was presentedby either of the universities; in all which,and similar cases, the benefice is ipso factovoid, without any formal sentence of deprivation.No person can take any dignityor benefice in Ireland until he has resignedall his preferments in England; and bysuch resignation the king is deprived ofthe presentation.—Stephens on the Lawsrelating to the Clergy, p. 91.

AZYMITES. A name given to theLatins, by those of the Greek Church, becausethey consecrate the holy eucharist inunleavened bread (έν άζυμοις). The moreancient custom was to consecrate a portionof the oblations of the faithful, and thereforeof course in leavened bread. Thewafer, or unleavened bread, is still retainedin the Church of Rome, although thecatechism of the Council of Trent admitsthat the eucharist may also be consecratedin common bread. In the Church of Englandunleavened bread was prescribed byQueen Elizabeth’s injunctions, and wasgenerally used throughout her reign. AtWestminster, it was retained until 1642,nor has it since been forbidden; but theuse of leavened bread is now universal, asin the primitive Church.

BACHELOR. In the universities ofthe Church, bachelors are persons whohave attained to the baccalaureate, ortaken the first degree in arts, divinity, law,or physic. This degree in some universitieshas no existence, in some the Candidatusanswers to it. It was first introducedin the thirteenth century, by PopeGregory IX., though it is still unknownin Italy. Bachelors of Arts are not admittedto that degree at Oxford and Dublintill after having studied four years atthose universities. At Cambridge, theregular period of matriculation is in theOctober term; and an undergraduate whoproceeds regularly will be admitted to hisB. A. in three years from the followingJanuary. Bachelors of Divinity, beforethey can acquire that degree either atOxford or Cambridge, must be of fourteenyears’ standing in the university.Bachelors of Laws, to acquire the degreein Oxford or Cambridge, must have previouslystudied the law six years. Bachelorsof Canon Law are admitted after twoyears’ study, and sustaining an act accordingto the forms. Bachelors of Medicinemust have studied two years in medicine,after having been four years M. A. in theuniversity, and must have passed an examination;after which they are investedwith the fur in order to be licensed. Bachelorsof Music in the English and Irishuniversities must have studied music fora certain number of years, and are admittedto the degree after the compositionand performance of a musical exercise.Anciently the grade of Bachelor, at leastin arts, was hardly considered as a degree,but merely a step towards the Doctorateor Mastership. In fact, Bachelors in anyfaculty, as such, have no voice in the universityconvocations or senates. Bachelors77in Divinity have, because they must necessarilyhave been Masters of Art previously.But Bachelors of Law and Medicine haveno votes, unless they happen to be Mastersof Arts also. In the French, as inthe Scotch universities, the degree of Bachelorof Arts was taken while the studentwas still in statu pupillari, and in fact correspondedvery much to the Sophisters inour universities, the A. M. in these placespractically correspond to our degree ofA. B.

BAMPTON LECTURES. A courseof eight sermons preached annually at theuniversity of Oxford, set on foot by theReverend John Bampton, canon of Salisbury.According to the directions in hiswill, they are to be preached upon anyof the following subjects:—To confirmand establish the Christian faith, and toconfute all heretics and schismatics; uponthe Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures;upon the authority of the writings of theprimitive fathers, as to the faith and practiceof the primitive Church; upon theDivinity of our Lord and Saviour JesusChrist; upon the Divinity of the HolyGhost; upon the articles of the Christianfaith, as comprehended in the Apostles’and Nicene Creeds. For the support ofthis lecture he bequeathed his lands andestates to the chancellor, masters, and scholarsof the university of Oxford for ever,upon trust that the vice-chancellor, forthe time being, take and receive all the rentsand profits thereof; and, after all taxes, reparations,and necessary deductions made,to pay all the remainder to the endowmentof these divinity lecture sermons. He alsodirects in his will, that no person shall bequalified to preach these lectures, unlesshe have taken the degree of Master ofArts, at least, in one of the two universitiesof Oxford or Cambridge, and that thesame person shall never preach the samesermon twice. A number of excellentsermons preached at this lecture are nowbefore the public.

BAND. This part of the clerical dress,which is too well known to need description,is the only remaining relic of theancient amice. (See Amice.) When thebeard was worn, and when ruffs came in,this ancient part of clerical dress fell intodisuse, but it was generally resumed afterthe Restoration. The band is not, however,an exclusively clerical vestment, beingpart of the full dress of the bar and ofthe universities, and of other bodies inwhich a more ancient habit is retained,as in some schools of old foundation.Formerly it was worn by graduates, andeven under-graduates, at the universities;nor was the custom altogether extinctwithin memory. It is still worn by thescholars at Winchester, &c., and was ancientlyworn with the surplice by lay vicars,singing men, and sometimes by parishclerks.

BANGORIAN CONTROVERSY.This was a celebrated controversy withinthe Church of England in the reign ofGeorge I., and received its name fromHoadly, who, although bishop of Bangor,was little else than a Socinian heretic.Hoadly published “A Preservativeagainst the Principles and Practice of theNonjurors,” and soon after, a sermon, whichthe king had ordered to be printed, entitled,“The Nature of the Kingdom ofChrist.” This discourse is a very confusedproduction; nor, except in the bitternessof its spirit, is it easy, amidst the author’s“periods of a mile,” to discover his preciseaim. To the perplexed arguments of BishopHoadly, Dr. Snape and Dr. Sherlockwrote replies; and a committee of convocationpassed a censure upon the discourse.An order from government arrested theproceedings of the convocation. Snapeand Sherlock were removed from theiroffice of chaplains to the king; and theconvocation has never yet been again permittedto assemble for the transaction ofbusiness. But the exertion of power onthe part of the government was unable tosilence those who were determined, at anysacrifice, to maintain God’s truth. Thiscontroversy continued to employ the pressfor many years, until those who held LowChurch views were entirely silenced by theforce of argument. Of the works producedby the Bangorian Controversy, perhapsthe most important is Law’s Letters toHoadly, which were reprinted in “TheScholar Armed,” and have since been republished.Law’s Letters have never beenanswered, and may indeed be regarded asunanswerable.

BANNER. In the chapels of orders ofknighthood, as in St. George’s chapel,Windsor, the chapel of the order of theGarter; in Henry VII.’s chapel, at Westminster,the chapel of the order of theBath; and in St. Patrick’s cathedral, thechapel of the order of St. Patrick; thebanner of each knight, i. e. a little squareflag bearing his arms, is suspended, at hisinstallation, over his appropriate stall.The installation of a knight is a religiousceremony; hence the propriety of this act.The same decorations formerly existed inthe chapel of Holyrood House, the chapelof the order of the Thistle.

78Also it is not uncommon to see bannerstaken in battle suspended over the tombsof victorious generals. This is a beautifulway of expressing thankfulness to God forthat victory which he alone can give; andit were much to be wished that a spirit ofpride and vain-glory should never minglewith the religious feeling.

Banners were formerly a part of theaccustomed ornaments of the altar, andwere suspended over it, “that in thechurch the triumph of Christ may evermorebe held in mind, by which we alsohope to triumph over our enemy.”—Durandus.

BANNS OF MARRIAGE. “Bann”comes from a barbarous Latin word whichsignifies to put out an edict or proclamation.“Matrimonial banns” are such proclamationsas are solemnly made in thechurch, or in some other lawful congregationof men, in order to the solemnizationof matrimony.

Before any can be canonically married,except by a licence from the bishop’scourt, banns are directed to be publishedin the church; and this proclamation shouldbe made on three several solemn days, inall the churches of that place where theparties, willing to contract marriage, dwell.This rule is principally to be observed whenthe said parties are of different parishes;for the care of the Church to prevent clandestinemarriages is as old as Christianityitself: and the design of the Church is,to be satisfied whether there be any “justcause or impediment,” why the persons soasked “should not be joined together inholy matrimony.”

The following are the regulations underwhich the Church of England now acts onthis subject:—

No minister shall be obliged to publishthe banns of matrimony between any personswhatsoever, unless they shall, sevendays at least before the time required forthe first publication, deliver or cause to bedelivered to him a notice in writing oftheir true Christian and surnames, and ofthe houses of their respective abodes withinsuch parish, chapelry, or extra-parochialplace, where the banns are to be published,and of the time during which they haveinhabited or lodged in such houses respectively.(26 George II. c. 33, s. 2.) And allbanns of matrimony shall be published inthe parish church, or in some public chapelwherein banns of matrimony have beenusually published, (i. e. before the 25th ofMarch, 1754,) of the parish or chapelrywherein the persons to be married shalldwell. (26 George II. c. 33, s. 1.) Andwhere the persons to be married shalldwell in divers parishes or chapelries, thebanns shall be published in the church orchapel belonging to such parish or chapelrywherein each of the said persons shalldwell. And where both or either of thepersons to be married shall dwell in anyextra-parochial place, (having no churchor chapel wherein banns have been usuallypublished,) then the banns shall be publishedin the parish church or chapel belongingto some parish or chapelry adjoiningto such extra-parochial place. Andthe said banns shall be published uponthree Sundays preceding the solemnizationof marriage during the time of morningservice, or of the evening service, if therebe no morning service in such church orchapel on any of those Sundays, immediatelyafter the second lesson. (26 GeorgeII. c. 33, s. 1.)

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

Rubric. And the curate shall say afterthe accustomed manner:—“I publish thebanns of marriage between M. of ——,and N. of ——. If any of you knowcause or just impediment why these twopersons should not be joined together inholy matrimony, ye are to declare it.This is the first (second, or third) time ofasking.”

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

Rubric. And where the parties dwellin divers parishes, the curate of one parishshall not solemnize marriage between them,without a certificate of the banns beingthrice asked, from the curate of the otherparish.

Formerly the rubric enjoined that thebanns should be published after the NiceneCreed; but the lamentable deficiency ofpublicity of which this arrangement wasthe cause, and the delay hence arising inconsequence of some parishes being withoutany morning service on some Sundays,induced the legislature to make the provisionsabove cited. (26 George II. c. 33,s. 1.)

79It is to be feared that much laxity prevailsamong parties to whom the inquiriesas to parochial limits are intrusted; andthat recent enactments have rather augmentedthan reformed such laxity. Theconstitutions and canons of 1603 guardcautiously against clandestine marriages.Canon 62 is as follows:—

Ministers not to marry any persons withoutbanns or licence.—No minister, uponpain of suspension per triennium ipso facto,shall celebrate matrimony between any persons,without a faculty or licence grantedby some of the persons in these our constitutionsexpressed, except the banns ofmatrimony have been first published threeseveral Sundays, or holidays, in the timeof Divine service, in the parish churchesand chapels where the said parties dwell,according to the Book of Common Prayer.Neither shall any minister, upon the likepain, under any pretence whatsoever, joinany persons so licensed in marriage at anyunseasonable times, but only between thehours of eight and twelve in the forenoon;nor in any private place, but either in thesaid churches or chapels where one of themdwelleth, and likewise in time of Divineservice; nor when banns are thrice asked,and no licence in that respect necessary,before the parents or governors of theparties to be married, being under the ageof twenty and one years, shall either personally,or by sufficient testimony, signifyto them their consents given to the saidmarriage.

Canon 63. Ministers of exempt churchesnot to marry without banns or license.—Everyminister, who shall hereafter celebratemarriage between any persons contraryto our said constitutions, or any partof them, under colour of any peculiar libertyor privilege claimed to appertain to certainchurches and chapels, shall be suspendedper triennium by the ordinary of the placewhere the offence shall be committed. Andif any such minister shall afterwards removefrom the place where he hath committedthat fault, before he be suspended,as is aforesaid, then shall the bishop of thediocese, or ordinary of the place where heremaineth, upon certificate under the handand seal of the other ordinary, from whosejurisdiction he removed, execute that censureupon him.

See also canon 70. By the statute6 & 7 W. IV. c. 85, sec. 1, it is enacted,that where, by any law or canon in forcebefore the passing of this act, it is providedthat any “marriage may be solemnizedafter publication of banns, such marriagemay be solemnized, in like manner, onproduction of the registrar’s certificate ashereinafter provided:” so that marriagesmay now be solemnized in the Church ofEngland, without banns or licence, on productionof the superintendent registrar’scertificate.

BAPTISM. (Βάπτειν, to wash.) Baptismis one of the two sacraments, which,according to the Catechism, “are generallynecessary to salvation.” Our blessedSaviour says that “except a man beborn again he cannot see the kingdomof God” (John iii. 3); and in explanationof his meaning he adds, “Verily,verily, I say unto thee, except a man beborn of water and of the Spirit, he cannotenter into the kingdom of God” (ver. 5).Upon this the Church remarks: “Beloved,ye hear in this Gospel the express wordsof our Saviour Christ, that, except aman be born of water and of the Spirit,he cannot enter into the kingdom of God:whereby ye may perceive the great necessityof this sacrament where it may behad. Likewise immediately before hisascension into heaven, as we read in thelast chapter of St. Mark’s Gospel, he gavecommand to his disciples, saying, ‘Go yeinto all the world, and preach the gospelto every creature. He that believeth andis baptized shall be saved; but he that believethnot shall be damned.’ Which alsoshoweth unto us the great benefit we reapthereby. For which cause, St. Peter theapostle, when, upon his first preaching ofthis gospel, many were pricked at theheart, and said unto him and the rest ofthe apostles, ‘Men and brethren, what shallwe do?’ replied and said unto them, ‘Repent,and be baptized every one of you forthe remission of sins, and ye shall receivethe gift of the Holy Ghost.’ The sameapostle testifieth in another place, ‘evenbaptism doth also now save us, not theputting away of the filth of the flesh, butthe answer of a good conscience towardsGod, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’”—Officeof Adult Baptism. The Churchalso states in the Catechism, that a sacrament,as baptism is, hath two parts, theoutward visible sign, and the inward spiritualgrace: that the outward visible sign orform in baptism is water, wherein the personis 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 wereceive, is a death unto sin, and a newbirth unto righteousness; for being by natureborn in sin and the children of wrath,we are hereby, i. e. by baptism, made childrenof grace. Therefore the Church, as80soon as ever a child is baptized, directs theminister to say, “Seeing now, dearly belovedbrethren, that this child is regenerateand grafted into the body of Christ’sChurch, let us give thanks unto AlmightyGod for these benefits, and with one accordmake our prayers unto him, that thischild may lead the rest of his life accordingto this beginning.” The Church here firstdeclares that grace has been given, eventhe grace of regeneration, and then impliesthat the grace, if not used, may be lost. Onthis subject more will be said in the articleon Regeneration. See also Infant Baptism.

Grotius (Annot. ad Matt. iii. 6) is ofopinion, that the rite of baptism had itsoriginal from the time of the deluge; immediatelyafter which he thinks it was instituted,in memory of the world havingbeen purged by water. Some learned menthink (W. Schickard, de Jur. Reg. cap. 5)it was added to circumcision, soon after theSamaritan schism, as a mark of distinctionto the orthodox Jews. Spencer, who is fondof deriving the rites of the Jewish religionfrom the ceremonies of the Pagan, lays itdown as a probable supposition, that theJews received the baptism of proselytes fromthe neighbouring nations, who were wontto prepare candidates for the more sacredfunctions of their religion by a solemn ablution;that, by this affinity of sacred rites,they might draw the Gentiles to embracetheir religion, and the proselytes (in gainingof whom they were extremely diligent,Matt. xxiii. 15) might the more easily complywith the transition from Gentilism toJudaism. In confirmation of this opinion,he observes, first, that there is no Divineprecept for the baptism of proselytes, Godhaving enjoined only the rite of circumcision,(Exod. xii. 48,) for the admissionof strangers into the Jewish religion; secondly,that, among foreign nations, theEgyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, andothers, it was customary that those whowere to be initiated into their mysteries orsacred rites, should be first purified by dippingtheir whole body in water. Grotius,on Matt. xxvi. 27, adds, as a further confirmationof his opinion, that the “cup ofblessing” likewise, added to the Paschalsupper, seems plainly to have been derivedfrom a Pagan original: for the Greeks, attheir feasts, had one cup, called ποτήριονἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος, the cup of the good demonor god, which they drank at the conclusionof their entertainment, when thetable was removed. Since, then, a rite ofGentile original was added to one of theJewish sacraments, viz. the Passover, therecan be no absurdity in supposing, thatbaptism, which was added to the othersacrament, namely, circumcision, might bederived from the same source. In the lastplace, he observes, that Christ, in the institutionof his sacraments, paid a peculiarregard to those rites which were borrowedfrom the Gentiles; for, rejecting circumcisionand the Paschal supper, he adoptedinto his religion baptism and the sacredcup; thus preparing the way for the conversionand reception of the Gentiles intohis Church.

It is to be observed, under this head ofJewish baptism, that the proselyte wasnot to be baptized till the wound of circumcisionwas perfectly healed; that thenthe ceremony was performed by plunginghim into some large, natural receptacle ofwater; and that baptism was never afterrepeated in the same person, or in any ofhis posterity, who derived their legal purityfrom 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 baptizingwas vested principally in the bishops andpriests, or pastors of the respective parishes;but, with the consent of the bishop,it was allowed to the deacons, and in casesof necessity even to laymen, to baptize;but never, under any necessity whatever,was it permitted to women to perform thisoffice. Nor was it enough that baptismwas conferred by a person called to theministry, unless he was also orthodox inthe faith. This became matter of great excitementin the Church; and hence arose thefamous controversy between Cyprian andStephen, bishop of Rome, concerning therebaptizing those who had been baptizedby heretics, Cyprian asserting that theyought to be rebaptized, and Stephen maintainingthe contrary opinion.

The persons baptized were either infantsor adults. To prove that infants were admittedto the sacrament of baptism, weneed only use this argument. None wereadmitted to the eucharist till they had receivedbaptism: but in the primitiveChurch children received the sacramentof the Lord’s supper, as appears from whatCyprian relates concerning a sucking child,who so violently refused to taste the sacramentalwine, that the deacon was obligedforcibly to open her lips and pour it downher throat. Origen writes, that childrenare baptized, “for the purging away of thenatural filth and original impurity inherentin them.” We might add the testimoniesof Irenæus and Cyprian; but itwill be sufficient to mention the determinationof an African synod, held A. D.81254, at which were present sixty-six bishops.The occasion of it was this. A certainbishop, called Fidus, had some scruplesconcerning the time of baptizing infants,whether it ought to be done on the secondor third day after their birth, or not beforethe eighth day, as was observed with respectto circumcision under the Jewishdispensation. His scruples were proposedto this synod, who unanimously decreed,that the baptism of children was not to bedeferred so long, but that the grace of God,or baptism, should be given to all, andmost 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 whichbaptism was usually administered, we findit to have been restrained to the twosolemn festivals of the year, Easter andWhitsuntide: at Easter, in memory ofChrist’s death and resurrection, correspondentto which are the two parts of theChristian life, represented and shadowedout in baptism, dying unto sin, and risingagain unto newness of life; and at Whitsuntide,in memory of the Holy Ghost’sbeing shed upon the apostles, the same,in some measure, being represented andconveyed in baptism. It is to be observed,that these stated returns of the time ofbaptism related only to persons in health:in other cases, such as sickness, or anypressing necessity, the time of baptismwas regulated by occasion and opportunity.

The place of baptism was at first unlimited;being some pond or lake, somespring or river, but always as near as possibleto the place of public worship. Afterwardsthey had their baptisteries, or (aswe call them) fonts, built at first near thechurch, then in the church-porch, and atlast in the church itself. There were manyin those days who were desirous to bebaptized in the river Jordan, out of reverenceto the place where our Saviourhimself had been baptized.

The person to be baptized, if an adult,was first examined by the bishop, or officiatingpriest, who put some questions tohim; as, first, whether he abjured thedevil and all his works; secondly, whetherhe gave a firm assent to all the articles ofthe Christian faith: to both which he answeredin the affirmative. Concerningthese baptismal questions, Dionysius Alexandrinus,in his letter to Xistus, bishop ofRome, speaks of a certain scrupulous personin his church, who, being present atbaptism, was exceedingly troubled, whenhe heard the questions and answers ofthose who were baptized. If the personto be baptized was an infant, these interrogatorieswere answered by his sponsores,or godfathers. Whether the use of sponsoreswas as old as the apostles’ days, is uncertain:perhaps it was not, since JustinMartyr, speaking of the method and formof baptism, says not a word of them.—Tertull.de Coron. Milit. Cyprian, Epist.vii. § 5. Justin Martyr, Apolog. 2. ApudEuseb. lib. vii. c. 9; Apolog. 2.

After the questions and answers, followedexorcism, the manner and end ofwhich was this. The minister laid hishands on the person’s head, and breathedin his face, implying thereby the drivingaway, or expelling, of the devil from him,and preparing him for baptism, by whichthe good and holy Spirit was to be conferredupon him.

After exorcism, followed baptism itself:and first the minister, by prayer, consecratedthe water for that use. Tertulliansays, “any waters may be applied to thatuse; but then God must be first invocated,and then the Holy Ghost presentlycomes down from heaven, and moves uponthem, and sanctifies them.” The waterbeing consecrated, the person was baptized“in the name of the Father, and ofthe Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” bywhich “dedication of him to the blessedTrinity, the person” (says Clemens Alexandrinus)“is delivered from the corrupttrinity, 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 dipthe whole body. Thus St. Barnabas, describinga baptized person, says, “We godown into the water full of sin and filth,but we ascend bearing fruit in our hearts.”And that all occasions of scandal and immodestymight be prevented in so sacredan action, the men and women were baptizedin distinct apartments; the womenhaving deaconesses to undress and dressthem. Then followed the unction, bywhich (says St. Cyril) was signified, that theywere now cut off from the wild olive, andwere ingrafted into Christ, the true olive-tree;or else to show, that they were nowto be champions for the gospel, and wereanointed thereto, as the old Athletæ wereagainst their solemn games. With thisanointing was joined the sign of the cross,made upon the forehead of the personbaptized; which being done, he had awhite garment given him, to denote hisbeing washed from the defilements of sin, or82in allusion to the words of the apostle, “asmany as are baptized into Christ have puton Christ.” From this custom the feast ofPentecost, which was one of the annualseasons of baptism, came to be calledWhitsunday, i. e. Whitesunday. Thisgarment was afterwards laid up in thechurch, that it might be an evidence againstsuch persons as violated or denied thatfaith which they had owned in baptism.Of this we have a remarkable instanceunder the Arian persecution in Africa.Elpidophorus, a citizen of Carthage, hadlived a long time in the communion of theChurch, but, apostatizing afterwards to theArians, became a most bitter and implacablepersecutor of the orthodox. Amongseveral 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 whichElpidophorus had been clothed at hisbaptism, and, with tears in his eyes, thusaddressed him before all the people.“These, Elpidophorus, thou minister oferror, these are the garments that shallaccuse thee, when thou shalt appear beforethe majesty of the Great Judge; these arethey which girt thee, when thou camestpure out of the holy font; and these arethey which shall bitterly pursue thee,when thou shalt be cast into the place offlames; because thou hast clothed thyselfwith cursing as with a garment, and hastcast off the sacred obligation of thy baptism.”—Epist.Cathol. § 9. Cave’s PrimitiveChristianity, 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 usualpractice, yet sprinkling was in some casesallowed, as in clinic baptism, or the baptismof such persons as lay sick in bed. It istrue, this kind of baptism was not esteemedso perfect and effectual as that by immersionor dipping; for which reason, insome Churches, none were advanced to theorder of the priesthood, who had beenso baptized; an instance of which we havein Novatian, whose ordination was opposedby all the clergy upon that account; thoughafterward, at the entreaties of the bishop,they consented to it. Notwithstandingwhich general opinion, Cyprian, in a setdiscourse on this subject, declares that hethought this baptism to be as perfect andvalid as that performed more solemnly byimmersion.—Epist. Cornel. ad FabiumAntioch. apud Euseb. lib. vi. cap. 43. Epist.lxxvi. § 9. Apolog. 2.

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

As the Church granted baptism to allpersons duly qualified to receive it, sothere were some whom she debarred fromthe benefits of this holy rite. The authorof the Apostolical Constitutions mentionsseveral. 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. Concerningstage-players, the Church seems tohave considered them in the very samelight as the ancient heathens themselvesdid: for Tertullian (Tertull. de Spectac.cap. 22) observes that they who professedthose arts were branded with infamy, degraded,and denied many privileges, drivenfrom the court, from pleading, from theorder of knighthood, and all other honoursin the Roman city and commonwealth. Ithas been a question, whether the militarylife disqualified a man for baptism: butthe contrary appears from the Constitutions,lib. viii. cap. 32, which admit soldiers tothe baptism of the Church, on the sameterms that St. John Baptist admitted themto his; namely, that they should do violenceto no man, accuse no one falsely, andbe content with their wages, Luke iii. 14.The state of concubinage is another casewhich has been matter of doubt. Therule in the Constitutions, lib. viii. c. 32,concerning the matter is this: a concubine,that is, a slave to an infidel, if she keepherself only to him, may be received tobaptism; but, if she commit fornicationwith others, she shall be rejected. TheCouncil of Toledo (Conc. Tolet. 1, can. 17)distinguishes between a man’s having awife and a concubine at the same time, andkeeping a concubine only: the latter caseit considers as no disqualification for thesacraments, and only insists that a manbe content to be joined to one womanonly, whether wife or concubine, as hepleases.

Though baptism was esteemed by theChurch as a Divine and heavenly institution,yet there wanted not sects, in theearliest ages, who either rejected it in wholeor in part, or greatly corrupted it. TheAscodrutæ wholly rejected it, because theywould admit of no external or corporealsymbols whatever. The Archontics, whoimagined that the world was not created83by the supreme God, but by certain ἄρχοντες,or powers, the chief of whom theycalled Sabaoth, rejected this whole rite, asa foreign institution, given by Sabaoth,the God of the Jews, whom they distinguishedfrom the supreme God. TheSeleucians and Hermians rejected baptismby water, on pretence that it was not the baptisminstituted by Christ; because St. JohnBaptist, comparing his own baptism withthat of Christ, says, “I baptize you withwater, but he that cometh after me shallbaptize you with the Holy Ghost andwith fire,” Matt. iii. 11. They thoughtthat the souls of men consisted of fire andspirit, and therefore that a baptism by firewas more suitable to their nature. Anothersect which rejected water-baptism, werethe Manichees, who looked upon it as ofno efficacy towards salvation: but whetherthey admitted any other kind of baptism,we are not told. The Paulicians, a branchof this heresy, maintained that the word ofthe gospel is baptism, because our Lordsaid, “I am the living water.”—BinghamOrig. 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 consideredbaptism as indispensably necessary to salvation,it was always with this restriction,provided it could be had: in extraordinarycases, wherein baptism could not be had,though men were desirous of it, theymade several exceptions in behalf of otherthings, which in such circumstances werethought sufficient to supply the want ofit. (Bingham, § 19, 20.) The chief ofthese excepted cases was martyrdom, whichusually goes by the name of second baptism,or baptism in men’s own blood, inthe writings of the ancients. (Cyprian.Ep. lxiii. ad Julian.) This baptism, theysuppose, our Lord spoke of, when he said,“I have another baptism to be baptizedwith,” alluding to his own future martyrdomon the cross. In the Acts of the Martyrdomof Perpetua, there is mention ofone Saturus, a catechumen, who, beingthrown to a leopard, was, by the first biteof the wild beast, so bathed in blood,that the people, in derision of the Christiandoctrine of martyrdom, cried outsalvum lotum, salvum lotum, baptized andsaved, baptized and saved. (Bingham,§ 24.) But these exceptions and allowanceswere with respect to adult personsonly, who could make some compensation,by acts of faith and repentance, for thewant 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 “theoutward visible sign and the inwardspiritual grace of baptism.” Upon whichaccount they who spoke the most favourablyof their case, would only venture toassign them a middle state, neither inheaven nor hell.—Greg. Naz. Orat. 40.Sever. Catena in Johan. iii.

For the rest, the rite of baptism wasesteemed as the most universal absolutionand grand indulgence of the ministry ofthe Church; as conveying a general pardonof sin to every true member of Christ;and as the key of the sacraments, thatopens the gate of the kingdom of heaven.Bingham, b. xix, c. i. § 9.

Baptism is defined by the Church ofRome (Alet’s Ritual) to be “a sacrament,instituted by our Saviour, to wash awayoriginal sin, and all those we may havecommitted; to communicate to mankindthe spiritual regeneration, and the graceof Christ Jesus; and to unite them tohim, as the living members to the head.”

When a child is to be baptized in thatChurch, the persons who bring it wait forthe priest at the door of the Church, whocomes thither in his surplice and purplestole, attended by his clerks. He beginswith questioning the godfathers, whetherthey promise, in the child’s name, to liveand die in the true Catholic and Apostolicfaith, and what name they would give thechild. Then follows an exhortation tothe sponsors; after which the priest, callingthe child by its name, asks it as follows:“What dost thou demand of the Church?”The godfather answers, “Eternal life.” Thepriest goes on; “If you are desirous ofobtaining eternal life, keep God’s commandments,Thou shalt love the Lord thyGod,” &c. After which he breathes threetimes in the child’s face, saying, “Comeout of this child, thou evil spirit, and makeroom for the Holy Ghost.” This said, hemakes the sign of the cross on the child’sforehead and breast, saying, “Receive thesign of the cross on thy forehead, and inthy heart.” Then, taking off his cap, herepeats a short prayer, and, laying his handgently on the child’s head, repeats a secondprayer: which ended, he blesses some salt,and, putting a little of it into the child’smouth, pronounces these words: “Receivethe salt of wisdom.” All this is performedat the church door.

The priest, with the godfathers andgodmothers, coming into the church, andadvancing towards the font, repeat theApostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer.84Being come to the font, the priest exorcisesthe evil spirit again, and, taking alittle of his own spittle, with the thumb ofhis right hand, rubs it on the child’s earsand nostrils, repeating, as he touches theright ear, the same word (Ephatha, “bethou opened”) which our Saviour made useof to the man born deaf and dumb. Lastly,they pull off its swaddling-clothes, or stripit below the shoulders, during which thepriest prepares the oils, &c.

The sponsors then hold the child directlyover the font, observing to turn it dueeast and west; whereupon the priest asksthe child, “whether he renounces the deviland all his works,” and, the godfatherhaving answered in the affirmative, thepriest anoints the child between the shouldersin the form of a cross. Then, takingsome of the consecrated water, he pourspart of it thrice on the child’s head, ateach perfusion calling on one of the personsof the holy Trinity. The priest concludesthe ceremony of baptism with anexhortation.

It is to be observed, that, in the namingthe child, all profane names, such as thoseof the heathens and their gods, are neveradmitted; and that a priest is authorizedto change the name of a child (though itbe a Scripture name) who has been baptizedby a Protestant minister. Benserade,we are told, had like to have had hisChristian name, which was Isaac, changed,when the bishop confirmed him, had henot prevented it by a jest: for, when theywould have changed his name, and givenhim another, he asked them, “What theygave him into the bargain;” which sopleased the bishop, that he permitted himto retain his former name.

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

The Greek Church differs from theRomish, as to the rite of baptism, chiefly,in performing it by immersion, or plungingthe infant all over in the water, which therelations of the child take care to havewarmed, and throw into it a collection ofthe most odoriferous flowers.—Rycaut’sState of the Greek Church.

The Church of England (Article xxvii.)defines baptism to be, “not only a sign ofprofession, and mark of difference, wherebyChristian men are discerned from othersthat be not christened; but it is also asign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby,as by an instrument, they that receivebaptism rightly are grafted into theChurch: the promises of the forgiveness ofsin, of our adoption to be the sons of God,by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed andsealed, faith is confirmed, and grace increased,by virtue of prayer to God.” It isadded, “that the baptism of young childrenis in any wise to be retained in the Church,as most agreeable with the institution ofChrist.”

In the rubrics of her liturgy, (see Officefor Ministration of Public Baptism,) theChurch prescribes, that baptism be administeredonly on Sundays and holy days, exceptin cases of necessity. She requires sponsorsfor infants; for every male child two godfathersand one godmother; and for everyfemale two godmothers and one godfather.We find this provision made by a constitutionof Edmond, archbishop of Canterbury,A. D. 1236; and in a synod held atWorcester, A. D. 1240. By the 29th canonof our Church, no parent is to be admittedto answer as godfather to his own child.—Bp.Gibson’s Codex, vol. i. p. 439.

The form of administering baptism is toowell known to require a particular accountto be given of it. We shall only observesome of the more material differencesbetween the form, as it stood in the firstliturgy of King Edward, and that in ourCommon Prayer Book at present. First,in that of King Edward, we meet with aform of exorcism, founded upon the likepractice of the primitive Church, which ourreformers left out, when they took a reviewof the liturgy in the 5th and 6th ofthat king. It is as follows.

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

“I command thee, unclean spirit, in thename of the Father, and of the Son, andof the Holy Ghost, that thou come out, anddepart from these infants, whom our LordJesus Christ hath vouchsafed to call to hisholy baptism, to be made members of hisbody, and of his holy congregation. Therefore,thou cursed spirit, remember thysentence, remember thy judgment, rememberthe day to be at hand, wherein85thou shalt burn in fire everlasting, preparedfor thee and thy angels. And presumenot hereafter to exercise any tyrannytowards these infants, whom Christ hathbought with his precious blood, and bythis his holy baptism calleth to be of hisflock.”

The form of consecrating the water didnot make a part of the office in KingEdward’s liturgy, as it does in the present,because the water in the font was changedand consecrated but once a month. Theform likewise itself was something differentfrom that we now use, and was introducedwith a short prayer, that “JesusChrist, upon whom (when he was baptized)the Holy Ghost came down in the likenessof a dove, would send down the sameHoly Spirit, to sanctify the fountain ofbaptism; which prayer was afterwards leftout, at the second review.

By King Edward’s First Book, the ministeris to “dip the child in the water thrice;first dipping the right side; secondly theleft; the third time dipping the face towardthe font.” This trine immersion wasa very ancient practice in the ChristianChurch, and used in honour of the HolyTrinity: though some later writers say, itwas done to represent the death, burial, andresurrection of Christ, together with histhree days’ continuance in the grave. Afterwards,the Arians making an ill use of it,by persuading the people that it was usedto denote that the three persons in theTrinity were three distinct substances, theorthodox left it off, and used only onesingle immersion.—Tertull. adv. Prax. c.26. Greg. Nyss. de Bapt. Christi. Cyril,Catech. Mystag.

By the first Common Prayer of KingEdward, after the child was baptized, thegodfathers and godmothers were to laytheir hands upon it, and the minister wasto put on him the white vestment commonlycalled the Chrysome, and to say:“Take this white vesture, as a token of theinnocency which, by God’s grace, in thisholy sacrament of baptism, is given untothee; and for a sign, whereby thou artadmonished, so long as thou livest, to givethyself to innocence of living, that, afterthis transitory life, thou mayest be partakerof the life everlasting. Amen.” Assoon as he had pronounced these words, hewas to anoint the infant on the head, saying,“Almighty God, the Father of ourLord Jesus Christ, who hath regeneratedthee by water and the Holy Ghost, andhath given unto thee remission of all thysins; vouchsafe to anoint thee with theunction of his Holy Spirit, and bring theeto the inheritance of everlasting life.Amen.” This was manifestly done in imitationof the practice of the primitiveChurch.

The custom of sprinkling children, insteadof dipping them in the font, whichat first was allowed in case of the weaknessor sickness of the infant, has so far prevailed,that immersion is at length almostexcluded. What principally tended toconfirm the practice of affusion or sprinkling,was, that several of our Englishdivines, flying into Germany and Switzerland,during the bloody reign of QueenMary, and returning home when QueenElizabeth came to the crown, broughtback with them a great zeal for the ProtestantChurches beyond sea where theyhad been sheltered and received; and,having observed that at Geneva (Calvin,Instit. lib. iv. c. 15) and some other placesbaptism was administered by sprinkling,they thought they could not do the Churchof England a greater piece of service thanby introducing a practice dictated by sogreat an oracle as Calvin. This, togetherwith the coldness of our northern climate,was what contributed to banish entirelythe practice of dipping infants in the font.

Lay-baptism we find to have been permittedby both the Common Prayer Booksof King Edward, and that of Queen Elizabeth,when an infant is in immediatedanger of death, and a lawful ministercannot be had. This was founded uponthe mistaken notion of the impossibility ofsalvation without the sacrament of baptism;but afterwards, when they came to haveclearer notions of the sacraments, it wasunanimously resolved in a convocation,held in the year 1575, that even privatebaptism, in a case of necessity, was only tobe administered by a lawful minister.—Bp.Gibson’s Codex, tit. xviii. vol. i. ch. 9, p. 446.

It remains to be observed, that, by aprovincial constitution, made in the year1236, (26th of Hen. III.,) neither thewater, nor the vessel containing it, whichhave been made use of in private baptism,are afterwards to be applied to commonuses: but, out of reverence to the sacrament,the water is to be poured into thefire, or else carried into the church andput into the font; and the vessel to beburnt, or else appropriated to some use inthe church. But no provision is made forthe disposition of the water used in thefont at church. In the Greek Church,particular care is taken that it be notthrown into the street like common water,but poured into a hollow place underthe altar, (called θαλασσίδιον or χωνεῖον,)86where it is soaked into the earth, or findsa passage.—Broughton. Bp. Gibson’s Codex,tit. xviii. c. 2, vol. i. p. 435. Dr. Smith’sAccount of the Gr. Church.

BAPTISM, ADULT. “It was thoughtconvenient, that some prayers and thanksgivings,fitted to special occasions, shouldbe added; particularly an office for thebaptism of such as are of riper years;which, although not so necessary when theformer book was compiled, yet by thegrowth of anabaptism, through the licentiousnessof the late times crept in amongstus, is now become necessary, and may bealways useful for the baptizing of nativesin our plantations, and others converted tothe faith.”—Preface to the Book of CommonPrayer.

Rubric. “When any such persons ofriper years are to be baptized, timely noticeshall be given to the bishop, or whomhe shall appoint for that purpose, a weekbefore at the least, by the parents or someother discreet persons; that so due caremay be taken for their examination, whetherthey be sufficiently instructed in theprinciples of the Christian religion; andthat they may be exhorted to preparethemselves with prayers and fasting for thereceiving of this holy sacrament. And ifthey shall be found fit, then the godfathersand godmothers (the people being assembledupon the Sunday or holy day appointed)shall be ready to present them atthe font, immediately after the secondlesson, either at morning or evening prayer,as the curate in his discretion shall thinkfit. And it is expedient that every personthus baptized should be confirmed by thebishop, so soon after his baptism as convenientlymay be; that so he may be admittedto the holy communion.”

BAPTISM, INFANT. Article 27. “Thebaptism of young children is in anywise tobe retained in the Church, as most agreeablewith the institution of Christ.”

Rubric. “The curates of every parishshall often admonish the people, that theydefer not the baptism of their childrenlonger than the first or second Sundaynext after their birth, or other holy dayfalling between; unless upon a great andreasonable cause, to be approved by thecurate.”

The practice of infant baptism seems tobe a necessary consequence of the doctrineof original sin and of the grace of baptism.If it be only by union with Christ thatthe children of Adam can be saved; andif, as the apostle teaches, in baptism “weput on Christ,” then it was natural forparents to ask for permission to bringtheir little ones to Christ, that they mightbe partakers of the free grace that is offeredto all; but though offered to all, to beapplied individually. It may be becauseit is so necessary a consequence of thedoctrine of original sin, that the rite ofinfant baptism is not enjoined in Scripture.But though there is no command in Scriptureto baptize infants, and although forthe practice we must plead the traditionof the Church Universal, still we may finda warrant in Scripture in favour of thetraditional practice. We find it generallystated that the apostles baptized wholehouseholds, and Christ our Saviour commandedthem to baptize all nations, ofwhich infants form a considerable part.And in giving this injunction, we maypresume that he intended to include infants,from the very fact of his not excludingthem. For he was addressingJews; and when the Jews converted a heathento faith in the God of Israel, they wereaccustomed to baptize the convert, togetherwith all the infants of his family. And,consequently, when our Lord commandedJews, i.e. men accustomed to this practice,to baptize nations, the fact that he did notpositively repel infants, implied an injunctionto baptize them; and when the HolySpirit records that the apostles, in obedienceto that injunction, baptized wholehouseholds, the argument gains increasedforce. This is probably what St. Paulmeans, when, in the seventh chapterof the First Corinthians, verse 14, hespeaks of the children of believers asbeing holy: they are so far holy, thatthey may be brought to the sacrament ofbaptism. From the apostles has comedown the practice of baptizing infants, theChurch requiring security, through certainsponsors, that the children shall be broughtup to lead a godly and a Christian life.And by the early Christians the practicewas considered sufficiently sanctioned bythe passage from St. Mark, which is readin our baptismal office, in which we aretold, that the Lord Jesus Christ, havingrebuked those that would have kept thechildren from him, took them up in hisarms and blessed them. He blessed them,and his blessing must have conveyed graceto their souls; therefore, of grace, childrenmay be partakers. They may receive spirituallife, though it may be long beforethat life develope itself; and that life theymay lose by sinning.

BAPTISM, LAY. We shall brieflystate the history of lay baptism in ourChurch both before and after the Reformation.In the “Laws Ecclesiastical” of87Edmund, king of England, A. D. 945, itis stated:—“Women, when their time ofchild-bearing is near at hand, shall havewater ready, for baptizing the child incase of necessity.”

In the national synod under Otho, 1237,it is directed: “For cases of necessity, thepriests on Sundays shall frequently instructtheir parishioners in the form of baptism.”To which it is added, in the Constitutionsof Archbishop Peckham, in 1279, “Whichform shall be thus: I crysten thee in thename of the Fader, and of the Sone, andof the Holy Goste.”

In the Constitutions of the same archbishop,in 1281, it is ruled that infantsbaptized by laymen or women (in imminentdanger of death) shall not be baptizedagain; and the priest shall afterwardssupply the rest.

By the rubrics of the second and of thefifth of Edward VI. it was ordered thus:“The pastors and curates shall often admonishthe people, that without great causeand necessity they baptize not children athome in their houses; and when great needshall compel them so to do, that then theyminister it in this fashion:—First, letthem that be present call upon God for hisgrace, and say the Lord’s Prayer, if thetime will suffer; and then one of them shallname the child and dip him in the water,or pour water upon him, saying thesewords, I baptize thee in the name of theFather, and of the Son, and of the HolyGhost.”

In the manuscript copy of the Articlesmade in convocation in the year 1575, thetwelfth is, “Item, where some ambiguityand doubt hath arisen among divers, bywhat persons private baptism is to be administered;forasmuch as by the Book ofCommon Prayer allowed by the statute, thebishop of the diocese is authorized to expoundand resolve all such doubts as shallarise, concerning the manner how to understandand to execute the things containedin the said book; it is now, by thesaid archbishop and bishops, expoundedand resolved, and every of them doth expoundand resolve, that the said privatebaptism, in case of necessity, is only to beministered by a lawful minister or deaconcalled to be present for that purpose, andby none other; and that every bishop inhis diocese shall take order that this expositionof the said doubt shall be publishedin writing, before the first day of Maynext coming, in every parish church of hisdiocese in this province; and thereby allother persons shall be inhibited to intermeddlewith the ministering of baptismprivately, being no part of their vocation.”This article was not published in theprinted copy; but whether on the sameaccount that the fifteenth article was leftout, (namely, because disapproved by theCrown,) does not certainly appear. However,the ambiguity remained till the conferenceat Hampton Court, in which theking said, that if baptism was termed private,because any but a lawful ministermight baptize, he utterly disliked it, andthe point was then debated; which debateended in an order to the bishops to explainit, so as to restrain it to a lawful minister.Accordingly, in the Book of CommonPrayer, which was set forth the same year,the alterations were printed in the rubricthus:—“And also they shall warn them,that without great cause they procure nottheir children to be baptized at home intheir houses. And when great need shallcompel them so to do, then baptism shallbe administered on this fashion: First, letthe lawful minister and them that be presentcall upon God for his grace, and saythe Lord’s Prayer, if the time will suffer;and then the child being named by someone that is present, the said minister shalldip it in the water, or pour water upon it.”And other expressions, in other parts ofthe service, which seemed before to admitof lay baptism, were so turned, as expresslyto exclude it.

BAPTISM, PRIVATE. Rubric. “Thecurates of every parish shall often warn thepeople, that without great cause and necessity,they procure not their children tobe baptized at home in their houses.”

Canon 69. “If any minister being duly,without any manner of collusion, informedof the weakness and danger of death ofany infant unbaptized in his parish, andthereupon desired to go or come to theplace where the said infant remaineth, tobaptize the same, shall either wilfully refuseso to do, or of purpose or of grossnegligence shall so defer the time, as whenhe might conveniently have resorted to theplace, and have baptized the said infant, itdieth through such his default unbaptized,the said minister shall be suspended forthree months, and before his restitutionshall acknowledge his fault, and promisebefore his ordinary that he will not wittinglyincur the like again. Provided, thatwhere there is a curate, or a substitute,this constitution shall not extend to theparson or vicar himself, but to the curateor substitute present.”

Rubric. “The child being named by someone that is present, the minister shall pourwater upon it.

88“And let them not doubt, but that thechild so baptized is lawfully and sufficientlybaptized, and ought not to be baptizedagain. Yet, nevertheless, if the childwhich is after this sort baptized do afterwardlive, it is expedient that it be broughtinto the church, to the intent that thecongregation may be certified of the trueform of baptism privately before administeredto such child.”

BAPTISM, PUBLIC. At first baptismwas administered publicly, as occasionserved, by rivers; afterwards the baptisterywas built, at the entrance of thechurch or very near it, which had a largebasin in it, that held the persons to bebaptized, and they went down by stepsinto it. Afterwards, when immersioncame to be disused, fonts were set up atthe entrance of churches.

By the “Laws Ecclesiastical” of KingEdmund, it is directed that there shall bea font of stone, or other competent material,in every church; which shall be decentlycovered and kept, and not convertedto other uses.

And by canon 81, There shall be a fontof stone in every church and chapel wherebaptism is to be administered; the same tobe set in the ancient usual places: inwhich only font the minister shall baptizepublicly.

The rubric directs that the people areto be admonished, that it is most convenientthat baptism shall not be administeredbut upon Sundays and other holy days,when the most number of people come together;as well for that the congregationthere present may testify the receiving ofthem that be newly baptized into thenumber of Christ’s Church, as also becausein the baptism of infants, every man presentmay be put in remembrance of hisown profession made to God in his baptism.Nevertheless, if necessity so require,children may be baptized upon any otherday.

And by canon 68, No minister shallrefuse or delay to christen any childaccording to the form of the Book ofCommon Prayer, that is brought to thechurch to him upon Sundays and holydays to be christened (convenient warningbeing given him thereof before). Andif he shall refuse so to do, he shall be suspendedby the bishop of the diocese fromhis ministry by the space of three months.

The rubric also directs, that when thereare children to be baptized, the parentsshall give knowledge thereof over-night,or in the morning before the beginning ofmorning prayer, to the curate.

The rubric further directs, that thereshall be for every male child to be baptizedtwo godfathers and one godmother;and for every female, one godfather andtwo godmothers.

By the 29th canon it is related, that noparent shall be urged to be present, noradmitted to answer as godfather for hisown child: nor any godfather or godmothershall be suffered to make any otheranswer or speech, than by the Book ofCommon Prayer is prescribed in that behalf.Neither shall any persons be admittedgodfather or godmother to anychild at christening or confirmation, beforethe said person so undertaking hath receivedthe holy communion.

According to the rubric, the godfathersand godmothers, and the people with thechildren, must be ready at the font, eitherimmediately after the last lesson at morningprayer, or else immediately after thelast lesson at evening prayer, as the curateby his discretion shall appoint.

The rubric appoints that the priest comingto the font, which is then to be filledwith pure water, shall perform the office ofpublic baptism.

It may be here observed, that the questionsin the office of the 2 Edward VI.,“Dost thou renounce?” and so on, wereput to the child, and not to the godfathersand godmothers, which (with all due submission)seems more applicable to the endof the institution; besides that it is notconsistent (as it seems) with the proprietyof language, to say to three persons collectively,“Dost thou in the name of thischild do this or that?”

By a constitution of Archbishop Peckham,the ministers are to take care not to permitwanton names, which being pronounceddo sound to lasciviousness, to be given tochildren baptized, especially of the femalesex; and if otherwise it be done, the sameshall be changed by the bishop at confirmation;which being so changed at confirmation(Lord Coke says) shall be deemedthe lawful name, though this appears tobe no longer the case. In the ancientoffices of Confirmation, the bishop pronouncedthe name of the child; and if thebishop did not approve of the name, or theperson to be confirmed, or his friends, desiredit to be altered, it might be done by thebishop’s then pronouncing a new name;but by the form of the present liturgy, thebishop doth not pronounce the name of theperson to be confirmed, and therefore cannotalter it.

The rubric goes on to direct, The priest,taking the child into his hands, shall say89to the godfathers and godmothers, “Namethis child:” and then naming it after them,(if they shall certify him that the childmay well endure it,) he shall dip it in thewater discreetly and warily, saying, “N. Ibaptize 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 dippingby the office of the 2 Edward VI. was notall over; but they first dipped the rightside, then the left, then the face towardsthe font.

The rubric directs that the minister shallsign the child with the sign of the cross.And to take away all scruple concerningthe same, the true explication thereof, andthe just reasons for retaining of this ceremony,are set forth in the thirtieth canon.The substance of which canon is this, thatthe first Christians gloried in the cross ofChrist; that the Scripture sets forth ourwhole redemption under the name of thecross; that the sign of the cross was usedby the first Christians in all their actions,and especially in the baptizing of theirchildren; that the abuse of it by the Churchof Rome does not take away the lawful useof it; that the same has been approved bythe reformed divines, with sufficient cautionsnevertheless against superstition inthe use of it; that it is no part of the substanceof this sacrament, and that the infantbaptized is by virtue of baptism, beforeit be signed with the sign of the cross, receivedinto the congregation of Christ’sflock as a perfect member thereof, and notby any power ascribed to the sign of thecross; and therefore, that the same, beingpurged from all Popish superstition anderror, and reduced to its primary institution,upon those rules of doctrine concerningthings indifferent which are consonantto the word of God and to the judgmentsof all the ancient fathers, ought to be retainedin the Church, considering thatthings of themselves indifferent do, in somesort, alter their natures when they becomeenjoined or prohibited by lawful authority.

The following is Dr. Comber’s analysis ofour baptismal office:—The first part of theoffice, or the preparation before baptism,concerns either the child or the sureties.As to the child, we first inquire if it wantbaptism; secondly, show the necessity ofit in an exhortation; thirdly, we pray itmay be fitted for it in the two collects.First, the priest asks if this child have beenalready 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 beginsthe exhortation, showing, 1. what reasonthere is to baptize this child, namely, becauseof its being born in original sin,(Psalm li. 5,) and by consequence liableto condemnation (Rom. v. 12); the onlyway to free it from which is baptizing itwith water and the Holy Ghost. (Johniii. 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 asto make it a lively member of Christ’sChurch, whereby it may have a title to“remission of sins.” Thirdly, the two collectsfollow, made by the priest and all thepeople for the child: the first collect commemorateshow God did typify this salvation,which he now gives by baptism, insaving Noah and all his by water (1 Pet.iii. 21); and by carrying the Israelitessafe through the Red Sea. (1 Cor. x. 2.)And it declares also how Christ himself,by being baptized, sanctified water for remissionof sin: and upon these grounds wepray that God will by his Spirit cleanseand sanctify this child, that he may bedelivered from his wrath, saved in the arkof his Church, and so filled with grace asto live holily here, and happily hereafter.The second collect, after owning God’spower to help this child, and to raise himfrom the death of sin to the life of righteousness,doth petition him to grant it mayreceive remission and regeneration, pleadingwith God to grant this request, by hispromise to give to them that ask, that sothis infant may be spiritually cleansed byGod’s grace in its baptism, and come atlast to his eternal kingdom, through Christour Lord. Amen.

The next part of the preparation concernsthe godfathers or sureties, who are,1. encouraged in the gospel and its application,with the thanksgiving; 2. instructedin the preface before the covenant;3. engaged in the questions andanswers. The Jews had sureties at circumcision,who promised for the child tillit came to age (Isaiah viii. 2); and theprimitive Christians had sponsors to engagefor such as were baptized, and since childrencannot make a covenant themselves,it is charity to appoint (as the laws of mendo) others to do it for them till they be ofage; and this gives security to the Church,the child shall not be an apostate; providesa monitor both for the child and its parents,to mind them of this vow, and keep thememory of this new birth, by giving thechild new and spiritual relations of godfathersand godmothers. Now to these the90priest next addresseth, 1. in the Gospel (Markx. 13–16); which shows how the Jews,believing that Christ’s blessing would bevery beneficial to young children, broughtthem to him in their arms, and when thedisciples checked them, Christ first declaresthat infants, and such as were likethem, had the only right to the kingdomof heaven, and therefore they had goodright to his love and his blessing, and toall means which might bring them to it,and accordingly he took them in his armsand blessed them. After this follows theexplication, and applying this gospel to thesureties; for if they doubt, here they maysee Christ’s love to infants, and theirright to heaven and to this means, so thatthey may firmly believe he will pardon andsanctify this child, and grant it a title tohis kingdom; and that he is well pleasedwith them, for bringing this child to hisholy baptism; for he desires this infant, aswell as we all, may come to know andbelieve in him. Wherefore, thirdly, hereis a thanksgiving to be offered up by all,beginning with praising God for callingus into his Church, where we may knowhim and obtain the grace to believe, itbeing very proper for us to bless God forour being Christians, when a new Christianis to be made; and then follows aprayer, that we who are Christians maygrow in grace, and that this infant mayreceive the Spirit in order to its regenerationand salvation. After which form ofdevotion, fourthly, there is a preface to thecovenant, wherein the godfathers and godmothersare put in mind, first, what hathbeen done already, namely, they havebrought the child to Christ, and beggedof him in the collects to accept it, andChrist hath showed them in the Gospelthat the child is capable to receive, and hewilling to give it, salvation and the meansthereof, upon the conditions required ofall Christians, that is, repentance, faith,and new obedience. Secondly, therefore,they are required to engage in the nameof this child, till it come of age, that itshall perform these conditions required onits part, that it may have a title to thatwhich Christ doth promise, and will certainlyperform on his part. Fifthly, theengagement itself follows, which is verynecessary, since baptism is a mutual covenantbetween God and man, and therefore,in the beginning of Christianity, (when theChurch consisted chiefly of such as wereconverted from the Jews and Heathens,after they came to age,) the parties baptizedanswered these very same questions,and entered into these very engagements,for themselves; which infants (who needthe benefits of baptism as much as any)not being able to do, the Church lendsthem the feet of others to bring them, andthe tongues of others to promise for them;and the priest stands in God’s stead totake this security in his name; he “demands,”therefore, of the sureties, first, ifthey in the name and stead of this childwill renounce all sinful compliances withthe devil, the world, and the flesh, whichtempt us to all kinds of sin, and so areGod’s enemies, and ours also, in so higha measure, that unless we vow never tofollow and be led by them, we cannot bereceived into league and friendship withGod: to this they reply in the singularnumber, as if the child spake by them, “Irenounce them all.” Secondly, as Philipasked the eunuch if he did believe beforehe baptized him, (Acts viii. 37,) so thepriest asks if they believe all the articlesof the Christian faith, into which religionthey are now to be entered; and thereforethey must engage to hold all the fundamentalprinciples thereof, revealed in Scriptureand comprised in the Apostles’ Creed;and they are to answer, “All this I stedfastlybelieve.” Thirdly, that it may appearto be their own free act to admitthemselves into this holy religion, they areasked if they will be baptized into thisfaith, and they answer, “That is my desire;”for who would not desire to be achild of God, a member of Christ, and anheir of heaven? But since these benefits ofbaptism are promised only to them wholive holily, fourthly, it is demanded if theywill keep God’s holy will and commandmentsas long as they live, since they nowtake Christ for their Lord and Master,and list themselves under his banner, andreceive his grace in this sacrament, to renewand strengthen them to keep thisvow? Upon these accounts they promise“they will” keep God’s commandments.And now the covenant is made betweenGod and this infant, he hath promised itpardon, grace, and glory, and is willing toadopt it for his own child: and this child,by its sureties, hath engaged to forsake allevil ways, to believe all truth, and to practiseall kind of virtue.—Dean Comber.

BAPTISM, REGISTRATION OF.When the minister has baptized the childhe has a further duty to perform, in makingan entry thereof in the parish register,which is a book in which formerly allchristenings, marriages, and burials wererecorded, and the use of which is enforcedboth by the canon law and by the statute.

The keeping of parochial registries of91baptism, and also of burial, are, so far asregards the duties of clergymen in thatrespect, regulated by the statute 52 Geo.III. c. 146, whereby it is enacted that registersof public and private baptisms,marriages, and burials, solemnized accordingto the rites of our Church, shall bemade and kept by the rector or other theofficiating minister of every parish or chapelry,on books of parchment, or durablepaper, to be provided by the king’s printer,at the expense of the parishes; and theparticular form of the book, and of themanner of making the entries, are directedaccording to a form in the schedule tothe act.

The register book is to be deemed theproperty of the parish; the custody of itis to be in the rector or other officiatingminister, by whom it is to be kept in aniron chest provided by the parish, eitherin his own house, if he resides in the parish,or in the church, and the book is to betaken from the chest only for the purposeof making entries, being produced whennecessary in evidence, or for some of thepurposes mentioned in the act.

The act 6 & 7 W. IV., called the GeneralRegistration Act, provides that nothingtherein contained shall affect theregistration of baptisms or burials, as nowby law established; so that whatever anyparishioner, incumbent, or curate had respectivelya right to insist upon, with regardto the regulation of baptisms, may beequally insisted upon by either party now.There are, however, enactments of 6 & 7W. IV. c. 86, which are to be observed inaddition to those of 52 Geo. III. c. 146.

If any child born in England, whosebirth shall have been registered accordingto the provisions of 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 86,shall, within six calendar months after ithas been so registered, have any namegiven to it in baptism, the parents or personsso procuring such name to be givenmay, within seven days afterwards, procureand deliver to the registrar a certificateaccording to a prescribed form, signed bythe minister who shall have performed therite of baptism, which certificate the ministeris required to deliver immediatelyafter the baptism, whenever it shall thenbe demanded, on payment of the fee of 1s.,which he shall be entitled to receive forthe same; and the registrar, or superintendantregistrar, upon the receipt of thatcertificate, and upon payment of a fee of1s., shall, without any erasure of the originalentry, forthwith register that thechild was baptized by such a name; andsuch registrar, or superintendant registrar,shall thereupon certify upon the certificatethe additional entry so made, and forthwithsend the certificate through the postto the registrar-general. Every rector,&c., and every registrar, &c., who shallhave the keeping for the time being of anyregister book, shall, at all reasonabletimes, allow searches to be made, and shallgive a copy certified under his hand ofany entry or entries in the same, upon paymentof a fee of 1s., for every search extendingover a period of not more thanone year, and 6d. additional for everyhalf year, and 2s. 6d. for every single certificate.

BAPTISTERY. Properly a separate,or special, building for the administrationof holy baptism. In this sense, a baptistery,originally intended and used for thepurpose, does not occur in England; forthat which is called the baptistery at Canterbury,and contains the font, was neverso called, or so furnished, till the last century.The remains of an ancient baptisterychapel have lately been discovered in Elycathedral; and the chapel is now in thecourse of restoration.

One of the most ancient baptisteries nowexisting is that of St. John Lateran atRome, erected by Constantine. It is a detachedbuilding, and octagonal. In thecentre is a large font of green basalt, intowhich the persons to be baptized descendedby the four steps which still remain. Ithas two side chapels or exedræ. (SeeEustace, Classical Tour in Italy.)

Detached baptisteries still exist in manycities in Italy: the most famous are thoseat Florence and Pisa. These served forthe whole city; anciently no town churchesbut the cathedral church having fonts.(See Bingham, book viii. ch. 7, § 6.)

Sometimes the canopy to the font growsto so great amplitude as to be supportedby its own pillars, and to receive personswithin it at the baptismal service, and thenit may be called a baptistery. This is thecase at Trunch and at Aylsham, both inNorfolk. (See Font.)

BAPTISTS. A name improperly assumedby those who deny the validity ofinfant baptism, defer the baptism of theirown children, and admit proselytes intotheir community by a second washing.They are more properly called Anabaptists,(see Anabaptists,) from their baptizingagain; or Antipædobaptists, from theirdenying the validity of infant baptism.Their assumed name of Baptists would intimatethat they alone truly baptize, andit ought not therefore to be allowed them.We ought no more to call them Baptists,92than to call Socinians Unitarians, or PapistsCatholics, as if we did not hold the Unityof the Godhead, and Socinians were distinguishedfrom us by that article; or asif the Papists, and not we, were catholicor true Christians.

The following is the account of the denominationgiven by Burder. The membersof this denomination are distinguishedfrom all other professing Christians bytheir opinions respecting the ordinance ofChristian baptism. Conceiving that positiveinstitutions cannot be established byanalogical reasoning, but depend on thewill of the Saviour revealed in expressprecepts, and that apostolical example illustrativeof this is the rule of duty, theydiffer from their Christian brethren withregard both to the subjects and the modeof baptism.

With respect to the subjects, from thecommand which Christ gave after his resurrection,and in which baptism is mentionedas consequent to faith in the gospel,they conceive them to be those, and thoseonly, who believe what the apostles werethen enjoined to preach.

With respect to the mode, they affirmthat, instead of sprinkling or pouring, theperson ought to be immersed in the water,referring to the primitive practice, and observingthat the baptizer as well as thebaptized having gone down into the water,the latter is baptized in it, and both comeup out of it. They say, that John baptizedin the Jordan, and that Jesus, after beingbaptized, came up out of it. Believers aresaid also to be “buried with Christ bybaptism into death, wherein also they arerisen with him;” and the Baptists insistthat this is a doctrinal allusion incompatiblewith any other mode.

But they say that their views of thisinstitution are much more confirmed, andmay be better understood, by studying itsnature and import. They consider it asan impressive emblem of that by whichtheir sins are remitted or washed away,and of that on account of which the HolySpirit is given to those who obey the Messiah.In other words, they view Christianbaptism as a figurative representation ofthat which the gospel of Jesus is in testimony.To this the mind of the baptizedis therefore naturally led, while spectatorsare to consider him as professing his faithin the gospel, and his subjection to theRedeemer. The Baptists, therefore, wouldsay, that none ought to be baptized exceptthose who seem to believe this gospel; andthat immersion is not properly a mode ofbaptism, but baptism itself.

Thus the English and most foreign Baptistsconsider a personal profession of faith,and an immersion in water, as essential tobaptism. The profession of faith is generallymade before the congregation, at achurch-meeting. On these occasions somehave a creed, to which they expect thecandidate to assent, and to give a circumstantialaccount of his conversion; butothers require only a profession of his faithas a Christian. The former generally considerbaptism as an ordinance, which initiatespersons into a particular church;and they say that, without breach of Christianliberty, they have a right to expect anagreement in articles of faith in their ownsocieties. The latter think that baptisminitiates merely into a profession of theChristian religion, and therefore say thatthey have no right to require an assent totheir creed from such as do not intend tojoin their communion; and, in support oftheir opinion, they quote the baptism ofthe eunuch, in the eighth chapter of theActs of the Apostles.

The Baptists are divided into the General,who are Arminians, and the Particular,who are Calvinists. Some of both classesallow mixed communion, by which is understood,that those who have not beenbaptized by immersion on the professionof their faith, (but in their infancy, whichthey themselves deem valid,) may sit downat the Lord’s table along with those whohave been thus baptized. This has givenrise to much controversy on the subject.

Some of both classes of Baptists are, atthe same time, Sabbatarians, and, with theJews, observe the seventh day of the weekas the sabbath. This has been adopted bythem from a persuasion that, all the tencommandments are in their nature strictlymoral, and that the observance of theseventh day was never abrogated or repealedby our Saviour or his apostles.

In discipline, the Baptists differ littlefrom the Independents. In Scotland theyhave some peculiarities, not necessary tonotice.

BARDESANISTS. Christian hereticsin the East, and the followers of Bardesanes,who lived in Mesopotamia in thesecond century, and was first the discipleof Valentinus, but quitted that heresy, andwrote not only against it, but against theMarcionite and other heresies of his time;he afterwards unhappily fell into the errorshe had before refuted. The Bardesanistsdiffered from the Catholic Church on threepoints:—1. They held the devil to be aself-existent, independent being. 2. Theytaught that our Lord was not born of a93woman, but brought his body with himfrom heaven. 3. They denied the resurrectionof the body.—Euseb. Præp. Evang.lib. vi. c. 9. Epiph. Hæres. 5, 6. Origen,contr. Marcion, § 3.

BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF. TheEpistle of St. Barnabas is published byArchbishop Wake, among his translationsof the works of the Apostolical Fathers;and in the preliminary dissertation thereader will find the arguments which areadduced to prove this to be the work ofSt. Barnabas. By others it is referred tothe second century, and is supposed to bethe work of a converted Alexandrian Jew.Du Pin speaks of it as a work full of edificationfor the Church, though not canonical.By Clemens Alexandrinus andOrigen, by Eusebius and St. Jerome, thework is attributed to St. Barnabas, thoughthey declare that it ought not to be esteemedof the same authority as the canonicalbooks, “because, although it really belongsto St. Barnabas, yet it is not generallyreceived by the whole Catholic Church.”—Wake.Du Pin.

BARNABAS’ DAY (ST.). 11th ofJune. This apostle was born in the islandof Cyprus, and was descended from parentsof the house of Levi. He became a studentof the Jewish law, under Gamaliel, whowas also the instructor of St. Paul. St.Barnabas was one of those who freelygave up his worldly goods into the commonstock, which was voluntarily formedby the earliest converts to Christianity.After the conversion of St. Paul, St. Barnabashad the distinguished honour ofintroducing him into the society of theapostles; and was afterwards his fellow-labourerin many places, especially at Antioch,where the name of Christian wasfirst assumed by the followers of Jesus.It has been said that St. Barnabas foundedthe Church of Milan, and that he wasstoned to death at Salamis, in Cyprus;but these accounts are very uncertain.For the Epistle ascribed to him, see thepreceding article.

BARNABITES. Called canons regularof St. Paul: an order of Romish monksapproved by Pope Clement VII. and PopePaul III. There have been several learnedmen of the order, and they have severalmonasteries in France, Italy, and Savoy:they call them by the name of canons ofSt. Paul, because their first founders hadtheir denomination from their reading St.Paul’s Epistles; and they are named Barnabitesfor their particular devotion for St.Barnabas.—Du Pin.

BARSANIANS, or SEMIDULITES.Heretics that began to appear in the sixthage; they maintained the errors of theGradanaites, and made their sacrificesconsist in taking wheat flour on the topof their finger, and carrying it to theirmouths.

BARTHOLOMEW’S DAY (ST.).24th of August. The day appointed forthe commemoration of this apostle. In thecatalogue of the apostles, which is givenby the first three of the evangelists, Bartholomewmakes one of the number. St.John, however, not mentioning him, andrecording several things of another disciple,whom he calls Nathanael, and who isnot named by the other evangelists, thishas occasioned many to be of the opinionthat Bartholomew and Nathanael were thesame person. St. Bartholomew is said tohave preached the gospel in the GreaterArmenia, and to have converted the Lycaoniansto Christianity. It is also believedthat he carried the gospel into India: andas there is no record of his return, it isnot improbable that he suffered martyrdomin that country.

St. Bartholomew’s day is distinguishedin history on account of that horrid andatrocious carnage, called the Parisian Massacre.This shocking scene of religiousphrensy was marked with such barbarityas would exceed all belief, if it were notattested by authentic evidence. In 1572,in the reign of Charles IX., numbers ofthe principal Protestants were invited toParis, under a solemn oath of safety, tocelebrate the marriage of the king of Navarrewith the sister of the French king.The queen dowager of Navarre, a zealousProtestant, was poisoned by a pair of glovesbefore the marriage was solemnized. On the24th of August, being St. Bartholomew’sday, about morning twilight, the massacrecommenced on the tolling of a bell of thechurch of St. Germain l’Auxerrois. TheAdmiral Coligni was basely murdered inhis own house, and then thrown out of awindow, to gratify the malice of the Dukeof Guise. His head was afterwards cutoff, and sent to the king and the queenmother; and his body, after a thousandindignities offered to it, was hung up bythe feet upon a gibbet. The murderersthen ravaged the whole city of Paris, andput to death more than ten thousand personsof all ranks. “This,” says Thuanus,“was a horrible scene. The very streetsand passages resounded with the groans ofthe dying, and of those who were about tobe murdered. The bodies of the slain werethrown out of the windows, and with themthe courts and chambers of the houses94were filled. The dead bodies of otherswere dragged through the streets, and theblood flowed down the channels in suchtorrents, that it seemed to empty itself intothe neighbouring river. In short, an innumerablemultitude of men, women withchild, maidens, and children, were involvedin one common destruction; and all thegates and entrances to the king’s palacewere besmeared with blood. From Paris,the massacre spread throughout the kingdom.In the city of Meaux, the Papiststhrew into gaol more than two hundredpersons; and after they had ravished andkilled a great number of women, andplundered the houses of the Protestants,they executed their fury on those whomthey had imprisoned, whom they killed incold blood, and whose bodies were throwninto ditches, and into the river Maine.At Orleans they murdered more than fivehundred men, women, and children, andenriched themselves with the plunder oftheir property. Similar cruelties wereexercised at Angers, Troyes, Bourges,La Charité, and especially at Lyons, wherethey inhumanly destroyed more than eighthundred Protestants, whose bodies weredragged through the streets and thrownhalf dead into the river. It would beendless to mention the butcheries committedat Valence, Roanne, Rouen, &c.It is asserted that, on this dreadful occasion,more than thirty thousand personswere put to death. This atrocious massacremet with the deliberate approbationof the pope and the authorities ofthe Romish Church, and must convinceevery thinking man that resistance toPopish aggression is a work of Christiancharity.

BARUCH (THE PROPHECY OF).One of the apocryphal books, subjoinedto the canon of the Old Testament. Baruchwas the son of Neriah, who was thedisciple and amanuensis of the prophetJeremiah. It has been reckoned part ofJeremiah’s prophecy, and is often cited bythe ancient fathers as such. Josephustells us, Baruch was descended of a noblefamily; 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. deTestimon. ad Quirinum, lib. ii.

The subject of it is an epistle sent, orfeigned to be sent, by king Jehoiakim,and the Jews in captivity with him atBabylon, to their brethren the Jews, whowere left behind in the land of Judea, andin Jerusalem: there is prefixed an historicalPreface, (Pref. to the Book of Baruch,)which relates, that Baruch, being then atBabylon, did, by the appointment of theking and the Jews, and in their name,draw up this epistle, and afterwards readit to them for their approbation; afterwhich it was sent to Jerusalem, with acollection of money, to Joachim the highpriest, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum,and to the priests, and to all the people,to buy therewith burnt-offerings, andsin-offerings, and incense, &c.

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

The Jews rejected this book, because itdid not appear to have been written inHebrew; nor is it in the catalogue of sacredbooks, given us by Origen, Hilary,Ruffinus, and others. But in the Councilof Laodicea, in St. Cyril, Epiphanius, andAthanasius, it is joined with the prophecyof Jeremiah.

BASILIAN MONKS. Monks of theorder of St. Basil, who lived in the fourthcentury. St. Basil, having retired into adesert in the province of Pontus, foundeda monastery for the convenience of himselfand his numerous followers; and for thebetter regulation of this new society, it issaid that he drew up in writing certainrules which he wished them to observe,though some think that he did not composethese rules. This new order soon spreadover all the East, and after some timepassed into the West. Some authors pretendthat St. Basil saw himself the spiritualfather of more than 90,000 monks in theEast only; but this order, which flourishedduring more than three centuries, was considerablydiminished by heresy, schism, anda change of empire. They also say, that ithas produced 14 popes, 1805 bishops, 3010abbots, and 11,085 martyrs. This orderalso boasts of several emperors, kings, andprinces, who have embraced its rule.—Tillemont,Hist. Eccles., tom. ix. The orderof St. Basil prevails almost exclusively inthe orthodox Greek Churches.

BASILICA. The halls of justice and ofother public business among the Romanswere thus called; and many of them, whenconverted into Christian churches, retainedthe same name. The general ground-planof the basilica was also frequently retainedin the erection of a church. The basilicasterminated with a conchoidal recess, orapsis, (see Apse,) where the prætor andmagistrates sat: beneath this was a transverse95hall or gallery, the origin of thetransept, and below was the great hall withits side passages, afterwards called the naveand aisles.

The bishop of Rome had seven cathedralscalled Basilicæ. Six of these wereerected or converted into churches byConstantine, viz. St. John Lateran, (theregular cathedral of Rome,) the ancientchurch of St. Peter, on the Vatican Hill,St. Sebastian, St. Laurence, the HolyCross, St. Mary the Greater; and one byTheodosius, viz. St. Paul. There areother very ancient churches in Rome,basilicas in form and name, but not cathedrals;for example, St. Clement’s church,supposed to have been originally thehouse of the apostolical bishop of thatname, and the most ancient existing churchin the world. Several Italian churchesare called Basilicas; at Milan especially;often more than one in a city. (See Cathedrals.)—Jebb.

It is sometimes said, but without anycertain foundation, that some of thechurches in England with circular apsidalterminations of the chancel, (such as Kilpeckand Steetly,) were originally Romanbasilicas. They rather derive their formfrom the Oriental country churches, whichare uniformly apsidal. The most that canbe said of them is, that they do, in somerespects, resemble the basilicas in arrangement.But as to the cathedrals ofEngland, the case is different: and sinceold Saxon or Norman churches were unquestionablydebasements of the Romanstyle in their architectural features, it ispossible that they derived from Romethe characteristics uniformly observed inthe old basilicas. The conversion of theapses into sepulchral chapels for shrines,as at Westminster and Canterbury, as superstitionincreased, destroyed the ancientarrangements.—Jebb.

BASILIDIANS. A sect of the Gnosticheretics, the followers of Basilides, whotaught that from the Unborn Father wasborn his Mind, and from him the Word,from him Understanding (φρόνησις), fromhim Wisdom and Power, and from themExcellencies, and Princes, and Angels,who made a heaven. He then introduceda successive series of angelic beings, eachset derived from the preceding one, to thenumber of 365, and each the author oftheir own peculiar heaven. To all theseangels and heavens he gave names, andassigned the local situations of the heavens.The first of them is called Abraxas, amystical name, containing in it the number365: the last and lowest is the one whichwe see; the creators of which made thisworld, and divided its parts and nationsamongst them. In this division the Jewishnation came to the share of the princeof the angels; and as he wished to bringall other nations into subjection to hisfavourite nation, the other angelic princesand their nations resisted him and hisnation. The Supreme Father, seeingthis state of things, sent his first-begottenMind, who is also called Christ, to deliverthose who should believe in him from thepower of the creators. He accordinglyappeared to mankind as a man, and wroughtmighty deeds. He did not, however, reallysuffer, but changed forms with Simon ofCyrene, and stood by laughing, whileSimon suffered; and afterwards, beinghimself incorporeal, ascended into heaven.Building upon this transformation, Basilidestaught his disciples that they mightat all times deny him that was crucified,and that they alone who did so understoodthe providential dealings of the MostHigh, and by that knowledge were freedfrom the power of the angels, whilst thosewho confessed him remained under theirpower. Like Saturninus, however, but inother words, he asserted that the soul alonewas capable of salvation, but the bodynecessarily 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 couldpass through and see them, without beingseen in return; that they ought likewiseto keep themselves individually and personallyunknown to common men, and evento deny that they are what they are; thatthey should assert themselves to be neitherJews nor Christians, and by no means revealtheir mysteries.—Epiph. Hæres. xxiv.c. 1. Cave, Hist. Liter. Sæc. Gnosticum.

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

It is clear from this expression, “otherdevotions,” that our reformers did not intendto interfere with the ancient destinationof alms in the holy communion; butthat they intended that all our gifts,whether for the relief of the poor—to whichindeed the Church assigns the first place—orfor any other good purpose, shouldbe made as an offering to God; the worddevotions signifying an act of giving up and96dedicating to Almighty God, and accompaniedwith prayer. In Exeter cathedral,and others as we believe, the alms are stillapportioned to these three purposes,—reliefof the poor, support of the fabric of thechurch, and of the clergy. To this latteruse in the early Church they were almostexclusively devoted, the clergy being thechief almoners for the poor, as the Churchby her rightful office now is. It is oftenobjected to giving largely in the Offertorythat there are now poor laws; but surelythe laws of the state should not cramp thefree-will offerings of Christ’s people. Isit too much to make the Church the stewardof our offerings for the cause of Christ?It were much to be wished that all giftswere again made through this quiet andauthorized channel. It is quite within theprovince of the donor to specify the objecton which he wishes the gift to be expended,and the clergy will gladly aid the peoplein obedience to their holy mother theChurch.

BATH-KOL, or BATH-COL, signifiesDaughter of the Voice. It is a name bywhich the Jewish writers distinguish whatthey call a revelation from God, afterverbal prophecy had ceased in Israel, thatis, after the prophets Haggai, Zechariah,and Malachi. The generality of theirtraditions and customs are founded onthis Bath-Kol. They pretend, that Godrevealed them to their elders, not by prophecy,but by secret inspiration, or tradition:and this they call the Daughter ofthe Voice. The Bath-Kol, as Dr. Prideauxshows, was a fantastical way of divination,invented by the Jews, like theSortes Virgilianæ among the heathens.With the heathen, the words dipt at, inopening the works of Virgil, were theoracle by which they prognosticated thosefuture events of which they desired to beinformed. In like manner by the Jews,when they appealed to Bath-Kol, the nextwords which they heard were consideredas the desired oracle. Some Christians,when Christianity began to be corrupted,used the Scriptures in the same manneras the heathens employed the works ofVirgil.

BATTLE, or more properly BATTEL,Wager of. One of the forms of ordeal, orappeal to the judgment of God in the oldNorman courts of this kingdom. (See Ordeal.)In cases of murder, and some others,when the evidence against the accused didnot amount to positive proof, he was allowedto assert his innocence by this appeal. Ifa prosecutor appeared, before he could putin his charge, it was necessary, in cases ofmurder, that he should prove himself tobe of the blood of the deceased. In cases ofhomicide, that he was allied to the slain asa relation, or vassal, or lord, and couldspeak of the death on the testimony of hisown senses. The accused might then pleadnot guilty, and, at his option, throw downhis glove, and declare his readiness to defendhis innocence with his body. If theappellant took up the glove, and professedhimself willing to prove the charge in thesame manner, the judges, unless the guiltor innocence of the accused were evident,proceeded to award a trial by battle. Theappellee, with the book of the Gospels inhis right hand, and the right hand of hisadversary in his left, took the followingoath: “Hear me, thou whom I hold by theright hand, I am not guilty of the felonywith which thou hast charged me. So helpme God and His saints. And this will Idefend with my body against thee, as thiscourt shall award.” Then exchanginghands, and taking the book, the appellantswore, “Hear me, thou whom I hold bythe hand. Thou art perjured, becausethou art guilty. So help me God and Hissaints. And this will I prove against theewith my body, as this court shall award.”On the day appointed by the court, the twocombatants were led to battle. Each hadhis head, arms, and legs bare, was protectedby a square target of leather, and employedas a weapon a wooden stave one ellin length, and turned at the end. If theappellee was unwilling to fight, or in thecourse of the day was unable to continuethe combat, he was immediately hanged, orcondemned to forfeit his property, and losehis members. If he slew the appellant, orforced him to call out “Craven,” or protractedthe fight till the stars appeared inthe evening, he was acquitted. Nor did hisrecreant adversary escape punishment. Ifhe survived the combat, he was fined sixtyshillings, was declared infamous, and striptof all the privileges of a freeman.

In the court of chivalry the proceedingswere different. When the cause could notbe decided on the evidence of witnesses, orthe authority of documents, the constableand mareschal required pledges from thetwo parties, and appointed the time ofbattle, the place, and the weapons,—a longsword, a short sword, and a dagger; butallowed the combatants to provide themselveswith defensive armour according totheir own choice. A spot of dry and evenground, sixty paces in length and forty inbreadth, was enclosed with stakes sevenfeet high, around which were placed theserjeants-at-arms, with other officers, to97keep silence and order among the spectators.The combatants entered at oppositegates; the appellant at the east, thedefendant at the west end of the lists: andeach severally swore that his former allegationsand answers were true; that hehad no weapons but those allotted by thecourt; that he wore no charms about him;and that he placed his whole confidence onGod, on the goodness of his cause, and onhis own prowess. Then taking each otherby the hand, the appellant swore that hewould do his best to slay his adversary, orcompel him to acknowledge his guilt: thedefendant, that he would exert all hispowers to prove his own innocence. Whenthey had been separately conducted to thegates at which they entered, the constable,sitting at the foot of the throne, exclaimedthrice, “Let them go,” adding to the thirdexclamation, “and do their duty.” Thebattle immediately began: if the king interposed,and took the quarrel into his ownhands, the combatants were separated bythe officers with their wands, and then ledby the constable and mareschal to one ofthe gates, through which they were carefulto pass at the same moment, as it wasdeemed a disgrace to be the first to leavethe place of combat. If either party waskilled, or cried “Craven,” he was strippedof his armour on the spot where he lay, wasdragged by horses out of the lists, througha passage opened in one of the angles, andwas immediately hanged or beheaded inpresence of the mareschal.

Trial by battle was used not only inmilitary and criminal cases, but also in onekind of civil action, namely, in writs ofright, which were not to determine the juspossessionis, but the less obvious and moreprofound question of the jus proprietatis.In the simplicity of ancient times, it wasthought not unreasonable that a matter ofsuch difficulty should be left to the decisionof Providence by the wager of battle. Inthis case the battle was waged by champions,because, in civil actions, if any partyto the suit dies, the suit must abate, or end,and therefore no judgment could be given.

The last trial by battle that was wagedin the court of Common Pleas at Westminsterwas in the thirteenth year ofQueen Elizabeth, A. D. 1571, as reportedby Sir James Dyer; and was held in TothillFields “non sine magnâ juris consultorumperturbatione.” There was afterwardsone in the court of Chivalry in 1631,and another in the county palatine ofDurham in 1628.

The Wager of Battle was accounted obsolete,until it was unexpectedly demandedand admitted in 1817, in a case of supposedmurder; and it has since been abolishedby act of parliament, 59 George III. c. 46.

BAY. (More anciently Severy.) Onewhole compartment of a building. As thewhole structure consists of a repetition of98bays, the description of one bay comprisesmost of the terms used in architecturalnomenclature. The accompanying blockfigures are purposely composed of discordantparts, to comprise the greater numberof terms.

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.

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.

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.

1.

Arcading (Norman to Decorated.)

2.

Panelling (Perpendicular).

3.

Niche.

4.

Panel.

5.

String.

BEADS, or BEDES. A word of Saxonorigin, which properly signifies prayers;hence Bidding the Bedes meant desiring theprayers of the congregation, and from theforms used for this purpose before theReformation is derived the Bidding ofprayer, prescribed by the English canonsof 1603. (See Bidding Prayer.) Fromdenoting the prayers themselves, the wordcame to mean the little balls used by theRomanists in rehearsing and numberingtheir Ave-marias and Paternosters. (SeeRosary.) A similar practice prevails amongthe dervises and other religious personsthroughout the East, as well Mahometansas Buddhists and other heathens. Theancient form of the Bedes, or BiddingPrayer, is given in the Appendix to Collier’sEccl. Hist. vol. ii. No. 54, whichshows that our present Bidding Prayerwas founded on that model.

BEATIFICATION. (See Canonization.)In the Romish Church, the act by whichthe pope declares a person happy afterdeath. Beatification differs from canonization.In the former the pope does not actas a judge in determining the state of thebeatified, but only grants a privilege tocertain persons to honour him by a particularreligious worship, without incurringthe penalty of superstitious worshippers.In canonization, the pope blasphemouslyspeaks as a judge, and determines, ex cathedrâ,on the state of the canonized. Itis remarkable, that particular orders ofmonks assume to themselves the power ofbeatification.

BEDDERN, BEDERNA. The namestill retained of the vicar’s college atYork, and of the old collegiate buildingat Beverley. Query, whether it may besomewhat the same as Bedehouse, i. e. anhospital?—Jebb.

BEGUINES. A congregation of nuns,founded either by St. Begghe, duchess ofBrabant, in the seventh century, or byLambert le Begue, a priest and native ofLiege, who lived in the twelfth century.99They were established first at Liege, andafterwards at Nivelle, in 1207, or, as somesay, in 1226. From this last settlementsprang the great number of Beguinages,which are spread over all Flanders, andwhich have passed from Flanders intoGermany. In the latter country, some ofthem fell into extravagant errors, and persuadedthemselves that it was possible inthe present life to attain to the highestperfection, even to impeccability, and aclear view of God, and in short, to so eminenta degree of contemplation, that, afterthis, there was no necessity of submittingto the laws of mortal men, civil or ecclesiastical.The Council of Vienne, in 1311,condemned these errors, but permittedthose who continued in the true faith tolive in chastity and penitence, either withor without vows. There still subsist manycommunities of Beguines in Flanders.—Hist.des Ord. Relig. viii. c. i.

BEL AND THE DRAGON (THEHISTORY OF). An apocryphal and uncanonicalbook of Scripture. It was alwaysrejected by the Jewish Church, andis extant neither in the Hebrew nor theChaldee language, nor is there any proofthat it ever was so. St. Jerome gives it nobetter title than “the fable of Bel and theDragon.” It is, however, permitted to beread, as well as the other apocryphalwritings, for the instruction and improvementof manners.

Selden (De Diis Syris, Syntagma ii. cap.17) thinks, this little history ought ratherto be considered as a sacred poem or fiction,than a true account. As to theDragon, he observes, that serpents (dracones)made a part of the hidden mysteriesof the Pagan religion; as appears fromClemens Alexandrinus, Julius Firmicus,Justin Martyr, and others. And Aristotlerelates, that, in Mesopotamia, there wereserpents which would not hurt the nativesof the country, and infested only strangers.Whence it is not improbable that both theMesopotamians themselves and the neighbouringpeople might worship a serpent,the former to avert the evil arising fromthose reptiles, the latter out of a principleof gratitude. But of this there is no clearproof, nor is it certain that the Babyloniansworshipped a dragon or serpent.—Aristot.περὶ θαυμασιων ἀκουσματων.

BELFRY. The place where the bellsare hung; sometimes being a small archplaced on the gable of the church, sometimesa tower or turret. The belfrieswere originally detached from the church,as may be still seen in many places inItaly. Instances of this have been knownin England, as at Chichester, and at Salisbury(the belfry in the latter place wasdestroyed some years ago). The greatcentral towers of our cathedrals and abbeyswere not originally constructed forbells, but for lanterns, to give light to thecentral portion of the church. The bellswere contained in the towers, or turrets, atthe west end, or at the angles of thechurch. Many churches had more thanone bell tower. In Canterbury cathedralthe ring of bells is contained in the south-westerntower; the small bell, or Bell-Hurry,which is rung just before theservice, is placed in the great centraltower.

BELIEVERS (πιστοὶ, or Faithful). Aname given to the baptized in the earlyChurch, as distinguished from the Catechumens.The believer was admitted to allthe rites of Divine worship, and instructedin all the mysteries of the Christian religion.—Bingham.

BELLS. Bells of a small size are veryancient, but larger ones are of a much laterdate. The lower part of the blue robeworn by the Jewish high priest was adornedwith pomegranates and gold bells. Thekings of Persia are said to have had thehem of their robes adorned in like manner.The high priest probably gave noticeto the people, and also desired permissionto enter the sanctuary, by the sound ofthese bells, and by so doing escaped thepunishment of death annexed to an indecentintrusion.

On the origin of church bells, Mr. Whitaker,in his “History of Manchester,” observes,that bells being used, among otherpurposes, by the Romans, to signify thetimes of bathing, were naturally appliedby the Christians of Italy to denote thehours of devotion, and summon the peopleto church.

“Bells,” says Nicholls, “were not in usein the first ages of Christianity. For, beforethe Christians received countenancefrom the civil power, they were called togetherby a messenger, who went about fromhouse to house, some time before the hourthe congregation met. After this theymade use of a sounding plank hanging bya chain, and struck with a hammer. Theprecise time when bells first came in useis not known. Paulinus, bishop of Nola,in Campania, in order to give notice to themost remote inhabitants when prayers began,hung up a large brass vessel, which,when struck upon by a hammer, gave sucha sound as he desired for his purpose.This was about the year 420. Hence thetwo Latin names for a great bell—Nola,100from the town; and Campana, from thecountry where they were first used.”

But, whatever may be the connexion ofbells with the city of Nola, there is noground for referring the first use of themto Paulinus; Bingham pronounces theopinion to be “certainly a vulgar error.”Others say they took the latter of thesenames, not from their being invented inCampania, but because it was there themanner of hanging and balancing them,now in use, was first practised; at leastthat they were hung on the model of a sortof balance invented or used in Campania.

The Greek Christians are usually said tohave been unacquainted with bells till theninth century, when their constructionwas first taught them by a Venetian. Butit is not true that the use of bells wasentirely unknown in the ancient Easternchurches, and that they called the peopleto church, as at present, with wooden mallets,like the clappers or cresselles, usedinstead of bells in many churches of theRomish communion, during the holy week.(See Cresselle.) Leo Allatius, in his Dissertationon the Greek Temples, provesthe contrary from several ancient writers.He says bells first began to be disusedamong them after the taking of Constantinopleby the Turks; who, it seems, prohibitedthem, lest their sound should disturbthe repose of the souls which, accordingto them, wander in the air.

In Britain, bells were used in churchesbefore the conclusion of the seventh century,in the monastic societies of Northumbria,and as early as the sixth, even inthose of Caledonia. And they were thereforeused from the first erection of parishchurches among us. Those of France andEngland appear to have been furnishedwith several bells. In the time of ClothaireII., king of France, A. D. 610, thearmy of that king was frightened fromthe siege of Sens, by ringing the bells ofSt. Stephen’s Church. The second excerptionof Egbert, about A. D. 750, whichis adopted in a French capitulary of 801,commands every priest, at the properhours, to sound the bells of his church,and then to go through the sacred officesto God. And the Council of Eanham,in 1009, requires all the mulcts for sinsto be expended in the reparation of thechurch, clothing and feeding the ministersof God, and the purchase of churchvestments, church books, and church bells.These were sometimes composed of ironin France; and in England, as formerlyat Rome, were frequently made of brass;and, as early as the ninth century, therewere many cast of a large size and deepnote. Ingulphus mentions, that Turketulus,abbot of Croyland, who died aboutA. D. 870, gave a great bell to the churchof that abbey, which he named Guthlac;and afterwards six others, viz. two whichhe called Bartholomew and Betelin, twocalled Turkettul and Tatwin, and twonamed Pega and Bega, all which rang together;the same author says, “Non erattunc tanta consonantia campanarum intotâ Angliâ.” Not long after, Kinsius,archbishop of York, (1051–1061,) gavetwo great bells to the church of St. John,at Beverley, and at the same time providedthat other churches in his dioceseshould be furnished with bells. Mentionis made by St. Aldhelm, and William ofMalmesbury, of bells given by St. Dunstanto churches in the West. The numberof bells in every church gave occasionto a curious and singular piece of architecturein the campanile or bell tower: anaddition which is more susceptible of thegrander beauties of architecture than anyother part of the edifice. It was the constantappendage to every parish church ofthe Saxons, and is actually mentioned assuch in the laws of Athelstan.

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

Before bells were hung, they were formerly,and in the Romish communion theystill are, washed, crossed, blessed, anointedwith chrism, and named by the bishop.This ceremony was commonly styled baptizingthem. (See Martène de Antiq. Eccl.Ritibus, ii. 296.) Some say that it wasintroduced by Pope John XIII., who occupiedthe pontifical chair from 965 to972, and who first consecrated a bell inthe Lateran church, and gave it the nameof John the Baptist. But it is evidentlyof an older standing, there being an expressprohibition of the practice in a capitularof Charlemagne in 789—ut clocæ non baptizentur.

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

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

Canon 81. The churchwardens or questmen,and their assistants, shall not sufferthe bells to be rung superstitiously, uponholy days or eves abrogated by the Book ofCommon Prayer, nor at any other times,101without good cause to be allowed by theminister of the place, and by themselves.

Canon 111. The churchwardens shallpresent all persons, who by untimely ringingof bells do hinder the minister orpreacher.

Canon 15. Upon Wednesdays and Fridaysweekly, the minister at the accustomedhour of service shall resort to thechurch or chapel, and warning being givento the people by tolling of a bell, shall saythe litany.

Canon 67. When any is passing out ofthis life, a bell shall be tolled, and theminister shall not then slack to do his lastduty. And after the party’s death, (if itso fall out,) there shall be rung no morebut one short peal, and one other beforethe burial, and one other after the burial.

Rubric concerning the service of thechurch. “And the curate that ministerethin every parish church or chapel, beingat home, and not being otherwise reasonablyhindered, shall say the same in theparish church or chapel when he ministereth,and shall cause a bell to be tolledthereunto a convenient time before he begin,that the people may come to hearGod’s word, and to pray with him.”

Although the churchwardens may concurin directing the ringing or tolling of thebells on certain public and private occasions,the incumbent may prevent thechurchwardens from ringing or tollingthem at undue hours, or without justcause. Proceedings may be instituted inthe ecclesiastical court against churchwardenswho have violently and illegally persistedin ringing the bells without consentof the incumbents.

Bells were used in Ireland at a veryearly period. Harris, in his edition ofWare, (vol. ii. p. 129,) quotes Bede as anauthority for the use of bells in the sixthcentury, and observes on Molyneux’s opinionthat the popular name of the roundtower in Ireland was derived from a Germanico-Saxonword, signifying a bell.Mr. Petrie, in his recent laborious essayon the Irish Round Towers, has shownthat these towers, as their name denotes,their form and locality suggest, and traditionteaches, were intended for ecclesiasticalbelfries. And in the same work, aswell as in the documents collected by Irishantiquarians, it is shown that bells wereknown in Ireland as far back as the age ofSt. Patrick. Some of these ancient bellsare still in existence.

Nankin, in China, was anciently famousfor the largeness of its bells; but theirenormous weight having brought downthe tower in which they were hung, thewhole building fell to ruin, and the bellshave ever since been disregarded. One ofthese bells is near 12 English feet high, thediameter 7½ feet, its circumference 23 feet,and the thickness of the metal about theedges 7 inches; its figure almost cylindrical,except for a swelling in the middle.From these dimensions its weight is computedat 50,000 lbs.

In the churches of Russia the bells arenumerous, and distinguished by their immensesize; they are hung, particularly atMoscow, in belfries or steeples detachedfrom the churches, with gilt or silveredcupolas, 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 hasalways been esteemed a meritorious act ofreligion to present a church with bells, andthe piety of the donor has been estimatedby their magnitude. The emperor BodisGodunof gave a bell of 288,000 lbs. to thecathedral of Moscow, but he was surpassedby the empress Anne, (or, as Dr. Clarkeand others say, Alexis, in 1653,) at whoseexpense a bell was cast, weighing no lessthan 443,772 lbs., which exceeds in sizeevery bell in the known world. Its heightis 21 feet, the circumference at the bottom67 feet 4 inches, and its greatest thickness23 inches. The beam to which this vastmachine was fastened being accidentallyburnt by a fire in 1737, the bell fell down,and a fragment was broken off towardsthe bottom, which left an aperture largeenough to admit two persons abreast withoutstooping.

In the Russian Divine service the numberof strokes on the bell announces whatpart of it is beginning. Several blowsare struck before the mass; three beforethe commencement of the liturgy; and,in the middle of it, a few strokes apprizethe people without, that the hymn to theholy Virgin is about to be sung, when allwork is immediately suspended, they bowand cross themselves, repeating silentlythe verse then singing in the church.—Overall.For some curious directions asto the chiming of the bells in ancient timesin Lichfield cathedral, see Dugd. Monast.ed. 1830, vi. 1256.—Jebb.

BELL, BOOK, AND CANDLE. Betweenthe seventh and the tenth century,the sentence of excommunication was attendedwith great solemnities. The mostimportant was the extinction of lamps orcandles by throwing them on the ground,102with an imprecation, that those againstwhom the curse was pronounced mightbe extinguished or destroyed by the vengeanceof God. The people were summonedto attend this ceremony by thesound of a bell, and the curses accompanyingthe ceremony were pronounced out ofa book by the minister, standing in a balcony.Hence originated the phrase ofcursing by bell, book, and candle.

BEMA. The name of the bishop’s thronein the primitive church, or, as some understandit, the whole of the upper end of thechurch, containing the altar and the apsis.This seat or throne, together with those ofthe presbyters, was always fixed at theupper end of the chancel, in a semicirclebeyond the altar. For anciently, the seatsof the bishops and presbyters were joinedtogether, and both were called thrones.The manner of their sitting is related byGregory Nazianzen in his description ofthe church of Anastasia, where he speaksof himself as bishop, sitting upon the highthrone, and the presbyters on lower bencheson each side of him.—Bingham. (SeeApsis and Cathedral.)

BENEDICITE. A canticle used atMorning Prayer, after the first lesson.This canticle is so called because, in theLatin version, it so begins. It is called“The Song of the Three Children,” becauseHananiah, Mishael, and Azariah(whom the prince of the eunuchs namedShadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, Dan.i. 7) are reported to have sung it inthe burning fiery furnace, into which theywere cast by order of Nebuchadnezzar foradhering stedfastly to their God, (Dan. iii.19,) &c., and in which God preservedthem in a miraculous manner (ver. 27).—Dr.Bennet.

This and the Te Deum are the onlyhymns used in our service that are ofman’s composing. Our Church being careful,even beyond all the ancient Churches,in singing to God, to sing in the words ofGod.—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 suggestedby Holy Scripture, are human compilations.And the metrical Veni Creatoris also of man’s composing. The Benedicitewas prescribed to be used in Lent,by King Edward VI.’s First Book.—Jebb.

BENEDICTINES. An order of monkswho profess to follow the rules of St. Benedict.The Benedictines, being those onlythat are properly called monks, wear aloose black gown, with large white sleeves,and a capuche, or cowl, on their heads,ending in a point behind. In the canonlaw they are styled black friars, from thecolour of their habit. The rules of St.Benedict, as observed by the Englishmonks before the dissolution of the monasteries,were as follows: they were obligedto perform their devotions seven times intwenty-four hours, the whole circle of whichdevotions had respect to the passion anddeath of Christ: they were obliged alwaysto go two and two together: every day inLent they were obliged to fast till six inthe evening; and abated of their usualtime of sleeping and eating; but they werenot allowed to practise any voluntaryausterity without leave of their superior:they never conversed in their refectory atmeals, but were obliged to attend to thereading of the Scriptures: they all slept inthe same dormitory, but not two in a bed:they lay in their clothes: for small faultsthey were shut out from meals: for greaterthey were debarred religious commerce,and excluded from the chapel: incorrigibleoffenders were excluded from the monasteries.Every monk had two coats, twocowls, a table book, a knife, a needle, anda handkerchief; and the furniture of hisbed was a mat, a blanket, a rug, and apillow.

The time when this order came intoEngland is well known, for in 596 Gregorythe Great sent hither Augustine, prior ofthe monastery of St. Andrew at Rome,with several other Benedictine monks. Augustinebecame archbishop of Canterbury;and the Benedictines founded several monasteriesin England, as also the metropolitanchurch of Canterbury. Pope JohnXXII., who died in 1354, after an exactinquiry, found, that, since the first rise ofthe order, there had been of it twenty-fourpopes, near 200 cardinals, 7000 archbishops,15,000 bishops, 15,000 abbots of renown,above 4000 saints, and upwards of 37,000monasteries. There have been likewiseof this order twenty emperors and ten empresses,forty-seven kings, and above fiftyqueens, twenty sons of emperors, and forty-eightsons of kings, about one hundredprincesses, daughters of kings and emperors,besides dukes, marquises, earls, countesses,&c., innumerable. This order hasproduced a vast number of eminent authorsand other learned men. Rabanus set upthe school of Germany. Alcuinus foundedthe university of Paris. Dionysius Exiguusperfected the ecclesiastical computation.Guido invented the scale of music,and Sylvester the organ. They boast tohave produced Anselm, Ildephonsus, VenerableBede, &c. There are nuns likewise103who follow the order of St. Benedict:among whom those who call themselvesmitigated, eat flesh three times a week, onSundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays; theothers observe the rule of St. Benedict inits rigour, and eat no flesh unless they aresick. The Benedictines were the most extensiveand powerful order in England.All the cathedral convents, with the exceptionof the Augustinian monastery ofCarlisle, were of this order, as were fourout of the five that were converted intocathedrals by Henry VIII., viz. Gloucester,Oxford, Peterborough, and Chester: andall the mitred abbeys, with the exceptionof Waltham and Cirencester, which wereAugustinian. In Ireland they yielded inimportance and numbers to the Augustinians.They were the great patrons ofchurch architecture and of learning inEngland. The chief branches of the Benedictineorder in England were the Cluniacs,founded by Bernon, abbot of Gigniac,in 913; and the Cistercian, foundedby Robert, abbot of Molême, at Citeaux inBurgundy, in 1098. (See Cluniacs andCistercians.)

BENEDICTION. A solemn act ofblessing performed by the bishops andpriests of the Church. In the JewishChurch, the priests, by the command ofGod, 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 Lordlift up his countenance upon thee, and givethee peace.” In the Church of England,several forms of blessing are used agreeingwith the particular office of which theyform a part. The ordinary benediction atthe close of Divine service, from the endof the Communion office, is in these words:“The peace of God, which passeth all understanding,keep your hearts and mindsin the knowledge and love of God, and ofhis Son Jesus Christ our Lord: andthe blessing of God Almighty, the Father,the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be amongstyou, and remain with you always.” Theformer part of this is taken from Philippiansiv. 7, and the latter may be consideredas a Christian paraphrase of Numbersvi. 24, &c. Other forms of blessing,or modifications of the above, may befound in the offices for Confirmation, Matrimony,and Visitation of the Sick. Thebenediction at the end of the CommunionService must be said by the bishop, if hebe 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; thethird that of the Catechumens; endingwith this salutation, Ave sanctum oleum,“Hail holy oil!” after which the new-madeholy oils are carried in processioninto the sacristy.—Piscara, Praxis Cerem.

In Spain, and some parts of Francebordering upon Spain, the custom of blessingmeats at Easter is still preserved.This is supposed to be done in oppositionto the heresy of the Priscillianists, whichinfected Spain and Guienne: for Priscillianheld, that the devil, and not God, was thecreator of flesh, and that the faithful oughtto reject it as impure and wicked. Thisblessing is scarce ever used, except inthose churches, and near those places,where that heresy formerly prevailed.—Alcet’sRitual.

On Easter eve they perform the ceremonyof blessing the new fire. At theninth hour, the old fire is put out, and atthe same time an Acolyth lights the newfire without the church. The officiatingpriest, with his attendants, walks in processionto the place where the ceremony isto be performed. After repeating a formof prayer, he makes the sign of the crossover the fire. In the mean time the Thuriferaryputs some coals into the thurible,into which the priest throws some frankincense,having first blessed it: then hesprinkles the fire with holy water, saying,Asperges me, Domine, “Thou wilt sprinkleme, O Lord.” This ceremony of the holyfire seems to be borrowed from pagan superstition;for the ancient Romans used torenew the fire of Vesta in the month ofMarch, as Ovid informs us;

The principal use of this holy fire, amongthe Roman Catholics, is to light therewiththe Paschal taper; which likewise receivesits benediction, or blessing, by the priest’sputting five grains of incense, in the formof a cross, into the taper. This blessedtaper must remain on the gospel-side ofthe altar from Easter eve to Ascensionday.—Baudry, Manual. Cerem. Fast. lib.iii. 144. Piscara, Praxis Cerem.

The blessing of baptismal fonts (anotherpiece of Popish superstition) is performed,among other ceremonies, by the priest’sblowing thrice on the water, and in threedifferent places; and afterwards plunginga taper thrice into it, observing to sink it104deeper the second time than the first, andthe third than the second, saying at eachimmersion, Descendat in hanc plenitudinemfontis virtus Spiritus Sancti, i. e. “May theinfluence of the Holy Spirit descend onthis water.”—Piscara, ibid.

On the eve before Christmas, the holyfather blesses a sword, enriched with preciousstones, wrought in the form of adove; with a ducal hat fixed on the pointof it, richly adorned with jewels. (SacraCerem. Eccl. Rom.) This he sends as apresent to some prince, for whom he has aparticular affection, or some great general,who has deserved it by fighting againstthe enemies of the Church. Pope PiusII. sent the hat and sword to Lewis XI.,with four Latin verses engraved on theblade, by which his Holiness exhorted himto destroy the Ottoman empire. The popes,according to Aymon, ground this custom onwhat is said in the Second Book of theMaccabees, c. v., that “Judas the Maccabee,going to fight Nicanor, general of thearmy of Antiochus, saw in a dream thehigh priest Onias praying to God for theJewish people, and the prophet Jeremiahpresenting him with a sword, and sayingthese words; ‘Receive, Judas, this holysword, which is given thee by the Lord, todestroy the enemies of Israel.’”

But one of the most extraordinary benedictionsof this kind is that of bells; inthe performance of which there is a greatdeal of pomp and superstition. (See Bells.)

BENEDICTUS. The Latin for “blessed,”which is the first word in one of thehymns to be said or sung after the secondlesson in the Morning Service of the Church.The Benedictus is taken from Luke i., fromthe 68th to the 72nd verse, being part ofthe song of Zacharias the priest, concerninghis son John the Baptist, who was to bethe forerunner of Christ, but was thenonly in his infancy.

When the gospel was first published tothe world, the angels sang praise; and allholy men, to whom it was revealed, entertainedthese “good tidings” with greatjoy. And since it is our duty also, wheneverwe hear the gospel read, to give gloryto God, therefore the Church appointsthis hymn, which was composed by holyZacharias upon the first notice that Godhad sent a Saviour to mankind, and is oneof the first evangelical hymns indited byGod’s Spirit upon this occasion. Its originaltherefore is Divine, its matter unexceptionable,and its fitness for this placeunquestionable.—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 redemptionof mankind, of which he was to publishthe speedy approach. It copies verynearly the style of the Jewish prophets,who described spiritual blessings by temporalimagery. Thus meaning to praisethe “Father of mercies” (2 Cor. i. 3) fordelivering all nations from the dominionof the wicked one, it “blesses the LordGod of Israel for saving his people fromtheir enemies, and from the hand of thosethat hate them.” Now this kind of languagewas laid aside after our Saviour’sascension; and therefore the prophecybefore us is not of later date, but genuine.Yet it sufficiently explains to what sort of“salvation” it refers, by mentioning “theremission of sins, the giving of light tothem that sat in darkness, and the guidingof their feet into the way of peace.” Andso it may teach us both the fitness and themethod of assigning to the Old Testamentpredictions 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 theBaptist. 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 withsuch transport, we, to whom he shines outin full splendour, ought to recite it withdouble gratitude.—Abp. Secker.

Though the hundredth psalm is almostconstantly used after the second lesson,there seems no good reason why this hymnshould be laid aside. They are both equallyindited by the Holy Spirit, and bothadmirably calculated to assist the devotionand elevate the affections of a Christiancongregation: and the hymn, being placedfirst, seems to have been intended formore general use than the psalm.—Waldo.

The Church hath appointed two songsof praise and thanksgiving to be used,either of them after each lesson, but not soindifferently but that the former practice ofexemplary Churches and reason may guideus in the choice. For the “Te Deum,”“Benedictus,” “Magnificat,” and “NuncDimittis,” being the most expressive jubilationsand rejoicings for the redemptionof the world, may be said more often thanthe rest, especially on Sundays and otherfestivals of our Lord.—Bishop Sparrow.

The Benedictus was used exclusivelyafter the second lesson in the First Book ofKing Edward VI.

BENEFICE. In the ecclesiastical senseof the word, means a church endowed with105a revenue for the performance of Divineservice, or the revenue itself assigned toan ecclesiastical person, by way of stipendfor the service he is to do that church.

As to the origin of the word, we find itas follows, in Alcet’s Ritual: “This wordwas anciently appropriated to the lands,which kings used to bestow on those whohad fought valiantly in the wars; and wasnot used in this particular signification,but during the time that the Goths andLombards reigned in Italy, under whomthose fiefs were introduced, which werepeculiarly termed Benefices, and those whoenjoyed them, Beneficiarii, or vassals. Fornotwithstanding that the Romans also bestowedlands on their captains and soldiers,yet those lands had not the name of Beneficesappropriated to them, but the wordbenefice was a general term, which includedall kinds of gifts or grants, accordingto the ancient signification of the Latinword. In imitation of the new sense, inwhich that word was taken with regard tofiefs, it began to be employed in theChurch, when the temporalities thereofbegan to be divided, and to be given upto particular persons, by taking them outof those of the bishops. This the bishopsthemselves first introduced, purposely toreward merit, and assist such ecclesiasticsas might be in necessity. However, thiswas soon carried to greater lengths, and atlast became unlimited, as has since beenmanifest in the clericate and the monasteries.A benefice therefore is not merelya right of receiving part of the temporalitiesof the Church, for the service a persondoes it; a right, which is foundedupon the gospel, and has always subsistedsince the apostolic age; but it is that ofenjoying a part of the temporalities of theChurch, assigned and determined in aspecial form, so as that no other clergymancan lay any claim or pretension to it.—Andin this age it is not barely theright of enjoying part of the temporalitiesof the Church; but is likewise a fixed andpermanent right, in such a manner that itdevolves on another, after the death of theincumbent; which anciently was otherwise;for, at the rise of benefices, theywere indulged to clergymen only for astated time, or for life; after which theyreverted to the Church.”

It is not easy to determine when theeffects of the Church were first divided.It is certain that, till the 4th century, allthe revenues were in the hands of thebishops, who distributed them by theirŒconomi or stewards; and they consistedchiefly in alms and voluntary contributions.When the Church came to haveinheritances, part of them were assignedfor the maintenance of the clergy, of whichwe find some footsteps in the 5th and 6thcenturies; but the allotment seems notto have been a fixed thing, but to havebeen absolutely discretional, till the 12thcentury.

Benefices are divided by the canonistsinto simple and sacerdotal. The first sortlays no obligation, but to read prayers,sing, &c. Such kind of Beneficiaries arecanons, chaplains, chantors, &c. The secondis charged with the cure of souls,the guidance and direction of consciences,&c. Such are rectories, vicarages, &c.The canonists likewise specify three waysof vacating a benefice; viz. de jure, defacto, and by the sentence of a judge. Abenefice is void de jure, when a personis guilty of crimes, for which he is disqualifiedby law to hold a benefice; suchare heresy, simony, &c. A benefice isvoid both de facto and de jure, by the naturaldeath, or resignation, of the incumbent.Lastly, a benefice is vacated bysentence of the judge, when the incumbentis dispossessed of it by way of punishmentfor immorality, or any crime against thestate.

The Romanists, again, distinguish beneficesinto regular and secular. Regularbenefices are those held by a religious ormonk of any order, abbey, priory, or convent.Secular benefices are those conferredon the secular priests; of which sortare most of their cures.

The Church distinguishes between dignitiesand benefices. The former title isonly applicable to bishoprics, deaneries,archdeaconries, and prebends: the lattercomprehends all ecclesiastical prefermentsunder those degrees; as rectories andvicarages. It is essential to these latter,that they be bestowed freely, reserving nothingto the patron; that they be givenas a provision for the clerk, who is onlyan usu-fructuary, and hath no inheritancein them; and that all contracts concerningthem between patron and incumbentbe, in their own nature, void.

BENEFICIARIES, or BENEFICIATI.The inferior, non-capitular members ofcathedrals, &c., were so called in manyChurches abroad; as possessing a beneficeor endowment in the Church. Theyvery much corresponded to our minorcanons and vicars choral, &c.—Jebb.

BENEFIT OF CLERGY. The privilegiumclericale, or, in common speech, thebenefit of the clergy, had its origin fromthe pious regard paid by Christian princes106to the Church of Christ. The exemptionswhich they granted to the Churchwere principally of two kinds: 1. Exemptionof places consecrated to religiousoffices from criminal arrests, which wasthe foundation of sanctuaries. (See Sanctuary,Asylum.) 2. Exemptions of thepersons of the clergy from criminal processbefore the secular magistrate in a fewparticular cases, which was the true originand meaning of the privilegium clericale.Originally the law was held that no manshould be admitted to the privilege of theclergy but such as had the habitum et tonsuramclericalem. But, in process of time,a much wider and more comprehensivecriterion was established, every one thatcould read being accounted a clerk or clericus,and allowed the benefit of clerkship,whether in holy orders or not.

BEREANS. An obscure sect of secedersfrom the Scottish establishment,which originated in the exclusion of oneBarclay from the parish of Fettercairn, inKincardineshire, in 1773. They adoptedthe name of Bereans in allusion to thetext—“These (the Bereans) were morenoble than those in Thessalonica, in thatthey received the word with all readinessof mind, and searched the Scriptures daily,whether those things were so.” (Acts xvii.11.) The Bereans reject all natural religion,—theytake faith to be a simplecredence of God’s word,—they considerpersonal assurance of the essence of faith,and unbelief as the unpardonable sin.They deny any spiritual interpretation tothe historical books of the Old Testament,and reckon the Psalms so exclusively typicalor prophetical of Christ, as to bewithout application to the experience ofindividual Christians.

BEREFELLARII. In the collegiatechurch of Beverley the seven inferiorclergymen, ranking next after the prebendaries,were so called. The origin of thename is unknown; though it appears fromancient records, that it was a popular andvulgar one; their proper designation beingRectores Chori; that is, a sort of minorcanons. They were also called Personæ.(See Rector Chori, and Persona.)—SeeDugdale’s Monasticon, ed. 1830, vi. 1307.—Jebb.

BERENGARIANS. A denomination,in the eleventh century, which adhered tothe opinions of Berenger, archdeacon ofAngers, the learned and able opponent ofLanfranc, whose work has been in partrecovered, and was printed a few yearssince at Berlin. “It was never my assertion,”says he, “that the bread and wineon the altar are only sacramental signs.Let no one suppose that I affirm that thebread was not become the body of Christfrom being simple bread by consecrationon the altar. It plainly becomes the bodyof Christ, but not the bread which in itsmatter and essence is corruptible, but inas far as it is capable of becoming what itwas not, it becomes the body of Christ,but not according to the manner of theproduction of his very body, for that body,once generated on earth so many yearsago, can never be produced again. Thebread, however, becomes what it neverwas before consecration, and from beingthe common substance of bread, is to usthe blessed body of Christ.” His followers,however, did not hold to his doctrines,which, in themselves, were a Catholicprotest against Romish errors.—Cave,Hist. Literar. Sæc. Hildebrand.

BIBLE. (See Scripture and Canon ofScripture.) The name applied by Christiansby way of eminence to the sacredvolume, in which are contained the revelationsof God. The names and numbersof the canonical books will be found underthe word Scripture.

The division of the Scriptures into chapters,as they are at present, took place inthe middle ages. Some attribute it to StephenLangton, archbishop of Canterbury,in the reigns of John and Henry III. Butthe real author of this invention was Hugode Sancto Caro, commonly called HugoCardinalis, from his being the first Dominicanraised to the degree of cardinal.This Hugo flourished about the year 1240.He wrote a Comment on the Scriptures,and projected the first Concordance, whichis that of the Latin Vulgate Bible. Asthe intention of this work was to renderthe finding of any word or passage in theScriptures more easy, it became necessaryto divide the book into sections, and thesections into subdivisions. These sectionsare the chapters into which the Bible hasbeen divided since that time. But thesubdivision of the chapters was not thenin verses as at present. Hugo subdividedthem by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G,which were placed in the margin at anequal distance from each other, accordingto the length of the chapters. About theyear 1445, Mordecai Nathan, a famousJewish Rabbi, improved Hugo’s invention,and subdivided the chapters into verses, inthe manner they are at present.

The first English Bible we read of wasthat translated by Wickliff, about the year1360. A translation of the New Testamentby Wickliff was printed by Lewis,107about 1731, and the whole of Wickliff’stranslation has lately been published atOxford. J. de Trevisa, who died about1398, is also said to have translated thewhole Bible; but whether any copies ofhis translation are remaining, does not appear.The first printed Bible in our languagewas that translated by W. Tindal,assisted by Miles Coverdale, printed abroadin 1526; but most of the copies werebought up and burnt by Bishop Tunstaland Sir Thomas More. Of this edition buttwo copies are known to exist, one of whichwas discovered by Archdeacon Cotton, inSt. Paul’s Library. It only contained theNew Testament, and was revised and republishedby the same person in 1530.The prologues and prefaces added to itreflect on the bishops and clergy; but thisedition was also suppressed, and the copiesburnt. In 1532, Tindal and his associatesfinished the whole Bible, except the Apocrypha,and printed it abroad; but whilehe was afterwards preparing a second edition,he was taken up and burnt for heresyin Flanders. On Tindal’s death, his workwas carried on by Coverdale, and JohnRogers, superintendent of an EnglishChurch in Germany, and the first martyrin the reign of Queen Mary, who translatedthe Apocrypha, and revised Tindal’stranslation, comparing it with the Hebrew,Greek, Latin, and German, and addingprefaces and notes from Luther’s Bible.The earliest edition was printed in 1535, itis supposed at Zurich; though the bookhas no place nor name. He dedicatedthe whole to Henry VIII. in 1537, underthe borrowed name of Thomas Matthews;whence this has been usually called Matthews’Bible. It is supposed to have beenprinted at Hamburgh, and licence obtainedfor publishing it in England, by the favourof Archbishop Cranmer, and the BishopsLatimer and Shaxton. The first Bibleprinted by authority in England, and publiclyset up in churches, was this sameTindal’s version, revised and comparedwith the Hebrew, and in many placesamended, by Miles Coverdale, afterwardsbishop of Exeter; and examined after himby Archbishop Cranmer, who added a prefaceto it; whence this was called Cranmer’s,or the great Bible. It was printedin 1539 by Grafton and Whitchurch, andin 1540 by Whitchurch, (some copies have“Richard Grafton,”) and published in 1540;and, by a royal proclamation, every parishwas obliged to set one of the copies intheir church, under the penalty of fortyshillings a month: yet, two years after, thePopish bishops obtained its suppression bythe king. It was restored under EdwardVI., suppressed again under Queen Mary’sreign, and restored again in the first yearof Queen Elizabeth, and a new edition ofit given, 1562, printed by Harrison. SomeEnglish exiles at Geneva, in Queen Mary’sreign, viz. Goodman, Gilbie, Sampson,Cole, Whittingham, and Knox, made anew translation, printed there in 1560, theNew Testament having been printed in1557; hence called the Geneva Bible, containingthe variations of readings, marginalannotations, &c., on account of whichit was much valued by the Puritan partyin that and the following reigns. Coverdalehas also been supposed to have hada part in this version; but from what isknown of his movements, it appears impossiblethat he should have been concernedin it. Archdeacon Cotton says,“The first edition of this version wasfor many years the most popular one inEngland, as its numerous editions maytestify. After the appearance of KingJames’s translation, the use of it seems tohave declined; yet a fondness for its notesstill lingered; and we have several instancesof their being attached to editionsof the royal translation, one of which kindwas printed so lately as 1715.” ArchbishopParker resolved on a new translationfor the public use of the Church; andengaged the bishops and other learnedmen to take each a share or portion; these,being afterwards joined together and printed,with short annotations, in 1568, inlarge folio, by Richard Jugge, made, whatwas afterwards called, the Great EnglishBible, and commonly the Bishops’ Bible.In 1569 it was also published in octavo,in a small but fine black letter; and herethe chapters were divided into verses, butwithout any breaks for them, in whichthe method of the Geneva Bible was followed,which was the first English Biblewhere 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’sBible. The initial letters of each translator’sname were put at the end of hispart; ex. gr. at the end of the Pentateuch,W. E. for William Exon; that is, William[Alley], bishop of Exeter, whose allotmentended there; at the end of Samuel, R. M.for Richard Menevensis, or Richard [Davies],bishop of St. David’s, to whom thesecond allotment fell, and so with the rest.The archbishop overlooked, directed, examined,and finished the whole. This translationwas used in the churches for fortyyears, though the Geneva Bible was more108read in private houses, being printed abovetwenty times in as many years. KingJames bore to the Geneva version an inveteratehatred, 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 seenno good translation of the Bible in English;but he thought that of Geneva the worstof all. After the translation of the Bibleby the bishops, two other private versionshad been made of the New Testament;the first by Laurence Thompson, fromBeza’s Latin edition, with the notes ofBeza, published in 1582, in quarto, andafterwards in 1589, varying very littlefrom the Geneva Bible; the second by theRomanists at Rheims, in 1584, called theRhemish Bible, or Rhemish translation.These translators finding it impossible tokeep the people from having the Scripturesin their vulgar tongue, resolved to give aversion of their own, as favourable to theircause as might be. It was printed on largepaper, with a fair letter and margin. Onecomplaint against it was, its retaining amultitude of Hebrew and Greek wordsuntranslated, for want, as the editors expressit, of proper and adequate terms inthe English to render them by; as the wordsazymes, tunike, holocaust, prepuce, pasche,&c.: however, many of the copies wereseized by Queen Elizabeth’s searchers, andconfiscated; and Thomas Cartwright wassolicited by Secretary Walsingham to refuteit; but after some progress had beenmade in it, Archbishop Whitgift prohibitedhis proceeding further, judging it improperthat the doctrine of the Church of Englandshould be committed to the defence of aPuritan. He appointed Dr. Fulke in hisplace, who refuted the Rhemists with greatspirit and learning. Cartwright’s Refutationwas also afterwards published in 1618,under Archbishop Abbot. About thirtyyears after their New Testament, the RomanCatholics published a translation ofthe Old, at Douay, 1609 and 1610, fromthe Vulgate, with annotations, so that theEnglish Roman Catholics have now thewhole Bible in their mother tongue; thoughit is to be observed, they are forbidden toread it without a licence from their superiors:and it is a curious fact, that thereis not an edition of the Bible which doesnot lie under the ban of one or of all thepopes, most of them being in the IndexExpurgatorius. The last English Biblewas that which proceeded from the HamptonCourt conference in 1603: where,many exceptions being made to the Bishops’Bible, King James gave order for a newone: not, (as the preface expresses it,) for atranslation altogether new, nor yet to makea good one better, or, of many good ones,one best. Fifty-four learned men wereappointed to this office by the king, asappears by his letter to the archbishop,dated 1604; which being three years beforethe translation was entered upon, it is probableseven of them were either dead, orhad declined the task; since Fuller’s listof the translators makes but forty-seven,who, being ranged under six divisions,entered on their province in 1607. It waspublished in 1611 in fol. by Barker, with adedication to James, and a learned preface;and is commonly called King James’sBible. After this, all the other versionsdropped, and fell into disuse, except theEpistles and Gospels in the CommonPrayer Book, which were still continuedaccording to the Bishops’ translation tillthe alteration of the liturgy in 1661, andthe Psalms and Hymns, which are to thisday continued as in the old version. Seefor a full list of the editions of the EnglishBible, Archd. Cotton’s List of the Editionsof the English Bible, &c.

The New Testament was translated intoIrish in the 16th century. NicholasWalsh, chancellor of St. Patrick’s, andJohn Kearney, treasurer of the samecathedral, began this work in 1573. In1577 Walsh was appointed bishop of Ossory,but still proceeded in his undertaking,till he was murdered in 1585. Someyears before this, Nehemiah Donnellan(who was archbishop of Tuam in 1595)had joined Walsh and Kearney in theirundertaking. This translation was completedby William O’Donnell, or Daniel,successor of Donnellan in the archiepiscopalsee, and published in 1603. Bishop Bedellprocured the Old Testament to be translatedby Mr. King, who being ignorant ofthe original languages, executed it fromthe English version. Bedell revised it,comparing it with the Hebrew, the LXX.,and the Italian version of Diodati. Hesupported Mr. King, during the undertaking,with his utmost ability, and, whenthe translation was finished, would haveprinted it at his own house, if he had notbeen prevented by the troubles in Ireland.This translation (together with ArchbishopDaniel’s version of the New Testament)was printed in London in 1685, at the expenseof the celebrated Robert Boyle.—King’sPrimer of the Church History ofIreland. Horne’s Introduction to the HolyScriptures.

The Welsh version (the New Testament109only) was published in the 16th century.The act of 5 Eliz. c. 28, directed that theBible and Prayer Book should be translatedinto Welsh; committing the directionof this version to the four Welshbishops. The translators were, ThomasHuet, precentor of St. David’s, RichardDavies, bishop of St. David’s, and WilliamSalesbury. It was printed in London in1567. The former edition was revised, andthe Old Testament translated, chiefly byWilliam Morgan, bishop of Llandaff, afterwardsof St. Asaph. This was printed in1588, and was revised by Richard Parry,bishop of St. Asaph, and reprinted in 1620:the basis of all subsequent editions.—Horne’sIntrod.

The Manx version of the Bible was begunby the exertions of Bishop Wilson, bywhom the Gospel of St. Matthew onlywas printed. His successor, Bishop Hilderley,had the New Testament completedand printed between the years 1756 and1760. The Old Testament was completedtwo days before his death in 1772.—Horne’sIntrod. Butler’s Life of Bishop Hilderley.

By the 80th canon, “a Bible of thelargest volume” is one of those thingswhich the churchwardens are bound toprovide for every parish church.

BIDDING PRAYER. The formularywhich the Church of England, in the 55thof the canons of 1603, directs to be usedbefore all sermons, lectures, and homilies,is called the Bidding Prayer, because in itthe preacher is directed to bid or exhortthe people to pray for certain specifiedobjects. The custom of bidding prayersis very ancient, as may be seen in St.Chrysostom’s and other liturgies, where thebiddings occur frequently, and are calledAllocutions.

The 55th canon of the Convocation of1603, is as follows: “Before all sermons,lectures, and homilies, the preachers andministers shall move the people to joinwith them in prayer, in this form, or to thiseffect, as briefly as conveniently they may:‘Ye shall pray for Christ’s Holy CatholicChurch, that is, for the whole congregationof Christian people dispersed throughoutthe whole world, and especially for theChurches of England, Scotland, and Ireland.And herein I require you mostespecially to pray for the king’s most excellentMajesty, our sovereign Lord James,King of England, Scotland, France, andIreland, defender of the faith, and supremegovernor in these his realms, and all otherhis dominions and countries, over all persons,in all causes, as well ecclesiasticalas temporal. Ye shall also pray for ourgracious Queen Anne, the noble PrinceHenry, and the rest of the king and queen’sroyal issue. Ye shall also pray for theministers of God’s holy word and sacraments,as well archbishops and bishops,as other pastors and curates. Ye shallalso pray for the king’s most honourablecouncil, and for all the nobility and magistratesof this realm, that all and every ofthese in their several callings may servetruly and faithfully, to the glory of God,and the edifying and well-governing of Hispeople, remembering the account that theymust make. Also ye shall pray for thewhole commons of this realm, that theymay live in the true faith and fear of God,in humble obedience to the king, andbrotherly charity one to another. Finally,let us praise God for all those which aredeparted out of this life in the faith ofChrist, and pray unto God that we mayhave grace to direct our lives after theirgood example, that, this life ended, we maybe made partakers with them of the gloriousresurrection in the life everlasting,’ alwaysconcluding with the Lord’s Prayer.”

The special pleading of some Presbyteriansand their advocates, renders itnecessary to observe, that the Church ofScotland alluded to, is not the presentPresbyterian establishment.

The assertion made by the adversariesof the Church of England is this, that the55th canon bids us pray for the Church ofScotland, and must have recognised “thatChurch under a Presbyterian form as itnow is, because none other, at that time,existed.”

Now we may commence our observationsby remarking upon the extreme improbabilityof the alleged fact, that thosewho passed the 55th canon should contemplatein the Bidding Prayer, the Presbyteriancommunity of Scotland, and regardit as a sister to the Churches of Englandand Ireland.

The leading members of the Convocationwere, Andrewes, Overall, and King, eminentmen, and of most decided views onChurch government. Can the student ofecclesiastical history refrain from smilingwhen he is told that a Convocation of theEnglish clergy, headed by these divines,who had already given a character to theage in which they lived, intended to placethe “Holy Kirk,” as the Presbyteriansstyled their denomination, on the samefooting as the Churches of England andIreland?

The president of the Convocation wasBancroft. Dr. Sumner has taught us howimmense are the powers which the president110of a Convocation possesses, and howunscrupulously those powers can be usedto silence the Convocation, if it be suspectedthat the majority of the members differin opinion from the president. BishopBancroft was certainly not more likely tobe tolerant of opposition than our presentprimate, and what Bancroft’s opinion ofPresbyterianism was, is stated in a sermonwhich he published. Of “the Holy Kirk,”as the Presbyterians called themselves,Bancroft said that “they perverted themeaning of the Scriptures for the maintenanceof false doctrine, heresy, and schism,”and he likens that “Holy Kirk” to“the devil’s chapel in the churchyard inwhich Christ hath erected his Church.”We consider Bancroft’s language as unjustifiablyviolent; but such being his language,it is monstrous to suppose that heintended to place that Kirk, in his estimationso unholy, on the same footing asthe Churches of England and Ireland, orthat he would not have discontinued theConvocation, if he had suspected that itwould recognise that Kirk as a sisterChurch.

The king who gave his consent to thecanons, and who, in giving his consent,acted, not as a sovereign in these days, onthe advice of his ministers, but on his ownauthority, was James I. And King James’sopinion on Presbyterianism was sufficientlydecided, and by this time well known:

“That bishops ought to be in the Church,I have ever maintained as an apostolicinstitution, and so the ordinance of God;contrary to the Puritans, and likewise toBellarmine, who denies that bishops havetheir 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 thestate of bishops and the ecclesiasticalhierarchy for order’ sake, so was I ever anenemy to the confused anarchy or parityof the Puritans, as well appeareth in myBasilicon Doron. Heaven is governed byorder, and all the good angels there; nay,hell itself could not subsist without someorder; and the very devils are dividedinto legions, and have their chieftains:how can any society then upon earth existwithout order and degrees? And thereforeI cannot enough wonder with whatbrazen face this Answerer could say, that Iwas a Puritan in Scotland and an enemy toProtestants: I that was persecuted by Puritansthere, not from my birth only, butever since four months before my birth?I that, in the year of God 1584, erectedbishops, and depressed all their popularparity, I then being not eighteen years ofage? I that in my said book to my son dospeak ten times more bitterly of them norof the Papists; having in my secondedition thereof affixed a long apologeticpreface, only in odium Puritanorum? Ithat, for the space of six years before mycoming into England, laboured nothing somuch as to depress their parity and reerectbishops again? Nay, if the dailycommentaries of my life and actions inScotland were written, (as Julius Cæsar’swere,) there would scarcely a month passin all my life, since my entering into the13th year of my age, wherein some accidentor other would not convince the cardinalof a lie in this point. And surely Igive a fair commendation to the Puritansin that place of my book, where I affirmthat I have found greater honesty with theHighland and Border thieves than withthat sort of people.”—Premonition to theApology for the Oath of Allegiance, p. 44.

Now is it credible that a monarch, despoticin his disposition, and peculiarlydespotic in what related to the Church; inan age when the supremacy was assertedand exercised with as much of inconsideratetyranny as the most determined liberal ofthe present age could wish or recommend,—isit credible that a despotic sovereign,holding these opinions, would give hissanction to a canon which would raise thesystem he dreaded and abhorred to a paritywith the Church of England and Ireland?

Certainly the advocates of Presbyterianismmust be prepared to believe thingsvery incredible to men of reasoning minds,if they can believe this to be probable.

But if we refer to history, what we findto be thus improbable, is proved to be impossible.“The Church, under a Presbyterianform, as it now is,” did not at thattime exist as a recognised body, or anestablishment. We will refer for proof, inthe first place, to the Compendium of theLaws of Scotland, published by authority,where we read that “From the time thatthe Assembly of Perth was held, (1597,) thePresbyterian Constitution of the Church,as established in 1592, and the legitimateauthority of its General Assemblies andother judicatories, may be regarded as subvertedby the interferences of King Jamesthe Sixth. On the 19th December, 1597,soon after the Assemblies of Perth andDundee, he brought his projects under theconsideration of parliament; when an actwas passed ordaining that such pastors andministers as his Majesty should at anytime please to invest with the office, place,and dignity of bishop, abbot, or other prelate,111should, in all time hereafter, havevote in parliament, in the same way asany prelate was accustomed to have; declaringthat all bishoprics presently vacant,or which might afterwards become vacant,should be given by his Majesty to actualpreachers and ministers. Henceforward,therefore, and indeed from the Assemblyat Perth, (1597,) the Church of Scotlandmust be regarded as Episcopalian;”—inprinciple, we may add, though not fullydeveloped.”—Compendium of the Laws ofthe Church of Scotland, part ii. p. 36.

In the year 1600, “the Presbyterianform of government was, after eight yearsof intolerable agitation, abolished by theking, with the full consent of an overwhelmingmajority of the ministers andthe applause of the people, whose opinionsseem to have been changed by experienceof its tyranny.”—Stephens’s History of theChurch of Scotland, vol. i. p. 417.

The Scottish parliament had also passedan act, in 1597, “That such pastors andministers as his Majesty should promoteto the place, dignity, and title of a bishop,or other prelate, at any time, should havea voice in parliament, as freely as any ecclesiasticalprelate had in times past.” Inthe year 1600, the king informed the Assembly,that “there was a necessity of restoringthe ancient government of theChurch;” and, consequently, under thesanction of parliament, “persons werenominated to the bishoprics that werevoid,” before the end of the year.—Skinner’sChurch History, vol. ii. pp. 234–236.

And so we find that what, reasoning apriori, we should consider so improbableas to be almost incredible, was in point offact impossible, “The Church of Scotlandunder a Presbyterian form, as it now is,”could not be intended by the canon, forsuch a Church did not exist as a recognisedbody in the state. On the contrary, asearly as 1598, an act of the Scottish parliamenthad secured to the bishops andother ecclesiastical prelates to be appointedby the king their seats in parliament. Andbefore the year 1600, bishops were nominatedto the sees of Aberdeen, Argyle, Dunkeld,Brechin, and Dunblane. DavidLindsay and George Gladstone were inthat year designated to the sees of Rossand Caithness.

But it is said, these were not personswhom we regard as bishops; they werenot consecrated, they were only titularbishops. Every child who has looked intoecclesiastical history knows this. Butwhat do the advocates of Presbyterianismtake by the fact? The fact is this, Presbyterianismwas legally abolished: Episcopacywas legally established: the bishopswere nominated: but the bishops designatewere not yet consecrated. Can it bedoubted to what the canon referred? Itis absolutely certain that it could not referto Presbyterianism; to what, then, did itrefer? Ecclesiastical affairs in Scotlandwere in a transitional state. It was knownthat the king intended to introduce thesubstance of Episcopacy as well as theform. His principles were known. Hispower undoubted. The act of parliamentenabled him to designate bishops. Hehad designated them; but he himself said,“I cannot make you bishops,” that was tobe done by consecration. The Church ofScotland was in the very act of beingformed and organized. The Convocation,acting prospectively, spoke of it as it wasabout to be, and as it soon after became.The bishops designate were consecrated in1610.

But we must not stop here. So farfrom true is it, that “the Church of Scotlandunder a Presbyterian form, as it nowis,” was the Church contemplated by the55th canon, that by other canons passedin this very Convocation of 1603, thePresbyterians were actually excommunicated.

The Presbyterians had anathematizedthe Church of England. We have onlyto refer to the “Book of the universalKirk,” to see that at the fourth session ofthe General Assemblie, held at Dundee,in 1580, the following was enacted: “Forasmeickleas the office of a bischop, as itis now usit, and commonly taken withinthis realme, hes no sure warrand, auctoritie,nor good ground out of the Book andScriptures of God, but is brocht in by thefolie and corruptions of [men’s] invention,to the great overthrow of the Kirk of God;the haill assembly of the Kirk, in anevoice, after liberty given to all men toreason in the matter, none opposing themselvesin defending the said pretenditoffice, finds and declares the samein pretenditoffice, useit and termeit, as abovesaid, unlawfull in the selfe, as have hadneither foundation ground, nor warrantwithin the Word of God.”—Pt. ii. 453.

This was subsequently ratified in thesecond session of the General Assembly,holden at Edinburgh, in 1592. Again,in the Conference connected with theGeneral Assembly, holden at Montrose,in 1600, it was maintained by the Kirk,that “The Anglican Episcopal dignities,offices, places, titles, and all EcclesiasticalPrelacies, are flat repugnant to the Word of112God;” and that “all corruptions of thesebishopricks are damned and rejected.”

So spake the sect which the advocatesof Presbyterianism maintain that we placein our Bidding Prayer on the same footingas the Churches of England and Ireland.How the members of this “Holy Kirk”spoke of the Prayer Book, we learn fromthe president of the Convocation himself.Their language was, “That it (the PrayerBook) is full of corruption, confusion, andprofanation; that it contains at least fivehundred errors; that the orders thereindescribed are carnal, beggarly, dung, dross,lousy, and anti-Christian. They say weeat not the Lord’s supper, but play a pageantof our own, to make the poor sillysouls believe they have an English Mass;and so put no difference betwixt truth andfalsehood, betwixt Christ and anti-Christ,betwixt God and the devil!”—See Bancroft’sSermon, p. 284.

Such were the feelings and principlesand charity and forbearance of the Presbyteriansof that age; and how does theChurch of England deal with such persons?Let the Church of England speakfor herself through the canons of 1603:—

Canon 4. “Whosoever shall affirm,That the form of God’s worship in theChurch of England, established by law,and contained in the Book of CommonPrayer and Administration of Sacraments,is a corrupt, superstitious, or unlawfulworship of God, or containeth anything init that is repugnant to the Scriptures; lethim be excommunicated ipso facto, andnot restored, but by the bishop of theplace, or archbishop, after his repentance,and public revocation of such his wickederrors.”

Canon 6. “Whosoever shall hereafteraffirm, That the rites and ceremonies ofthe Church of England by law establishedare wicked, anti-Christian, or superstitious,or such as, being commanded by lawfulauthority, men, who are zealously andgodly affected, may not with any goodconscience approve them, use them, or, asoccasion requireth, subscribe unto them;let him be excommunicated ipso facto, andnot restored until he repent, and publiclyrevoke such his wicked errors.”

Canon 7. “Whosoever shall hereafteraffirm, That the government of the Churchof England, under his Majesty, by archbishops,bishops, deans, archdeacons, andthe rest that bear office in the same, isanti-Christian, or repugnant to the word ofGod; let him be excommunicated ipsofacto, and so continue until he repent, andpublicly revoke such his wicked errors.”

Canon 8. “Whosoever shall hereafteraffirm, or teach, That the form and mannerof making and consecrating bishops,priests, or deacons, containeth anythingthat is repugnant to the word of God; orthat they who are made bishops, priests,or deacons in that form, are not lawfullymade, nor ought to be accounted, eitherby themselves or by others, to be trulyeither bishops, priests, or deacons, untilthey have some other calling to those divineoffices; let him be excommunicatedipso facto, not to be restored until he publiclyrevoke such his wicked errors.”

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

We can conceive nothing in the recordsof absurdity, more absurd than the ideathat the very parties by whom Presbyterianswere excommunicated, should be theparties to speak of their denomination asa sister Church. At the time when the55th canon was enacted, the two kingdomshad been united, and the king ofthe two kingdoms had expressed his determinationto unite the two Churches;he had already taken measures to effecthis purpose, and in a few years he succeededin his object. The Convocation,acting under his commands, excommunicatedthe Presbyterians, whom he hated,and held out the hand of fellowship to theChurch, which he was rearing amidst theecclesiastical anarchy of Scotland. “True,”says a learned writer: “the bishops werenot consecrated till a few years later, butwhen the law of the land had recognisedtheir estate, and the men were known andappointed, it appears to me a verbal shuffle,and something more, (unintentional, ofcourse,) to say, ‘the Church of Scotlandwas then, as now, Presbyterian.’”

The reader who desires to see the subjectmore fully treated, is referred to ChancellorHarington’s most able Letter on the55th Canon. To Chancellor Haringtonthe writer of this article is indebted forthe extract from the Premonition. It isquoted, but imperfectly, in Macrie’s Life ofAndrew Melville.

113BIER. A carriage on which the deadare carried to the grave. It is to be providedby the parish.

BIRTH-DAYS. In the ancient Church,this term, in its application to martyrs,and the festivals in honour of them, expressedthe day on which they suffereddeath, or were born into the glory andhappiness of the kingdom above. In thissense it stood distinct from the time oftheir natural birth into the world, whichwas considered as an event so inferior,that its ordinary designation was mergedin that of a translation to the joys of abetter world. “When ye hear of a birthdayof saints, brethren,” says Peter Chrysologus,bishop of Ravenna in the 5thcentury, “do not think that that is spokenof in which they are born on earth, of theflesh, but that in which they are born fromearth into heaven, from labour to rest,from temptations to repose, from tormentsto delights, not fluctuating, but strong,and stable, and eternal: from the derisionof the world to a crown and glory. Suchare the birthdays of the martyrs that wecelebrate.”

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

The doctrine of Scripture, as it relatesto the office of bishop, may be briefly statedthus:—As the Lord Jesus Christ was sentby the Father, so were the apostles sent byhim. “As my Father hath sent me,” hesays soon after his resurrection, “even sosend I you.” Now, how had the Fathersent him? He had sent him to act as hissupreme minister on earth; as such to appointunder him subordinate ministers, and,to do what he then did when his work onearth was done, to hand on his commissionto others. The apostles, in like manner,were sent by Christ to act as his chiefministers in the Church, to appoint subordinateministers under them, and then, ashe had done, to hand on their commissionto others. And on this commission, after ourLord had ascended up on high, the apostlesproceeded to act. They formed theirconverts into Churches: these Churchesconsisted of baptized believers, to officiateamong whom subordinate ministers, priests,and deacons were ordained; while theapostle who formed any particular Churchexercised over it episcopal superintendence,either holding an occasional visitation, bysending for the clergy to meet him, (as St.Paul summoned to Miletus the clergy ofEphesus,) or else transmitting to them thosepastoral addresses, which, under the nameof Epistles, form so important a portion ofHoly Scripture. At length, however, itbecame necessary for the apostles to proceedyet further, and to do as their Lordhad empowered them to do, to hand ontheir commission to others, that at theirown death the governors of the Churchmight not be extinct. Of this we have aninstance in Titus, who was placed in Creteby St. Paul, to act as chief pastor or bishop;and another in Timothy, who was in likemanner set over the Church of Ephesus.And when Timothy was thus appointed tothe office of chief pastor, he was associatedwith St. Paul, who, in writing to the Philippians,commences his salutation thus:“Paul and Timotheus to the servants ofJesus Christ who are at Philippi, withthe bishops and deacons.” Now we havehere the three orders of the ministry clearlyalluded to. The title of bishop is, doubtless,given to the second order: but it isnot for words, but for things, that we are tocontend. Titles may be changed, whileoffices remain; so senators exist, thoughthey are not now of necessity old men;and most absurd would it be to contendthat, when we speak of the emperor Constantine,we can mean that Constantineheld no other office than that held underthe Roman republic, because we find Ciceroalso saluted as emperor. So stood thematter in the first age of the gospel, whenthe chief pastors of the Church were generallydesignated apostles or angels, i. e.messengers sent by God himself. In thenext century, the office remaining, thedesignation of those who held it waschanged, the title of Apostle was confinedto the Twelve, including St. Paul; and thechief pastors who succeeded them werethenceforth called bishops, the subordinateministers being styled priests and deacons.For when the name of bishop was given tothose who had that oversight of presbyters,which presbyters had of their flocks, itwould have been manifestly inconvenient,and calculated to engender confusion, tocontinue the episcopal name to the secondorder. And thus we see, as Christ wassent 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 theapostles, so they sent the second race ofbishops, the second the third, and so downto our present bishops, who thus trace theirspiritual descent from St. Peter and St.114Paul, and prove their Divine authority togovern the Churches over which they arecanonically appointed to preside.

The three orders of the ministry in theNew Testament stand thus: 1st order,Apostle. 2nd order, Bishop, Presbyter, orElder. 3rd order, Deacon. Afterwards,the office remaining the same, there was achange in the title, and the ministers ofChrist were designated thus: 1st order,Bishop, formerly Apostle. 2nd order, Presbyteror Elder. 3rd order, Deacon.

The offices of an apostle and a bishopare thus distinguished by the learned Barrow:“The apostleship is an extraordinaryoffice, charged with instruction and governmentof the whole world; but episcopacyis an ordinary standing chargeaffixed to one place, and requiring a specialattendance there.”—See Consecrationof Bishops.

The judgment of the Church of Englandwith respect to the primitive existence ofthe episcopal order is this: “It is evidentunto all men diligently reading Holy Scriptureand ancient authors, that from theapostles’ time there have been these ordersof ministers in Christ’s Church,—Bishops,Priests, and Deacons.”—Preface to theOrdination Service.

BISHOPS’ BIBLE. (See Bible.)

BISHOPS, ELECTION OF. Whencities were at first converted to Christianity,the bishops were elected by theclergy and people: for it was then thoughtconvenient that the laity, as well as theclergy, should concur in the election, thathe who was to have the inspection of themall might come in by general consent.

But as the number of Christians increased,this was found to be inconvenient;for tumults were raised, and sometimesmurders committed, at such popular elections.To prevent such disorders, theemperors, being then Christians, reservedthe election of bishops to themselves; butthe bishop of Rome, when he had obtainedsupremacy in the Western Church, wasunwilling that the bishops should have anydependence upon princes; and thereforebrought it about that the canons in cathedralchurches should have the election oftheir bishops, which elections were usuallyconfirmed at Rome.

But princes had still some power inthose elections; and in England we read,that, in the Saxon times, all ecclesiasticaldignities were conferred by the king inparliament.

From these circumstances arose the longcontroversy about the right of investiture,a point conceded, so far as our Church isconcerned, by Henry I., who only reservedthe ceremony of homage to himself fromthe bishops in respect of temporalities.King John afterwards granted his charter,by common consent of the barons, that thebishops should be eligible by the chapter,though the right of the Crown in formertimes was acknowledged. This was afterwardsconfirmed by several acts of parliament.This election by the chapter was tobe a free election, but founded upon theking’s congé d’ élire: it was afterwards tohave the royal assent; and the newly-electedbishop was not to have his temporalitiesassigned until he had sworn allegiance tothe king; but it was agreed, that confirmationand consecration should be in thepower of the pope, so that foreign potentategained in effect the disposal of all thebishoprics in England.

But the pope was not content with thispower of confirmation and consecration;he would oftentimes collate to the bishopricshimself: hence, by the statute of the26 Edward III. sec. 6, it was enacted asfollows, viz. The free elections of archbishops,bishops, and all other dignitiesand benefices elective in England, shallhold from henceforth in the manner asthey were granted by the king’s progenitors,and the ancestors of other lords,founders of the said dignities and otherbenefices. And in case that reservation,collation, or provision be made by thecourt of Rome, of any archbishopric, bishopric,dignity, or other benefice, in disturbanceof the free elections aforesaid,the king shall have for that time the collationsto the archbishoprics and otherdignities elective which be of his advowry,such as his progenitors had before thatfree election was granted; since that theelection was first granted by the king’sprogenitors upon a certain form and condition,as to demand licence of the king tochoose, and after the election to have hisroyal assent, and not in other manner;which conditions not kept, the thing oughtby reason to resort to its first nature.

Afterwards, by the 25 Henry VIII. c.20, all Papal jurisdiction whatsoever inthis matter was entirely taken away: bywhich it is enacted—That no person shallbe presented and nominated to the bishopof Rome, otherwise called the pope, or tothe see of Rome, for the office of an archbishopor bishop; but the same shall utterlycease, and be no longer used withinthis realm.

And the manner and order as well ofthe election of archbishops and bishops, asof the confirmation of the election and115consecration, is clearly enacted and expressedby that statute. By the statuteof the 1 Edward VI. c. 2, all bishopricswere made donative, and it has been supposedby some, that the principal intent ofthis act was to make deans and chaptersless necessary, and thereby to prepare theway 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 25thHenry VIII. c. 20.

When a bishop dies, or is translated, thedean and chapter certify the queen thereofin Chancery, and pray leave of the queento make election. Thereupon the sovereigngrants a licence to them under thegreat seal, to elect the person, whom byher letters missive she has appointed; andthey are to choose no other. Withintwenty-six days after the receipt of thislicence they are to proceed to election,which is done after this manner: the deanand chapter having made their election,must certify it under their common seal tothe queen, and to the archbishop of theprovince, and to the bishop elected; thenthe queen gives her royal assent under thegreat seal, directed to the archbishop,commanding him to confirm and consecratethe bishop thus elected. The archbishopsubscribes it thus, viz. Fiat confirmatio,and grants a commission to hisvicar-general to perform all acts requisiteto that purpose. Upon this the vicar-generalissues a citation to summon allpersons who oppose this election, to appear,&c., which citation (in the provinceof Canterbury) is affixed by an officer ofthe Arches, on the door of Bow church,and he makes three proclamations therefor the opposers, &c. to appear. Afterthis, the same officer certifies what he hasdone to the vicar-general; and no personappearing, &c., at the time and place appointed,&c., the proctor for the dean andchapter exhibits the royal assent, and thecommission of the archbishop directed tohis vicar-general, which are both read, andthen accepted by him. Afterwards theproctor exhibits his proxy from the deanand chapter, and presents the newly-electedbishop to the vicar-general, returns thecitation, and desires that three proclamationsmay be made for the opposers toappear; which being done, and none appearing,he desires that they may proceedto confirmation, in pœnam contumaciæ;and this is subscribed by the vicar-generalin a schedule, and decreed by him accordingly.Then the proctor exhibits a summarypetition, setting forth the wholeprocess of election; in which it is desiredthat a certain time may be assigned to himto prove it, and this is likewise desired bythe vicar-general. Then he exhibits theassent of the queen and archbishop oncemore, and that certificate which he returnedto the vicar-general, and of theaffixing the citation on the door of Bowchurch, and desires a time may be appointedfor the final sentence, which is alsodecreed. Then three proclamations areagain made for the opposers to appear,but none coming they are pronouncedcontumaces; and it is then decreed to proceedto sentence, and this is in anotherschedule read and subscribed by the vicar-general.On one memorable occasion, seeReg. v. Abp. of Canterbury, Q. B., Jan.25, 1848, the court of Q. B. pronouncedthis to be a mere useless form and ceremony.It was a time when political andparty feeling ran higher, perhaps, than atany time since the reign of James II.,and it is hoped that, should a similarcase occur, justice would be done to theChurch. Then the bishop elect takes theoath of supremacy, canonical obedience,and that against simony, and then thedean of the Arches reads and subscribesthe sentence. The dean and chapter areto certify this election in twenty days afterthe delivery of the letters missive, or theyincur a premunire. And if they refuse toelect, then the queen may nominate a personby her letters patent. So that, to themaking a bishop, these things are requisite,viz. election, confirmation, consecration,and investiture. Upon election, the personis only a bishop Nomine, and not Inre, for he has no power of jurisdictionbefore consecration.

In the time of the Saxons, as indeedwas generally the case throughout Europe,all bishops and abbots sat in state councils,by reason of their office, as they werespiritual persons, and not upon account ofany tenures; but after the Conquest theabbots sat there by virtue of their tenures,and the bishops in a double capacity, asbishops and likewise as barons by tenure.When, in the 11th year of Henry II.,Archbishop Becket was condemned inparliament, there was a dispute who shouldpronounce the sentence, whether a bishop,or a temporal lord: those who desired thata bishop should do it, alleged that theywere ecclesiastical persons, and that it wasone of their own order who was condemned;but the bishops replied, that this was nota spiritual but a secular judgment; andthat they did not sit there merely asbishops, but as barons; and told the House116of Peers, Nos barones, vos barones pares hicsumus. In the very year before, in thetenth of Henry II., it was declared by theConstitutions of Clarendon, that bishops,and all other persons who hold of the kingin capite, have their possessions of himsicut baroniam, et sicut cæteri barones,debent interesse judiciis curiæ regis, &c.;and that they ought to sit there likewiseas bishops; that is, not as mere spiritualpersons, vested with a power only to ordainand confirm, &c., but as they are thegovernors of the Church. It is for thisreason that, on the vacancy of a bishopric,the guardian of the spiritualities issummoned to the parliament in the roomof the bishop; and the new bishops ofBristol, Chester, Gloucester, Oxford, andPeterborough, which were made by HenryVIII., and the bishops of Ripon and Manchester,have no baronies, and yet they sitin parliament as bishops of those sees bythe king’s writ. This view of the case isconfirmed by the analogy of Scotland,where the bishops sat in parliament as representingthe spirituality, one of theestates of the realm. The bishops ofIreland were, from the time of the submissionof that country to Henry II., electedexactly as in England, under the king’slicence, and by virtue of a congé d’éliredirected to the chapters. The statute ofprovisors was in force in Ireland as wellas England; and although, from the unsettledstate of the country, irregular electionsoccasionally took place in distant provinces,it can be clearly shown that thiswas in consequence of the weakness of theCrown, and in contradiction to the law.(See Ware’s Irish Bishops, passim, andCotton’s Facti Ecclesiæ Hibern.) The rightof election was taken away from the chapters,as in England, in the reign of HenryVIII., and never restored. The Irishbishops are, in consequence, still nominated,as their English brethren were tillQueen Elizabeth’s reign, by letters patent.

BLASPHEMY. (From the Greek word,βλασφημέω, quasi βλάπτω τὴν φήμην.) Aninjury to the reputation of any, but nowused almost exclusively to designate thatwhich derogates from the honour of God,whether by detracting from his person orattributes, or by attributing to the creaturewhat is due to God alone.

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

The sin of blasphemy incurred the publiccensure of the primitive ChristianChurch. They distinguished blasphemyinto three sorts. 1. The blasphemy ofapostates, whom the heathen persecutorsobliged, not only to deny, but to curseChrist. 2. The blasphemy of heretics,and other profane Christians. 3. Theblasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Thefirst sort we find mentioned in Pliny, who,giving Trajan an account of some Christians,whom the persecutions of his timeshad made to apostatize, tells him, they allworshipped his images, and the images ofthe gods, and cursed Jesus Christ. Andthat this was the common way of renouncingtheir religion, appears from thedemand of the proconsul to Polycarp, andPolycarp’s answer. He bid him revileChrist: to which Polycarp replied; “Theseeighty-six years I have served him, and henever did me any harm; how then can Iblaspheme my King and my Saviour?”—Theseblasphemers, as having added blasphemyto apostasy, were reckoned amongthe apostates, and punished as such, to thehighest 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 weresuch as made profession of the Christianreligion, but yet, either by impious doctrinesor profane discourses, derogatedfrom the majesty and honour of God andhis holy religion. This sense of blasphemyincluded every kind of heresy; whence thesame punishment the Church had appointedfor heretics, was the lot of this kind ofblasphemers. And that in this notion ofblasphemy they included all impious andprofane language, appears from Synesius’streatment of Andronicus, governor of Ptolemais.He was contented to admonishhim for his other crimes; but, when headded blasphemy to them, saying, no oneshould escape his hands, though he laidhold of the very foot of Christ, Synesiusthought it high time to proceed to anathemasand excommunication.—Bingham,ibid. § 2.

The third sort of blasphemy was thatagainst the Holy Ghost: concerningwhich the opinions of the ancients varied.Some applied it to the sin of lapsing intoidolatry and apostasy, and denying Christin time of persecution. Others made it toconsist in denying Christ to be God; inwhich sense Hilary charges the Arianswith sinning against the Holy Ghost.Origen thought that whoever, after havingreceived the gifts of the Holy Ghost bybaptism, afterwards ran into sin, was guiltyof the unpardonable sin against the HolyGhost. Athanasius refutes this notion,and delivers his own opinion in the following117manner. “The Pharisees, in our Saviour’stime, and the Arians, in our own,running into the same madness, deniedthe real Word to be incarnate, andascribed the works of the Godhead to thedevil and his angels.—They put the devilin the place of God—which was the samething as if they had said, that the worldwas made by Beelzebub, that the sun roseat his command, and the stars moved byhis direction.—For this reason Christ declaredtheir sin unpardonable, and theirpunishment inevitable and eternal.” St.Ambrose likewise defines this sin to be adenying the Divinity of Christ. Thereare others, who make it to consist in denyingthe Divinity of the Holy Ghost.Epiphanius calls these blasphemers πνευματόμαχοι,“fighters against the HolyGhost.” Others, again, place this sin ina perverse and malicious ascribing theoperations of the Holy Spirit to thepower of the devil; and that against expressknowledge and conviction of conscience.

That the ancients did not look upon thesin against the Holy Ghost, in the severalkinds of it here mentioned, as absolutelyirremissible, or incapable of pardon,appears from hence, that they did not shutthe door of repentance against such offenders,but invited them to repent, andprayed for their conversion, and restoredthem to communion, upon their confession,and evidences of a true repentance. Whereverthey speak of it as unpardonable bothin this world and the next, they alwayssuppose the sinner to die in obduracy, andin resistance to all the gracious motionsand operations of the Holy Spirit.Whence it must be concluded, that theydid not think the sin against the HolyGhost, whatever it was, in its own natureunpardonable, but only that it becomes sothrough final impenitence. Thus the authorof the book, “Of True and False Repentance,”under the name of St. Austin,says, they only sin against the HolyGhost, who continue impenitent to theirdeath. And Bacchiarius, an African writerabout the time of St. Austin, says this sinconsists in such a despair of God’s mercy,as makes men give over all hopes of recoveringthat state, from which they arefallen.—Synes. Ep. 58. Bingham, ibid. §3. Cypr. Ep. 10. Hilar. in Mat. Can. 12,p. 164. Athan. in illud, Quicunque dixeritverbum, &c., p. 975. Ambros. Comment. inLuc. 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 ofthe motions and graces of the Holy Spirit,and persisting in impenitency to our death.“Impenitency is the blasphemy, which hasneither remission in this world, nor in theworld to come; but of this no one canjudge so long as a man continues in thislife. A man is a Pagan to-day; but howknowest thou but he may become a Christianto-morrow? To-day he is an unbelievingJew; to-morrow he may believe inChrist. To-day he is an heretic; to-morrowhe 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 blasphemyagainst the Holy Ghost; viz. despair,presumption, final impenitency, obstinacyin sin, and opposition to the knowntruth.

If we consider the Scripture account ofthis sin, nothing can be plainer than thatit is to be understood of the Pharisees imputingthe miracles, wrought by the powerof the Holy Ghost, to the power of thedevil. Our Lord had just healed one possessedof a devil, upon which the Phariseesgave this malicious turn to the miracle;“This fellow doth not cast out devils, butby Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.”(Matt. xii. 24.) This led our Saviour todiscourse of the sin of blasphemy, and totell his disciples; “Wherefore I say untoyou, all manner of sin and blasphemy shallbe forgiven unto men, but the sin againstthe Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven untomen,” (Ver. 31.) The Pharisees thereforewere the persons charged with thissin, and the sin itself consisted in ascribingwhat was done by the finger of God to theagency of the devil. And the reason whyour Lord pronounced it unpardonable isplain, because the Jews, by withstandingthe evidence of miracles, resisted the strongestmeans of their conviction. From allwhich it will follow, that no person nowcan be guilty of the sin against the HolyGhost, in the sense in which our Saviouroriginally intended it; though there maybe sins which bear a very near resemblanceto it.—August., Serm. xi. de Verbis Domini.Brouqhton.

BLOOD. From the earliest times theclergy have been forbidden to sit in judgmenton capital offences, or in cases ofblood; a rule still maintained among us;for the bishops, who, as peers of parliament,are a component part of the highestcourt of judicature in the kingdom, alwaysretire when such cases are before theHouse.

118BODY. 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 prescribedform of admission, baptism; a constantbadge of membership, the eucharist; peculiarduties, repentance, faith, obedience;peculiar privileges, forgiveness of sins, presentgrace, and future glory; regularlyconstituted officers, bishops, priests, anddeacons. The Church is the body, ofwhich Christ is the Head.

BOHEMIAN BRETHREN. A sectwhich sprung up in Bohemia in the year1467. In 1503 they were accused by theRoman Catholics to King Ladislaus II.,who published an edict against them, forbiddingthem to hold any meetings, eitherprivately or publicly. When Luther declaredhimself against the Church of Rome,the Bohemian Brethren endeavoured tojoin his party. At first, that reformershowed a great aversion to them; but theBohemians sending their deputies to himin 1535, with a full account of their doctrines,he acknowledged that they were asociety of Christians whose doctrine camenear to the purity of the gospel. This sectpublished another confession of faith in1535, in which they renounced anabaptism,which they at first professed; upon thisan union was concluded with the Lutherans,and afterwards with the Zuinglians,whose opinions from thenceforth they continuedto follow.

BOUNTY, QUEEN ANNE’S. (SeeAnnates.)

BOWING AT THE NAME OF JESUS.(See East.) It is enjoined by theeighteenth canon of the Constitutions ofthe Church of England, that “When intime of Divine service the Lord Jesusshall be mentioned, due and lowly reverenceshall be done by all persons present,as it hath been accustomed; testifying bythese outward ceremonies and gestures,their inward humility, Christian resolution,and due acknowledgment that the LordJesus Christ, the true eternal Son ofGod, is the only Saviour of the world, inwhom alone all the mercies, graces, andpromises of God to mankind, for this lifeand the life to come, are fully and whollycomprised.” We do not bow when ourLord is spoken of as Christ; for whenwe speak of him as the Christ, we speakof his office, the anointed, the prophet,priest, and king of our race, which implieshis Divine nature. But Jesus is the nameof his humanity, the name he was knownby as man; whenever, therefore, we pronouncethat name, we bow, to signify thathe who for our sakes became man, is alsoGod.

With reference to turning to the eastwhen we say the Creed, and bowing at thename of Jesus, Dr. Bisse remarks: As tothe first, it was the custom of the ancientChurch to turn to the altar or east, notonly at the confessions of faith, but in allthe public prayers. And therefore Epiphanius,speaking of the madness of theimpostor Elxæus, counts this as one instanceof it among other things, that heforbade praying towards the east. (Lib. i.Hæres. 18.) Now this is the most honourableplace in the house of God, and istherefore separated from the lower and inferiorparts of the Church, answering tothe Holy of Holies in the Jewish tabernacle,which was severed by a veil from the sanctuary;and the holy table or altar in theone answers to the mercy-seat in the other.As then the Jews worshipped, “lifting uptheir hands towards the mercy-seat,” (Psal.xxviii. 2,) and even the cherubim wereformed with their faces looking towards it,(Exod. xxv. 19,) so the primitive Christiansdid in their worship look towards thealtar, of which the mercy-seat was a type.And therefore the altar was usually called“the tabernacle of God’s glory,” his “chairof state,” “the throne of God,” “the typeof heaven,” “heaven itself:” for these reasonsdid they always in praying look towardsit. But in rehearsing our Creedsthis custom is still more proper and significant,for we are appointed to perform it“standing;” by this posture declaring ourresolution to stand by, or defend, that faith,which we have professed: so that all thesetimes we resemble, not so much an assembly,as an army: as then in every well-marshalledarmy all look and move oneway, so should we always do in a regularassembly; but especially at the confessionsof 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 nameof Jesus, seems founded on that Scripture,where it is declared, that “God hath givenhim a name which is above every name;that at the name of Jesus every kneeshould bow, and every tongue should confessthat Jesus Christ is Lord, to theglory of God the Father,” (Isa. xlv. 23;Phil. ii. 9,) &c. Now though the rubricbe silent herein, yet the canon of ourChurch thus enjoins. Now if such reverencebe due to that great and ever-blessedname, when it is mentioned in the lessonor sermon, how much more in the Creeds,when we mention it with our own lips,119making confession of our faith in it, addingthe very reason given in the canon,that we believe in him as “the only Son,”or “only-begotten Son of God,” the Saviourof the world; and when too we dothis “standing,” which is the proper posturefor doing reverence!—Dr. Bisse.

BOWING TO THE ALTAR. A reverentcustom still practised at Windsorchapel, in college chapels and cathedrals,of which the synod of 1640 said, “Weheartily commend it to all good and well-affectedpeople, that they be ready totender to the Lord their reverence andobeisance, both at their coming in andgoing out of church, according to the mostancient custom of the primitive Church inthe purest times.” “In the practice oromission of this rite, we desire that therule of charity prescribed by the apostlemay be observed, which is, that they whichuse this rite despise not those who use itnot, and they who use it not, condemn notthem who use it.”

BOYLE’S LECTURE. A lecturefounded under the will of the Hon.Robert Boyle, in 1691, which consists of acourse of eight sermons, to prove the truthof Christianity against infidels, and to answernew difficulties, &c., without entering intocontroversies existing among Christians.

BRANDENBURG, CONFESSIONOF. A formulary, or confession of faith,drawn up in the city of Brandenburg byorder of the elector, with a view to reconcilethe tenets of Luther with those ofCalvin, and to put an end to the disputesoccasioned by the Confession of Augsburgh.

BRASSES. Monumental slabs of brass,much used in the middle ages, with effigiescarved in outline upon them. An historicaland descriptive account of brasses used assepulchral memorials would occupy toomuch space for this work. Perhaps asmuch of the history as we shall be expectedto give is included in the followingparagraph from the “Manual of MonumentalBrasses,” (Oxford, 1848,) to whichwe may refer for a full discussion on thissubject.

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

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

At the present time, the earliest brassknown is that of Sir John d’Abernon,1277; one other of the same century stillremains at Trumpington. From this periodtheir numbers gradually increased untilabout the middle of the sixteenth century,when they became less common. Thelatest observed example is at St. MaryCray, Kent, 1776. It is remarkable thatthe earliest brasses are quite equal, inbeauty of form and execution, to any of alater date. From the early part of thefifteenth century a gradual decline of theart is visible, and towards the end of thesixteenth century it became utterly degenerate.

It seems needless to add, that the interestof brasses is derived, in a great degree,from the light which they throw on mediævalcostume, and the habits of our ancestors.The destruction of brasses at theReformation was great; at the Rebellionstill greater. The mention of this spoliationby Drake, the historian of York, isworth volumes of mere particulars. “Letno man hereafter say, ‘Exegi monumentumære perennius;’ for now an æris sacrafames has robbed us of most of the ancientmonumental inscriptions that were in thechurch. At the Reformation this hairbrainedzeal began to show itself againstpainted glass, stone statues, and grave-stones,many of which were defaced andutterly destroyed, along with other morevaluable monuments of the church, tillQueen Elizabeth put a stop to these mostscandalous doings by an express act of parliament.In our late civil wars, and duringthe usurpation, our zealots began againthese depredations on grave-stones, andstripped and pillaged to the minutest pieceof metal. I know it is urged that theirhatred to Popery was so great, that theycould not endure to see an “orate proanimâ,” or even a cross, over a monumentwithout defacing it; but it is plain that itwas more the poor lucre of the brass, thanzeal, which tempted these miscreants tothis act, for there was no gravestone whichhad an inscription cut on itself that wasdefaced by anything but age throughoutthis whole church.”

BRAWLING. The act of quarrelling,and, in its more limited and technical sense,the act of quarrelling within consecratedprecincts. If any person shall, by wordsonly, quarrel, chide, or brawl in any churchor churchyard, it shall be lawful unto theordinary of the place, where the sameoffence shall be done, and proved by twolawful witnesses, to suspend every personso offending; if he be a layman, from the120entrance of the church; and if he be aclerk, from the ministration of his office,for so long time as the said ordinary shallthink meet according to the fault. (5 & 6Edw. VI. c. 4, s. 1.)

BREVIARY. A daily office or book ofDivine service in the Romish Church. Socalled from being a compilation in an abbreviatedform, convenient for use, of thevarious books anciently used in the service,as antiphoners, psalters, &c. After theprayers of the liturgy, or missal, those heldin the greatest veneration by Roman Catholicsare the prayers contained in thechurch office, or canonical hours. Thisoffice is a form of prayer and instructioncombined, consisting of psalms, lessons,hymns, prayers, anthems, versicles, &c.,combined in an established order, separatedinto different hours of the day. It isdivided into seven, or rather eight parts;and, like the English liturgy, it has a referenceto the mystery or festival celebrated.The festival, and therefore theoffice, begins with vespers, i. e. with theevening prayer, about six o’clock, or sunset.This office is called, on the eves ofSundays and holidays, the first Vespers.Next follows compline, to beg God’s protectionduring sleep. At midnight comethe three nocturns, as they are called, ormatins, the longest part of the office.Lauds, or matin lauds, or the morningpraises of God, are appointed for the cock-crowing,or before the break of day. Atsix o’clock, or sunrise, prime shall be recited;and tierce, sext, and none, everythird hour afterwards. (See CanonicalHours.) These canonical hours of prayerare still regularly observed by many religiousorders, but less regularly by thesecular clergy, even in the choir. Whenthe office is recited in private, though theobservance of regular hours may be commendable,it is thought sufficient if thewhole be gone through any time in thetwenty-four hours. The church office, exclusiveof the mass and occasional services,is contained in what is called the breviary.In consequence of a decree of the Councilof Trent, Pope Pius V. ordered a numberof learned and able men to compile thebreviary; and by his bull, Quod a nobis,July, 1566, sanctioned it, and commandedthe use thereof to the clergy of the RomanCatholic Church all over the world. ClementVIII., in 1602, finding that thebreviary of Pius V. had been altered anddepraved, restored it to its pristine state;and ordered, under pain of excommunication,that all future editions should strictlyfollow that which he then printed at theVatican. Lastly, Urban VIII., in 1631,had the language of the whole work, andthe metres of the hymns, revised. Thevalue which the Church of Rome sets uponthe breviary, may be known from thestrictness with which she demands theperusal of it. Whoever enjoys any ecclesiasticalrevenue; all persons of both sexes,who have professed in any of the regularorders; all subdeacons, deacons, and priests,are bound to repeat, either in public or inprivate, the whole service of the day, outof the breviary. The omission of anyone of the eight portions of which thatservice consists is declared to be a mortalsin, i. e. a sin that, unrepented, would besufficient to exclude from salvation. Theperson guilty of such an omission losesall legal right to whatever portion of hisclerical emoluments is due for the day ordays wherein he neglected that duty, andcannot be absolved till he has given theforfeited sums to the poor. Such are thesanctions and penalties by which the readingof the breviary is enforced. Thescrupulous exactness with which this dutyis performed by all who have not secretlycast off their spiritual allegiance is quitesurprising. The office of the Roman CatholicChurch was originally so contrived,as to divide the psalter between the sevendays of the week. Portions of the oldScriptures were also read alternately, withextracts from the legends of the saints, andthe works of the fathers. But as the calendarbecame crowded with saints, whosefestivals take precedence of the regularchurch service, little room is left for anythingbut a few psalms, which are constantlyrepeated, a very small part of theOld Testament, and mere fragments of theGospels and Epistles.

The lessons are taken partly out of theOld and New Testaments, and partly outof the Acts of the Saints, and writings ofthe holy fathers. The Lord’s Prayer, theHail Mary, or Angelical Salutation, theApostles’ Creed, and the Confiteor, are frequentlysaid. This last is a prayer, by whichthey who use it acknowledge themselves sinners,beg pardon of God, and the intercessionon their behalf of the angels, of the saints,and of their brethren upon earth. Noprayers are more frequently in the mouthsof Roman Catholics than these four; towhich we may add the doxology, repeatedduring the psalmody in every office, butthough not uniformly at the end of everypsalm, and in other places. In everycanonical hour a hymn is also said, oftencomposed by Prudentius, or some otherancient father. The Roman breviary contains121also a small office, in honour of theBlessed Virgin, and likewise what is calledthe office of the dead. We there find,also, the penitential and the gradual psalms,as they are called, together with the litaniesof the saints, and of the Virgin Mary ofLoretto, which are the only two that havethe sanction of the Church. The breviaryis generally printed in four volumes, onefor each season of the year.

BRIEFS (see Bulls) are pontifical lettersissued from the court of Rome, sealed inred wax, with the seal of the fisherman’sring: they are written in Roman characters,and subscribed by the secretary ofbriefs, who is a secretary of state, (usuallyeither a bishop or a cardinal,) required tobe well versed in the legal style of papaldocuments, and in the sacred canons. Theword Brief, in our Prayer Book, signifiesthe sovereign letters patent, authorizing acollection for a charitable purpose; as theyare now styled, Queen’s letters. These aredirected to be read among the notices afterthe Nicene Creed.

BROACH. In strictness any spire, butgenerally used to signify a spire, the junctionof which with the tower is not markedby a parapet. Lancet and Geometricalspires are generally thus treated; Decorated,frequently; Perpendicular, rarely.

BULL in Cœna Domini. This is thename given to a bull in the Church ofRome, which is publicly read on the dayof the Lord’s supper, viz. Holy Thursday,by a cardinal deacon in the pope’s presence,accompanied with the other cardinals andthe bishops. The same contains an excommunicationof all that are called, by thatapostate Church, heretics, stubborn anddisobedient to the holy see. And after thereading of this bull, the pope throws aburning torch into the public place, todenote the thunder of this anathema. Itis declared expressly, in the beginning ofthe bull of Pope Paul III., of the year1536, that it is the ancient custom of thesovereign pontiffs to publish this excommunicationon Holy Thursday, to preservethe purity of the Christian religion, and tokeep the union of the faithful; but theoriginal of this ceremony is not insertedin it. The principal heads of this bull concernheretics and their upholders, pirates,imposers of new customs, those who falsifythe bulls and other apostolic letters; thosewho abuse the prelates of the Church; thosethat trouble or would restrain ecclesiasticaljurisdiction, even under pretence of preventingsome violence, though they mightbe counsellors or advocates, generals tosecular princes, whether emperors, kings,or dukes; those who usurp the goods ofthe Church, &c. All these cases are reservedto the pope, and no priest can giveabsolution in such a case, if it be not at thepoint of death. The Council of Tours, in1510, declared the bull in Cœna Dominivoid in respect of France, which has oftenprotested against it, in what relates to theking’s prerogative, and the liberties of theGallican Church; and there are now butfew other Popish princes or states thathave much regard to it. So much has theauthority of the papal chair declined sincethe Reformation, even over those who stillremain in the communion of what theycall the Roman Catholic Church.

BULLS (see Briefs) are pontifical letters,in the Romish Church, written in oldGothic characters upon stout and coarseskins, and issued from the apostolic chancery,under a seal (bulla) of lead; whichseal gives validity to the document, and isattached, if it be a “Bull of Grace,” by acord 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 privyseal; and the bulla, or seal of lead, withthe great seal of England.

The bulla is, properly, a seal of empire.The imperial bulla is of gold; and it wasunder a seal of this description that KingJohn resigned the crown of England tothe Pope.

Briefs and Bulls differ from eachother.

1. Briefs are issued from the Romancourt by the apostolic secretary, sealedwith red wax by the fisherman’s ring.Bulls are issued by the apostolic chancellor,under a seal of lead, having on oneside impressed the likeness of St. Peterand St. Paul; and, on the other, the nameof the reigning pope.

2. Briefs are written upon fine andwhite skins. Bulls, upon those whichare thick, coarse, and rude.

3. Briefs are written in Roman characters,in a legible, fair, and elegantmanner. Bulls, though in Latin, arewritten in old Gothic characters, withoutline or stop, or that regard to spellingwhich 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 thewords “[Clemens] Episcopus servus servorumDei;” by way of distinct heading.

1227. Briefs are issued before the pope’scoronation, but Bulls are not issued tillafterwards. (See on this subject, Corrad.in Praxi Dispens. lib. ii. c. 7, n. 29; Rosamde Executione Liter. Apostol. c. 2, n.67; Cardinal de Luca. in relat. RomanæCuriæ, discurs, 7, and other canonists.)

Notwithstanding the above-mentioneddifferences between Briefs and Bulls,and that greater weight is usually attachedto a bull than to a brief, on account of itsmore formal character, still Briefs havethe same authority as Bulls on all thematters to which they relate; both beingequally acts of the pope, though issuedfrom different departments of his Holiness’sgovernment.

BURIAL. (See Cemetery, Dead.) Christiansin the first centuries used to burytheir dead in the places used also by theheathen, in caves or vaults by the wayside,or in fields out of their cities. Theheathen used to burn the bodies of thedead, and collect the ashes in urns, butChristians thought it to be a barbarityand insult to destroy a body appointed toa glorious resurrection. They thereforerestored the older and better practice oflaying the remains decently in the earth.Their persecutors, knowing their feelingson this subject, often endeavoured to preventthem from burying their dead, byburning the bodies of their martyrs, asthey did that of Polycarp, bishop ofSmyrna; or by throwing their ashes intorivers, as they did those of the martyrs ofLyons and Vienne in France, A. D. 177.And although the heathen seemed to thinkit unlucky and of evil omen to performtheir funerals by day, carrying out theirdead after night-fall, and by torch-light;the Christians used to follow their deceasedfriends to the grave, in the light of the sun,with a large attendance of people walkingin procession, sometimes carrying candlesin token of joy and thanksgiving, andchanting psalms. It was also the custom,before they went to the grave, to assemblein the church, where the body was laid,and a funeral sermon was sometimespreached. The holy communion was administeredon these occasions to the friendsof the deceased, for which a service, withan appropriate Collect, Epistle, and Gospel,was set forth in our own Church in theFirst Book of King Edward VI., and in thereign of Queen Elizabeth, A. D. 1560. Theoffice for the Burial of the Dead used by theEnglish Church corresponds in all respectswith 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 appointedto be read.

No person can be buried in the church,or in any part of it, without the consent ofthe incumbent, to whom alone the commonlaw has given this privilege, because thesoil and freehold of the church is in theparson only. But upon the like ground offreehold, the common law has one exceptionto the necessity of the leave of theparson, namely, where a burying-placewithin the church is prescribed for as belongingto a manor house. By the commonlaw of England, any person may be buriedin the churchyard of the parish where hedies, without paying anything for breakingthe soil, unless a fee is payable by prescription,or immemorial usage. But ordinarilya person may not be buried in the churchyardof another parish than that whereinhe died, at least without the consent of theparishioners or churchwardens, whose parochialright of burial is invaded thereby,and perhaps also of the incumbent whosesoil is broken; but where a person dies onhis journey or otherwise, out of the parish,or where there is a family vault or burial-placein the church, or chancel, or aisle ofsuch other parish, it may be otherwise.Burial cannot be legally refused to deadbodies on account of debt, even althoughthe debtor was confined in prison at thetime of his death.

By canon 68. “No minister shall refuseor delay to bury any corpse that is broughtto the church or churchyard, (convenientwarning being given him thereof before,)in such manner and form as is prescribedin the Book of Common Prayer. And ifhe shall refuse so to do, except the partydeceased were denounced excommunicatedmajori excommunicatione, for some grievousand notorious crime, (and no man ableto testify of his repentance,) he shall besuspended by the bishop of the diocesefrom his ministry by the space of threemonths.” But by the rubric before theoffice for Burial of the Dead, the said officelikewise shall not be used for any that dieunbaptized, or that have laid violent handsupon themselves. The proper judges,whether persons who died by their ownhands were out of their senses, are doubtlessthe coroner’s jury. The minister ofthe parish has no authority to be presentat viewing the body, or to summon orexamine witnesses. And therefore he isneither entitled nor able to judge in theaffair; but may well acquiesce in thepublic determination, without making anyprivate inquiry. Indeed, were he to makeone, the opinion which he might form from123thence could usually be grounded only oncommon discourse and bare assertion. Itcannot be justifiable to act upon these incontradiction to the decision of a jury afterhearing witnesses upon oath. Even thoughthere may be reason to suppose that thecoroner’s jury are frequently too favourablein their judgment, in consideration of thecircumstances of the family of the deceasedwith respect to the forfeiture, and theirverdict is in its own nature traversable, yetthe burial may not be delayed until thatmatter upon trial shall finally be determined.On acquittal of the crime of self-murderby the coroner’s jury, the body in that casenot being demanded by the law, it seemsthat the clergyman may and ought to admitthat body to Christian burial.

The rubric directs that the priests andclerks meeting the corpse at the entrance ofthe churchyard, and going before it eitherinto the church or towards the grave, shallsay or sing as is there appointed. By whichit seems to be discretionary in the minister,whether the corpse shall be carried into thechurch or not. And there may be goodreason for not bringing it into the church,especially in cases of infection.

Canon 67. After the party’s deaththere shall be rung no more than one shortpeal, and one before the burial, and oneother after the burial.

The corpse that is buried belongs to noone, but is subject to ecclesiastical cognizance,if abused or removed; and acorpse, once buried, cannot be taken up orremoved without licence from the ordinary,if it is to be buried in another place, or thelike; but in the case of a violent deaththe coroner may take up the body for hisinspection, if it is interred before he comesto view it.—Dr. Burn.

With reference to the Order for theBurial of the Dead in the Book of CommonPrayer, we must note that the ignoranceand corruption of the latter centuries hadnot vitiated any of the sacred administrationsmore than this of burial; on whichthe fancies of purgatory and prayers for thedead had so great an influence, that mostof the forms now extant consist of littleelse but impertinent and useless petitionsfor the dead. Our Protestant reformerstherefore, remembering St. Augustine’srule, that all this office is designed ratherfor the comfort of the living, than thebenefit of the dead, have justly rejectedthese superstitions; and contrived thispresent form wholly for the instruction,admonition, and comfort of the attendantson this solemnity, and therein have reducedthis matter to its prime intentionand use. It is not easy to tell exactly whatthe primitive form of burial was; but thepsalms were a principal part of it, as allthe fathers testify. They are now also achief part of this office, and the rest isgenerally taken out of Holy Scripture,being such places as are most proper tothe occasion, so as to form altogether amost pious and practical office.—DeanComber.

Although all persons are for decency tobe put under ground, yet that some arenot capable of Christian burial appears notonly from the canons of the ancient Church,but also from the following rubric prefixedto our office at the last review: “Here itis to be noted, that the office ensuing is notto be used for any that die unbaptized, orexcommunicate, or have laid violent handsupon themselves.”

The persons capable of Christian burialare only those within the pale of theChurch, for the rubric excludes all othersfrom this privilege; which is agreeable tothe sense of all nations, who have generallythought fit to punish some kinds of malefactorswith the want of these rites aftertheir death, as well to afflict the criminal,while he lives, with apprehensions of thedisgrace to be done to his body, which isnaturally dear to all men; as to perpetuatethe odium of the crime, while the corpseis exposed to public scorn after the offenderhath parted with his life. Thus murdererswere punished among the Romans: andamong the Greeks, robbers of temples andsacrilegious persons, as also those thatbetrayed their country, with divers othernotorious transgressors. But none havebeen so justly and so universally deprivedof that natural right, which all men seemto have in a grave, as those who break thatgreat law of nature, the law of self-preservation,by laying violent hands uponthemselves. Among the Jews, these wereforbidden to be buried, and among theancient Romans also. And when many ofthe Milesian virgins made themselves away,the rest were restrained from so vile acrime by a decree, that whosoever so died,she should not be buried, but her nakedbody should be exposed to the commonview. And, to confirm the equity of thesecustoms, we find the Christian councils, aswell abroad as at home, have forbidden theclergy to bury those that killed themselves;as doth also our present rubric in imitationof those ancient constitutions. Andfor very great reason, namely, to terrify allfrom committing so detestable and desperatea sin, as is the wilful destroying ofGod’s image, the casting away of their124own souls, as well as their opportunities ofrepentance: the Church hereby declaring,that she hath little hopes of their salvation,who die in an act of the greatestwickedness, which they can never repentof after it be committed.

To these are to be added all that dieunder the sentence of excommunication,who in the primitive times were deniedChristian burial also, with the intent ofbringing the excommunicated to seek theirabsolution and the Church’s peace for theirsoul’s health, ere they leave this world;and, if not, of declaring them cut off fromthe body of Christ, and by this mark ofinfamy distinguishing them from obedientand regular Christians.

This office is also denied to infants notyet admitted into the Church by baptism;not so much to punish the infants, whohave done no crime, as the parents, bywhose neglect this too often happens. Andperhaps this external and sensible kind ofpunishment may move them to be morecareful to accomplish the office in duetime, than higher and more spiritual considerationswill do.

Not that the Church determines anythingconcerning the future state of thosethat depart before they are admitted tobaptism; but since they have not been receivedwithin the pale of the Church, wecannot properly use an office at theirfuneral, which all along supposes the personthat is buried to have died in her communion.

Whether this office is to be used oversuch as have been baptized by the dissentersor sectaries, who have no regularcommission for the administering of thesacraments, has been a subject of dispute;people generally determining on one side,or the other, according to their differentsentiments of the validity or invalidity ofsuch disputed baptisms.—Wheatly.

All other persons that die in the communionof the visible Church are capableof these rites of Christian burial, accordingto the rules and practice both of the primitiveand the present ages.—DeanComber.

Though this rubric was not drawn uptill 1661, and none of the regulationswhich it enjoins, excepting only what relatesto persons excommunicate, was beforethat time specified in any of our articles,or ecclesiastical constitutions, yet it mustnot be considered as a new law, but merelyas explanatory of the ancient canon law,and of the previous usage in England.—Shepherd.

The Order for the Burial of the Dead ismuch modified from the service in theFirst Book of King Edward VI. Thepsalms were the 116th, 139th, and 146th:the prayers were in many respects different;and there are certain passages omittedin the Second Book. The psalms inthe First Book were omitted in the subsequentrevisals, and the lesson was recitedafter the anthem, “I heard a voice fromheaven:” and the present psalms werenot inserted till the last Review.

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

BUTTRESS. An external support toa wall, so arranged as to counteract thelateral thrust of roofs and vaulting.

The buttress is not used in Classic architecture,where the thrust is always vertical;and in Romanesque it is hardlydeveloped. It is, in fact, a correlative ofthe pointed arch, especially when used invaulting, and so first attains considerabledepth in the Lancet period. In the Tudorperiod, when it had to support fan vaultingof vast expanse and weight, its depth orprojection was proportionably increased.

The flying buttress, arch-buttress, or cross-springer,is an arch delivering the weightto be supported at a distance, as of a spireat the angle of the tower, of a clerestory atthe aisle buttress, or of the chapter-houseroof at Lincoln, to the heavy masses of masonryprepared at a distance to receive it.

The pinnacles which frequently terminatebuttresses are intended to add to theweight of the supporting mass. (See Bay.)

CABBALA. (Hebrew.) Tradition.Among the Jews, it principally means themystical interpretations of their Scriptures,handed down by tradition. The mannerin which Maimonides explains the Cabbala,or Traditions of the Jews, is as follows:“God not only delivered the law toMoses on Mount Sina, but the explanationof it likewise. When Moses came downfrom the mount, and entered into his tent,Aaron went to visit him, and Moses acquaintedAaron with the laws he had receivedfrom God, together with the explanationof them. After this, Aaronplaced himself at the right hand of Moses,and Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons ofAaron, were admitted; to whom Mosesrepeated what he had just before told toAaron. These being seated, the one onthe right, the other on the left hand ofMoses, the seventy elders of Israel, who125composed the Sanhedrim, came in. Mosesagain declared the same laws to them, withthe interpretations of them, as he had donebefore to Aaron and his sons. Lastly, allwho pleased of the common people wereinvited to enter, and Moses instructedthem likewise in the same manner as therest. So that Aaron heard four timeswhat Moses had been taught by God uponMount Sina; Eleazar and Ithamar threetimes; the seventy elders twice; and thepeople once. Moses afterwards reducedthe laws, which he had received, intowriting, but not the explanations of them;these he thought it sufficient to trust tothe memories of the above-mentioned persons,who, being perfectly instructed inthem, delivered them to their children,and these again to theirs, from age toage.”

The Cabbala, therefore, is properly theOral Law of the Jews, delivered down, byword of mouth, from father to son; and itis to these interpretations of the writtenlaw our Saviour’s censure is to be applied,when he reproves the Jews for “makingthe commands of God of none effectthrough their traditions.”

Some of the Rabbins pretend that theorigin of the Cabbala is to be referred tothe angels; that the angel Raziel instructedAdam in it; the angel Japhiel, Shem;the angel Zedekiel, Abraham, &c. Butthe truth is, these explications of the Laware only the several interpretations anddecisions of the Rabbins on the Law ofMoses; in the framing of which theystudied principally the combinations ofparticular words, letters, and numbers, andby that means pretended to discover clearlythe true sense of the difficult passages ofScripture.

This is properly called the ArtificialCabbala, to distinguish it from simple tradition:and it is of three sorts. The first,called Gematria, consists in taking lettersas figures, and explaining words by thearithmetical value of the letters of whichthey are composed. For instance, theHebrew letters of Jabo-Schiloh (Shilohshall come) make up the same arithmeticalnumber as Messiach (the Messiah): fromwhence they conclude that Shiloh signifiesthe Messiah.

The second kind of Artificial Cabbala,which is called Notaricon, consists in takingeach particular letter of a word for anentire 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 thefirmament, the earth, the heavens, the sea,and the deep. Or in forming one entirediction out of the initial letters of many:thus, in Atah-Gibbor-Leholam-Adonai,(Thou art strong for ever, O Lord,) theyput the initial letters of this sentence together,and form the word Agla, whichsignifies either, I will reveal, or, a drop ofdew, and is the Cabbalistic name of God.

The third kind, called Themura, consistsin changing and transposing the letters ofa word: thus of the word Bereschith (thefirst of the book of Genesis) they makeA-betisri, the first of the month Tisri, andinfer from thence that the world was createdon the first day of the month Tisri,which answers very nearly to our September.

The Cabbala, according to the Jews, isa noble and sublime science, conductingmen by an easy method to the profoundesttruths. Without it, the Holy Scripturescould not be distinguished from profanebooks, wherein we find some miraculousevents, and as pure morality as that of thelaw, if we did not penetrate into the truthslocked up under the external cover of theliteral sense. As men were grossly deceived,when, dwelling upon the sensibleobject, they mistook angels for men; soalso they fall into error or ignorance whenthey insist upon the surface of letters orwords, which change with custom, andascend not up to the ideas of God himself,which are infinitely more noble andspiritual.

Certain visionaries among the Jews believethat our blessed Lord wrought hismiracles by virtue of the mysteries of theCabbala. Some learned men are of opinion,that Pythagoras and Plato learnedthe Cabbalistic art of the Jews in Egypt;others, on the contrary, say the philosophyof Pythagoras and Plato furnishedthe Jews with the Cabbala. Most of theheretics, in the primitive Christian Church,fell into the vain conceits of the Cabbala;particularly the Gnostics, Valentinians, andBasilidians.—Broughton.

CABBALISTS. Those Jewish doctorswho profess the study of the Cabbala. Inthe opinion of these men, there is not aword, letter, or accent in the law, withoutsome mystery in it. The first Cabbalisticalauthor that we know of is Simon, the sonof Joachai, who is said to have lived a littlebefore the destruction of Jerusalem byTitus. His book, entitled Zohar, is extant;but it is agreed that many additionshave been made to it. The first part ofthis work is entitled Zeniutha, or Mystery;the second Idra Rabba, or the Great Synod;126the third, Idra Latta, or the Little Synod,which is the author’s last adieu to his disciples.—Broughton.

CAINITES, or CANIANS. Christianheretics, a sect of the Gnostics of the secondcentury: they were called accordingto Cain’s name, who, they say, was formedby a celestial and almighty power, andthat Abel was made by a weak one: theyheld that the way to be saved was to maketrial of all manner of things, and to satisfytheir lusts with all wicked actions: theyfancied a great number of angels, to whichthey gave barbarous names, attributing toeach of them a particular sin; so thatwhen they were about any wicked action,they invoked the angel whom they fanciedto preside over it. They composed abook called St. Paul’s Ascension to Heaven,which they filled with blasphemies andexecrable impieties, as if they were thesecret words which that apostle heard inhis ecstasy: they had a particular venerationfor Cain, Corah, Dathan, and Abiram,the Sodomites, and especially for Judas,on whose Gospel they relied, because histreachery occasioned the death of Christ;and they made use of a Gospel that borethat false disciple’s name.

CALENDAR. The word calendar isderived from calendæ, the first day of theRoman month. Our calendar in the PrayerBook consists of several columns. Thefirst shows the days of the month in theirnumerical order; the second contains theletters of the alphabet affixed to the daysof the week; the third, as printed in thelarger Common Prayer Books, (and as itought to be in all,) has the calends, nones,and ides, which was the method of computationused by the old Romans and primitiveChristians, and is still useful to thosewho read ecclesiastical history.

The last four columns contain the courseof lessons for morning and evening prayerfor ordinary days throughout the year.The intermediate column, namely, thefourth, contains, together with the holy daysobserved by the Church of England, suchPopish holy days as it was thought best toretain. The reasons why the names ofthese saints’ days and holy days were resumedinto the calendar are various. Someof them being retained upon account ofour courts of justice, which usually madetheir returns on these days, or else uponthe days before or after them, which werecalled in the writs, Vigil., Fest., or Crast.,as in Vigil. Martin, Fest. Martin, Crast.Martin, and the like. Others are probablykept in the calendar for the sake of suchtradesmen, handicraftsmen, and others, asare wont to celebrate the memory of theirtutelar saints: as the “Welshmen do of St.David, the shoemakers of St. Crispin, &c.And again, churches being in several placesdedicated to some or other of these saints,it has been the usual custom in such placesto have wakes or fairs kept upon thosedays; so that the people would probablybe displeased, if, either in this, or theformer case, their favourite saint’s nameshould be left out of the calendar. Besides,the histories which were writ before theReformation do frequently speak of transactionshappening upon such a holy day, orabout such a time, without mentioning themonth, relating one thing to be done atLammas-tide, and another about Martinmas,&c.; so that were these names quiteleft out of the calendar, we might be at aloss to know when several of these transactionshappened. For this and the foregoingreasons our second reformers underQueen Elizabeth (though all those dayshad been omitted in both books of KingEdward VI., excepting St. George’s day,Lammas day, St. Laurence, and St. Clement,which two last were in his SecondBook) thought convenient to restore thenames of them to the calendar, though notwith any regard of being kept holy by theChurch. For this they thought prudentto forbid, as well upon the account of thegreat inconveniency brought into theChurch in the times of Popery, by the observationof such a number of holy days,to the great prejudice of labouring andtrading men, as by reason that many ofthose saints they then commemorated wereoftentimes men of none of the best characters.Besides, the history of these saints,and the accounts they gave of the otherholy days, were frequently found to befeigned and fabulous. An effort to reformthe calendar was made in the reign ofQueen Elizabeth, but was never carriedinto effect. By the acts 24 Geo. ii. c. 23,and 25 Geo. ii. c. 30, the calendar was reformed,and the new style introduced: inconsequence of which the calendar (onlyso far as its astronomical errors were concerned)has attained to that form in whichit is now prefixed to the Prayer Book.See Stephens’s Book of Common Prayer,with notes, where both the ancient andmodern calendar are given at length.—Wheatly.

CALL TO THE MINISTRY. Thereare two sorts of motions or calls to theministry. First, the outward; wherebythose who have a right of recommendinga person to the execution of any ecclesiasticaloffice, do fix upon him as one in their127judgment qualified for it; and the bishop,approving their judgment, does admit himinto such office in due manner, as the lawsof God and the rites of the Church dorequire. But the inward call is somethingpreceding this, and is required by ourChurch as a qualification for the latter.Now it has been some matter of doubtwhat is meant here by being “inwardlymoved by the Holy Ghost.” But I thinkno one can judge, that the compilers ofthis office did ever entertain such enthusiasticalnotions, as to imagine that no personswere to be admitted into any degree ofthe ecclesiastical orders, without having aspecial revelation from the Holy Spirit,that God had particularly commissionedthem to take upon them that office, as St.Paul says of himself, that he was “anapostle called of God.” (Rom. i. 1; 1 Cor.i. 1.) For such calls as these were miraculousand extraordinary, and remainednot much longer than the apostolical times.It remains, therefore, that this motion orcall must be something in a more ordinaryand common way.

Now we know that the Scripture teaches,that the common and ordinary graces, andall good dispositions and resolutions, areattributed to the Holy Spirit of God.“Every good and perfect gift cometh fromabove.” (Jam. i. 17.) “It is God thatworketh in you, both to will and to do, ofhis good pleasure.” (Phil. ii. 13.) Theapostle calls the ordinary graces of love,joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness,meekness, temperance, “the fruits ofthe Spirit.” (Gal. v. 22, 23.) Thus the beliefof 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,” ishis ordinary motion, by which Christiansare stirred up to every good resolutionwhich they make, or good action whichthey do. And whereas a resolution to takeupon one the office of the ministry, withoutany bad design mixing with it, is a goodresolution, so he that takes it up may beproperly said to be moved by the HolyGhost to do it. For it must be undoubtedlyowned, that such a resolution is agood and pious one, since the apostle saysplainly, laying it down as an undoubtedtruth, “This is a true saying, if a mandesireth the office of a bishop, he desiretha good work.” (1 Tim. iii. 1.) And, to besure, in those times it seldom happened,that this or any other ecclesiastical officewas desired, but only from a pure view ofdoing good. For these were exposed theforemost to the rage of the persecutors, andmen must be actuated by a noble zeal forthe gospel, to lay themselves under thenecessity of being exposed to the mostgrievous sufferings, or laying down theirlives for the sake of it. And in these times,likewise, men may, and frequently, I doubtnot, do, take upon them the ecclesiasticalemploys upon very good aims. Thereforethe meaning of this question is, whether,after an impartial examination of theirhearts, they find that they do not take thissacred employ upon them, barely for amaintenance in the world, or that therebythey may acquire those superior dignitiesand profits, which in these peaceable agesof Christianity some of the clergy do partakeof; but only that they think theymay be serviceable in God’s vineyard, andare willing to contribute the best of theirlabours therein, “for the promoting ofGod’s glory and the edifying of his people.”I do not think the question intends, thatall who are to be ordained should professthat they would be desirous of this office,though there were no temporal advantagesattending it, and though it exposed mennot only to starving, but to apparent persecutionand death; for then most, eventhe best persons, as times go now, mightjustly scruple the answering to such aquestion: but I take it to mean no morethan that, since they are to take upon themsome employ or other for their own subsistenceand the benefit of the community,they choose to take upon them the officeof the ministry, wherein they think theycan act more for God’s glory and thebenefit of their Christian brethren, than byexercising any temporal calling; and thatthey verily believe, that it was not withoutthe assistance of God’s good Spirit thatthey formed this judgment and resolution.—Dr.Nicholls.

The candidate for deacon’s orders hasthe question of the inward call put to himthus: Do you trust that you are inwardlymoved by the Holy Ghost, to take uponyou this office and ministration to serveGod, in promoting his glory, and the edifyingof his people?

This is a great question indeed, and thatwhich no man can give a true and positiveanswer to, without having searched narrowlyinto his own heart, and seriouslyconsidered the bent and inclinations of hissoul. But it is a question very necessaryto be propounded, for the Holy Ghostnow supplies the place and room of ourblessed Saviour in his Church militanthere on earth. And therefore, as it was128by him that the several offices themselveswere at first constituted, so it is by himthat men are called to the execution ofthem; and it is by him alone that all ecclesiasticalministrations, performed by suchofficers, are made effectual to the purposesfor which they are appointed; and thereforethe Church is bound to take carethat none be admitted into her ministrybut such as she believes and hopes to becalled to it by the Holy Ghost. But shecan have no ground to believe this, butonly from the persons themselves, nonebut themselves being acquainted with themotions of God’s Spirit upon their ownhearts. And therefore the bishop requiresthem to deal plainly and faithfully withhim and the Church, and to tell himwhether they really trust that they aremoved by the Holy Ghost to take thisoffice upon them? To which every one isbound to answer, “I trust so:” not thathe knows it, or is certain of it, for it ispossible that his heart may deceive him init, but that he trusts or hopes it is so.

But what ground can any one have totrust that he is moved by the Holy Ghostto take the ministry upon him? To thatI answer in short, that if a man finds that,upon due examination, the bishop of thediocese, where he is to serve, is satisfied ofhis abilities and qualifications for the ministry;and that his great end and design inundertaking it is to serve God, for thepromoting of his glory and the edifying ofhis 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 beduly qualified for it, and moved to take itupon him, out of so good and pious a designas that is. But if either of these thingsbe wanting; as, if a man be not fitted forthe office, he may conclude he is not calledto it by the Holy Ghost, for he neithercalls nor useth any but fit instruments inwhat he doth; or, if a man be moved to itout of a design, not to do good, but to getapplause or preferment in the world, hemay thence infer that he is not moved toit by the Spirit of God, but by the spiritof pride and covetousness, and then canhave no ground to expect that the HolyGhost should ever bless and assist him inthe execution of his office. According tothese rules, therefore, they who are to beordained may discern whether they cantruly give the answer required to thisgreat question that will be propounded tothem. As for their qualifications for it,the bishop hath already approved of them;but as to their main end and design inundertaking the ministry, that must be leftto God and their own consciences, whoalone know it, and so can best judgewhether they can truly say that they“trust they are moved to it by the HolyGhost.”—Bp. Beveridge.

The following is Calvin’s definition ofthe inward call in his book of Institutes,which being published about ten yearsbefore the Ordinal of Edward the Sixth,might probably be a guide to our Reformersin framing this question: “That it isthe good testimony of our own heart, thatwe have taken this office, neither for ambition,covetousness, nor any evil design, butout of a true fear of God, and a desire toedify the Church.” Now this we mayknow by duly considering, whether it werethe external honours and revenues that areannexed to this profession, or any otherworldly end, that first or chiefly did inclineus to the ministry. If so, we were movedby carnal objects, and led on by our owncorrupt will and affections. But if ourprincipal motives were spiritual, that is, azeal for God’s glory, and a desire to promotethe salvation of souls, then we were“moved by the Spirit, and inwardly calledby God.” I grant we cannot but knowthere are honours and rewards piously andjustly annexed to this holy function; and,as men, we cannot but hope for a competencyof them; yea, this may be a subordinatemotive. But I may say of thepriesthood, as Christ of the kingdom ofheaven, it must be sought in the first placefor itself, and the other only as additionalconsequences thereof. (Matt. vi. 33.) Wemust love the duties of this calling; reading,study, praying, preaching, &c., more thanthe rewards. Yea, if persecution shouldever strip the Church of these provisions,as it hath often done, we must not cast offour holy ministrations. (1 Cor. ix. 16.)

This inward call thus explained is thefirst and one of the principal qualificationsfor him that is to be employed about heavenlythings. And therefore it is inserted,not only into ours, but other reformedoffices for ordination; where it is inquired,“if they believe that God by the Churchcalls them to this ministry, and if they didnot seek for worldly riches or glory,” as inthe liturgy of the Belgic Church. Ourcandidates know this question will be asked:wherefore let them examine theirhearts strictly, and answer it in the sincerityof their souls; not doubting butthat good Spirit, who excited them tothis work, will assist and bless all theirperformances.—Dean Comber.

We may here observe, that the first questionput to those who are to be ordained129priests, concerning their being moved bythe Holy Ghost to take that office uponthem, is now omitted. For, these havingbeen ordained deacons before, it is supposedthat they were then moved by theSpirit of Christ to take the ministry ofhis gospel upon them, and there is no needof any further call from him. For beingonce called by him, though it was but tothe lowest office of his own institution, theChurch takes it for granted that it is hispleasure they should be promoted to anyhigher office, if there be sufficient reasonand occasion for it.—Bp. Beveridge.

CALOYERS. A general name givento the monks of the Greek Church. It istaken from the Greek καλεγόροι, whichsignifies “good old men.”—Hist. des Ord.Relig. P. i. cap. 19. These religious considerSt. Basil as their father and founder,and look upon it as a crime to follow anyother rule than his. There are three degreesamong them; the novices, who arecalled Archari; the ordinary professed,called Microchemi; and the more perfect,called Megalochemi. They are likewisedivided into Cœnobites, Anchorets, andRecluse.

The Cœnobites are employed in recitingtheir office from midnight to sunset; andas 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 genuflexionsat the door of the choir, and, returning,to bow to the right and left totheir brethren. The Anchorets retire fromthe conversation of the world, and live inhermitages in the neighbourhood of themonasteries. They cultivate a little spotof ground, and never go out but on Sundaysand holidays, to perform their devotionsat the next monastery; the rest ofthe week they employ in prayer and workingwith their hands. As for the Recluse,they shut themselves up in grottos andcaverns on the tops of mountains, whichthey never go out of, abandoning themselvesentirely to Providence. They liveon the alms sent them by the neighbouringmonasteries.

In the monasteries, the religious rise atmidnight, and repeat a particular office,called from thence Mesonycticon; whichtakes up the space of two hours: afterwhich, they retire to their cells till fiveo’clock in the morning, when they returnto the church to say matins. At nineo’clock they repeat the Terce, Sexte, andMass; after which they repair to the refectory,where is a lecture read till dinner.Before they leave the refectory, the cookcomes to the door, and, kneeling down,demands their blessing. At four o’clockin the afternoon, they say vespers; and atsix go to supper. After supper, they sayan office, from thence called Apodipho;and at eight, each monk retires to hischamber and bed till midnight. Everyday, after matins, they confess their faultson their knees to their superior.

They have four Lents. The first andgreatest is that of the Resurrection of ourLord. They call it the Grand Quarantain,and it lasts eight weeks. During thisLent, the religious drink no wine, andtheir abstinence is so great, that if theyare obliged, in speaking, to name milk,butter, or cheese, they always add thisparenthesis, 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 continuingsometimes three weeks, and atother times longer. During this Lent,they are allowed to drink wine. Thethird Lent is that of the Assumption ofour Lady: it lasts fourteen days; duringwhich they abstain from fish, excepting onSundays, and the day of the Transfigurationof our Lord. The fourth Lent isthat of Advent, which they observe afterthe same manner as that of the Apostles.

The Caloyers, besides the usual habit ofthe monastic life, wear over their shouldersa square piece of stuff, on which are representedthe cross, and the other marksof the passion of our Saviour, with theseletters, JC. XC. VC., i. e. Jesus ChristusVincit.

All the monks are obliged to labour forthe benefit of their monastery, as long asthey continue in it. Some have the careof the fruits, others of the grain, and othersof the cattle. The necessity the Caloyersare under of cultivating their own lands,obliges them to admit a great number oflay-brothers, who are employed the wholeday in working.

Over all these Caloyers there are visitorsor exarchs, who visit the conventsunder their inspection, only to draw fromthem the sums which the patriarch demandsof them. Yet, notwithstanding thetaxes these religious are obliged to pay,both to their patriarch and to the Turks,their convents are very rich.

The most considerable monastery ofthe Greek Caloyers in Asia, is that ofMount Sinai, which was founded by theemperor Justinian, and endowed withsixty thousand crowns revenue. The abbotof this monastery, who is also an130archbishop, has under him two hundredreligious. This convent is a large squarebuilding, surrounded with walls fifty feethigh, and with but one gate, which isblocked up to prevent the entrance of theArabs. On the eastern side there is awindow, through which those within drawup the pilgrims in a basket, which theylet down by a pulley. Not many miles beyondthis, they have another, dedicated toSt. Catharine. It is situated in the placewhere Moses made the bitter waters sweet.It has a garden, with a plantation of morethan ten thousand palm-trees, from whencethe monks draw a considerable revenue.There is another in Palestine, four or fiveleagues from Jerusalem, situated in themost barren place imaginable. The gateof the convent is covered with the skinsof crocodiles, to prevent the Arabs settingfire to it, or breaking it to pieces withstones. It has a large tower, in whichthere is always a monk, who gives noticeby a bell of the approach of the Arabs, orany wild beasts.

The Caloyers, or Greek monks, have agreat number of monasteries in Europe;among which that of Penteli, a mountainof Attica, near Athens, is remarkable forits beautiful situation, and a very goodlibrary. That of Calimachus, a principaltown of the island of Chios, is remarkablefor the occasion of its foundation. Itis called Niamogni, i. e. “The sole Virgin,”its church having been built in memoryof an image of the holy Virgin, miraculouslyfound on a tree, being the onlyone left of several which had been consumedby fire. Constantin Monomachus,emperor of Constantinople, being informedof this miracle, made a vow to build achurch in that place, if he recovered histhrone, from which he had been driven;this vow he executed in the year 1050. Theconvent is large, and built in the mannerof a castle. It consists of about two hundredreligious, and its revenues amount tosixty thousand piasters, of which they payfive hundred yearly to the Grand Seignor.

There is in Amourgo, one of the islandsof the Archipelago called Sporades, amonastery of Greek Caloyers, dedicated toour Lady: it is a large and deep cavern,on the top of a very high hill, and is enteredby a ladder of fifteen or twentysteps. The church, refectory, and cells ofthe religious, who inhabit this grotto, aredug out of the sides of the rock with admirableartifice.

But the most celebrated monasteries ofGreek Caloyers are those of Mount Athosin Macedonia. They are twenty-three innumber; and the religious live in them soregularly, that the Turks themselves havea great esteem for them, and often recommendthemselves to their prayers. Everythingin them is magnificent; and, notwithstandingthey have been under theTurk for so long a time, they have lostnothing of their grandeur. The principalof these monasteries are De la Panagiaand Anna Laura. The religious, whoaspire to the highest dignities, come fromall parts of the East to perform here theirnoviciate, and, after a stay of some years,are received, upon their return into theirown country, as apostles.

The Caloyers of Mount Athos have agreat aversion to the pope, and relatethat a Roman pontiff, having visited theirmonasteries, had plundered and burnedsome of them, because they would not adorehim.

There are female Caloyers, or Greeknuns, who likewise follow the rule of St.Basil. Their nunneries are always dependenton some monastery. The Turks buysashes of their working, and they opentheir gates freely to the Turks on thisoccasion. Those of Constantinople arewidows, some of whom have had severalhusbands. They make no vow, nor confinethemselves within their convents. Thepriests are forbidden, under severe penalties,to visit these religious.—Broughton.

CALVINISTS. Those who interpretScripture in accordance with the viewsof John Calvin, who was born at Noyon,A. D. 1509, and afterwards settled at Geneva,and who established a system both ofdoctrine and of discipline peculiarly hisown.

The essential doctrines of Calvinismhave been reduced to these five: particularelection, particular redemption, moral inabilityin a fallen state, irresistible grace,and the final perseverance of the saints.These are termed, by theologians, the fivepoints; and ever since the synod of Dort,(see Dort,) when they were the subjects ofdiscussion between the Calvinists andArminians, and whose decrees are thestandard of modern Calvinism, frequenthave been the controversies agitated respectingthem. Even the Calvinists themselvesdiffer in the explication of them:it cannot therefore be expected that a veryspecific account of them should be givenhere. Generally speaking, however, theycomprehend the following propositions:—

1st, That God has chosen a certainnumber in Christ to everlasting glory, beforethe foundation of the world, accordingto his immutable purpose, and of his free131grace and love, without the least foresightof faith, good works, or any conditions performedby the creature; and that the restof mankind he was pleased to pass by, andordain them to dishonour and wrath fortheir sins, to the praise of his vindictivejustice.

2ndly, That Jesus Christ, by his sufferingsand death, made an atonement onlyfor the sins of the elect.

3dly, That mankind are totally depravedin consequence of the fall; and, by virtueof Adam’s being their public head, theguilt of his sin was imputed, and a corruptnature conveyed to all his posterity, fromwhich proceeds all actual transgression;and that by sin we are made subject todeath, and all miseries, temporal, spiritual,and eternal.

4thly, That all whom God has predestinatedto life, he is pleased, in his appointedtime, effectually to call, by his word andSpirit, out of that state of sin and death, inwhich they are by nature, to grace andsalvation by Jesus Christ.

And 5thly, That those whom God haseffectually called and sanctified by his Spirit,shall never finally fall from a state of grace.

CAMALDOLI. A religious order ofChristians founded by St. Romuald, aboutthe end of the tenth century: this mangave his monks the rule of St. Bennet’sorder, with some particular constitutions,and a white habit, after a vision he had ofseveral persons clothed so, who were goingup on a ladder to heaven. He was of anoble family of Ravenna, and having foundon the Apennine hills near Arezzo afrightful solitary place, called Campo Maldoli,he began to build a monastery there,about the year 1009, and this monasterygave its name to all the order. The congregationof hermits of St. Romuald, or ofMount Couronne, is a branch of the Camaldoli,to which it was joined in 1532. PaulJustinian, of Venice, began its establishmentin 1520, and founded the chief monasteryin the Apennine, in a place called theMount of the Crown, ten miles from Perugia,and dedicated to our Saviour in 1555.—Hist.des Ord. Relig.

CAMERONIANS. A party of Presbyteriansin Scotland, so called from ArchibaldCameron, a field preacher, who wasthe first who separated from communionwith the other Presbyterians, who werenot of his opinion concerning the ministersthat had accepted of his indulgence fromKing Charles II. He considered the acceptanceof the indulgence to be a countenancingof the supremacy in ecclesiasticalaffairs. The other Presbyterians wishedthe controversy to drop, till it could bedetermined by a general assembly; butthe Cameronians, through a transport ofzeal, separated from them, and some whoassociated with them ran into excess offrenzy; declaring that King Charles II.had forfeited his right to the crown andsociety of the Church, by his breaking thesolemn league and covenant, which wasthe 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 excommunicatehim, and for that purposemade an insurrection, but were soon suppressed.Since the accession of King WilliamIII. to the crown, they complied withand zealously served the government; andas regards their former differences in Churchmatters, they were also laid aside, thepreachers of their party having submittedto the General Assembly of the Scottishestablishment in 1690, of which they stillcontinue members.

CAMISARDS. The popular name ofthe Protestants who rose in the Cevennesagainst the oppression of Louis XIV. ofFrance. There are various etymologies ofthe word; the most probable is that whichderives it from camisa or chemise, in allusionto the blouse or smock-frock whichwas generally worn.

CANCELLI. (See Chancel.)

CANDLES. (See Lights on the Altar.)

CANDLEMAS DAY. A name formerlygiven to the festival of the Purificationof the Virgin Mary, observed in ourChurch, February 2. In the mediævalChurch, this day was remarkable for thenumber of lighted candles which wereborne about in processions, and placed inchurches, in memory of him who, in thewords 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 tobe derived.

CANON. The laws of the Church arecalled canons, the word canon being derivedfrom a Greek word, which signifiesa rule or measure.

Since the Church is a society of Christians,and since every society must haveauthority to prescribe rules and laws forthe government of its own members, itmust necessarily follow that the Churchhas this power; for otherwise there wouldbe great disorder amongst Christians. Thispower was exercised in the Church beforethe Roman empire became Christian, asappears by those ancient canons whichwere made before that time, and which are132mentioned in the writings of the primitivefathers; by the apostolical canons, which,though not made by the apostles themselves,are nevertheless of great antiquity;and by various canons which were madein 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 bythe laity, under pain of excommunication.Under this title we will mention: 1. Foreigncanons. 2. Such as have been received here.3. The power of making new canons.

(I.) As to the first, Constantine theGreat, the first emperor who gave Christianssome respite from persecution, causedgeneral councils and national and provincialsynods to be assembled in his dominions;where, amongst other things, ruleswere made for the government of theChurch, which were called canons; thesubstance of which was at first collectedout of the Scriptures, or the ancientwritings of the fathers. We will nottrouble the reader with a long history ofprovincial constitutions, synodals, glossaries,sentences of popes, summaries, andrescripts, from which the canon law has,by degrees, been compiled, since the daysof that emperor; it is sufficient to state,that they were collected by Ivo, bishop ofChartres, about the 14th year of our KingHenry I., in three volumes, which arecommonly called the Decrees. Thesedecrees, corrected by Gratian, a Benedictinemonk, were published in Englandin the reign of King Stephen; and thereason of the publication at that timemight be to decide the quarrel betweenTheobald, archbishop of Canterbury, andHenry, bishop of Winchester, the king’sbrother, who being made a legate, thearchbishop looked upon it as a diminutionof his power, and an encroachment uponthat privilege which he had as legatusnatus. (See Legate.) These decrees werereceived by the clergy of the WesternChurch, but never by those of the East,which is one reason why their priests continuedto marry, which the clergy of theWest were, by these decrees, forbiddento do.

The next, in order of time, were theDecretals (see Decretals,) which are canonicalepistles written by popes alone, orassisted by some cardinals, to determineany controversy; and of these there arelikewise three volumes. The first volumeof these Decretals was compiled by RaimundusBarcinus, who was chaplain toGregory IX., and were published by himabout the 14th year of King Henry III.,A. D. 1226. This was appointed to be readin all schools, and was to be taken for lawin all ecclesiastical courts. About sixtyyears afterwards, Simon, a monk of Walden,began to read these laws in the universityof Cambridge, and the next year inOxford. The second volume was collectedand arranged by Boniface VIII., and publishedabout the 27th year of our KingEdward I., A. D. 1298. The third volumewas collected by Clement V., and publishedin the Council of Vienna, and likewisehere, in the 2nd year of Edward II., A. D.1308, and from him were called Clementines.

These decretals were never received inEngland, or anywhere else, but only inthe pope’s dominions, which are thereforecalled by canonists Patriæ obedientiæ, asparticularly the canon concerning the investitureof bishops by a lay hand. JohnAndreas, a celebrated canonist in thefourteenth century, wrote a commentaryon these decretals, which he entitled Novellæ,from a very beautiful daughter hehad of that name, whom he bred a scholar:the father being a professor of law at Bologna,had instructed his daughter so wellin it, that she assisted him in reading lecturesto his scholars, and, therefore, toperpetuate her memory, he gave that bookthe title of Novellæ.

About the tenth year of King EdwardII., John XXII. published his Extravagants.But as to the Church of England,even at that time, when the papal authoritywas at the highest, none of these foreigncanons, or any new canons, made at anynational or provincial synod here, had anymanner of force if they were against theprerogative of the king, or the laws of theland. It is true that every Christian nationin communion with the pope sentsome bishops, abbots, or priors, to thoseforeign councils, and generally four weresent out of England; and it was by thosemeans, together with the allowance of thecivil power, that some canons made therewere received here, but such as wereagainst the laws were totally rejected.

Nevertheless, some of these foreigncanons were received in England, andobtained the force of laws by the generalapprobation of the king and people (thoughit may be difficult to know what thesecanons are); and it was upon this pretencethat the pope claimed an ecclesiasticaljurisdiction, independent of the king, andsent his legates to England with commissionsto determine causes according tothose canons, which were now compiledinto several volumes, and called Jus Canonicum:these were not only enjoined to133be obeyed as laws, but publicly to be readand expounded in all schools and universitiesas the civil law was read andexpounded there, under pain of excommunicationto those who neglected. Hencearose quarrels between kings and severalarchbishops and other prelates, who adheredto those papal usurpations.

(II.) Besides these foreign canons, therewere several laws and constitutions madehere for the government of the Church, allof which are now in force, but which hadnot been so without the assent and confirmationof the kings of England. Evenfrom William I. to the time of the Reformation,no canons or constitutions madein any synods were suffered to be executedif they had not the royal assent.This was the common usage and practicein England, even when the papal usurpationwas most exalted; for if at any time theecclesiastical courts did, by their sentences,endeavour to force obedience to suchcanons, the courts at common law, uponcomplaint made, would grant prohibitions.So that the statute of submission, whichwas afterwards made in the 25th year ofHenry VIII., seems to be declarative ofthe common law, that the clergy could notde jure, and by their own authority, withoutthe king’s assent, enact or execute anycanons. These canons were all collectedand explained by Lyndwood, dean of theArches, in the reign of Henry VI., andby him reduced under this method.

1. The canons of Stephen Langton,archbishop of Canterbury, made at a councilheld at Oxford, in the 6th year ofHenry III.

2. The canons of Otho, the pope’s legate,who held a council in St. Paul’schurch, in the 25th year of Henry III.,which from him were called the Constitutionsof Otho; upon which John de Athon,one of the canons of Lincoln, wrote acomment.

3. The canons of Boniface, of Savoy,archbishop of Canterbury, in the 45th ofHenry III., which were all usurpationsupon the common law, as concerning theboundaries of parishes, the right of patronage,and against trials of the right oftithes in the king’s courts against writs ofprohibition, &c. Although he threatenedthe judges with excommunication (some ofthe judges being at that time clergymen)if they disobeyed the canons, yet they proceededin these matters according to thelaws of the realm, and kept the ecclesiasticalcourts within their proper jurisdiction.This occasioned a variance betweenthe spiritual and temporal lords;and upon this the clergy, in the 31st ofHenry III., exhibited several articles oftheir grievances to the parliament, whichthey called Articuli Cleri: the articlesthemselves are lost, but some of the answersto them are extant, by which it appearsthat none of these canons made by Bonifacewas confirmed.

4. The canons of Cardinal Ottobon, thepope’s legate, who held a synod at St.Paul’s, in the 53rd of Henry III., in whichhe confirmed those canons made by hispredecessor Otho, and published some newones; and by his legantine authority commandedthat they should be obeyed: uponthese canons, likewise, John de Athonwrote another comment.

5. The canons of Archbishop Peckham,made at a synod held at Reading, in theyear 1279, the 7th of Edward I.

6. The canons of the same archbishop,made at a synod held at Lambeth, twoyears 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 year1322, the 16th of Edward II.

9. The canons of Symon Mepham, archbishopof Canterbury, made in the year1328, the 3rd of Edward III.

10. Of Archbishop Stratford.

11. Of Archbishop Simon Islip, made1362, the 37th of Edward III.

12. Of Symon Sudbury, archbishop ofCanterbury, made in the year 1378, the2nd of Richard II.

13. Of Archbishop Arundel, made at asynod at Oxford, in the year 1403, the10th of Henry IV.

14. Of Archbishop Chichely, in the year1415, the 3rd of Henry V.

15. Of Edmond and Richard, archbishopsof Canterbury, who immediatelysucceeded Stephen Langton.

It was intended to reform these canonssoon after the Reformation; and ArchbishopCranmer and some other commissionerswere appointed for that purpose byHenry VIII. and Edward VI. The workwas finished, but the king dying before itwas confirmed, it remains unconfirmed tothis day. The book is called “ReformatioLegum Ecclesiasticarum ex Authoritate RegisHenry VIII. inchoata et per Edward VI.prorecta:” it was put into elegant Latinby Dr. Haddon, who was then universityorator of Cambridge, assisted by Sir JohnCheke, who was tutor to Edward VI. Theabove canons made by our Church beforethe Reformation, are, of course, bindingon our Church now, and are acted upon134in the ecclesiastical courts, except wherethey are superseded by subsequent canons,or by the provisions of an act of parliament.

(III.) The next thing to be consideredis, the authority of making canons at thisday; and this is grounded upon the statute25 Henry VIII., commonly called the actof submission of the clergy, by which theyacknowledge that the convocation hadbeen always assembled by the king’s writ;and they promised in verbo sacerdotis,not to attempt, claim, or put in use, orenact, promulge, or execute, any newcanons in convocation, without the king’sassent or licence. Then follows this enactingclause, viz. That they shall not attempt,allege, or claim, or put in use, anyconstitutions or canons without the king’sassent; and so far this act is declarative ofwhat the law was before. The clause beforementioned extends to such canons aswere then made both beyond sea and inEngland, viz. to foreign canons, that theyshould not be executed here until receivedby the king and people as the laws of theland, and to canons made here which werecontrary to the prerogative, or to the lawsand customs of the realm. This appearsby the proviso, that no canons shall bemade or put in execution within this realm,which shall be contrary to the prerogativeor laws. But the next are negative words,which relate wholly to making new canons,viz. “nor make, promulge, or execute anysuch canons without the king’s assent.”These words limit the clergy in point ofjurisdiction, viz. that they shall not makeany new canons but in convocation: andthey cannot meet there without the king’swrit; and when they are met and makenew canons, they cannot put them in executionwithout a confirmation under thegreat seal. Some years after this statute,the clergy proceeded to act in convocation,without any commission from HenryVIII. But the canons which they madewere confirmed by that king and some ofhis successors, as particularly the injunctionspublished in the 28th year of HenryVIII., for the abolishing superstitiousholy days; those for preaching against theuse of images, relics, and pilgrimages;those for repeating the Creed, the Lord’sPrayer, and Ten Commandments in theEnglish tongue. Henry VIII. sometimesacted by the advice of his bishops, out ofconvocation, as about the injunctions publishedin the 30th year of Henry VIII.,for admitting none to preach but such aswere licensed; those for keeping a registerof births, weddings, and burials; and forthe abolishing the anniversary of Thomasà Becket. The like may be said of thoseinjunctions published in the 2nd year ofEdward VI., prohibiting the carrying ofcandles on Candlemas day, and ashes inLent, and palms on Palm Sunday. QueenElizabeth, in the second year of her reign,published several injunctions by the adviceof her bishops. And two years afterwardsshe published a book of orders without theconfirmation of her parliament. When shewas settled in her government, all Churchaffairs were debated in convocation. Severalcanons were made in her reign, andconfirmed by her letters patent: but as shedid not bind her heirs and successors tothe observance of them, those canons expiredwith her reign. In all these reignsthe old canons were still in force, but inthe first year of King James, 1603, theclergy being lawfully assembled in convocation,the king gave them leave, by hisletters patent, to treat, consult, and agree oncanons: these they presented to him, andhe gave them his royal assent; and by otherletters patent, for himself, his heirs andsuccessors, ratified and confirmed the same.These canons thus established were notthen invented, but were collected out ofordinances which lay dispersed in severalinjunctions published in former reigns, andout of canons and other religious customswhich were made and used in those days;and being thus confirmed, are the laws ofthe land, and by the same authority as anyother part of the law; for being authorizedby the king’s commission, according to theform of the statute 25 Henry VIII., theyare warranted by act of parliament; andsuch canons made and confirmed, shallbind in ecclesiastical matters as much asany statute. An act of parliament mayforbid the execution of any canon; but ithas been usual to respect all those whichenjoin some moral duty; yet a canon notconfirmed by an act of parliament cannotalter any other law. It is agreed that canonsmade in convocation, and confirmedby letters patent, bind in all ecclesiasticalaffairs; that no canons in England are absolutelyconfirmed by parliament, yet theyare part of the laws of the land, for thegovernment of the Church, and in suchcase bind the laity as well as the clergy;that though such canons cannot alter thecommon law, statutes, or royal prerogative,yet they may alter other canons,otherwise the convocation could not makenew canons. All that is required in makingsuch canons is, that the clergy confinethemselves to Church affairs, and do notmeddle with things which are settled by135the common law. But though no canonsare absolutely confirmed by act of parliament,yet those which are neither contraryto the laws of the land, nor to the queen’sprerogative, and which are confirmed byher, are made good, and allowed to be so,by the statute 25 Henry VIII. And as tothose canons which tend to promote thehonour of God and service of religion, theymust necessarily bind our consciences.Such are those which enjoin the soberconversation of ministers, prohibiting theirfrequenting taverns, playing at dice, cards,or tables; this was anciently prohibitedby the Apostolical Canons, and in the oldarticles of Visitation here, and in severaldiocesan synods. Such are those canons,also, which relate to the duties of ministersin praying, preaching, administeringsacraments, and visiting the sick.

It may be as well, for the convenienceof students, to insert here, from BishopHalifax’s Analysis of the Civil Law, a fewexplanations of the method of quoting theJus Canonicum. The Decretum of Gratian(which must not be confounded withthe Decretals) is divided into, 1. Distinctions.2. Causes. 3. Treatise concerningconsecration. The Decretals are dividedinto, 1. Gregory IX. Decretals in 5 books.2. The sixth Decretal. (Boniface, 1298.)3. The Clementine Constitutions (of PopeClement V.). Now in the Decretum, 1stpart, e. g. “1 dist. c. 3,” Lex, [or i. d. Lex,]is the first distinction, 3rd Canon, beginningwith the word Lex. In the Decretum,2nd part, e. g. “3 qu. 9, c. 2,” means thethird cause, ninth question, 2nd Canon.The 3rd part of the Decretum is quoted asthe first, with the addition of the words deconsecratione.

In the Decretals (the first division) isgiven the name of title, number of chapter,with the addition of extra, or a capital X.E. g. “c. 3, extra de usuris,” means the3rd chapter of Gregory’s Decretals, inscribed“de usuris,” i.e. the 19th of the5th book. “c. cum contingat 36 X. deoff. et Pot. Jud. del.,” means the 36thchapter beginning with “cum contingat,”of the Title in Gregory’s decrees, inscribed“de officio.” The sixth Decretal, and theClementine Constitutions, are quoted thesame way, except that instead of extra, orX., is subjoined in sexto, or in 6; and inClementini, or in Clem. The Extravagantsof 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 forthe Province of Canterbury, and the restof the Bishops and Clergy of the saidProvince; and agreed upon with theKing’s Majesty’s Licence, in their Synodbegun at London, Anno Domini 1603,and in the year of the Reign of ourSovereign Lord JAMES, by the Graceof God, King of England, France, andIreland, the First, and of Scotland theThirty-seventh: and now published forthe due observation of them, by hisMajesty’s Authority under the GreatSeal of England.

James, by the grace of God, King ofEngland, Scotland, France, and Ireland,Defender of the Faith, &c., to all to whomthese presents shall come, greeting: Whereasour Bishops, Deans of our CathedralChurches, Archdeacons, Chapters, andColleges, and the other Clergy of everyDiocese within the Province of Canterbury,being summoned and called by virtue ofour Writ directed to the Most ReverendFather in God, John, late Archbishop ofCanterbury, and bearing date the one andthirtieth day of January, in the first year ofour reign of England, France, and Ireland,and of Scotland the thirty-seventh, to haveappeared before him in our CathedralChurch of St. Paul in London, the twentiethday of March then next ensuing, orelsewhere, as he should have thought itmost convenient, to treat, consent, and concludeupon certain difficult and urgentaffairs mentioned in the said Writ; didthereupon, at the time appointed, and withinthe Cathedral Church of St. Paul aforesaid,assemble themselves, and appear inConvocation for that purpose, according toour said Writ, before the Right ReverendFather in God, Richard Bishop of London,duly (upon a second Writ of ours, datedthe ninth day of March aforesaid) authorized,appointed, and constituted, by reasonof the said Archbishop of Canterbury hisdeath, President of the said Convocation,to execute those things, which, by virtue ofour first Writ, did appertain to him the saidArchbishop to have executed if he had lived.

We, for divers urgent and weighty causesand considerations as thereunto especiallymoving, of our especial grace, certain knowledge,and mere motion, did, by virtue ofour Prerogative Royal, and Supreme Authorityin causes Ecclesiastical, give andgrant by our several Letters Patent underour Great Seal of England, the one datedthe twelfth day of April last past, and theother the twenty-fifth day of June thennext following, full, free, and lawful liberty,136licence, power, and authority unto the saidBishop of London, President of the saidConvocation, and to the other Bishops,Deans, Archdeacons, Chapters, and Colleges,and the rest of the Clergy beforementioned, of the said Province, that theyfrom time to time, during our first Parliamentnow prorogued, might confer, treat,debate, consider, consult, and agree of andupon such Canons, Orders, Ordinances, andConstitutions, as they should think necessary,fit, and convenient, for the honour andservice of Almighty God, the good andquiet of the Church, and the better governmentthereof, to be from time to timeobserved, performed, fulfilled, and kept aswell by the Archbishops of Canterbury,the Bishops, and their Successors, and therest of the whole Clergy of the said Provinceof Canterbury in their several callings,offices, functions, ministries, degrees, andadministrations; as also by all and everyDean of the Arches, and other Judge ofthe said Archbishop’s Courts, Guardiansof Spiritualities, Chancellors, Deans, andChapters, Archdeacons, Commissaries, Officials,Registrars, and all and every otherEcclesiastical Officers, and their inferiorMinisters, whatsoever, of the same Provinceof Canterbury, in their and every other oftheir distinct Courts, and in the order andmanner of their and every of their proceedings:and by all other persons within thisrealm, as far as lawfully, being members ofthe Church, it may concern them, as in oursaid Letters Patent amongst other clausesmore at large doth appear. Forasmuch asthe Bishop of London, President of thesaid Convocation, and others, the saidBishops, Deans, Archdeacons, Chapters,and Colleges, with the rest of the Clergy,having met together at the time and placebefore mentioned, and then and there, byvirtue of our said authority granted untothem, treated of, concluded, and agreedupon certain Canons, Orders, Ordinances,and Constitutions, to the end and purpose byus limited and prescribed unto them; andhave thereupon offered and presented thesame unto us, most humbly desiring us togive our royal assent unto their saidCanons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions,according to the form of a certainStatute or Act of Parliament, made in thatbehalf in the twenty-fifth year of the reignof King Henry the Eighth, and by our saidPrerogative Royal and Supreme Authority,in Causes Ecclesiastical, to ratify by ourLetters Patent under our Great Seal ofEngland, and to confirm the same, thetitle and tenor of them being word forword as ensueth:

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.

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 137by 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.

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.

77.

None to teach School without Licence.

78.

Curates desirous to teach, to be licensed before others.

79.

The duty of Schoolmasters.

80.

The Great Bible, and Book of Common Prayer, to be had in every Church.

138

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.

91.

Parish-Clerks to be chosen by the Minister.

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.

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.

127.

The Quality and Oath of Judges.

128.

The Quality of Surrogates.

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.

134.

Abuses to be reformed in Registrars.

139

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.

138.

The Number of Apparitors restrained.

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 statedbefore the convocation that the Canonsagreed upon in the sacred synod had beenread before the king and the privy-council,and unanimously approved. The firstCanon 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, atmorning prayer, read certain explanationsof the regal power, to the effect:—

(1.) That the sacred order of kings is ofDivine right, that a supreme power isgiven by God in Scripture to kings to ruleall persons civil and ecclesiastical.

(2.) That the care of God’s Church iscommitted to kings in the Scripture.

(3.) That the power to call and dissolvenational and provincial councils withintheir own territories is the true right ofprinces.

(4.) That it is treason against God andthe prince for any other to set up any independentco-active power, either papal orpopular, within the prince’s territory.

(5.) That subjects who resist their naturalprince by force resist God’s ordinance,and shall receive damnation.

(6.) That as tribute is due from subjectsto their prince, so those subjects have notonly possession of, but a true and justtitle to, all their goods and estates; thatas it is the duty of subjects to supply theirking, so is it his duty to defend them intheir property.

Forbids, under pain of excommunication,all persons to preach or teach anythingcontrary to the tenor of these explanations.

II. For the better keeping of the day ofhis Majesty’s most happy inauguration.

Orders all persons to keep the morningof the said day in coming diligently tochurch, and that due inquiry be made bybishops and others as to how the day isobserved, in order that offenders may bepunished.

III. For suppressing the growth ofPopery.

Orders all ecclesiastical persons, bishops,&c., having exempt or peculiar jurisdiction,and all officials, and others having thecure of souls, to confer privately with theparties, and by Church censures, &c., toreduce those who are misled into Popishsuperstition to the Church of England.

Such private conferences to be performedby the bishop himself, or by some oneor more persons of his appointment.

The said ecclesiastical persons to informthemselves of all persons, above the age oftwelve years, in every parish, who do notcome to church, or receive the holy eucharist,and who say or hear mass.

Ministers, churchwardens, &c., to presentall such persons.

If neither private conferences nor Churchcensures will avail with such offenders,their names shall be certified by the bishopof the diocese unto the justices of assize.

Marriages, burials, and christenings ofrecusants, celebrated otherwise than accordingto the form of the Church of England,to be declared by churchwardensand others at visitations.

Diligent inquiry to be made as to whoare employed as schoolmasters of the childrenof recusants. Churchwardens to giveupon oath the names of those who sendtheir children to be brought up abroad.

IV. Against Socinianism.

Forbids any one to print, sell, or buyany book containing Socinian doctrinesupon pain of excommunication, and ordersall ordinaries to signify the names of offendersto the metropolitan, in order to beby him delivered to the king’s attorney-general,that proceedings may be takenagainst them.

No preacher to vent such doctrine in asermon, under pain of excommunication,and for a second offence deprivation. Nouniversity student or person in holy orders,except graduates in divinity, to have anySocinian book in his possession: all booksso found to be burned: diligent inquiryto be made after offenders.

V. Against sectaries.

Declares that all the enactments of thecanon against Popish recusants shall, as faras they are applicable, stand in full forceagainst all Anabaptists, Brownists, Separatists,Familists, and other sects.

That the clauses in the canons againstSocinianism, referring to Socinian books,140shall stand in full force against all booksdevised against the discipline and governmentof the Church of England.

Orders all church and chapel wardensand questmen to present at visitations thenames of those disaffected persons whoneglected the prayers of the church, andcame in for sermon only, thinking therebyto avoid the penalties enacted againstsuch as wholly absented themselves.

VI. An oath enjoined for the preventingof all innovations in doctrine and government.

Declares that all archbishops, bishops,and all other priests and deacons shall, tosecure them against suspicion of Popery orother superstition, take the oath which itprescribes.

Offenders, after three months’ delaygranted them, if they continue obstinate,to be deprived.

Orders that the following shall also becompelled to take the prescribed oath, viz.all masters of arts, bachelors and doctorsin divinity, law, or physic, all licensedpractitioners of physic, all registrars, proctors,and schoolmasters, all graduates offoreign universities who come to be incorporatedinto an English university, andall persons about to be ordained or licensedto preach or serve any cure.

VII. A declaration concerning somerites and ceremonies.

Declares the standing of the communiontable sideways under the east window ofevery chancel or chapel, to be in its ownnature indifferent, and that therefore noreligion is to be placed therein, or scrupleto be made thereof.

That although at the Reformation allPopish altars were demolished, yet it wasordered by Queen Elizabeth’s injunction,that the holy tables should stand wherethe altars stood, and that, accordingly, theyhave been so continued in the royal chapels,most cathedrals, and some parishchurches, that all churches and chapelsshould conform to the example of the cathedralmother churches in this particular,saving always the general liberty left tothe bishop by law during the time of administrationof the holy communion. Declaresthat this situation of the holy tabledoes not imply that it is or ought to beesteemed a true and proper altar, whereonChrist is again really sacrificed; but itis, and may be, by us called an altar inthat sense in which the primitive Churchcalled it an altar.

Orders that in order to prevent profaneabuses of the communion table, it shall berailed in.

Orders that at the words “draw near,”&c., all communicants shall with all humblereverence approach the holy table.

Recommends to all good and well-affectedmembers of the Church, that theydo reverence and obeisance both at theircoming in and going out of the church,chancel, or chapel, according to the customof the primitive Church and the Church ofEngland in the reign of Elizabeth.

VIII. Of preaching for conformity.

Orders all preachers, under pain of suspension,to instruct the people in theirsermons twice a year at least, that the ritesand ceremonies of the Church of Englandare lawful and commendable, and to besubmitted to.

IX. One Book of Articles of inquiry tobe used at all parochial visitations.

Declares that the synod had caused asummary or collection of visitatory articles(out of the rubrics of the service book andthe canons and warrantable rules of theChurch) to be made and deposited in therecords 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 tothe churchwardens or others which shallbe sworn to make presentments, any otherarticles or forms of inquiry upon oath,than such as shall be approved by his metropolitan.

X. Concerning the conversation of theclergy.

Charges all clergymen carefully to abstainfrom all excess and disorder, and thatby their Christian and religious conversationthey shine forth as lights to others inall godliness and honesty.

Requires all to whom the governmentof the clergy is committed, to set themselvesto countenance godliness, and diligently tolabour to reform their clergy where theyrequire it.

XI. Chancellor’s patents.

Forbids bishops to grant any patent toany chancellor, commissary, or official, forlonger than the life of the grantee, norotherwise than with the reservation tohimself and his successors of the powerto execute the said place, either alone orwith the chancellor, if the bishop shall pleaseto do so; forbids, under the heaviest censures,to take any reward for such places.

XII. Chancellors alone not to censureany of the clergy in sundry cases.

All cases involving suspension or anyhigher censure to be heard by the bishopor by his chancellor, together with twograve, dignified, or beneficed ministers ofthe diocese.

141XIII. Excommunication and absolutionnot to be pronounced but by a priest.

No excommunications or absolutions tobe valid, unless pronounced by the bishop,or by some priest appointed by the bishop;such sentence of absolution to be pronouncedeither in open consistory, or, atleast, in a church or chapel, the penitenthumbly craving it on his knees.

XIV. Concerning commutations and thedisposing of them.

No chancellor or other to commutepenance without the bishop’s privity; orif by himself, he shall render strict accountof the moneys received, which shall be appliedto charitable and public uses.

XV. Touching concurrent jurisdiction.

That in places wherein there is concurrentjurisdiction, no executor be citedinto any court or office for the space of tendays after the death of the testator.

XVI. Concerning licences to marry.

No licence shall be granted by anyordinary to any parties, except one ofthe parties have been living in the jurisdictionof the said ordinary for onemonth immediately before the licence bedesired.

XVII. Against vexatious citations.

No citations grounded only upon pretenceof a breach of law, and not uponpresentment or other just ground, shallissue out of any ecclesiastical court, exceptunder certain specified circumstances, andexcept in cases of grievous crime, such asschism, incontinence, misbehaviour inchurch, &c.

These canons were ratified by the kingunder the great seal, June 30th, 1640.An attempt was made at the time to setaside their authority, upon the plea thatconvocation could not lawfully continue itssession after the dissolution of parliament,which took place on the 5th of May; butthe opinion of all the judges taken atthe time was unanimously in favour ofthe legality of their proceeding, as appearsby the following document:—

“The convocation being called by theking’s writ under the great seal, doth continueuntil it be dissolved by writ or commissionunder the great seal, notwithstandingthe parliament be dissolved.

“14th May, 1640.

An act of parliament, passed in thethirteenth year of Charles II., leaves tothese canons their full canonical authority,whilst it provides that nothing containedin that statute shall give them the force ofan act of parliament.

The acts of this convocation were unanimouslyconfirmed 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 followingreason: In 1639 a parliamentary writ wasdirected to the bishops to summon theseclergy to parliament ad consentiendum, &c.,and the convocation writ to the archbishopsad tractand. et consentiend. Theparliament met on the 13th of April, 1640,and was dissolved on the 15th of May following.Now though the convocation, sittingby virtue of the first writ directed tothe bishops, must fall by the dissolution ofthat parliament, yet the lawyers held thatthey might sit till dissolved by like authority.But this being a nice point, acommission was granted about a weekafter the dissolution of the parliament forthe convocation to sit, which commissionthe king sent to them by Sir Harry Vane,his principal Secretary of State, and byvirtue thereof they were turned into a provincialsynod. The chief of the clergythen assembled desired the king to consultall the judges of England on this matter,which was done: and upon debatingit in the presence of his council, they assertedunder their hands the power of convocationin making canons. Upon thisthe convocation sat a whole month, andcomposed a Book of Canons, which wasapproved by the king by the advice of hisprivy-council, and confirmed under thebroad seal. The objection against theCanons was that they were not made pursuantto the statute 25 Hen. VIII., becausethey were made in a convocation,sitting by the king’s writ to the archbishops,after the parliament was dissolved,though there is nothing in thestatute which relates to their sitting intime of parliament only.

After the Restoration, when an act waspassed to restore the bishops to their ordinaryjurisdiction, a proviso was madethat the act should not confirm the Canonsof 1640. This clause makes void theroyal confirmation. Hence we may concludethat canons should be made in aconvocation, the parliament sitting; thatbeing so made, they are to be confirmedby the sovereign; and that without suchconfirmation they do not bind the laity,142much less any order or rule made by abishop alone, where there is neither customnor canon for it.—Burn.

Canon is used in the service of theRoman Church to signify that part of thecommunion service, or the mass, which followsimmediately after the Sanctus andHosanna; corresponding to that part ofour service which begins at the prayer,“We do not presume,” &c. It is so calledas being the fixed rule of the Liturgy,which is never altered. Properly speaking,the canon ends just before the Lord’sPrayer, which is recited aloud; the canonbeing said in a low voice. In the FirstBook of King Edward VI., the word isused in this sense, viz. in the Visitation ofthe Sick, after the Gospel, the service proceedsas follows:

The Anaphora of the Greek Churchsomewhat resembles the canon of the Roman.(See Anaphora.)—Jebb.

CANON. (See Deans and Chapters.)The name of canon, as applied to an officerin the Church, is derived from the sameGreek word already alluded to, which alsosignifies the roll or catalogue of theChurch, in which the names of the ecclesiasticswere registered; hence the clergyso registered were denominated Canonicior Canons. Before the Reformation, theywere divided into two classes, Regular andSecular. The Secular were so called, becausethey canonized in seculo, abroad inthe world.

Regular canons were such as lived undera rule, that is, a code of laws published bythe founder of that order. They were aless strict sort of religious than the monks,but lived together under one roof, had acommon dormitory and refectory, andwere obliged to observe the statutes oftheir order.

The chief rule for these canons is that ofSt. Augustine, who was made bishop ofHippo in the year 395. But they were butlittle known till the tenth or eleventh century,were not brought into England tillafter the Conquest, and seem not to haveobtained the name of Augustine canons tillsome years after. The general opinion is,that they came in after the beginning of thereign of King Henry I., about the year 1105.

Their habit was a long black cassock,with a white rochet over it, and over thata black cloak and hood; from whence theywere called Black Canons Regular of St.Augustine.

The monks were always shaved, butthese canons wore beards, and caps ontheir heads.

There were about 175 houses of thesecanons and canonesses in England andWales.

But besides the common and regularsort of these canons, there were also thefollowing particular sorts.

As first, such as observed St. Augustine’srule, according to the regulations of St.Nicholas of Arroasia; as those of Harewoldein Bedfordshire, Nutley or Crendonin Buckinghamshire, Hertland in Devonshire,Brunne in Lincolnshire, and Lilleshulin Shropshire.

Others there were of the rule of St.Augustine, and order of St. Victor; as atKeynsham and Worsping in Somersetshire,and Wormsley in Herefordshire.

Others of the order of St. Augustine, andthe institution of St. Mary of Meretune,or Merton; as at Buckenham in Norfolk.

The Præmonstratenses were canons wholived according to the rule of St. Augustine,reformed by St. Norbert, who set up thisregulation about the year 1120, at Præmonstratumin Picardy, a place so calledbecause it was said to have been foreshown,or Præmonstrated, by the Blessed Virgin, tobe the head seat and mother of the churchof the order. These canons were, fromtheir habit, called White Canons. Theywere brought into England soon after theyear 1140, and settled first at Newhousein Lincolnshire. They had in England aconservator of their privileges, but werenevertheless often visited by their superiorat Premonstre, and continued underhis jurisdiction till the year 1512, whenthey were exempted from it by the bull ofPope Julius II., confirmed by King HenryVIII.; and the superiority of all thehouses of this order in England andWales, was given to the abbot of Welbeckin Nottinghamshire. There were aboutthirty-five houses of this order.

The Sempringham or Gilbertine canonswere instituted by St. Gilbert at Sempringhamin Lincolnshire, in the year 1148.He composed his rule out of those of St.Augustine and St. Benedict, (the womenfollowing the Cistercian regulation of St.Benedict’s rule, and the men the rule ofSt. Augustine,) with some special statutesof their own. The men and women livedin the same houses, but in such differentapartments that they had no communicationwith each other; and increased sofast, that St. Gilbert himself founded thirteenmonasteries of this order; viz. fourfor men alone, and nine for men and143women together, which had in them 700brethren and 1500 sisters. At the dissolutionof the monasteries there were abouttwenty-five houses of this order in Englandand Wales.

Canons regular of the Holy Sepulchrewere instituted in the beginning of the12th century, in imitation of the regularsinstituted in the church of the Holy Sepulchreof our Saviour at Jerusalem. Thefirst house they had in England was atWarwick, which was begun for them byHenry de Newburgh, earl of Warwick,who died in the year 1123, and perfectedby his son Roger. They are sometimescalled canons of the Holy Cross, and worethe same habit with the other Austin canons,distinguished only by a double redcross upon the breast of their cloak orupper garment. The endeavours of thesereligious for regaining the Holy Landcoming to nothing after the loss of Jerusalem,in the year 1188, this order fell intodecay, their revenues and privileges weremostly given to the Maturine friars, andonly two houses of them continued to thedissolution.—Burn.

CANON OF SCRIPTURE. (See Scripture,and Bible.) The books of Holy Scriptureas received by the Church, who, beingthe “witness and keeper of Holy Writ,”had authority to decide what is and whatis not inspired.

That the Holy Scriptures are a completerule of faith is proved, first, by the authorityof the Holy Scriptures. And this is soplainly laid down therein, that nothingbut a strange prejudice and resolution tosupport a cause could contradict it. Thosewords of St. Paul are very full to this purpose.“All Scripture is given by inspirationof God, and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof, for correction, for instructionin righteousness, that the man of God maybe perfect, thoroughly furnished unto allgood works.” (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.) Mosesexpressly 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 commandunto you to observe and do it, thou shaltnot add thereto, nor diminish from it.”(Deut. xii. 32.) The same prohibition isgiven out in the New Testament. For St.John, closing his Book of Revelation, andwith that our Christian canon, so that itmay not improbably seem to bear relationto the whole New Testament, forbids anyaddition or diminution, with a curse annexedto it: “If any man shall add untothese things, God shall add unto him theplagues that are written in this book; andif any man shall take away from the wordsof the book of this prophecy, God shalltake away his part out of the book of life,and out of the holy city, and from thethings which are written in this book.”(Rev. xxii. 18, 19.) But the substance ofthis had been before declared by St. Paul:“Though we, or an angel from heaven,preach any other gospel unto you thanthat which we have preached unto you, lethim be accursed.” (Gal. i. 8.) And as forthe endeavour of some to piece out God’swritten word by tradition, our Saviourwarns us against this, when he blames thePharisees for it; namely, in “teaching fordoctrines the commandments of men,”(Matt. xv. 9,) and “making the commandmentof God of none effect by their traditions.”(Ver. 3, 6.)

Secondly, by reason, drawn from thenature of the thing, and the whole orderof the gracious dispensation of the gospel,with which God hath been pleased to blessmankind, this is no more than we mightexpect. For our Saviour having firstmade known the gospel to the world byhis own preaching and suffering, and propagatedit throughout the several partsthereof by the preaching of his apostles, inorder to be conveyed down to successivegenerations, this could not well be effectedwithout a written word. For to have delivereddown the gospel truths by wordof mouth, or oral tradition, would havemade it subject to as many errors as theprejudices, fancies, and mistakes of theseveral relators could have given it. Nowsince God has been pleased to make use ofthis method to convey these truths whichhe has revealed unto us, it is but reasonableto think that all the truths which hehas judged necessary for our salvation, andwhich he has required of us to believe, arecontained in this written word. For whyGod should leave some of the gospel truthsto be conveyed in a purer, and others in amore corrupt, channel, some by Scriptureand others by tradition, is unaccountable:why, since he designed the Scripture to bein some measure the rule of faith, he shouldnot at the same time render it a completeone; why this Divine law of God must beeked out by human traditions, which havebeen uncertain in the best times, and perniciousin some, and which strangely varyaccording to different countries and ages;—thesenotions highly reflect upon the Divinewisdom and goodness, and are takenup only to defend the corrupt practices ofthe Romish Church, which that Church isresolved to maintain at any rate, ratherthan to part with them.

144The like reasons are alleged by the ancientdivines of the Church.—Dr. Nicholls.

The ancient fathers always speak of theScriptures as containing a complete rule offaith and practice; and appeal to them,and to them only, in support of the doctrineswhich they advance.—Bp. Tomline.

CANON LAW. The canon law whichregulates the discipline of the RomishChurch consists, 1. Of the Decree ofGratian, (Decretum Gratiani,) a compilationmade by a Benedictine monk, whosename it bears, at Bologna in Italy, in1150, and made up of the decrees of differentpopes and councils, and of severalpassages of the holy fathers and other reputablewriters.

2. Of the Decretals, collected by orderof Pope Gregory IX., in the year 1230, infive books.

3. Of the compilation made by orderof Boniface VIII., in 1297, known by thename of the Sixth Book of Decretals, becauseadded to the other five, although itis itself divided into five books.

4. Of the Clementines, as they are called,or Decretals of Pope Clement V., publishedin the year 1317 by John XXII.

5. Of other decretals, known under thename of Extravagantes, so called becausenot contained in the former decretals.These Extravagantes are two-fold;—thefirst, called common, containing constitutionsof various popes down to the year1483; and, secondly, the particular ones ofJohn XXII.

These, containing besides the decrees ofpopes and the canons of several councils,constitute the body of the canon law.The constitutions of subsequent popes andcouncils have also the force of canons,although not hitherto reduced into onebody, nor digested, as the others, underproper heads, by any competent authority.These, together with some general customs,or peculiar ones of different places,having the force of laws, and certain conventionsentered into between the popesand different Roman Catholic states, determinethe discipline of the Church of Rome.

CANONICAL. That which is done inaccordance with the canons of the Church.

CANONICAL HOURS. The first,third, the sixth, and the ninth hours of theday, that is, six, nine, twelve, and threeo’clock, are so denominated. Bishop Patrickremarks that “the Universal Churchanciently observed certain set hours ofprayer, that all Christians throughout theworld might at the same time join togetherto glorify God; and some of them were ofopinion that the angelic host, being acquaintedwith those hours, took that timeto join their prayers and praises with thoseof the Church.” The directions in theApostolical Constitutions are as follows:“Offer up your prayers in the morning, atthe third hour, at the sixth, and at theninth, and in the evening; in the morningreturning thanks that the Lord hath sentyou light, and brought you through theperils of the night; at the third hour, becauseat that hour the Lord received sentenceof condemnation from Pilate; at thesixth, because at that hour he was crucified;at the ninth, because at that hour allthings were in commotion at the crucifixionof our Lord, as trembling at the bold attemptof the wicked Jews, and at the injuryoffered to their Master; in the evening,giving thanks that he has given thee thenight to rest from thy daily labours.”

In the Church of Rome, the canonicalhours begin with vespers, i. e. eveningprayer, about six o’clock, or sunset; nextfollows compline, to beg God’s protectionduring sleep; at midnight, the three nocturnsor matins, the longest part of theoffice. Lauds or morning praises of Godare appointed for cock-crowing, or beforebreak of day; at six o’clock, or sunrise,prime should be recited; and terce, sext,and none, every third hour afterwards.

CANONICAL OBEDIENCE. (SeeOrders.) The obedience which is due,according to the canons, to an ecclesiasticalsuperior. Every clergyman takes an oathof canonical obedience to his bishop whenhe is instituted to a benefice, or licensedto a cure.

CANONISATION. (See Beatification,and Saints.) A ceremony in theRomish Church, by which persons deceasedare ranked in the catalogue of saints.It succeeds beatification. When a personis to be canonised, the pope holds fourconsistories. In the first, he causes thepetition of those who request the canonisationto be examined by three auditors ofthe rota, and directs the cardinals to reviseall the necessary instruments. In thesecond, the cardinals report the matter tothe pope. In the third, which is held inpublic, the cardinals pay their adorationto the pope, and an advocate makes apompous oration in praise of the personwho is to be created a saint. This advocateexpatiates at large on the supposedmiracles which the person has wrought,and even pretends to know from whatmotives he acted. In the fourth consistory,the pope, having summoned togetherall the cardinals and prelates, orders thereport concerning the deceased to be read,145and then takes their votes, whether heis to be canonised or not. On the dayof canonisation, the church of St. Peter ishung with rich tapestry, on which are embroideredthe arms of the pope, and thoseof the prince who desires the canonisation.The church is most brilliantly illuminated,and filled with thousands of Romanists,who superstitiously think that the morerespect they show to the saint, the moreready will he be to hear their prayers, andoffer them to God. During this ceremonythe pope and all the cardinals are dressedin white. It costs the prince who requeststhe canonisation a great sum of money, asall the officers belonging to the Church ofRome must have their fees; but this is considereda trifle, when it is expected thatthe saint will intercede in heaven for hissubjects, who, indeed, poor as they are,generally pay all the expenses attendingthe ceremony.

Canonisation of saints was not known tothe Christian Church till towards the middleof the tenth century. So far as we areable to form an opinion, the Christians inthat age borrowed this custom from theheathens; for it was usual with both theGreeks and Romans to deify all thoseheroes and great men who had renderedthemselves remarkable. It is not allowedto enter into inquiries prior to canonisation,till at least fifty years after the death ofthe person to be canonised. This regulation,however, though now observed, hasnot been followed above a century. ThomasBecket was canonised within three yearsof his death. It has been properly objectedagainst canonisation, that it is performedby human beings, who assume a powerof rendering some one an object of divineworship, who in this life was no more thanmortal; that it is a direct violation of theSaviour’s command, “Judge not;” andthat it lies at the foundation of that idolatryof which the Church of Rome is justlycharged.—Broughton.

CANONRY. A canonry is a name ofoffice, and a canon is the officer; in likemanner as a prebendary; and a prebendis the maintenance or stipend both of theone and the other.—Gibson. It is noteasy to assign a reason why this nameshould have been given to members ofcathedral churches. Some have thoughtit was because a great number of themwere regular priests, and obliged to observethe canons or rules of their respectiveorders, or founders, or visitors. Accordingto Nicholls, the name is of a higher origin,and not so directly from the Greek wordκάνων, regula, a statute or ordinance, asfrom the Latin word canon, an allowanceor stated quantity of provision. Thusit is used by Cicero. So the collectionof the respective quotas of the provincessent in corn to Rome for the subsistenceof the poorer citizens was calledthe canon. Afterwards, when Christianityprevailed, the word was adapted to anecclesiastical use, and those clergymenthat had the canon, or sportula, taken fromthe common bank of the church offeringsdelivered out to them for their maintenance,come to be called canonici. As thechurch revenues were divided into fourparts—one for the maintenance of thebishop, a second for the fabric of thechurch, and a third for the poor, so a fourthpart was divided among the subordinateclergy, who lived in a collegiate mannerabout the bishop.

It seems most likely, however, that theword canon meant to designate one whoresided at the cathedral church constantly,and followed the rule of Divine servicethere. So the application of the word athome and abroad would seem to indicate.Thus, till a very late enactment, 3 & 4Vic. c. 113, the word canon was restrictedin cathedrals of the old foundation to theresidentiaries. Prebendary was statutablyapplied to all, because all had a præbenda,either fixed stipend, or an estate in fee:while in the cathedrals of new foundationall were called indifferently canonsor prebendaries, because all were equallybound to residence. The act referred tohas now directed that all shall be styledcanons (except perhaps the prebendariesretained, but without their ancient stipendsor estates) in the cathedrals of oldfoundation. Nevertheless, all canons arestill really prebendaries, as long as theyhave any property. In Ireland, the onlyprebendaries denominated canons, arethose of Kildare. These form the lesserchapter.

Canons in most cathedrals were dividedinto two classes, major, or minor. (SeeMinor Canons.)

The fellowships of the collegiate churchin Manchester, since its elevation into acathedral, have been recently erected intocanonries, and the warden of former timesis now called dean.

Canonry, or chanonrie, in Scotland, wasthe same as the cathedral precinct in England.Thus at Aberdeen the canonry includedthe cathedral, bishop’s palace, prebendalhouses, gardens, and an hospital,all surrounded by a stone wall. (Kennedy’sAnnals of Aberdeen.) The cathedral townof Rosemarkie, or Fortrose, in the diocese146of Ross, was sometimes called the canonrytown, or channery town.

CANTICLES. This literally signifiessongs, but it is peculiarly applied to acanonical book of the Old Testament,called in Hebrew the Song of Songs, thatis, the most excellent of all songs. Theword canticle in our Prayer Book is appliedto the Benedicite, and was so first used inKing Edward’s Second Book.

CAPITAL. The highest member of apillar.

The capital consists of the abacus, thebell, the neck, or astragal, and each of thesevaries in the several styles, as well in formas in relative importance. A few of themore prominent variations may be enumerated.

In the Saxon period, the abacus is usuallya low, flat, unmoulded slab; the rest of thecapital, if it has any character, approachesthat of the succeeding style.

In the Norman capital the abacus issquare, of considerable thickness, generallyslightly bevelled at the lower side, andsometimes moulded. The bell, resting ona cylindrical shaft, and fitted with a squareabacus, is circular at the bottom, and becomessquare at the top, and the way of resolvingthe round into the square gives itits peculiar character. In examples, however,of any richness, the abundance ofdecoration often obscures its constructivecharacter.

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 cutoff. It is also sometimes circular. Theupper surface continues flat, but the underpart is more frequently moulded. The belloften approaches the Classic capital indesign, and sometimes even in treatment,as at Canterbury; but this is a rare amountof excellence. More frequently a lotus-likeflower rises from the neck, and curls beneaththe abacus. The neck is still a mereround bead.

In the next, or Lancet period, the abacusmore frequently becomes circular, the topis seldom flat, the mouldings usually consistof two rounds, with a deep undercut,hollow between, the upper one a little overhangingthe under, and in the hollow atrail of nail-head or dog-tooth is oftenfound. The bell, also, is deeply undercut,and in some instances, where effect issought in moulding rather than in carving,it is repeated; but, in moderately richexamples, the bell is usually covered withfoliage of which the stems spring from theneck, generally crossing one another asthey rise, and breaking into leaves nearthe top, where they throw off a profusionof crisped foliage, which curls under theabacus; a stray leaf, in very rich andrather late examples, sometimes shootingup, over the hollow, to the upper member ofthe abacus. The whole treatment of thisfoliage in capitals and corbels, where itfollows the same law, has sometimes aboldness and a grace, though it never desertsits conventional type, of which no description,and no engraving even, except on alarge scale, can convey an idea. The neckof the Early English capital is generallyeither a rounded bowtel of rather morethan half a cylinder, or a semi-hexagon,the latter with the sides sometimes slightlyhollowed.

In the Geometrical period, the abacuscontinues round. It is no longer, exceptin rare instances, flat at the top: the scrollmoulding begins to appear, and sometimesa hollow intervenes between it and thefirst member of the bell. The bell, whenmoulded, rather follows the routine of thelast style; but, when foliated, the leavesor flowers, without losing anything of theforce and boldness of the latter, have anaturalness never approached in any otherstyle: we begin to recognise the oak, thehawthorn, or the maple, as familiar friends,and no longer need to employ conventionalterms to designate their foliage, or themethod of its treatment.

In the Decorated period, the scrollmouldingis almost constantly employedfor the abacus and for the neck; the ball-flowersometimes occurs in the hollow ofthe abacus, but not so frequently as thedog-tooth in the Lancet period. The mouldingsof the bell are generally the roll andfillet, or the scroll, in some of their forms;and the foliage entirely loses the nature ofthe Geometrical, without recovering theforce of the Early English. It surroundsthe bell as a chaplet, instead of creepingup it, and, instead of indicating the shapewhich it clothes, converts the whole betweenthe neck and the abacus into aflowered top.

In the next and last period, the abacusis sometimes so nearly lost in the bell, orthe bell in the abacus, that it is hard toseparate them. The form of both becomesgenerally octagonal, and a great povertyof design is apparent: this is the case inordinary instances of pillars with entirecapitals. In later examples, and wherethere are greater pretensions, the capitaldoes not extend to the whole pillar, butthe outer order of the arches is continuedto the base, without the intervention of a147capital, only the inner order being supportedand stopped by an attached shaft,or bowtel, with its capital, and so thecapital loses all its analogy with the classicarchitrave, and no longer carries the eyealong in a horizontal line.

CAPITULAR. A term often used inforeign countries to designate a major canonor prebendary; a capitular member ofa cathedral or collegiate church.

CAPITULARIES. Ordinances of thekings of France, in which are many headsor articles which regard the government ofthe Church, and were done by the adviceof an assembly of bishops. The original ofthe word comes from capitula, which werearticles that the prelates made and publishedto serve as instructions to the clergyof their dioceses, so that at last this nameof capitularies was given to all the articleswhich related to ecclesiastical affairs.Those of Charlemagne and Louis the Meekwere collected in four books by the abbotAngesius; those of King Lothaire, Charlesand Louis, sons of Louis the Meek, werecollected by Bennet the Levite, or deacon,into three books, to which there have beensince four or five additions; and FatherSimon published those of Charles theBald.

CAPUCHINS. Monks of the order ofSt. Francis. They owe their original toMatthew de Bassi, a Franciscan of theduchy of Urbino, who, having seen St.Francis represented with a sharp-pointedcapuche, or cowl, began to wear the likein 1525, with the permission of Pope ClementVII. His example was soon followedby two other monks, named Louis andRaphael de Fossembrun; and the pope,by a brief, granted these three monksleave to retire to some hermitage, and retaintheir new habit. The retirement theychose was the hermitage of the Camaldolitesnear Massacio, where they were verycharitably received.

This innovation in the habit of the ordergave great offence to the Franciscans, whoseprovincial persecuted these poor monks,and obliged them to fly from place toplace. At last they took refuge in thepalace of the Duke de Camerino, by whosecredit they were received under the obedienceof the conventuals, in the quality ofHermits Minors, in the year 1527. Thenext year, the pope approved this union,and confirmed to them the privilege ofwearing the square capuche, and admittingamong them all who would take the habit.Thus the order of the Capuchins, so calledfrom wearing the capuche, began in theyear 1528.

Their first establishment was at Colmenzono,about a league from Camerino, in aconvent of the order of St. Jerome, whichhad been abandoned; but, their numbersincreasing, Louis de Fossembrun builtanother small convent at Montmelon, inthe territory of Camerino. The great numberof conversions which the Capuchinsmade by their preaching, and the assistancethey gave the people in a contagiousdistemper with which Italy was afflictedthe same year, 1528, gained them an universalesteem.

In 1529, Louis de Fossembrun built forthem two other convents, the one of Alvacinain the territory of Fabriano, the otherat Fossembrun in the duchy of Urbino.Matthew de Bassi, being chosen their vicar-general,drew up constitutions for the governmentof this order. They enjoined,among other things, that the Capuchinsshould perform Divine service withoutsinging; that they should say but onemass a day in their convents; they directedthe hours of mental prayer, morningand evening, the days of discipliningthemselves, and those of silence; they forbadethe monks to hear the confessions ofseculars, and enjoined them always to travelon foot; they recommended poverty inthe ornaments of their church, and prohibitedin them the use of gold, silver, andsilk; the pavilions of the altars were to beof stuff, and the chalices of tin.

This order soon spread itself all overItaly and into Sicily. In 1573, CharlesIX. demanded of Pope Gregory XIII. tohave the order of Capuchins established inFrance, which that pope consented to; andtheir first settlement in that kingdom wasin the little town of Picpus near Paris,which they soon quitted to settle at Meudon,from whence they were introducedinto the capital of the kingdom. In 1606,Pope Paul V. gave them leave to acceptof an establishment which was offered themin Spain. They even passed the seas tolabour on the conversion of the infidels;and their order is become so considerable,that it is at present divided into more thansixty provinces, consisting of near 1600convents, and 25,000 monks, besides themissions of Brazil, Congo, Barbary, Greece,Syria, and Egypt.

Among those who have preferred thepoverty and humility of the Capuchins tothe advantages of birth and fortune, wasthe famous Alphonso d’Este, duke of Modenaand Reggio, who, after the death ofhis wife Isabella, took the habit of thisorder at Munich, in the year 1626, underthe name of Brother John-Baptist, and148died in the convent of Castlenuovo, in1644. In France, likewise, the great dukede Joyeuse, after having distinguishedhimself as a general, became a Capuchinin September, 1587.

Father Paul (of Ecclesiastical Benefices,cap. 53) observes, that “The Capuchinspreserve their reputation by reason of theirpoverty, and that if they should suffer theleast change in their institution, they wouldacquire no immoveable estates by it, butwould lose the alms they now receive.”He adds: “It seems, therefore, as if herean absolute period were put to all futureacquisitions and improvements in this gainfultrade; for whoever should go about toinstitute a new order, with a power of acquiringestates, such an order would certainlyfind no credit in the world; and ifa profession of poverty were a part of theinstitution, there could be no acquisitionsmade whilst that lasted, nor would therebe any credit left when that was broke.”—Hist.des Ord. Relig. T. vii. c. 27.

There is likewise an order of CapuchinNuns, who follow the rule of St. Clare.Their first establishment was at Naples in1538, and their foundress the venerablemother Maria Laurentia Longa, of a noblefamily of Catalonia—a lady of the mostuncommon piety and devotion. SomeCapuchins coming to settle at Naples, sheobtained for them, by her credit with thearchbishop, the church of St. Euphebia,without the city; soon after which shebuilt a monastery of virgins, under thename of Our Lady of Jerusalem, into whichshe retired in 1534, together with nineteenyoung women, who engaged themselves bysolemn vows to follow the third rule of St.Francis. The pope gave the governmentof this monastery to the Capuchins; and,soon after, the nuns quitted the third ruleof St. Francis, to embrace the more rigorousrule of St. Clara, from the austerity ofwhich they had the name of Nuns of thePassion, and that of Capuchines from thehabit they took, which was that of theCapuchins.

After the death of their foundress, anothermonastery of Capuchines was establishedat Rome, near the Quirinal palace,and was called the monastery of the HolySacrament; and a third, in the same city,built by Cardinal Baronius. These foundationswere approved, in the year 1600, byPope Clement VIII., and confirmed byGregory XV. There were afterwards severalother establishments of Capuchines,in particular one at Paris, in 1604, foundedby the Duchesse de Mercœur, who putcrowns of thorns on the heads of the youngwomen whom she placed in her monastery.—Broughton.

CAPUTIUM. (See Hood.)

CARDINAL. This is the title givento one of the chief governors of the RomishChurch. 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 wasderived from cardinare or incardinare, tohinge or join together, and was applied tothe regular clergy of the metropolitanchurch. In Italy, Gaul, &c., such churchesearly received the title of cardinal churches;the ministers of these churches were alsocalled cardinals.

The following statements comprise theimportant historical facts relative to theoffice of cardinal:

1. The institution of the office has beenascribed by respectable Roman Catholicwriters to Christ himself, to the apostle oftheir faith, to the Roman bishop Evaristus,to Hyginus, Marcellus, Boniface III., andothers. But we only know that cardinals,presbyters, and deacons occur in historyabout the sixth and seventh centuries, whowere, however, not itinerant, but stationarychurch officers for conducting religiousworship. The deacons and presbyters ofRome especially bore this name, who composedthe presbytery of the bishop of theplace. The title was also conferred uponthe suffragan bishops of Ostia, Albano,and others in the immediate vicinity, butwithout any other rights than those whichwere connected appropriately with theministerial office.

2. The import of the term was variedstill more in the ninth century, and especiallyin the eleventh, by Nicolaus II., whoin his constitution for the election of theRoman pontiff, not only appointed hisseven suffragan bishops as members of thepope’s ecclesiastical council, but also constitutedthem the only legitimate body forthe election of the pope. To these he gavethe name of cardinal bishops of the Churchof Rome, or cardinals of the Lateran Church.

This is the important period in historywhen the first foundation was laid forrendering the hierarchy of the Church independentboth of the clergy and of thesecular power. This period has not beennoticed so particularly by historians as itsimportance requires. They seem especiallyto have overlooked the fact, that thefamous Hildebrand, (Gregory VII.,) in theyear 1073, concerted these measures forthe independence of the Church, as thefollowing extract will show: “It was thedeep design of Hildebrand, which he for a149long time prosecuted with unwearied zeal,to bring the pope wholly within the paleof the Church, and to prevent the interference,in his election, of all secular influenceand arbitrary power. And thatmeasure of the council which wrested fromthe emperor a right of so long standingand which had never been called in question,may deservedly be regarded as themaster-piece of popish intrigue, or ratherof Hildebrand’s cunning. The concessionwhich disguised this crafty design of hiswas expressed as follows: that the emperorshould ever hold from the pope the right ofappointing the pope.”

3. As might have been expected, thisprivilege was afterwards contested by theprinces of the German States, especiallyby those of Saxony and the House ofHohenstaufen. But these conflicts uniformlyresulted in favour of the ambitiousdesigns of the pope. A momentary concession,granted under the pressure of circumstances,became reason sufficient fordemanding the same ever afterwards as anestablished right. In the year A. D. 1179,Alexander III., through the canons of theLateran, confirmed yet more the independentelection of the pope, so that, afterthis, the ratification of the emperor wasno longer of any importance. Somethingsimilar 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 ofRome, and ascended the papal throne. Inthe year 1274, the conclave of cardinalsfor the election of the pope was fully establishedby Gregory X., and remains thesame to this day.

4. The college of cardinals, which, untilthe twelfth century, had been restrictedto Rome and its vicinity, has since beengreatly enlarged, so as to become the supremecourt of the Romish Church throughoutthe world. Priests of illustrious namein other provinces and countries have beenelevated to the dignity of cardinals. Of this,Alexander III. gave the first example in theyear 1165, by conferring the honour uponGaldinus Sala, archbishop of Milan, andupon Conrad, archbishop of Mentz. But,to the injury of the Church, the greaterpart have ever been restricted to the limitsof Rome and Italy.

5. The formal classification of the cardinalsinto three distinct orders, 1. cardinalbishops; 2. cardinal presbyters; 3.cardinal deacons, was made by Paul II. inthe fifteenth century. He also gave them,instead of the scarlet robe which they hadworn since the year 1244, a purple robe,from whence they derived the name of thepurple; a title indicative, not merely oftheir superiority to bishops and archbishops,but of their regal honours andrights. Boniface VIII. gave them thetitle of eminentissimi, most eminent; andPius V., in the year 1567, decrees that noother should have the name of cardinal.

6. The number of cardinals was at firstnot less than seven; and, after havingranged from seven to fifty-three, it wasreduced again in the year 1277 to theminimum above-mentioned. The GeneralAssembly of the Church of Basil limitedthe number to twenty-four; but the popesfrom this time increased them at theirpleasure. Under Leo X. there were sixty-fivecardinals: Paul IV. and Pius V. decreedthat the maximum should be seventy—equalin number to the disciples of ourLord. These were arranged under the followinggrades: 1. Six cardinal bishops, withthe following titles:—the bishops of Ostia,Porta, Albano, Frascati, Sabina, and Palæstrina;2. Fifty cardinal priests, whowere named after the parochial and cathedralchurches of Rome; 3. Fourteen cardinaldeacons, who were named after thechapels. This number was seldom full;but, since 1814, they have again becomequite numerous.—Augusti.

The canons in some foreign cathedralsare called cardinals; as at Milan and Salerno.In the cathedral of St. Paul’s,London, two of the minor canons are stillso designated. Their statutable duties areto superintend the behaviour of the membersof the choir, in order to the correctionof 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 MountCarmel. They pretend to derive theiroriginal from the prophets Elijah andElisha; and this occasioned a very warmcontroversy between this order and theJesuits, about the end of the seventeenthcentury; both parties publishing severalworks, and petitioning the popes InnocentXI. and Innocent XII.; the latter of whomsilenced them both, by a brief of the 20thNovember, 1698.

What we know of their original is, that,in the twelfth century, Aimerie, legate ofthe holy see in the east, and patriarch ofAntioch, collected together several hermitsin Syria, who were exposed to the violenceand incursions of the barbarians, andplaced them on Mount Carmel, formerlythe residence of the prophets Elijah andElisha; from which mountain they took150the name of Carmelites. Albert, patriarchof Jerusalem, gave them rules in 1205,which Pope Honorius III. confirmed in1224.

The peace concluded by the emperorFrederic II. with the Saracens, in the year1229, so disadvantageous to Christendom,and so beneficial to the infidels, occasionedthe Carmelites to quit the Holy Land underAlan, the fifth general of the order.He first sent some of the monks to Cyprus,who landed there in the year 1238, andfounded a monastery in the forest of Fortania.Some Sicilians, at the same time,leaving Mount Carmel, returned to theirown country, where they founded a monasteryin the suburbs of Messina. SomeEnglish departed out of Syria, in the year1440, to found others in England. Othersof Provence, in the year 1244, founded amonastery in the desert of Aigualates, aleague from Marseilles; and thus, the numberof their monasteries increasing, theyheld their first European general chapterin the year 1245, at their monastery ofAylesford, in England.

After the establishment of the Carmelitesin Europe, their rule was in somerespects altered: the first time, by PopeInnocent IV., who added to the first articlea precept of chastity, and relaxed theeleventh, which enjoins abstinence at alltimes from flesh, permitting them, whenthey travelled, to eat boiled flesh. Thispope likewise gave them leave to eat in acommon refectory, and to keep asses ormules for their use. Their rule was againmitigated by the popes Eugenius IV. andPius II. Hence the order is divided intotwo branches, viz. the Carmelites of theancient observance, called the moderate ormitigated, and those of the strict observance,who are the barefooted Carmelites; a reformset on foot, in 1540, by S. Theresa, a nunof the convent of Avila, in Castile: theselast are divided into two congregations,that of Spain and that of Italy.

The habit of the Carmelites was at firstwhite, and the cloak laced at the bottomwith several lists; but Pope Honorius IV.commanded them to change it for that ofthe Minims. Their scapulary is a smallwoollen habit, of a brown colour, thrownover their shoulders. They wear no linenshirts, but instead of them linsey-woolsey.—Broughton.

CAROLS. Hymns sung by the peopleat Christmas in memory of the song of theangels, which the shepherds heard at ourLord’s birth.

CARPOCRATIANS. Heretics whosprang up in the second century; followersof Carpocrates, of the island of Cephalenia,according to Epiphanius, or, according toTheodoret and Clemens Alexandrinus, ofthe city of Alexandria. This Carpocrateswas a man of the worst morals, and addictedto magic. Eusebius says expressly,he was the father of the heresy of theGnostics; and it is true that all the infamousthings imputed to the Gnostics areascribed likewise to the Carpocratians. Itis 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 powerof the princes of this world, as they expressedit, without having passed throughall sorts of criminal actions; laying it downfor a maxim, that there is no action bad initself, but only from the opinion of men.This induced them to establish a new kindof metempsychosis, that those who havenot passed through all sorts of actions inthe first life, may do it in a second, and,if that be not sufficient, in a third, and soon, till they have discharged this strangeobligation. Accordingly, they are chargedwith committing the most infamous thingsin their Agapæ, or love-feasts.

As to their theology, they attributed thecreation of the world to angels; they saidthat Jesus Christ was born of Joseph andMary in a manner like other men; thathis soul alone was received into heaven,his body remaining on the earth; and, accordingly,they rejected the resurrection ofthe body.

They marked their disciples at the bottomof the right ear with a hot iron, orwith a razor.

They had images of Jesus Christ as wellin painting as in sculpture, which they saidwere made by Pilate; they kept them ina little box or chest. They had likewisethe images of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle,and other philosophers. They put crownson all these images, and paid them thesame superstitious honours which the Pagansdid to their idols, adoring them, andoffering sacrifice to them. A woman ofthis sect, named Marcellina, came to Rome,in the pontificate of Anicetus, where shemade a great many proselytes. She worshippedthe images of Jesus Christ, Paul,Homer, and Pythagoras, and offered incenseto them.

Carpocrates had a son, named Epiphanes,who, by means of the Platonic philosophy,gave a greater extent to the fabulousopinions of the Carpocratians. He died atseventeen years of age, but in that shorttime had acquired so great a reputationamong the disciples of his father, that, after151his death, he was revered by them as a god,insomuch that they built a temple to himin the island of Cephalenia, and the Cephalenians,every first day of the month,solemnized the feast of his apotheosis,offering sacrifices to him, and singinghymns to his honour.

Epiphanius relates of himself, that in hisyouth he accidentally fell into companywith some women of this sect, who revealedto him the most horrible secrets of theCarpocratians. They were armed withbeauty sufficient to make an impression ona person of his age; but, by the grace ofGod, he says, he escaped the snare whichthe devil had laid for him. (See Gnostics.)—Brouqhton.

CARTHUSIANS. A religious order,founded in the year 1080 by one Bruno, avery learned man, a native of Cologne,and canon of Cologne, and afterwardsCanon Scholaster or Theologal, (i. e. alecturer in theology,) at Rheims. The occasionof its institution is related as follows:a friend of Bruno’s, Raimond Diocre, aneminent canon of Paris, who had beenlooked upon as a good liver, being dead,Bruno attended his funeral. Whilst theservice was performing in the church, thedead man, who lay upon a bier, raised himselfup and said, “By the just judgment ofGod, I am accused.” The company beingastonished at this unusual accident, theburial was deferred to the next day, whenthe concourse of people being much greater,the dead man again raised himself up andsaid, “By the just judgment of God, I amjudged:” 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 sixmore, that they immediately retired to thedesert of Chartreux, in the diocese ofGrenoble, in Dauphiné, where Hugh,bishop of that diocese, assigned them aspot of ground, and where Bruno, A. D.1084, (or 1086, according to Baronius,)built his first monastery, under the followingrigid institutes:—

His monks were to wear a hair-clothnext their body, a white cassock, and overit a black cloak: they were never to eatflesh; to fast every Friday on bread andwater; to eat alone in their chambers, exceptupon certain festivals; and to observean almost perpetual silence; none wereallowed to go out of the monastery, exceptthe prior and procurator, and they onlyabout the business of the house.

The Carthusians, so called from theplace of their first institution, are a veryrigid order. They are not to go out oftheir cells, except to church, without leaveof their superior. They are not to speakto any person, even their own brother, withoutleave. They may not keep any partof their portion of meat or drink till thenext day, except herbs or fruit. Theirbed is of straw, covered with a felt orcoarse 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, ahone, 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 forfire, tinder, flint, wood, and an axe.

In the refectory they are to keep theireyes on the meat, their hands on the table,their attention on the reader, and theirheart fixed on God. When allowed todiscourse, they are to do it modestly, notto whisper, nor talk aloud, nor to be contentious.They confess to the prior everySaturday. Women are not allowed tocome into their churches, that the monksmay not see anything which may provokethem to lewdness.

It is computed there are a hundred andseventy-two houses of Carthusians, whereoffive are of nuns, who practise the sameausterities as the monks. They are dividedinto sixteen provinces, each of which hastwo visitors. There have been severalcanonised 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’sretirement into the desert was inserted inthe Roman Breviary, but was afterwardsleft out, when that Breviary was reformed,by order of Pope Urban VIII.; and thisgave occasion to several learned men ofthe seventeenth century to publish writingson that subject, some to vindicate thetruth of the story, and others to invalidateit. It is rejected by Pagius, the learnedannotator on Baronius, who says it wasinvented two centuries after Bruno’s time.—Jebb.

In the year 1170, Pope Alexander III.took this order under the protection of theholy see. In 1391, Boniface IX. exemptedthem from the jurisdiction of the bishops.In 1420, Martin V. exempted them frompaying the tenths of the lands belongingto them; and Julius II., in 1508, orderedthat all the houses of the order, in whateverpart of the world they were situated,should obey the prior of the Grand Chartreuse,and the general chapter of theorder.

The convents of this order are generally152very beautiful and magnificent; that ofNaples, though but small, surpasses all therest in ornaments and riches. Nothingis to be seen in the church and house butmarble and jasper. The apartments ofthe prior are rather those of a prince thanof a poor monk. There are innumerablestatues, bas-reliefs, paintings, &c., togetherwith very fine gardens; all which, joinedwith the holy and exemplary life of thegood monks, draws the curiosity of allstrangers who visit Naples.

The Carthusians settled in Englandabout the year 1140. They had severalmonasteries here, particularly at Witham,in Somersetshire; Hinton, in the samecounty; Beauval, in Nottinghamshire;Kingston-upon-Hull; Mount Grace, inYorkshire; Eppewort, in Lincolnshire;Shene, in Surrey, and one near Coventry.In London they had a famous monastery,since called, from the Carthusians who settledthere, the Charter House.—See DuPin, and Baronius.

CARTULARIES, according to Jeromde Costa, were papers wherein the contracts,sales, exchanges, privileges, immunities,and other acts that belong tochurches and monasteries were collected,the better to preserve the ancient deeds,by rendering frequent reference to themless necessary.

CASSOCK. The under dress of allorders of the clergy; it resembles a longcoat, with a single upright collar. In theChurch of Rome it varies in colour withthe dignity of the wearer. Priests wearblack; bishops, purple; cardinals, scarlet;and popes, white. In the Church ofEngland, black is worn by all the threeorders of the clergy, but bishops, uponstate occasions, often wear purple coats.The 74th English canon enjoins that beneficedclergymen, &c. shall not go in publicin their doublet and hose, without coatsor cassocks.—Jebb.

CASUIST. One who studies cases ofconscience.

CASUISTRY. The doctrine and scienceof conscience and its cases, with therules 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 alldifficulties arising about what a man maylawfully do or not do; what is sin or notsin; what things a man is obliged to doin order to discharge his duty, and whathe may let alone without breach of it. Themost celebrated writers on this subject, ofthe Church of England, are Bishop JeremyTaylor, in his “Ductor Dubitantium;” andBishop Sanderson, in his “Cases of Conscience.”There was a professor of casuistryin the university of Cambridge, but thetitle of the professorship has lately beenaltered to Moral Philosophy.

CASULA. (See Chasible.)

CATACOMBS. Burying-places nearRome; not for Christians only, but for allsorts of people. There is a large vaultabout three miles from Rome, used for thispurpose; there is another near Naples.That at Naples consists of long galleriescut out of the rock, of three stories, oneabove another. These galleries are generallyabout twenty feet broad, and fifteenhigh. Those at Rome are not above threeor four feet broad, and five or six feet high.They are very long, full of niches, shapedaccording to the sizes of bodies, whereinthe bodies were put, not in coffins, butonly in burial clothes. Many inscriptionsare still extant in them; and the samestone sometimes bears on one side an inscriptionto heathen deities and marks ofChristianity on the other. But see a largeaccount of these in Bishop Burnet’s Travels,in his fourth letter; also “The Church inthe Catacombs,” by Dr. C. Maitland; andMacfarlane’s “Catacombs of Rome.”

The name “Catacombs” is now generallyapplied to the stone vaults for thedead constructed in the public cemeteriesof England.

CATAPHRYGES. Christian heretics,who made their appearance in the secondcentury; they had this name given to thembecause the chief promoters of this heresycame out of Phrygia. They followed Montanus’serrors. (See Montanists.)

CATECHISM, is derived from a Greekterm, (κατηχέω,) and signifies instruction inthe first rudiments of any art or science,communicated by asking questions andhearing and correcting the answers. Fromthe earliest ages of the Church the wordhas been employed by ecclesiastical writersin a more restrained sense, to denote instructionin the principals of the Christianreligion by means of questions and answers.—DeanComber. Shepherd.

By canon 59, “Every parson, vicar, orcurate, upon every Sunday and holy day,before evening prayer, shall, for half anhour or more, examine and instruct theyouth and ignorant persons of his parish,in the ten commandments, the articles ofthe belief, and in the Lord’s Prayer; andshall diligently hear, instruct, and teachthem the catechism set forth in the Book ofCommon Prayer. And all fathers, mothers,masters, and mistresses shall cause their153children, servants, and apprentices, whichhave not learned the catechism, to come tothe church at the time appointed, obedientlyto hear, and to be ordered by theminister, until they have learned the same.And if any minister neglect his duty herein,let him be sharply reproved upon thefirst complaint, and true notice thereofgiven to the bishop or ordinary of theplace. If after submitting himself heshall willingly offend therein again, let himbe suspended. If so the third time, therebeing little hope that he will be thereinreformed, then excommunicated, and soremain until he be reformed. And likewise,if any of the said fathers, mothers,masters, or mistresses, children, servants,or apprentices, shall neglect their duties, asthe 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 ifthey so persist by the space of a month,then let them be excommunicated.”

And by the rubric, “The curate ofevery parish shall diligently upon Sundaysand holy days, after the second lesson atevening prayer, openly in the church instructand examine so many children ofhis parish sent unto him, as he shall thinkconvenient, in some part of the catechism.And all fathers and mothers, masters anddames, shall cause their children, servants,and apprentices (who have not learnedtheir catechism) to come to the church atthe time appointed, and obediently to hear,and be ordered by the curate, until suchtime as they have learned all that thereinis appointed for them to learn.”

In the office of public baptism theminister directs the godfathers and godmothersto “take care that the child bebrought to the bishop, to be confirmedby him, so soon as he or she can say theCreed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the tencommandments in the vulgar tongue, andbe further instructed in the Church Catechismset forth for that purpose.”

The catechism of children is enjoined byGod, (Deut. vi. 7; Prov. xxii. 6; Ephes.vi. 4,) and was always practised by piousmen, (Gen. xviii. 19; 1 Chron. xxviii. 9;2 Tim. i. 5,) and it is Christ’s especialcharge to ministers, to feed his lambs.(John xxi. 15.) The Jewish doctors tookcare of this. (Luke ii. 42.) And in theChristian churches there was a peculiarofficer who was the catechist; and all thenew converts, who were to be baptized atEaster, were catechized all the forty daysof Lent. But since we have few such now,and generally baptize infants, who cannotat that time understand the covenant whichis entered into, therefore we are bound totake more care to make them understandit afterward, by instructing them in the“Catechism of the Church;” which isdrawn up according to the primitive formsby way of question and answer, (Acts viii.37; 1 Pet. iii. 21,) being not a large systemof divinity to puzzle the heads of youngbeginners, but, like those of the ancients, ashort and full explication of the baptismalvow; teaching them, first, what their baptismalvow is, namely, what were thebenefits promised on God’s part, Quest.I., II., and what were the duties promisedon their part, to renounce all evil, to believeall divine truth, and to keep God’s commandments,Quest. III.; together withtheir grateful owning of this covenant,Quest. IV. Secondly, the parts of thevow are explained: first, as to the matterof them, in repeating and expounding thecreed, Quest. V., VI., and repeating andexplaining the ten commandments, Quest.VII., VIII., IX., X., XI. Secondly, asto the means to enable them to keep them,which are prayer and the holy sacraments:and the duty of prayer is taught them inthe Lord’s Prayer, and the explicationthereof, Quest. XII., XIII. The due useof the sacraments is taught them, first ingeneral, as to their number, nature, andnecessity, Quest. XIV., XV. Secondlyin particular, baptism, Quest. XVI.–XX.;and the Lord’s supper, Quest. XXI.–XXV.This is all that is absolutely necessaryto be known in order to salvation,and all that the primitive Church did teachtheir catechumens. And if children be butmade to repeat this perfectly, and understandit fully, they will increase in knowledgeas they grow in years.—Dean Comber.

It is the peculiar glory of Christianity tohave extended religious instruction, ofwhich but few partook at all before, andscarce any in purity, through all ranks andages of men, and even women. The firstconverts to it were immediately formedinto regular societies and assemblies; notonly for the joint worship of God, but thefurther “edifying of the body of Christ”(Eph. iv. 12); in which good work someof course were stated teachers, or, to usethe apostle’s own expression, “catechizersin the word:” others taught or catechized.(Gal. vi. 6.) For catechizing signifies, inScripture at large, instructing persons inany matter, but especially in religion. Andthus it is used, Acts xviii. 25, where weread, “This man was instructed in the wayof the Lord;” and Luke i. 4, where, again,we read, “That thou mayest know the154certainty of those things wherein thouhast been instructed.” The original word,in both places, is catechized.

But as the different advances of personsin knowledge made different sorts of instructionsrequisite, so, in the primitiveChurch, different sorts of teachers wereappointed to dispense it. And they whotaught so much only of the Christian doctrine,as might qualify the hearers forChristian communion, had the name ofcatechists appropriated to them: whoseteaching being usually, as was most convenient,in a great measure by way ofquestion and answer, the name of Catechismhath now been long confined tosuch instruction as is given in that form.But the method of employing a particularset of men in that work only, is in mostplaces laid aside.

Under the darkness of Popery almost allreligious instruction was neglected. “Veryfew,” to use the words of one of our homilies,“even of the most simple people, weretaught the Lord’s Prayer, the articles ofthe faith, or the ten commandments, otherwisethan in Latin, which they understoodnot;” so that one of the first necessarysteps taken towards the Reformation inthis country, was a general injunction, thatparents and masters should first learn themin their own tongue, then acquaint theirchildren and servants with them: whichthree main branches of Christian duty,comprehending the sum of what we are tobelieve, to do, and to petition for, weresoon after formed, with proper explanationsof each, into a catechism. To this wasadded, in process of time, a brief accountof the two sacraments; all together makingup that very good, though still improveable,“form of sound words” (2 Tim. i. 13) whichwe may now use.—Abp. Secker.

As to the form of our catechism, it isdrawn up after the primitive manner, byway of question and answer: so Philipcatechized the eunuch, (Acts viii. 37,)and so the persons to be baptized werecatechized in the first ages. And, indeed,the very word catechism implies as much;the original κατηχέω, from whence it isderived, being a compound of ἠχὼ, whichsignifies an echo, or repeated sound. Sothat a catechism is no more than an instructionfirst taught and instilled into aperson, and then repeated upon the catechist’sexamination.

As to the contents of our catechism, itis not a large system or body of divinity,to puzzle the heads of young beginners,but only a short and full explication of thebaptismal vow. The primitive catechisms,indeed, (that is, all that the catechumenswere to learn by heart before their baptismand confirmation,) consisted of no morethan the renunciation, or the repetition ofthe baptismal vow, the creed, and theLord’s prayer: and these, together withthe ten commandments, at the Reformation,were the whole of ours. But it beingafterwards thought defective as to the doctrineof the sacraments, (which in theprimitive times were more largely explainedto baptized persons,) King JamesI. appointed the bishops to add a shortand plain explanation of them, which wasdone accordingly in that excellent form wesee; being penned by Bishop Overall, thendean of St. Paul’s, and allowed by the bishops.So that now (in the opinion of thebest judges) it excels all catechisms thatever were in the world; being so short,that the youngest children may learn it byheart; and yet so full, that it contains allthings necessary to be known in order tosalvation.

In this also its excellency is very discernible,namely, that as all persons arebaptized, not into any particular Church,but into the Catholic Church of Christ;so here they are not taught the opinion ofthis or any other particular Church or people,but what the whole body of Christiansall the world over agree in. If it may anywhereseem to be otherwise, it is in thedoctrine of the sacraments; but even thisis here worded with so much caution andtemper, as not to contradict any other particularChurch, but so as that all sorts ofChristians, when they have duly consideredit, may subscribe to everything that ishere taught or delivered.—Wheatly.

The country parson, says Herbert, valuescatechizing highly.... He exactsof all the doctrine of the catechism; of theyounger 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 requiresall to be present at catechizing; first, forthe authority of the work; secondly, thatparents and masters, as they hear the answersproved, may, when they come home,either commend or reprove, either rewardor punish; thirdly, that those of the eldersort, who are not well grounded, may thenby an honourable way take occasion to bebetter instructed; fourthly, that those whoare well grown in the knowledge of religion,may examine their grounds, renew theirvows, and by occasion of both enlargetheir meditation. Having read Divine servicetwice fully, and preached in themorning, and catechized in the afternoon,155he thinks he hath, in some measure, accordingto poor and frail man, dischargedthe public duties of the congregation.—Herbert’sCountry Parson.

With respect to the catechetical instructionof youth, I would remind you, thatit was the primitive method, employed bythe apostles and their immediate followers,and in after ages by the whole successionof the catholic and apostolic Church, fortraining up and organizing the visiblecommunity of Christians in sound principlesof faith, in the love of God and man,and in purity of life and conversation. Itis observable, accordingly, that in exactproportion as catechizing has been practisedor neglected, in the same proportionhave the public faith and morals been seento flourish or decline.... In the earlierages of the Church, catechetical schoolswere established in the great cities of theempire; over which men of the profoundestlearning, and most brilliant talents,felt themselves honoured when they werecalled to preside; while each particularchurch had its catechists; and the catechumensformed a regular and ascertainedclass or division of every congregation.And it is not too much to say, that, nextto an established liturgy, and beyond allprescribed confessions of faith, the singleordinance of catechetical instruction has,under Providence, been the great stay andsupport, throughout Christendom, of orthodox,unwavering Christianity....Let not the common prejudice be entertained,that catechizing is a slight andtrifling exercise, to be performed withoutpain and preparation on your part. Thiswould be so, if it were the mere rote-workasking and answering of the questions inour Church Catechism: but to open, toexplain, and familiarly to illustrate thosequestions, in such a manner, as at once toreach the understanding and touch theaffections of little children, is a work whichdemands no ordinary acquaintance at oncewith the whole scheme of Christian theology,with the philosophy of the humanmind, and with the yet profounder mysteriesof the human heart. It has, therefore,been well and truly said, by I recollectnot 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 namein the ancient Church; but they did notform a distinct order. Sometimes thebishop catechized, sometimes the catechistswere selected from the inferior orders, asreaders, &c.—(See Bingham.)

CATECHUMENS. A name given, inthe first ages of Christianity, to the Jewsor Gentiles who were being prepared andinstructed to receive baptism. It comesfrom the Greek word κατηχεῖν, which signifiesto teach by word of mouth, or vivavoce: and of that word this other, κατηχούμενος,is formed, which denotes him that isso taught: these had people on purposeto instruct them. Eusebius makes mentionof Pantænus, Clemens, and Origen,who were catechists in the Church of Alexandria,and had a peculiar place in thechurch where they used to teach, and thesame was called the place of the catechumens,as appears by the canons of theCouncil of Neocæsarea: they tell us thecatechumens were not permitted to bepresent at the celebration of the holy eucharist;but, immediately after the Gospelwas read, the deacons cried with a loudvoice: “Withdraw in peace, you catechumens,”for so the book of the ApostolicalConstitutions will have it. The servicefrom the beginning to the Offertory wascalled Missa catechumenorum. The catechumens,not being baptized, were not toreceive, nor so much as permitted to see,the consecrated elements of the eucharist.Some writers suppose that they receivedsome of the consecrated bread, called eulogicæ;but Bingham shows that this ideais founded on a misconstruction of a passagein St. Augustine, and that the use ofeulogicæ was not known in the Church,until long after the discipline of the catechumenshad ceased. According to acanon of the Council of Orange, they werenot permitted to pray with the faithful orthose in full communion. There were severaldegrees of favour in the state of thecatechumens: at first they were instructedprivately, or by themselves, and afterwardsadmitted to hear sermons in the church;and these last were called audientes.There was a third sort of catechumens,called orantes or genuflectentes, becausethey were present and concerned in somepart of the prayers: to which we may adda fourth degree of catechumens, whichwere the competentes; for so they werecalled when they desired to be baptized.

CATENA. From a Greek word signifyinga chain. By a Catena Patrum ismeant a string or series of passages fromthe writings of various fathers, and arrangedfor the elucidation of some portionsof Scripture, as the Psalms or Gospels.They seem to have originated in the shortscholia or glosses which it was customary inMSS. of the Scriptures to introduce in themargin. These by degrees were expanded,and passages from the homilies or sermons156of the fathers were added to them. Themost celebrated catena is the Catena Aureaof Thomas Aquinas. It was translated atOxford, under the superintendence of Mr.Newman, of Oriel College. The subsequentconduct of that gentleman has ledthose who were willing to attach someauthority to the work to examine it carefully,and the result has been, the detectionthat Thomas Aquinas has sometimes falsifiedthe quotations he has made from thefathers; and the whole, as a commentary,is inferior to the commentaries of moderntheologians.

CATHARISTS. The last surviving sectof Manichæans, or Gnostics, who gave themselvesthat name, (from καθαρὸς, pure,) toindicate their superior purity. There weremany different degrees of error amongthem, but the following tenets were commonto all:—That matter was the sourceof all evil; that the Creator of the visibleworld was not the same as the SupremeBeing; that Christ had not a real body,nor was properly speaking born, nor reallydied; that the bodies of men were theproduction of the evil principle, and wereincapable of sanctification and a new life;and that the sacraments were but vaininstitutions, and without power. Theyrejected and despised the Old Testament,but received the New with reverence. Theconsequence of such doctrines was, of course,that they made it the chief object of theirreligion to emancipate themselves fromwhatever was material, and to maceratetheir bodies to the utmost; and their perfectdisciples, in obedience to this principle,renounced animal food, wine, andmarriage. The state of their souls, whileunited with the body, was in their estimationa wretched incarceration, and theyonly escaped from some portion of the horrorsof such a dungeon, by denying themselvesall natural enjoyments, and escapingfrom the solicitations of all the senses.

The Catharists in the twelfth centuryspread themselves from Bulgaria over mostof the European provinces, but they meteverywhere with extensive persecution, andare not heard of after that time.

CATHEDRAL. The chief church inevery diocese is called the Cathedral, fromthe word cathedra, a chair, because in itthe bishop has his seat or throne. Thecathedral church is the parish church ofthe whole diocese (which diocese was thereforecommonly called parochia in ancienttimes, till the application of this name tothe lesser branches into which it was divided,caused it for distinction’ sake to becalled only by the name of diocese): andit has been affirmed, with great probability,that if one resort to the cathedralchurch to hear Divine service, it is a resortingto the parish church within thenatural sense and meaning of the statute.

By the 5th canon of the 5th Council ofCarthage it is ordained, that every bishopshall have his residence at his principal orcathedral church, which he shall not leave,to betake himself to any other church inhis diocese; nor continue upon his privateconcerns, to the neglect of his cure, andhinderance of his frequenting the cathedralchurch.—Bingham.

By the constitutions of ArchbishopLangton, 1222, it is enjoined, bishops shallbe at their cathedrals on some of thegreater feasts, and at least in some partof Lent.

By the constitutions of Otho, 1237,bishops shall reside at their cathedralchurches, and officiate there on the chieffestivals, on the Lord’s days, and in Lent,and in Advent.

By the constitutions of Othobon, in 1268,bishops shall be personally resident to takecare of their flock, and for the comfort ofthe churches espoused to them, especiallyon solemn days, in Lent and Advent, unlesstheir absence is required by their superiors,or for other just cause.

Canon 24. “In all cathedral and collegiatechurches, the holy communion shallbe administered upon principal feast days,sometimes by the bishop, (if he be present,)and sometimes by the dean, andsometimes by a canon or prebendary; theprincipal minister using a decent cope,and being assisted with the gospeller andepistler agreeably, according to the advertisementspublished in the seventh yearof Queen Elizabeth (hereafter following).The said communion to be administered atsuch times, and with such limitation, as isspecified in the Book of Common Prayer.Provided that no such limitation by anyconstruction shall be allowed of, but thatall deans, wardens, masters, or heads ofcathedral and collegiate churches, prebendaries,canons, vicars, petty canons, singingmen, and all others of the foundation,shall receive the communion four timesyearly at the least.”

Canon 42. “Every dean, master, orwarden, or chief governor of any cathedralor collegiate church, shall be resident therefourscore and ten days, conjunctim or divisim,in every year at the least, and thenshall continue there in preaching the wordof God, and keeping good hospitality; excepthe shall be otherwise let with weightyand urgent causes, to be approved by the157bishop, or in any other lawful sort dispensedwith.”

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, sooften as they are bound by law, statute,ordinance, or custom.”

Canon 44. “Prebendaries at large shallnot be absent from their cures above amonth in the year; and residentiaries shalldivide the year among them; and, whentheir residence is over, shall repair to theirbenefices.”

And by Canon 51, “the deans, presidents,and residentiaries of any cathedralor collegiate church, shall suffer no strangerto preach unto the people in their churches,except they be allowed by the archbishopof the province, or by the bishop of thesame diocese, or by either of the universities.And if any in his sermon shallpublish any doctrine either strange, ordisagreeing from the word of God, or fromany of the Thirty-nine Articles, or from theBook of Common Prayer, the dean or theresidents shall by their letters, subscribedwith some of their hands that heard him,so soon as may be, give notice of the sameto the bishop of the diocese, that he maydetermine the matter, and take such ordertherein as he shall think convenient.”

The passage of the advertisements publishedin the seventh year of Queen Elizabeth,referred to in Canon 24, is as follows:“Item, in the ministration of the holycommunion in cathedral and collegiatechurches, the principal minister shall usea cope with gospeller and epistoler agreeably;and at all other prayers to be saidat the communion table, to use no copesbut surplices. Item, that the dean andprebendaries wear a surplice, with a silkhood, in the choir; and when they preachin the cathedral or collegiate church, towear a hood.” And at the end of theservice book in the second year of EdwardVI., it is ordered that “in all cathedralchurches, the archdeacons, deans, and prebendaries,being graduates, may use in thechoir, beside their surplices, such hoods aspertaineth to their several degrees, whichthey have taken in any university withinthis realm.”

Churches collegiate and conventual werealways visitable by the bishop of the diocese,if no special exemption was made bythe founder thereof. And the visitation ofcathedral churches belongs unto the metropolitanof the province, and to the kingwhen the archbishopric is vacant.—Burn.

All cathedrals throughout the world hada body of clergy and ministers belongingto them; which were divided into variousorders and degrees; they were graduallyincorporated in Western Christendom, butnot in the East. (See Chapter.) In Englandno diocese has more than one cathedral.There are many instances of aplurality of cathedrals even in the samecity, as at Rome, Milan, &c., and formerlyin France. These churches were calledconcathedrals. One instance exists inIreland, viz. in Dublin, where ChristChurch and St. Patrick’s enjoy all therights of cathedrals; and while the congéd’ élire existed, conjointly elected thearchbishop; and their united consent muststill be given to all acts which require thesanction of a chapter. This plurality ofcathedrals in one see is not to be confoundedwith a plurality of cathedralsunder the same bishop, when, as generallyin Ireland, he has under his charge two ormore dioceses. One Irish diocese (Meath)has no cathedral; and two others (Kilmoreand Ardagh) have no cathedral chapters.These anomalies are not, as some havesupposed, remnants of a primitive order ofthings; for it can be proved that they didnot originally exist in the respective diocesesnow mentioned; but were the consequencesof poverty, barbarism, and otherunhappy causes which mutilated the externalframework of the Irish church.—Jebb.

With reference to the architecture of acathedral: the normal plan of an Englishcathedral is in the form of a Latin cross;a cross, that is, whose transverse arms areless than the lower longitudinal limb; and,in a general architectural description, itsparts are sufficiently distinguished as nave,choir, and transept, with their aisles,western towers, and central tower; but inmore minute description, especially whereritual arrangements are concerned, theseterms are not always sufficiently precise,and we shall hardly arrive at the moreexact nomenclature, without tracing thechanges in a cathedral church from theNorman period to our own.

In a Norman cathedral, the east end, orarchitectural choir, usually terminated inan apse, (see Apse,) surrounded by thecontinuation of the choir aisles. The aislesformed a path for processions at the backof the altar, and were called the processionary.The bishop’s throne was placedbehind the altar, and the altar itself in thechord of the apse; and westward of thiswas a considerable space, unoccupied inordinary cases, which was called the presbytery.The choir, or place in which the158daily service was performed, was under thecentral tower, with perhaps one or twobays of the nave in addition; so that theritual and the architectural choir did notcoincide, but the ritual choir occupied thetower and a considerable portion of thearchitectural nave. This arrangementseems unnatural, and even inconvenient;but it was perhaps required by the connexionof the cathedral with the monasticor other offices of the establishment; forthese were arranged around a quadrangle,of which the architectural nave, or westernlimb of the church, formed one side, andlength was gained to the quadrangle, withoutdisproportionate enlargement of thechurch, by making the western limb sufficientlylarge to receive part, at least, ofthe ritual choir. (See Monastery.)

The transept was not originally symbolicalin its form; but was derived fromthe transverse hall or gallery in the ancientbasilicas at the upper end of the nave, itslength equal to the breadth of the naveand aisles. The accidental approximatingto the form of the cross was doubtlessperceived by later Christian architects,who accordingly in many instances lengthenedthe transept so as to make the ground-planof the church completely cuneiform.—Jebb.

In the transepts and aisles, and also inthe crypt, which generally extended beneaththe whole eastern limb of the church,were numerous altars, and little chapelswere often thrown out, of an apsidal form,for their altars. One chapel, especially,was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, andcalled the Lady chapel, but its place doesnot seem to have been constant.

Subsequent churches were of coursesubject to many variations, but they generallyfollowed much this course. First, theapse was taken down, and the eastern armof the cross was extended considerably, soas to enlarge the presbytery, or part inwhich the altar stood, and to add a retrochoirin place of the old processionary behindit; and this change was probablyconnected always in prospect, and oftenat once, with the carrying up of the choireastward of the great tower, or in otherwords, reconciling the ritual with the architecturalarrangement. After this yetanother addition was made to the east end,which was often nearly equal to the navein length; and the Lady chapel was builtbeyond the presbytery and retrochoir.

In the course of these arrangements theseveral screens, the rood screen and thealtar screen, had to be removed. Therood screen was placed within the easternarch of the tower, which may now be calledits proper place, wherever the churchhas received its usual additions. Thisscreen is now almost universally used asan organ loft; and it is obvious to remark,that though the organ intercepts the viewfrom the west end of the church, it certainlydoes not do so more than the roodand its accompaniments formerly did. Thealtar screen first became necessary at theenlarging of the space behind the altar: itformed the separation of the presbyteryfrom the retrochoir. In some instancesthis arrangement has been disturbed of lateyears, but always with bad effect.

The modifications of these plans andarrangements are various, but oftener onthe side of excess than of defect. TheLady chapel is not always at the extremeeast. At Ely, for instance, and once atPeterborough, it was at the north. Thegreat transept is never omitted (Manchestercan hardly be called an exception, since ithas only lately been made a cathedral);but a second transept to the east of thetower was often added, as at Canterbury,Lincoln, and Salisbury. Sometimes, as atDurham, the second transept is carried tothe extreme east end of the church, whichit crosses in the form of a T. Sometimesthere was a western transept, treated inthe same way as at Ely and Peterborough;and at Durham, Ely, and Lincoln wasanother considerable addition, called theGalilee porch. At Canterbury, the wholearrangement of the east end is very remarkable,the crown of Archbishop Beckettaking the usual place of the Lady chapel.The shrines of reputed saints, and chantrymonuments inserted in different portionsof the fabric, with too little respect for itsgeneral effect, are constant additions to theplan; but it would be useless to attemptto reduce these to a general rule, and endlessto enumerate particular cases.

The cathedrals in Ireland and Scotlandwere originally very small. That of Armagh,the largest, it is supposed, of ancientdate, and originally built by St. Patrick,was without transepts, which were addedmany ages after. The most interestingrelics of very ancient cathedrals in Irelandare at Tuam and Clonfert. Many ofthem in Scotland, as Elgin, were modelledon the plan of Lincoln cathedral.—Poole.

CATHOLIC. (καθ’ ὅλον.) Universal orgeneral. “The Church,” says St. Cyril,“is called catholic, because it is throughoutthe world, from one end of the earth to theother; and because it teaches universallyand completely all the truths which oughtto come to men’s knowledge, concerning159things both visible and invisible, heavenlyand earthly; and because it subjugates, inorder to godliness, every class of men,governors and governed, learned and unlearned;and because it universally treatsand heals every sort of sins which are committedby soul or body, and possesses initself every form of virtue which is named,both in deeds and words, and every kindof spiritual gifts.”—Catechetical Lectures,xviii. 23.

The term was first applied to the ChristianChurch to distinguish it from theJewish, the latter being confined to a singlenation, the former being open to all whoshould seek admission into it by holy baptism.Hence, the Christian Church isgeneral or universal. The first regularlyorganized Christian Church was formed atJerusalem. When St. Peter convertedthree thousand souls, (Acts ii. 41,) the newconverts were not formed into a new Church,but were added to the original society.When Churches were formed afterwards atSamaria, Antioch, and other places, thesewere not looked upon as entirely separatebodies, but as branches of the one holyCatholic or Apostolic Church. St. Paulsays, (1 Cor. xii. 13,) “By one Spirit weare all baptized into one body;” and, (Eph.iv. 4,) “There is one body and one Spirit.”A Catholic Church means a branch of thisone great society, as the Church of Englandis said to be a Catholic Church; the CatholicChurch includes all the Churches in theworld under their legitimate bishops.

When in after-times teachers began toform separate societies, and to call themby their own name, as the Arians werenamed from Arius, the Macedonians fromMacedonius; and, in later times, Calvinistsfrom Calvin, Wesleyans from Wesley;the true churchmen, refusing to be designatedby the name of any human leader,called themselves Catholics, i. e. members,not of any peculiar society, but of theUniversal Church. And the term thusused not only distinguished the Churchfrom the world, but the true Church fromheretical and schismatical parties. Hence,in ecclesiastical history, the word catholicmeans the same as orthodox, and a catholicChristian denotes an orthodox Christian.

From this may be seen the absurdity ofcalling those who receive the decrees ofthe Council of Trent Catholics. The Romanists,or Papists, or Tridentines, belongto a peculiar society, in which Romanismor Romish errors are added to orthodoxtruth. When we call them Catholics, weas much as call ourselves Heretics, we asmuch as admit them to be orthodox; andthey gladly avail themselves of this admission,on the part of some ignorant Protestants,to hold up an argument against theChurch of England. Let the member of theChurch of England assert his right to thename of Catholic, since he is the only personin England who has a right to thatname. The English Romanist is a Romishschismatic, and not a Catholic.

CATHOLIC EPISTLES. The Epistlesof St. James, St. Peter, St. Jude, andSt. John are called Catholic Epistles, eitherbecause they were not written to any particularperson, or Church, but to Christiansin general, or to Christians of several countries:or because, whatever doubts may atfirst have been entertained respecting someof them, they were all acknowledged bythe Catholic or Universal Church, at thetime this appellation was attached to them,which we find to have been common in thefourth century.

CAVEAT. A caveat is a caution enteredin the spiritual court, to stop probates,administrations, licences, &c., frombeing granted without the knowledge ofthe party that enters the caveat.

CELESTINES. A religious order ofChristians, which derives its name from itsfounder, Pietro de Morone, afterwards CelestinV., a hermit, who followed the rulesof St. Bennet, who founded the order in1254, and got the institution confirmed byPope Urban VIII. in 1264, and by GregoryX. in 1273, at the second generalCouncil of Lyons: this order soon multipliedin Italy, and was brought into Francein 1300, by Philip the Fair, who sent toPeter of Sorrel, a singer of the Church ofOrleans, or according to others, of that ofAmiens, his ambassador then at Naples,to beg of the abbot-general of it twelve ofthis order, to be sent into France. Whenthey were arrived, the king gave them twomonasteries, one in the forest of Orleans,at a place called Ambert, and the other inthe forest of Compiegne, in Mount Chartres.Charles, dauphin and regent of France, in1352, while King John, his father, wasprisoner in England, sent for six of thesemonks of Mount Chartres, to establish themat Paris, at a place called Barrez, wherethere was, till the Revolution, a monasteryof that order: and that prince, in 1356,gave them every month a purse under theseal of the chancelery, which gift was confirmedby a patent in 1361, at King John’sreturn. When Charles came to the crownhimself, he made them a gift of a thousandlivres of gold, with twelve acres of the besttimber in the forest of Moret, to buildtheir church with, whereof he himself laid160the first stone, and had it consecrated inhis presence. After which he settled aconsiderable parcel of land upon the samemonastery. The Celestines were calledhermits of St. Damian before their institutorbecame pope. Their first monasterywas at Monte Majella, in the kingdom ofNaples.

CELIBACY. The state of unmarriedpersons: a word used chiefly in speakingof the single life of the Romish clergy, orthe obligation they are under to abstainfrom marriage.

At the time of the Reformation, scarcelyany point was more canvassed than theright of the clergy to marry. The celibacyof the clergy was justly considered as aprincipal cause of irregular and dissoluteliving; and the wisest of the Reformerswere exceedingly anxious to abolish apractice, which had been injurious to theinterests of religion, by its tendency tocorrupt the morals of those who ought tobe examples of virtue to the rest of mankind.The marriage of priests was so farfrom being forbidden by the Mosaic institution,that the priesthood was confinedto the descendants of one family, and consequentlythere was not only a permission,but an obligation upon the Jewish prieststo marry. Hence we conclude that thereis no natural inconsistency, or even unsuitableness,between the married stateand the duties of the ministers of religion.Not a single text in the New Testamentcan be interpreted into a prohibitionagainst the marriage of the clergy underthe gospel dispensation; but, on the contrary,there are many passages from whichwe may infer that they are allowed thesame liberty upon this subject as othermen enjoy. One of the twelve apostles,namely, St. Peter, was certainly a marriedman (Matt. viii. 14); and it is supposedthat 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 celibacyin the first preachers of the gospel, itcannot be thought indispensable in theirsuccessors. St. Paul says, “Let everyman have his own wife” (1 Cor. vii. 2);and that marriage is honourable in all,(Heb. xiii. 4,) without excepting thosewho are employed in the public officesof religion. He expressly says, that “abishop must be the husband of one wife”(1 Tim. iii. 2); and he gives the same directionconcerning elders, priests, and deacons.When Aquila travelled about topreach the gospel, he was not only married,but his wife Priscilla accompaniedhim (Acts xviii. 2); and St. Paul insiststhat he might have claimed the privilege“of carrying about a sister or wife, (1 Cor.ix. 5,) as other apostles did.” The “forbiddingto marry” (1 Tim. iv. 3) is mentionedas a character of the apostasy ofthe latter times. That the ministers of thegospel were allowed to marry for severalcenturies after the days of the apostlesappears certain. Polycarp mentions Valens,presbyter of Philippi, who was amarried man, and there are now extanttwo letters of Tertullian, a presbyter ofthe 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, himselfa married man; and so was Cæcilius,the presbyter who converted him, andNumidius, another presbyter of Carthage.That they were allowed to cohabit withtheir wives after ordination appears fromthe charge which Cyprian brought againstNovatus, that he had struck and abusedhis wife, and by that means caused her tomiscarry. In the Council of Nice, A. D.325, a motion was made, that a law mightpass to oblige the clergy to abstain fromall conjugal society: but it was strenuouslyopposed by Paphnutius, a famous Egyptianbishop, who, although himself unmarried,pleaded that marriage was honourable, andthat so heavy a burden as abstaining fromit ought not to be laid upon the clergy.Upon which the motion was laid aside, andevery man left to his liberty, as before.All that Valesius, after Bellarmine, has tosay against this is, that he suspects thetruth of the thing, and begs leave to dissentfrom the historian; which is but apoor evasion in the judgment of Du Pinhimself, who, though a Romanist, makesno question but that the Council of Nicedecreed in favour of the married clergy.The same thing is evident from othercouncils of the same age; as the councilsof Gangra, Ancyra, Neocæsarea, Eliberis,and Trullo. We have also a letter fromHilary of Poictiers, written to his daughterwhen he was in exile; and from what canbe collected concerning her age, it seemsprobable that she was born when he was abishop. At the same time it must beowned, that many things are said in praiseof a single life in the writings of the ancientfathers; and the law of celibacy hadbeen proposed, before or about the beginningof the fourth century, by some individuals.The arguments are forciblewhich are used, but there is one generalanswer to them all: the experiment hasbeen made, and it has failed. In a country161where there are no nunneries, the wives ofthe clergy are most useful to the Church.Siricius, who, according to Dufresnoy, diedin the year 399, [397, Barenius,] was thefirst pope who forbade the marriage of theclergy; but it is probable that this prohibitionwas little regarded, as the celibacyof the clergy seems not to have been completelyestablished till the papacy of GregoryVII., at the end of the eleventh century,and even at that time it was loudlycomplained of by many writers. The historyof the following centuries abundantlyproves the bad effects of this abuse ofChurch power. The old English and Welshrecords show that the clergy were marriedas late as the eleventh century. See theLiber Landavensis, passim.

CELLITES. A certain religious orderof Popish Christians, which has houses inAntwerp, Louvain, Mechlin, Cologne, andin other towns in Germany and the Netherlands,whose founder was one Mexius,a Roman, mentioned in the history ofItaly, where they are also called Mexians.

CEMETERY means originally a placeto sleep in, and hence by Christians, whoregard death as a kind of sleep, it is appliedto designate a place of burial. Cemeteryis derived from κοιμάω, to sleep, becausethe primitive Christians spoke of death asa sleep, from which men are to awake atthe general resurrection. The first Christiansepulchres were crypts or catacombs.The custom of burying in churches wasnot practised for the first 300 years of theChristian era; and severe laws were passedagainst burying even in cities. The firststep towards the practice of burying inchurches, was the transferring of the relicsof martyrs thither: next, sovereigns andprinces were allowed burial in the porch:in the sixth century churchyards cameinto use. By degrees the practice prevailedfrom the ninth to the thirteenth century,encouraged first by special grants frompopes, and by connivance, though contraryto the express laws of the Church.—SeeBingham. (See 9 & 10 Vict. c. 68,entitled “An Act for better enabling theBurial Service to be performed in onechapel, where contiguous burial-groundshall have been provided for two or moreparishes or places.”)

The following is a list of the several actsof parliament recently passed relating tochurch building, and to cemeteries andchurchyards:—43 Geo. III. c. 108; 51Geo. III. c. 115; 56 Geo. III. c. 141; 58Geo. III. c. 45; 59 Geo. III. c. 134; 3Geo. IV. c. 72; 5 Geo. IV. c. 103; 7 & 8Geo. IV. c. 72; 9 Geo. IV. c. 42; 1 & 2Wm. IV. c. 38; 2 & 3 Wm. IV. c. 61; 1Vict. c. 75; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 107; 2 & 3Vict. 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 areseveral cemeteries endowed with privilegesunder acts of parliament specially applicableto them. The principal is that ofKensall Green, established 2 & 3 Wm. IV.,and consecrated by the bishop of Londonin 1832; the South London, at Norwood,was established 6 & 7 Wm. IV., 1836.There are four others in the neighbourhoodof London. There are large cemeteriesalso at Manchester, Liverpool, Reading,and several other towns.

In 1850 was passed the act 13 & 14Vict. c. 52, which gave to the GeneralBoard of Health very extensive powersfor abolishing existing places of sepulture,whether in the neighbourhood of churchesor not, and for establishing public cemeteries.This very elaborate act, containingseventy-seven sections and four schedules,has hitherto been found impracticable,except in so far as it relates to the appointmentof a new commissioner of the Boardof Health to work the act. In the year1852 was passed the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 85,making provision for interments in themetropolis. In 1853, by 16 & 17 Vict. c.134, most of the provisions of the act of1852 were extended to all England.

CENOBITES. A name formerly givento such as entered into a monastic life, andlived in communities, to distinguish themfrom such as passed their lives in wildernessesand alone, as hermits and anchorites.The word is derived from κοινόβιον, vitæcommunis societas.

CENOTAPH. (κενοτάφιον, from κενὸςand τάφος, an empty tomb.) A memorial ofa deceased person, not erected over hisbody. So far as churches may be consideredmemorials of the saints whosename they bear, they are analogous eitherto monuments, when the bodies of thesaints there repose, (as, for instance, St.Alban’s, and the ancient church at Peransabulo,)or to cenotaphs, when, as is farmore generally the case, the saint is buriedfar off. A great part of the monumentswhich disfigure Westminster Abbey andSt. Paul’s are cenotaphs.

CENSURES ECCLESIASTICAL.The penalties by which, for some remarkablemisbehaviour, Christians are deprivedof the communion of the Church, or clergymenare prohibited to execute the sacerdotaloffice. These censures are, excommunication,162suspension, and interdict; orelse, irregularity, which hinders a manfrom being admitted into holy orders.

The canonists define an ecclesiasticalcensure to be a spiritual punishment, inflictedby some ecclesiastical judge, wherebyhe deprives a person baptized of the useof some spiritual things, which conduce, notonly to his present welfare in the Church,but likewise to his future and eternalsalvation. It differs from civil punishments,which consist only in things temporal; asconfiscation of goods, pecuniary mulcts orfines, and the like; but the Church, by itscensures, does not deprive a man of allspirituals, but only of some in particular.This definition speaks of such things asconduce to eternal salvation, in order tomanifest the end of this censure; for theChurch, by censures, does not intend thedestroying of men’s souls, but only thesaving them; by enjoining repentance forpast errors, a return from contumacy, andan abstaining from future sins.

CENTURIES, MAGDEBURG. Acelebrated and extraordinary ecclesiasticalhistory, projected by Flacius Illyricus, andprosecuted by him, in conjunction withseveral others, many of them divines ofMagdeburg. Their names were, NicolausGallus, Johannes Wigandus, and MatthiasJudex, all ministers of Magdeburg, assistedby Caspar Nidpruckius, an ImperialCounsellor, Johannes Baptista Heincelius,an Augustinian, Basil Faber, and others.The centuriators thus describe the processemployed in the composition of their work.Five directors were appointed to managethe whole design; and ten paid agentssupplied the necessary labour. Seven ofthese were well-informed students, whowere employed in making collections fromthe various pieces set before them. Twoothers, more advanced in years, and ofgreater learning and judgment, arrangedthe matter thus collected, submitted it tothe directors, and, if it were approved, employedit in the composition of the work.As fast as the various chapters were composed,they were laid before certain inspectors,selected from the directors, whocarefully examined what had been done,and made the necessary alterations; and,finally, a regular amanuensis made a faircopy of the whole.

At length, in the year 1560, (thoughprobably printed in 1559,) appeared thefirst volume of their laborious undertaking.It was printed at Basle. But the city inwhich the first part of it was composedhas given it a distinctive title; and thefirst great Protestant work on Church historyhas been always commonly known asthe Magdeburg Centuries.

It was in every point of view an extraordinaryproduction. Though the firstmodern attempt to illustrate the history ofthe Church, it was written upon a scalewhich has scarcely been exceeded. Itbrought to light a large quantity of unpublishedmaterials; and cast the wholesubject into a fixed and regular form.One of its most remarkable features is theelaborate classification. This was strictlyoriginal, and, with all its inconveniences,undoubtedly tended to introduce scientificarrangement and minute accuracy intothe study of Church history. Each centuryis treated separately, in sixteen headsor chapters. The first of these gives ageneral view of the history of the century;then follow, 2. The extent and propagationof the Church. 3. Persecution andtranquillity 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 religionsnot Christian. 16. Political conditionof the world.

Mr. Dowling (from whose excellentwork on the study of Ecclesiastical Historythis article is taken) adds, that this peculiarityof form rendered the work of thecenturiators rather a collection of separatetreatises, than a compact and connectedhistory; while, their object being to supporta certain form of polemical theology,their relations are often twisted to suittheir particular views.

CERDONIANS. Heretics of the secondcentury, followers of Cerdon. Theheresy consisted chiefly in laying down theexistence of two contrary principles; inrejecting the law, and the prophets asministers of a bad God; in ascribing, nota true body, but only the phantasm of abody, to our blessed Lord, and in denyingthe resurrection.—Tertullian. Epiphanius.

CEREMONY. This word is of Latinorigin, though some of the best critics inantiquity are divided in their opinions, inassigning from what original it is derived.Joseph Scaliger proves by analogy, that assanctimonia comes from sanctus, so doesceremonia from the old Latin word cerus,which signifies sacred or holy. The Christianwriters have adapted the word tosignify external rites and customs in theworship of God; which, though they arenot of the essence of religion, yet contributemuch to good order and uniformity163in the church. If there were no ornamentsin the church, and no prescribedorder of administration, the common peoplewould hardly be persuaded to showmore reverence in the sacred assembliesthan in other ordinary places, where theymeet only for business or diversion. Uponthis account St. Augustine says, “No religion,either true or false, can subsist withoutsome ceremonies.” Notwithstandingthis, some persons have laid it down, as afundamental principle of religion, that noceremony, or human constitution, is justifiable,but what is expressly warranted in theword of God. This dogma Mr. Cartwrighthas reduced into a syllogistical demonstration.“Wheresoever faith is wanting,there is sin. In every action not commanded,faith is wanting; ergo, in everyaction not commanded, there is sin.” Butthe falsity of this syllogism is shown atlarge by Hooker, in his second book ofEcclesiastical Polity, by arguments drawnfrom the indifference of many human actions—fromthe natural liberty God hasafforded us—from the examples of holymen in Scripture, who have differentlyused this liberty—and from the powerwhich the Church by Divine authority isvested with. That apostolical injunction,“Let all things be done with decency, andin order,” (1 Cor. xiv. 40,) is a much betterdemonstration, that the Church has apower to enjoin proper ceremonies, for thegood order and comeliness of ecclesiasticalconventions, than Mr. Cartwright’s syllogismis for the people’s contempt of themwhen enjoined.—Nicholls.

We still keep, and esteem, not only thoseceremonies which we are sure were deliveredus from the apostles, but someothers too besides, which we thought mightbe suffered without hurt to the Church ofGod; for that we had a desire that allthings in the holy congregation might, asSt. Paul commandeth, be done with comeliness,and in good order. But as for allthose things which we saw were eithervery superstitious, or utterly unprofitable,or noisome, or mockeries, or contrary tothe Holy Scriptures, or else unseemly forsober and discreet people, whereof therebe infinite numbers now-a-days, where theRoman religion is used; these, I say, wehave utterly refused without all manner ofexception, because we would not have theright worshipping of God to be defiled anylonger with such follies.—Bp. Jewell.

Wise Christians sit down in the meannow under the gospel, avoiding a carelessand parsimonious neglect on the one side,and a superstitious slovenliness on theother: the painted looks and lasciviousgaudiness of the Church upon the hills,and the careless, neglected dress of someChurches in the valley.—Bp. Hall.

Far be it from me to be a patron ofidolatry or superstition in the least degree,yet I am afraid lest we, who have reformedthe worship of God from that pollution,(and blessed be his name therefor!) bybending the crooked stick too much theother way, have run too far into the otherextreme.—Mede.

It may be objected, that my superiormay enjoin me such a law, as my consciencetells me is scandalous to my brother,not convenient, not edifying, &c.; whatshall 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 onlyindifferent in their own nature, but leftfree from any superior command interposing,and therefore the text is not ad idem;for though such laws may be of thingsindifferent, yet being commanded by justauthority, the indifference by that commanddetermineth, and they become necessary.—L’Estrange.

The Reformation gave such a turn toweak heads, that had not weight enoughto poise themselves between the extremesof Popery and fanaticism, that everythingolder than yesterday was looked upon tobe Popish and anti-Christian. The meanestof the people aspired to the priesthood,and were readier to frame new laws forthe Church, than obey the old.—Sherlock.

It is a rule in prudence, not to removean ill custom when it is well settled, unlessit bring great prejudices, and then it isbetter to give one account why we havetaken it away, than to be always makingexcuses why we do it not. Needless alterationdoth diminish the venerable esteemof religion, and lessen the credit of ancienttruths. Break ice in one place, and it willcrack in more.—Archbishop Bramhall.

Our Saviour and his apostles did useindifferent things, which were not prescribedin Divine worship. Thus he joinedin the synagogue worship, (John xviii. 20,&c.,) though (if the place itself were at allprescribed) the manner of that service wasnot so much as hinted at. Thus he usedthe cup of charity in the Passover, thoughit was not instituted. (Luke xxii. 17.)The feast of dedication was a human institution,yet he vouchsafed to be presentat it. Nay, he complied with the Jews inthe very posture of the Passover, whichthey changed to sitting, though God had164prescribed standing. The apostles alsoobserved the hours of prayer, which wereof human institution. (Acts iii. 1.) Nowif Christ and his apostles did thus underthe Jewish law, which was so exact in prescribingoutward ceremonies, certainly wemay do the same under the gospel. I mayadd, that the primitive Christians not onlycomplied with the Jews in such rites aswere not forbidden, but also had someritual observations taken up by themselves.Thus they washed the disciples’ feet in imitationof Christ, and used love-feasts, tillthey thought it convenient to lay themaside. From whence it appears, that prescriptionis not necessary to make a ritelawful; it is enough if it be not forbidden.—Bennet.

Calvin, in his book of the True Way ofReformation, saith, he would not contendabout ceremonies, not only those which arefor decency, but those that are symbolical.Œcolampadius looked on the gesture atthe sacrament as indifferent. Bucer thoughtthe use of the sign of the cross after baptismneither indecent nor unprofitable. Crociussays, that the nature of ceremonies is to betaken from the doctrine which goes alongwith them; if the doctrine be good, therites are so, or, at least, are tolerable; if itbe false, then they are troublesome, andnot to be borne; if it be impure, and leadto idolatry, then the ceremonies are taintedwith the poison of it.—Stillingfleet.

No abuse of any gesture, though it be inthe most manifest idolatry, doth render thatgesture simply evil, and for ever afterunlawful to be used in the worship of Godupon that account. For the abuse of athing supposes the lawful use of it; and ifanything otherwise lawful becomes sinfulby an abuse of it, then it is plain that it isnot in its own nature sinful, but by accident,and with respect to somewhat else.This is clear from Scripture; for if ritesand ceremonies, after they have been abusedby idolaters, become absolutely evil, andunlawful to be used at all, then the Jewssinned in offering sacrifices—erecting altars—burningincense to the God of heaven—bowingdown themselves before him—wearinga linen garment in the time ofDivine worship—and observing other thingsand rites which the heathens observe in theworship of false gods. Kneeling at prayers,and standing, and sitting, and lifting upthe hands and eyes to heaven, and bowingof the body, together with prayer, andpraise, and singing, have been all notoriouslyabused to idolatry, and are so tothis day.—Bennet. Nay, this principlewould render Christianity impracticable;because there is no circumstance, no instrument,no ministry in worship, but mayhave been in some way or other abused byPagan or Romish idolatries.—Bennet.

Bucer, in a letter to Johannes a Lasco,says, “If you will not admit such libertyand use of vesture to this pure and holyChurch, because they have no commandmentof the Lord, nor no example forit, I do not see how you can grant toany Church, that it may celebrate theLord’s supper in the morning, &c.; for wehave received for these things no commandmentof the Lord, nor any example;yea, rather, the Lord gave a contraryexample.”

The word ceremony occurs in the titlepage of the Prayer Book, in the prefatorysection, (of Ceremonies,) in the 34th Article,and the vi., xiv., xviii., and xxx. Canons,&c. It is plainly a different thing fromCommon Prayer, (i. e. the ordinary publicservice as contrasted with the occasionalservices,) the administration of sacraments,or rites.

Dr. Nicholls says that the cross in baptism,and, it may be, the marriage ring, areperhaps the only ceremonies enjoined inthe Book of 1662, which can in a strict andproper sense be called so. But, as is observedin a note to Stephens’s CommonPrayer Book with notes, (vol. i. p. 139,)“Dr. Nicholls uses ceremony in a limitedsense, which is by no means sanctioned byour best writers and divines. Ceremoniain its classical sense was a general termfor worship. Johnson’s definition, outwardrite, external form in religion, is fullysupported by his references, and especiallyHooker, who, throughout his book, appliesit to all that is external in worship. Itseems that rite and ceremony are thus tobe distinguished. A rite is an act of religiousworship, whether including ceremoniesor not. A ceremony is any particularof religious worship, (included in arite,) which prescribes action, position, oreven the assumption of any particular vesture.The latter sense is plainly recognisedby Hooker. (Eccl. Pol. book iv. sect. i.;book v. sect. 29.) The Preface to the Bookof Common Prayer speaks first of commonprayer, viz. the offices intended for thecommon and periodical use of all at statedtimes; next, the administration of the sacraments;next, of other rites and ceremonies;i. e. the occasional services, whetherpublic or private, and all the methodsof administration which these involve. Nowamong ceremonies, the prescribed processionin the Marriage and Burial Services,the standing at certain parts of the service,165the bowing at the name of Jesus, as prescribedby the 18th canon, ought to be included.”It may be observed, that the18th canon expressly calls the bowing justmentioned, a ceremony, as also in the 30thcanon, the sign of the cross.—See Hooker,book iii. sect. 11, and book v. sect. 6.

CERINTHIANS. Ancient heretics, thefollowers of Cerinthus. This man, whowas a Jew by birth, attempted to form anew and singular system of doctrine anddiscipline, by combining the doctrines ofChrist with the opinions and errors of theJews and Gnostics. He taught that theCreator of the world, whom he consideredalso as the Sovereign and Lawgiver of theJews, was a Being endued with the greatestvirtues, and derived his birth from theSupreme God; that this Being graduallydegenerated from his former virtue; that,in consequence of this, the Supreme Beingdetermined to destroy his empire, and, forthat purpose, sent upon earth one of theever happy and glorious æons whose namewas Christ; that this Christ chose forhis habitation the person of Jesus, intowhom he entered in the form of a dove,whilst Jesus was receiving baptism of Johnin the waters of Jordan; that Jesus, afterthis union with Christ, opposed the Godof the Jews, at whose instigation he wasseized and crucified by the Hebrew chiefs;that when Jesus was taken captive, Christascended on high, and the man Jesus alonewas subjected to the pain of an ignominiousdeath.

CESSION. This is where the incumbentof any living is promoted to a bishopric;the church in that case is void bycession.

CHALDEANS. A modern sect ofChristians in the East, in obedience to thesee of Rome. Dr. Grant, in his Nestorians,quotes with approval the following passagefrom Smith and Dwight’s Researches inArmenia: which is also confirmed by Mr.Badger, in his Nestorians and their Rituals(vol. i. p. 177–181). “In 1681, the Nestorianmetropolitan of Diarbekir, havingquarrelled with his patriarch, was first consecratedby the pope Patriarch of theChaldeans. The sect was as new as theoffice, and created for it. Converts to Papacyfrom the Nestorians” [not from theJacobites, as Mr. Badger corrects Dr. Grant]“were dignified with the name of theChaldean Church. It means no more thanPapal Syrians, as we have in other partsPapal Armenians and Papal Greeks.” (SeeNestorians.)

CHALDEE LANGUAGE. This wasa dialect of the Hebrew, almost identicalwith the old Syriac, spoken formerly inAssyria, and the vernacular language ofthe Jews after the Babylonish captivity.The following parts of the Old Testamentare written in Chaldee: Jer. x., xi.; Dan.ii. 4 to the end of chap. vii.; Ezra iv. 8 tovi. 19, and vii. 12–17.—Jebb.

CHALDEE PARAPHRASE, in theRabbinical style, is called Targum. Thereare three Chaldee paraphrases in Walton’sPolyglot, viz. 1. Of Onkelos. 2. Of Jonathan,son of Uzziel. 3. Of Jerusalem.The first of these is supposed to have beencomposed about the time that our blessedLord was on earth. It comprises thePentateuch. The second, comprising theProphets and Historical Books, is supposedto have been composed about the sametime as the former. The Jerusalem Targumis considered a compilation not earlierthan the eighth century. It comprisesthe Pentateuch.—Another Targum, falselyascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, was probablywritten two centuries after Christ, ifnot later. There are other inferior Targums.—SeeHorne on the Scriptures.

CHALICE. (Lat. calix.) This wordwas formerly (as by Shakspeare) used todenote any sort of cup, but is now usuallyrestricted to the cup in which the consecratedwine for the eucharist is administered.The primitive Christians, desirousof honouring the holy purpose for which itwas used, had it made of the most costlysubstances their circumstances would allow—ofglass, crystal, onyx, sardonyx, andgold.

By a canon of the Council of Rheims, inCharles the Great’s time, all churches wereobliged to have chalices of some purermetal. The ancient chalices were of twokinds: the greater, which were in the natureof our flagons, containing a largequantity of wine, which was all consecratedin them together; and the lesser, whichwere otherwise called “ministeriales,” becausethe priest delivered the wine to bedrunk out of them; for communion in onekind was not then invented by the RomishChurch.—Dr. Nicholls. (See Cup.)

CHAMFER. The flat slope formed bycutting away an angle in timber, or masonry.The chamfer is the first approachto a moulding, though it can hardly itselfbe called one. The chamfer plane, inspeaking of mouldings, is used for theplane at an angle of 45°, or thereabouts,with the face of the wall, in which some ofthe mouldings often, and sometimes all ofthem, lie. The resolution of the chamferinto the square is called a stop-chamfer; itis often of considerable elegance.

166CHANCEL. The upper part of thechurch, containing the holy table, andthe stalls for the clergy. It is called theChori in cathedrals, college chapels, andlarge churches: and in many of the ancientEnglish parish churches is inferiorin height and width to the nave. (SeeChoir.)—Jebb. (Cancellus.) So called aCancellis, from the lattice-work partitionbetwixt the choir and the body of thechurch, so framed as to separate the onefrom the other, but not to intercept thesight. By the rubric before the CommonPrayer, it is ordained that “the chancelsshall remain as they have done in timespast,” that is to say, distinguished from thebody of the church in manner aforesaid;against which distinction Bucer (at thetime of the Reformation) inveighed vehemently,as tending only to magnify thepriesthood; but though the king and theparliament yielded so far as to allow thedaily service to be read in the body of thechurch, if the ordinary thought fit, yetthey would not suffer the chancel to betaken away or altered.

The chancel is the freehold of the rector,and part of his glebe, and therefore heought to repair it: but if the rectory isimpropriate, then the impropriator mustdo it: and this he is enjoined to do, notonly by the common law, but by thecanons of the Church; for in the glossupon the Constitutions of Othobon it issaid, that chancels must be repaired bythose who are thereunto obliged; whichwords must refer to the common customof England, by which rectors are obligedto repair the chancels. As to seats in thechancel, it has been made a question,whether the ordinary may place any personthere? The objections against it are,—1.Because it is the freehold of the rector.2. Because he is to repair it. Butthese are not sufficient reasons to divestthe ordinary of that jurisdiction; for thefreehold of the church is in the parson,and yet the bishop hath a power of placingpersons there.

Unhappy disputes have arisen concerningthe situation of the Lord’s table inthe chancels. The first, in the beginningof the Reformation, was, whether those ofthe altar fashion, which had been used inthe Popish times, and on which the masseswere celebrated, should be kept up. Thispoint was first started by Bishop Hooper,in a sermon before King Edward VI.; and,after this, altars were ordered to be takendown; and, instead of them, a table to beset up, in some convenient place of thechancel. In the first liturgy it was directed,that the priest officiating shouldstand before the midst of the altar. Inthe second, that the priest shall stand onthe north side of the table. And thusthe first dispute was at an end. But thenthere followed another controversy, whetherthe table, placed in the room of thealtar, ought to stand altar-wise? i. e. inthe same place and situation of the altar.In some churches the tables were placedin the middle of the chancels; in others,at the east part thereof, next to the wall.Bishop Ridley endeavoured to make acompromise in his church of St. Paul’s,suffering the table to stand in the place ofthe old altar; but, beating down the wainscotpartition behind, laid all the choiropen to the east, leaving the table then tostand in the middle of the chancel. Underthis diversity of usage matters continuedduring this king’s reign; but when QueenElizabeth came to the crown, and a newreview of the liturgy was made, the presentclause was added—“and the chancelsshall remain as they have done intimes past.” Whereby an indulgence isgiven to those cathedral or collegiatechurches, where the table stood altar-wise,and fastened to the east part of the chancel,to retain their ancient practice; butthe general rule is otherwise, especially asto parish churches; as in the rubric beforethe Communion, “the table having, at thecommunion time, a fair white linen clothupon it, shall stand in the body of thechurch, or in the chancel, where morningor evening prayer shall be appointed tobe said.” So that, by these authorities,where tables were fixed, they ought toremain as they were; and, at the time ofthe communion, they might either standat the east wall of the church, or in otherplace more convenient. But this latitudebeing granted, several inconveniencesarose. Great irreverence was used towardsthe holy table, hats and gloves were thrownupon it, and the churchwardens and overseerswere frequently writing their accountsthereon, the processioning boyseating their loaves and cakes, and dogsleaping up at the bread, to the great scandalof our reformation, not only amongthe Papists, but also among the Protestantchurches abroad. Archbishop Laud, outof zeal to reform these abuses, endeavouredto have the communion table set altar-wise,at the east end of the chancel, and tobe railed in, engaging many of the bishopsto press this in their visitation articles:and it is one of the injunctions of QueenElizabeth, “that the holy table in everychurch be decently made, and set in the167place where the altar stood; and therecommonly covered, as thereto belongeth,and so stand, saving when the communionof the sacrament is to be distributed; atwhich time, the same shall be so placed ingood sort within the chancel,” &c. Greatcontentions were for many years kept upin this controversy, till the civil war cameon, and all things, civil and sacred, wereoverwhelmed with confusion. Since theRestoration, no positive determinationtherein being made, the dispute has happilydied, and the tables have generally beensettled altar-wise, and railed in; the generalityof parishioners esteeming it a decentsituation.—Nicholls.

CHANCELLOR. In ancient times,emperors and kings esteemed so highly thepiety of bishops, that they gave them jurisdictionin particular causes, as in marriages,adultery, last wills, &c., which weredetermined by them in their consistorycourts. But when many controversiesarose in these and other causes, it was notconsistent with the character of a bishopto interpose in every litigious matter, neithercould he despatch it himself; andtherefore it was necessary for the bishopto depute some subordinate officer, experiencedboth in the civil and canon law, todetermine those ecclesiastical causes: andthis was the original of diocesan chancellors.For, in the first ages of theChurch, the bishops had officers who werecalled ecclesiecdici, that is, church lawyers,who were bred up in the knowledge ofthe civil and canon law, and their businesswas to assist the bishop in his jurisdictionthroughout the whole diocese. But probablythey were not judges of ecclesiasticalcourts, as chancellors are at this day,but only advised and assisted the bishopsthemselves in giving judgment; for weread of no chancellors here in all theSaxon reigns, nor after the Conquest, beforethe time of Henry II. That king,requiring the attendance of bishops in hisstate councils, and other public affairs, it wasthought necessary to substitute chancellorsin their room, to despatch those causes whichwere proper for the bishop’s jurisdiction.

In a few years a chancellor becamesuch a necessary officer to the bishop,that he was not to be without him; for ifhe would have none, the archbishop ofthe province might enjoin him to deputeone, and if he refuse, the archbishopmight appoint one himself; because it ispresumed that a bishop alone cannotdecide so many spiritual causes as arisewithin his diocese. The person thus deputedby the bishop has his authorityfrom the law; and his jurisdiction is not,like that of a commissary, limited to acertain place and certain causes, but extendsthroughout the whole diocese, andto all ecclesiastical matters; not only forreformation of manners, in punishment ofcriminals, but in all causes concerningmarriages, last wills, administrations, &c.—Burn.

The chancellor in cathedral churches, andanciently in some colleges, was a canon,who had the general care of the literatureof the church. He was the secretary ofthe chapter, the librarian, the superintendentof schools connected with the church,sometimes of the greater schools in thediocese; sometimes, as in Paris, had anacademical jurisdiction in the universityof the place. He also had the supervisionof readers in the choirs, the regulation ofpreachers in the cathedral, and in manyplaces the more frequent delivery of sermonsand of theological lectures thanfell to the turn of the other canons.All these offices were not always combined;but one or more of them alwaysbelonged to the chancellor. Every cathedralof old foundation in England, andmost in Ireland, had originally a chancellor.The title was not so common in France orItaly, where the above-named offices werefrequently divided among canons withother official titles. The chancellor of thechurch (the above-named officer) is notto be confounded with the chancellor ofthe diocese.—Jebb.

CHANT. This word, derived from theLatin cantus, “a song,” applies, in itsmost extended sense, to the musical performanceof all those parts of the liturgywhich, by the rubric, are permitted to besung. A distinction, however, is to bemade between singing and chanting. Chantingdoes not apply to the performance ofthose metrical versions of the Psalms, theuse of which in parish churches, thoughlegitimate, as sanctioned by authority, isnot contemplated by the rubric. Neitherdoes it apply to those musical arrangementsof the canticles, hymns, and of theNicene Creed, used in collegiate churches,and technically called “services,” whichthough originally derived from chants, havelong found a distinct feature in the choralservice. The chant properly signifiesthat plain tune to which the prayers, thelitany, the versicles, and responses, and thepsalms, and (where services are not in use)the canticles, are set, in choirs and placeswhere they sing. In the chant, whenproperly and fully performed, both theminister and the choir bear their respective168parts. The minister recites the prayers,and all the parts of the service which heis enjoined to say alone, (except the lessons,)in one sustained note, occasionally variedat the close of a cadence: and the choirmakes the responses in harmony, sometimesin unison. But in the psalms andcanticles both the minister and choir jointogether in the chant, without distinction,each verse being sung in full harmony.

The chanting of the prayers has alwaysbeen observed in our principal cathedrals;and till recent times, it was universal inall those places within the reformed Churchof England where choral foundations existed;and therefore the disuse of thiscustom, in any such establishments, is aplain contradiction to the spirit of ourliturgy. It is an usage so very ancient,that some learned men have derived it,with every appearance of probability, fromthe practice of the Jewish Church; whencewe have unquestionably derived the chantingof the psalms. It has prevailed inevery portion of the Church, eastern orwestern, reformed or unreformed, since aliturgy has been used. And traces of thiscustom are to be found in all places of theworld.

Of the chants for the psalms, the mostancient which are used in our Church arederived from some coeval, in all likelihood,with Christianity itself. Of this, however,there is no proof: and it is a mere baselessconjecture to refer them, as some do, tothe strains of the temple worship. Accordingto present custom, the chant consistsof two kinds, single and double. Thesingle chant, which is the most ancientkind, is an air consisting of two parts; thefirst part terminating with the point orcolon (:), which uniformly divides eachverse of the psalms or canticles in thePrayer Book, the second part terminatingwith the verse itself. The double chant isan air consisting of four strains, and consequentlyextending to two verses. Thiskind of chant does not appear to be olderthan the time of Charles II.; and is peculiarto the Church of England.

In chanting, special heed should betaken to two things: first, to observe strictlythe “pointing” of the psalms and hymns,“as they are to be sung or said in churches.”We have no more right to alter the rubricin this respect than in any other. Secondly,to chant reverentially, which implies distinctnessof utterance, clearness of tone,and moderate slowness as to time. Arapid and confused mode of singing theawful hymns of the Church, is not onlyutterly destructive of musical effect, but,what is of much greater consequence, ishostile to the promotion of the honour ofGod, and of the edification of man.—Jebb.

Persons who have heard extempore prayingfrom the mouths of illiterate characters,must have been struck by the rude modulatedchant in which it is delivered. Objectorsto the cathedral mode of service sometimesaver “intoning” to be unnatural. Thisis a misconception. “Intoning,” musical orunmusical, is the natural key in which ventis given to a large and important class ofdevotional feelings: cathedral intoning isthis voice correctly timed and tuned toharmony. Non-intoning, on the other hand,or reading, is artificial. No one hears anuneducated person attempt to read in thesame tone as he speaks. Reading is anartificial drill, the correction of natural,undisciplined locution.—Morgan.

CHANTER. (See Precentor.) In foreignchurches it is synonymous with ourlay clerks. The chanters in Dublin collegeare certain officers selected from thefoundation students, whose duty is to officiateas chapel clerks. They are so calledfrom formerly constituting the choir of thechapel.

CHANTRY. A chapel, or other separatedplace in a church, for the celebrationof masses for the soul of some persondeparted this life. Their ordinary placesare mentioned under the head Church.The chantry sometimes included the tombof the person by whom it was founded,as in the splendid examples in Winchestercathedral. It was sometimes an entireaisle, as the golden choir at St. Mary’s,Stamford; and sometimes a separatechapel, as the Beauchamp chapel, St.Mary’s, Warwick, and Henry VII.’s chapelat Westminster.

In the reign of Henry VIII., when thebelief of purgatory began to decline, itwas thought an unnecessary thing to continuethe pensions and endowments ofchantry priests; therefore, in the 37 ofHenry VIII. cap. 4, those chantries weregiven to the king, who had power at anytime to issue commissions to seize theirendowments, and take them into his possession:but this being in the last year ofhis reign, there were several of those endowmentswhich were not seized by virtueof any such commissions; therefore, in thefirst year of Edward VI. cap. 14, thosechantries which were in being five yearsbefore the session of that parliament, andnot in the actual possession of Henry VIII.,were adjudged to be, and were, vested inthat king. Cranmer endeavoured to obtainthat the disposal of the chantries, &c.,169should be deferred until the king should beof age—hoping that if they were savedfrom the hands of the laity until that time,Edward might be persuaded to apply therevenues to the relief of the poor parochialclergy; but the archbishop’s exertionswere unsuccessful.

CHAPEL. In former times, when thekings of France were engaged in wars,they always carried St. Martin’s cope(cappa) into the field, which was kept as aprecious relic, in a tent where mass wassaid, and thence the place was calledcapella, the chapel. The word was graduallyapplied to any consecrated place ofprayer, not being the parish church.

With us in England there are severalsorts of chapels:

1. Royal chapels. (See Chapel Royal.)2. Domestic chapels, built by noblemenfor private worship in their families. 3.College chapels, attached to the differentcolleges of the universities. 4. Chapels ofease, built for the ease of parishioners, wholive at too great a distance from the parishchurch, by the clergy of which the servicesof the chapel are performed. 5. Parochialchapels, which differ from chapelsof ease on account of their having a permanentminister, or incumbent, thoughthey are in some degree dependent uponthe mother church. A parochial chapelry,with all parochial rites independent of themother church, as to sacraments, marriages,burials, repairs, &c., is called a reputedparish. 6. Free chapels; such as werefounded by kings of England, and madeexempt from episcopal jurisdiction. 7.Chapels which adjoin to any part of thechurch; such were formerly built bypersons of consideration as burial-places.To which may be added chapels of corporationsocieties, 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 countriesfrequently means the choir or chancel.This may possibly be the meaning intendedin the rubric preceding MorningPrayer, directing the Morning and EveningPrayers to be used in the accustomedplace of the church, chapel, or chancel.It may allude to the college chapels, orsuch collegiate chapels as St. George’s atWindsor, or to the usage of some cathedralsof having early morning prayer (as atGloucester, &c.) in the Lady chapel, orlate evening prayer (as at Durham) in theGalilee chapel. Henry VII.’s chapel atWestminster was, at least in the reign ofQueen Elizabeth, used for this purpose.—Jebb.

CHAPEL ROYAL. The chapel royalis under the government of the dean of thechapel, and not within the jurisdiction ofany bishop. But the archbishop is thefirst chaplain and parochus of the sovereign.The deanery was an office of ancientstanding in the court, but discontinued in1572, till King James’s accession, then itwas revived in the person of Dr. Montague.—Heylin’sLife of Laud. Next to thedean is the subdean, who has the specialcare of the chapel service; a clerk of thecourt, with his deputies, a prelate or clergyman,whose office it is to attend the sovereignat Divine service, and to wait on herin her private oratory.—There are forty-eightchaplains in ordinary, who wait fourin each month, and preach on Sundaysand holidays; to read Divine service whenrequired on week days, and to say grace inthe absence of the clerk of the closet. Theother officers are, a confessor of the household,now called chaplain of the household,who has the pastoral care of theroyal household; ten priests in ordinary(whose duties are like those of chaplains,or vicars in cathedrals); sixteen gentlemenof the chapel, who with ten choristers nowform the choir; and other officers. Theofficiating members of the chapel royalwere formerly much more numerous thannow; thus there were thirty-two gentlemenof the chapel in King Edward VI.’sreign, and twenty-three in King James I.’s.The priests in ordinary, properly speaking,form part of the choir. In strictness thisestablishment is ambulatory, and ought toaccompany the sovereign, of which practicewe have many proofs in ancient records.

The chapel royal in Dublin consists ofa dean and twenty-four chaplains, (whopreach in turn,) and a choir of laymen.Before the legal establishment of Presbyterianismin Scotland, the royal chapel ofHolyrood had a full establishment of chaplains,&c., and the liturgy was then celebratedchorally, at least in the reign ofKing Charles I.

CHAPLAIN. A person authorized toofficiate in the chapels of the queen, or inthe private oratories of noblemen. Thename is derived from capella; the priestswho superintend the capella being calledCapellani. According to a statute of HenryVIII., the persons vested with a power ofretaining chaplains, together with the numbereach is allowed to qualify, are as follow:“an archbishop, eight; a duke orbishop, six; marquis or earl, five; viscount,four; baron, knight of the garter, or lord170chancellor, three; a duchess, marchioness,countess, baroness, the treasurer or comptrollerof the king’s household, clerk of thecloset, the king’s secretary, dean of thechapel, almoner, and master of the rolls,each of them, two; chief justice of theKing’s Bench, and warden of the CinquePorts, each, one.” In England there areforty-eight chaplains to the queen, calledchaplains in ordinary. Clergymen who officiatein the army and navy, in the gaols,public hospitals, and workhouses, are calledchaplains. Chaplain is also a comprehensivename, applied, more rarely inEngland than abroad, to the members ofcathedrals and collegiate churches andchapels, who are responsible for the dailyservice. In a few instances it is applied tothe superior members. Thus at Lichfield,there were five capellani principales, majorcanons, whose office it was to serve at thegreat altar, rule the choir, &c., (Dugd. Mon.ed. 1830, vi. 1257,) and at Winchestercollege the ten fellows are called, in theoriginal charter, “capellani perpetui;” incontradistinction to the capellani conductitii,or remotivi;—and the principal duty ofthese chaplain-fellows was to officiate inthe chapel. But in general, a chaplainsignified a minister of the Church of inferiorrank, a substitute for and coadjutorof the canons in chanting, and in the performanceof the Divine offices. (See Dictionnairede droit canonique, par Durand deMaillane, Lyons, 1787.) They were socalled from serving in the capella or choir,at the various offices, and in the variousside chapels, in contradistinction to thecapitular canons, whose peculiar privilegeit was to serve at the great altar. Underthe name of chaplain, were included minorcanons, 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 choralsense, is retained with us only at ChristChurch Oxford, Manchester, and the collegesat the universities. At the latter,they are frequently styled in the oldcharters, capellani conductitii or remotivi;by which is to be understood, that theywere originally, at least, intended to bemere stipendiaries, adjuncts to the foundation;as contrasted with those who havea permanent, corporate interest, or an endowmentin fee; like the præbendati inthe foreign cathedrals, or the incorporatedvicars choral in our own cathedrals. (SeeCollege, Prebendary, and Vicars Choral.)The chaplains at Cambridge are commonlycalled conducti, though originally they weredesignated, as at Oxford, capellani conductitii;a designation which it were to bewished were changed for the more propername of chaplain. Before the Reformationthe capellani to be found in many of theold cathedrals, were exclusive of the vicarschoral, and were chanting priests. Thesesometimes formed corporations or colleges.Abroad, the chaplains in many places dischargedboth the duties of chanting priestsand vicars choral, or minor canons; eachhaving his separate chapel for daily mass;but all being obliged to unite in dischargingthe Divine offices, at least at matinsand vespers in the great choirs.—Jebb.

CHAPTER. (See Bible.) The wordis derived from the Latin caput, head; andsignifies one of the principal divisions of abook, and, in reference to the Bible, oneof the larger sections into which its booksare divided. This division, as well as thatconsisting of verses, was introduced tofacilitate reference, and not to indicate anynatural or accurate division of the subjectstreated in the books. For its origin, seeBible.

CHAPTER. (See Dean and Chapter.)A chapter of a cathedral church consistsof persons ecclesiastical, canons and prebendaries,whereof the dean is chief, allsubordinate to the bishop, to whom theyare as assistants in matters relating to theChurch, for the better ordering and disposingthe things thereof, and for confirmationof such leases of the temporalitiesand offices relating to the bishopric, as thebishop from time to time shall happen tomake.—God. 58.

And they are termed by the canonists,capitulum, being a kind of head, institutednot only to assist the bishop in manneraforesaid, but also anciently to rule andgovern the diocese in the time of vacation.—God.56.

Of these chapters, some are ancient,some new: the new are those which arefounded or translated by King Henry VIII.in the places of abbots and convents, orpriors and convents, which were chapterswhilst they stood, and these are new chaptersto old bishoprics; or they are thosewhich are annexed unto the new bishopricsfounded by King Henry VIII., and are,therefore, new chapters to new bishoprics.—1Inst. 95.

The chapter in the collegiate church ismore properly called a college; as at Westminsterand Windsor, where there is noepiscopal see.—Wood, b. i. c. 3. Buthowever this may originally have been,the rule has long been disregarded throughoutEurope.

171There may be a chapter without anydean; as the chapter of the collegiatechurch of Southwell: and grants by or tothem are as effectual as other grants bydean and chapter.—Wats. c. 38.

In the cathedral churches of St. David’sand Llandaff there never hath been anydean, but the bishop in either is head ofthe chapter; and at the former the chantor,at the latter the archdeacon presides, inthe absence of the bishop, or vacancy ofthe see.—Johns. 60. [St. David’s andLlandaff are now placed on the same footingwith other cathedrals in this respect.]

One bishop may possibly have twochapters, and that by union or consolidation:and it seemeth that if a bishop hathtwo chapters, both must confirm his leases.—God.58. In cathedrals of the old foundationchapters are of two kinds, the greaterand the lesser. The greater chapter consistsof all the major canons and prebendaries,whether residentiary or not; andtheir privileges are now considered to belimited to the election of a bishop, ofproctors in convocation, and possibly afew other rare occasions; the lesser chapterconsists of the dean and residentiaries,who have the management of the chapterproperty, and the ordinary government ofthe cathedral. This however has beenthe growth of later ages: as it is certainthat all prebendal members had a voice inmatters which concerned the interests ofthe cathedral church. In Ireland the distinctionnow mentioned is unknown, exceptat Kildare.

In the statutes of the old cathedrals, bychapter is also understood, a sort of courtheld by one or more of the canons, sometimeseven by the non-capitular officers,for the administering the ordinary disciplineof the church, fining absentees, &c.

The word chapter is occasionally appliedabroad to boards of universities or othercorporations.

The assemblies of the knights of the ordersof chivalry, (as of the Garter, Bath,&c.,) are also called chapters.

CHAPTER HOUSE. The part of acathedral in which the dean and chaptermeet for business. Until the thirteenthcentury, the chapter house was alwaysrectangular. Early in that century itbecame multagonal, generally supportedby a central shaft, and so continued to thelatest date at which any such building hasbeen erected. The greatest cost was expendedon the decoration of the chapterhouse, and there is little even in the choirof our cathedrals, of greater beauty thansuch chapter houses as Lincoln, Salisbury,Southwell, York, and Howden. That ofold St. Paul’s in London, to judge by theplates in Dugdale’s History of St. Paul’s,must have been very beautiful. It stoodin an unique position, in the centre of acloister. For the plan of the chapterhouse, in the arrangement of the conventualbuildings, see Monastery. Some haveimagined that the idea of the circular orpolygonal chapter houses was derived fromthe circular baptisteries abroad.

CHARGE. This is the address deliveredby a bishop, or other prelate calledordinary, at a visitation of the clergy underhis jurisdiction. A charge may be considered,in most instances, rather in thelight of an admonitory exhortation, thanof a judgment or sentence; although theordinary has full power in the charge toissue authoritative commands, and to causethem to be obeyed, by means of the otherlegal forms, for the exercise of his ordinaryjurisdiction. It appears also that theclergy are legally bound by their oath ofcanonical obedience, and by their ordinationvows, reverently to obey their ordinary.It is customary for archdeacons,and other ecclesiastics having peculiarjurisdiction, to deliver charges. Archdeaconshave a charge of the parochialchurches within the diocese to which theybelong, and have power to hold visitationswhen the bishop is not there.—Burn. (SeeVisitation.)

CHARTREUX. (See Carthusians.)

CHASIBLE. (Chasuble, Casula.) Theoutermost dress formerly worn by thepriest in the service of the altar, but notnow used in the English Church, thoughprescribed under the title of Vestment, inthe rubric of King Edward VI.’s FirstBook, to be worn by the priest or bishopwhen celebrating the communion, indifferentlywith the cope. In the time of theprimitive Church, the Roman toga was becomingdisused, and the pænula was takingits place. The pænula formed a perfectcircle, with an aperture to admit thehead in the centre, while it fell down soas completely to envelope the person ofthe wearer. A short pænula was morecommon, and a longer for the higher orders;it was this last which was used bythe clergy in their services. The RomishChurch has altered it much by cutting itaway laterally, so as to expose the arms,and leave only a straight piece before andbehind. The Greek Church retains it inits primitive shape, under the title of φαινόλιον,or φινώλιον: the old brasses in Englandalso show the same form, some even172since the Reformation. And many tombsof 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 Goddrove Adam and Eve out of Paradise, “heplaced at the east of the garden of Edencherubims, and a flaming sword whichturned every way, to keep the way of thetree of life.” (Gen. iii. 24.) When Moseswas commanded by God to make the arkof the covenant with the propitiatory, ormercy-seat, he was (Exod. xxv. 19, 20) tomake one cherub on the one end, andanother cherub on the other end; thecherubims were to stretch forth their wingson high, and to cover the mercy-seat withthem; and their faces were to look one tothe other. Moses has left us in the darkas to the form of these cherubims. TheJews suppose them to have been in theshape of young naked men, covered for thesake of decency with some of their wings;and the generality of interpreters, bothancient and modern, suppose them to havehad human shapes. But it is certain thatthe prophet Ezekiel (i. 10, and x. 14) representsthem quite otherwise, and speaksof the face of a cherub as synonymouswith that of an ox or calf; and in theRevelation (iv. 6) they are called ζῶα,beasts. Josephus (Antiq. lib. iii.) saysthat they were a kind of winged creatures,answering to the description of those whichMoses saw about the throne of God, butthe like to which no man had ever seenbefore. Grotius, Bochart, and other learnedmoderns, deriving the word from charab,which in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic,signifies to plough, make no difficulty tosuppose that the cherubim here spoken ofresembled an ox, either in whole or in part.The learned Spencer supposes them tohave had the face of a man, the wings ofan eagle, the back and mane of a lion,and the feet of a calf. This he collectsfrom the prophetical vision of Ezekiel (i.),in which the cherubims are said to havefour forms, those of a man, a lion, an ox,and an eagle. There is something in thismixed form, according to that author,which is very suitable to the regular characterwhich God bore among the Jews,and the peculiar circumstances of thetime. The Israelites were then in thewilderness, and encamped in four cohorts;and the Hebrews have a tradition, that thestandard of the tribe of Judah and theassociated tribes carried a lion, the tribeof Ephraim an ox, the tribe of Reuben aman, and the tribe of Dan an eagle. Godtherefore would sit upon cherubims bearingthe forms of these animals, to signify thathe was the Leader and King of the fourcohorts of the Israelites. The same writer,in another place, makes the cherubims ofthe mercy-seat to be of Egyptian extraction;for Porphyry, speaking of the priestsof Egypt, says, “Among these, one god isformed 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; andagain, another has the head of a man, andthe other parts of other animals.” Addto this, that the Apis of the Egyptians wasworshipped under the figure of an ox.Nor can any other reason, he thinks, beassigned why God should order the cherubimsto be fashioned in the shape ofdifferent animals, particularly the ox, butthat he did it out of indulgence to theIsraelites, who, being accustomed to suchkinds of representations, not only easilybore with them, but ardently desired them.The cherubims of the mercy-seat, Bochartsupposes to have had a mystical and symbolicalrelation to God, the angels, thetabernacle, and the people. As to God,they represented his great power accordingto that of the Psalmist, (xcix. 1,) “TheLord reigneth, let the people tremble; hesitteth between the cherubims, let theearth be moved.” They represented likewisethe nature and ministry of angels.By the lion’s form is signified their strength,generosity, and majesty; by that of theox, their constancy and assiduity in executingthe commands of God; by thehuman shape, their humanity and kindness;and by that of the eagle, their agilityand speed. As to the tabernacle, the cherubimsdenoted that the holy place was thehabitation of the King of heaven, whoseimmediate attendants the angels are supposedto be. Lastly, with respect to thepeople, the cherubims might teach themthat God, who sat between them, wasalone to be the object of their worship.Upon this subject see the curious andinteresting, though somewhat painful dissertationof Mr. Parkhurst in his Hebrewand Greek Lexicons.

By many it has been considered that thefour symbols, applied from very ancienttimes to the four evangelists, are derivedfrom the cherubic figures. The cherubimsare also described in Rev. iv. 7.

It is surely derogatory to right ideas ofreligion, to suppose that these mysterioussymbols were derived from the images ofheathen idolatry, in order to indulge theprejudices of the Israelites. This wouldbe to encourage idolatry, against whichthe Divine vengeance was so markedly173directed. It is much more consistent andprobable to believe that the correspondingsymbols of Egyptians and Assyrians (thelatter so wonderfully illustrated by the latediscoveries at Nineveh) were derived frompatriarchal traditions; distortions of thatpure worship of God which was derived tothe whole world from Noah. This solutionwill account for many of those extraordinaryresemblances between heathenand Jewish customs, which have beenstumbling-blocks to neologists, especiallyin our day.

CHERUBICAL HYMN. A title sometimesgiven to the Tersanctus or Trisagion.(See Tersanctus.)

CHILIASTS, or MILLENARIANS.(See Millennium.) A school of Christianswho believe that, after the general or lastjudgment, the saints shall live a thousandyears upon earth, and enjoy all mannerof innocent satisfaction. It is thoughtPapias, bishop of Hierapolis, who lived inthe second century, and was disciple to St.John the evangelist, or, as some othersthink, to John the Elder, was the first whomaintained this opinion. The authorityof this bishop, supported by some passagesin the Revelation, brought a great manyof the primitive fathers to embrace hispersuasion, as Irenæus, Justin Martyr, andTertullian; and afterwards Nepos, anEgyptian bishop, living in the third century,was so far engaged in this belief, and maintainedit with so much elocution, thatDionysius, bishop of Alexandria, thoughthimself obliged to write against him: uponwhich Coracion, one of the principal abettorsof this doctrine, renounced it publicly,which practice was followed by the generalityof the West. The Millenarians werein like manner condemned by Pope Damasus,in a synod held at Rome againstthe Apollinarians. Some of the modernMillenarians have refined the notion ofCerinthus, and made the satisfactions rationaland angelical, untainted with anythingof sensuality or Epicurism. As forthe time of this thousand years, those thathold this opinion are not perfectly agreed.Mr. Mede makes it to commence and determinebefore the general conflagration;but Dr. Thomas Burnet supposes that thisworld will be first destroyed, and that anew paradisaical earth will be formed outof the ashes of the old one, where thesaints will converse together for a thousandyears, and then be translated to a higherstation.

CHIMERE. The upper robe worn bya bishop, to which the lawn sleeves aregenerally attached. Before and after theReformation, till Queen Elizabeth’s time,the bishops wore a scarlet chimere or garmentover the rochet, as they still do whenassembled in convocation; and when thesovereign attends parliament. But BishopHooper, having superstitiously scrupled atthis as too light a robe for episcopal gravity,it was in her reign changed into achimere of black satin.

The chimere seems to resemble the garmentused by bishops during the middleages, and called mantelletum; which was asort of cope, with apertures for the armsto pass through.—See Du Cange’s Glossary.The name of chimere is probablyderived from the Italian zimarra, which isdescribed as “vesta talare de’ sacerdoti etde’ chierici.”—Palmer.

The scarlet chimere strongly resemblesthe scarlet habit worn in congregation, andat St. Mary’s, by doctors at Oxford. Somehave supposed that our episcopal dress isin fact merely a doctorial habit. Perhaps,however, the origin of both thechimere, the Oxford habit, and the Cambridgedoctorial cope, and the episcopalmantelletum, may all be derived from thedalmatic or tunicle, (see Dalmatic,) whichwas formerly a characteristic part of thedress of bishops and deacons; from whichthe chimere differs in being open in front.The sewing of the lawn sleeves (now ofpreposterous fulness) to the chimere, is amodern innovation. They ought properlyto be fastened to the rochet.—Jebb.

CHOIR, or QUIRE. This word hastwo meanings. The first is identical withchancel, (see Chancel,) signifying the placewhich the ministers of Divine worship occupy,or ought to occupy. The word, accordingto Isidore, is derived from choruscircumstantium, because the clergy stoodround the altar. Custom has usuallyrestricted the name of chancel to parishchurches, that of choir to cathedrals, andsuch churches or chapels as are collegiate.In the choirs of cathedrals, (see Cathedral,)which are very large, the congregation alsoassemble; but the clergy and other membersof the foundation occupy the seats oneach side, (which are called stalls,) accordingto the immemorial custom of all Christiancountries.

The second, but more proper sense ofthe word, is, a body of men set apart forthe performance of all the services of theChurch, in the most solemn form. Properlyspeaking, the whole corporate bodyof a cathedral, including capitular and laymembers, forms the choir; and in this extendedsense ancient writers frequentlyused the word. Thus the “glorious company174of the apostles” is called in Latin“apostolorum chorus.” The choir is usedin some very ancient documents for thecathedral chapter. But, in its more restrictedsense, we are to understand thatbody of men and boys who form a part ofthe foundation of these places, and whosespecial duty it is to perform the service tomusic. The choir properly consists ofclergymen, both capitular (including theprecentor) and non-capitular, laymen, andchorister boys; and should have at leastsix men and six boys at every week-dayservice, these being essential to the dueperformance of the chants, services, andanthems. Every choir is divided into twoparts, stationed on each side of the chancel,in order to sing alternately the verses ofthe psalms and hymns, one side answeringthe other. The alternate chanting by oneor a few voices and a chorus, in the psalms,now very general abroad, is a corruption,and inconsistent with the true idea of antiphonalsinging. This alternate, or antiphonal,recitation is very ancient, as old asthe time of Miriam, who thus alternatedher song with the choir of Israel. (Exod.xv. 20.) And we know from Isaiah thatthe angels in heaven thus sing. (Isaiahvi. 3.) So that while we chant, we obeythe practice of the Church in earth andheaven.

In the first Common Prayer Book of KingEdward VI., the rubric, at the beginningof the morning prayer, ordered the priests,“being in the quire, to begin the Lord’sPrayer;” so that it was the custom of theminister to perform Divine service at theupper end of the chancel near the altar.Against this, Bucer, by the direction ofCalvin, made a great outcry, pretending“it was an antichristian practice for thepriest to say prayers only in the choir, aplace peculiar to the clergy, and not inthe body of the church among the people,who had as much right to Divine worshipas the clergy.” This occasioned an alterationof the rubric, when the CommonPrayer Book was revised in the fifth yearof King Edward, and it was ordered, thatprayers should be said in such part of thechurch “where the people might besthear.” However, at the accession of QueenElizabeth to the throne, the ancient practicewas restored, with a dispensing power leftin the ordinary, of determining it otherwiseif he saw just cause. Convenience at lastprevailed, so that the prayers are verycommonly read in the body of the church,and in those parish churches where theservice is read in the chancel, the minister’splace is at the lower end of it.—Jebb.

CHOREPISCOPUS. (Country bishops,Χωρεπίσκοποι, Episcopi rurales, from χώραor χωρίον country.)

Some considerable difference of opinionhas existed relative to the true ministerialorder of the chorepiscopi, some contendingthat they were mere presbyters, others thatthey were a mixed body of presbyters andbishops, and a third class that they wereall invested with the authority of the episcopaloffice. That the latter opinion, however,is the correct one, is maintained byBishop Barlow, Dr. Hammond, Beveridge,Cave, and other eminent divines of theEnglish Church, together with Bingham, inhis “Antiquities of the Christian Church.”Their origin seems to have arisen from adesire on the part of the city or diocesanbishops to supply the churches of theneighbouring country with more episcopalservices than they could conveniently render.Some of the best qualified presbyterswere therefore consecrated bishops, andthus empowered to act in the stead of theprincipal bishop, though in strict subordinationto his authority. Hence, we findthem ordaining presbyters and deaconsunder the licence of the city bishop; andconfirmation was one of their ordinaryduties. Letters dimissory were also givento the country clergy by the chorepiscopi,and they had the privilege of sitting andvoting in synods and councils. The differencebetween the chorepiscopus andwhat was, at a later period, denominateda suffragan, is scarcely appreciable, bothbeing under the jurisdiction of a superior,and limited to the exercise of their powerswithin certain boundaries, enjoying onlya delegated power.

The chorepiscopi were at first confinedto the Eastern Church. In the WesternChurch, and especially in France, they beganto be known about the fifth century.They have never been numerous in Spainand Italy. In Germany they must havebeen frequent in the seventh and eighthcenturies. In the East, the order wasabolished by the Council of Laodicea,A. D. 361. But so little respect was entertainedfor this decree, that the order continueduntil the tenth century. They werefirst prohibited in the Western Church inthe ninth century; but, according to somewriters, they continued in France until thetwelfth century, when the arrogance, insubordination,and injurious conduct ofthis class of ecclesiastics became a subjectof general complaint in that country; andthey are said to have existed in Irelanduntil the thirteenth century. The functionsof the chorepiscopi are now in great part175performed by archdeacons, rural deans,and vicars-general. (See Suffragans.)

CHOREUTÆ. A sect of heretics, who,among other errors, persisted in keepingthe Sunday as a fast.

CHORISTER. A singer in a choir. Itproperly means a singing boy; and so it isused in all old documents and statistics.

CHRISM. (Χρίσμα, oil.) Oil consecratedin the Romish and Greek Churchesby the bishop, and used in baptism, confirmation,orders, and extreme unction.This chrism is consecrated with great ceremonyupon Holy Thursday. There are twosorts of it; the one is a composition of oiland balsam, made use of in baptism, confirmation,and orders; the other is onlyplain oil consecrated by the bishop, andused for catechumens and extreme unction.Chrism has been discontinued inthe Church of England since the Reformation.

CHRISOME, in the office of baptism,was a white vesture, which in former timesthe priest used to put upon the child, saying,“Take this white vesture for a tokenof innocence.”

By a constitution of Edmund, archbishopof Canterbury, A. D. 736, the chrisomes,after having served the purposes of baptism,were to be made use of only for themaking or mending of surplices, &c., orfor the wrapping of chalices.

The first Common Prayer Book of KingEdward orders that the woman shall offerthe chrisome, when she comes to bechurched; but, if the child happens to diebefore her churching, she was excusedfrom offering it; and it was customary touse it as a shroud, and to wrap the childin it when it was buried. Hence, by anabuse of words, the term is now used notto denote children who die between thetime of their baptism and the churching ofthe mother, but to denote children whodie before they are baptized, and so areincapable of Christian burial.

CHRIST. From the Greek word (Χριστος)corresponding with the Hebrew word Messiah,and signifying the Anointed One. Itis given pre-eminently to our blessed Lordand Saviour Jesus Christ. As the holyunction was given to kings, priests, andprophets, by describing the promised Saviourof the world under the name ofChrist, Anointed, or Messiah, it wassufficient evidence that the qualities ofking, prophet, and high priest would eminentlycentre in him; and that he wouldexercise them not only over the Jews, butover all mankind, and particularly overthose whom he should elect into hisChurch. Our blessed Saviour was not,indeed, anointed to these offices by oil; buthe was anointed by the power and graceof the Holy Ghost, who visibly descendedupon him at his baptism. Thus, (Acts x.38,) “God anointed Jesus of Nazarethwith the Holy Ghost and with power.”—SeeMatt. iii. 16, 17. John iii. 34. (SeeJesus and Messiah.)

CHRISTEN, To. To baptize; because,at baptism, the person receiving that sacramentis made, as the catechism teaches,a member of Christ.

CHRISTENDOM. All those regionsin which the kingdom or Church of Christis planted.

CHRISTIAN. The title given to thosewho call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.It was at Antioch, where St. Paul and St.Barnabas jointly preached the Christianreligion, that the disciples were first calledChristians, (Acts xi. 26,) in the year of ourLord 43. They were generally called byone another brethren, faithful, saints, andbelievers. The name of Nazarenes was, byway of reproach, given them by the Jews.(Acts xxiv. 5.) Another name of reproachwas that of Galilæans, which was the emperorJulian’s style whenever he spoke ofthe Christians. Epiphanius says, that theywere called Jesseans, either from Jesse, thefather of David, or, which is more probable,from the name of Jesus, whose disciplesthey were. The word is used but threetimes 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 madeChristians, i. e. at our baptism.

The Scripture history, both of the Oldand New Testament, contains many instancesof the names of persons beingchanged, or of their receiving an additionalname, when they were admitted intocovenant with God, or into a new relationwith 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 theChristian Church, and we find very ancientinstances of it recorded. For example,Thascius Cyprian, at his baptism, changedhis first name to Cæcilius, out of respectfor the presbyter who was his spiritualfather. The custom is still retained, aname being given by the godfather andgodmother of each child at baptism, bywhich name he is addressed by the ministerwhen he receives that holy sacrament.(See Baptismal Service.)

Our Christian names serve to remind us176of the duties and privileges on which weentered at baptism. Our surname is amemorial of original sin, or of the naturewhich we bring into the world.

CHRISTIANS OF ST. THOMAS.(See Thomas, St., Christians of.)

CHRISTMAS DAY. The 25th December;the day on which the universalChurch celebrates the nativity or birthdayof our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.The observance of this day in the WesternChurch is most ancient, although we maynot give much belief to the statement ofthe forged decretal epistles, that Telesiphorus,who lived in the reign of AntoninusPius, ordered Divine service to becelebrated, and an angelical hymn to besung, the night before the nativity. Whilethe persecution raged under Diocletian,who kept his court at Nicomedia, that tyrant,among other acts of cruelty, findingmultitudes of Christians assembled togetherto celebrate the nativity of Christ, commandedthe church doors to be shut, andfire put to the building, which soon reducedthem and the place to ashes. Inthe East it was for some time confoundedwith the Epiphany; and St. Chrysostommentions that it was only about his timethat it became a distinct festival at Antioch.

The Athanasian Creed is ordered to besaid or sung on this day. This is one ofthe days for which the Church of Englandappoints special psalms, and a special prefacein the Communion Service; and if itfall on a Friday, that Friday is not to bea fast day.—Cave. Bingham.

It is one of the scarlet days at Oxfordand Cambridge: and in cathedrals andchoirs the responses and litany (if to beused) ought to be solemnly sung to theorgan. In the First Book of King Edward,there were separate Collects, Epistles, andGospels appointed for the first and secondcommunion on this and on Easter day.

The chronological correctness of keepingthe birthday of our Lord on the 25th ofDecember, has been demonstrated in amost careful analysis, by the late lamentedDr. Jarvis, in his Chronological Introductionto the History of the Church.—Jebb.

CHRISTOLYTES. (Χριστολύται, separatorsof Christ.) A sect in the sixth century,which held, that when Christ descendedinto hell, he left his soul andbody there, and only rose with his Divinityto heaven.

CHRISTOPHORI and THEOPHORI,(Χριστοφόροι και Θεοφόροι, Christ-bearers andGod-bearers,) names given to Christians inthe earliest times, on account of the communionbetween Christ, who is God, andthe Church. Ignatius commences his Epistlesthus, Ἰγνάτιος ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος: and it isrelated in the acts of his martyrdom, thathearing him called Theophorus, Trajanasked the meaning of the name; to whichIgnatius replied, it meant one that carriesChrist in his heart. “Dost thou then,”said Trajan, “carry him that was crucifiedin thy heart?” “Yes,” said the holy martyr,“for it is written, I will dwell in them,and walk in them.”

CHRONICLES. Two canonical booksof the Old Testament. They contain thehistory of about 3500 years, from the creationuntil after the return of the Jewsfrom Babylon. They are fuller and morecomprehensive than the Books of Kings.The Greek interpreters hence call themΠαραλειπομένα, supplements, additions. TheJews make but one book of the Chronicles,under the title Dibree hajamin, i. e. journalor annals. Ezra is generally supposed tobe 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 Scripturarumin hoc continetur.” The First Bookcontains a genealogical account of the descentof Israel from Adam, and of the reignof David. The Second Book contains thehistory of Judah to the very year of theJews’ return from the Babylonish captivity—thedecree of Cyrus granting them libertybeing in the last chapter of thisSecond Book.

CHURCH. (See Catholic.) The wordchurch is derived from the Greek κυριακὸς (belongingto the Lord)—the Teutonic nationshaving, at their first conversion, generallyadopted the Greek ecclesiastical terms. Thetruth of this etymology is confirmed by thefact, that in the Sclavonic languages thenames for the Church resemble the Teutonic,evidently because derived from a commonGreek original. The Church, meaning bythe word the Catholic or Universal Church,is that society which was instituted by ourblessed Lord, and completed by his apostles,acting under the guidance of the HolySpirit, to be the depository of Divinetruth and the channel of Divine grace.Every society, or organized community,may be distinguished from a mere multitudeor accidental concourse of people, byhaving a founder, a form of admission, aconstant badge of membership, peculiarduties, peculiar privileges, and regularlyappointed officers. Thus the CatholicChurch has the Lord Christ for itsfounder; its prescribed form of admissionis the holy sacrament of baptism; its constant177badge of membership is the holy sacramentof the eucharist; its peculiarduties are repentance, faith, obedience; itspeculiar privileges, union with God, throughChrist its Head, and hereby forgivenessof sins, present grace, and future glory;its officers are bishops and priests, assistedby deacons, in regular succession from theapostles, the first constituted officers ofthis body corporate. It has the Bible forits code of laws, and tradition for precedents,to aid its officers in the interpretationof that code on disputed points. It isthrough the ordinances and sacraments ofthe Church, administered by its divinelyappointed officers, that we are broughtinto union and communion with the invisibleSaviour; it is through the visiblebody that we are to receive communicationsfrom the invisible Spirit; and, saysthe apostle, in the fourth chapter to theEphesians, “There is,” not merely oneSpirit, “there is one body and one Spirit,even as ye are called in one hope of yourcalling.” Again, (1 Cor. x. 17,) “We beingmany are one bread and one body.” Andin the first chapter to the Colossians, thesame apostle tells us that this body is theChurch. And thus we must, if we arescriptural Christians, believe that there isone holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Of this one Church there are manybranches existing in various parts of theworld, (not to mention the great divisionof militant and triumphant,) just as thereis one ocean, of which portions receive aparticular designation from the shoreswhich they lave. But of this one societythere cannot be two branches in one andthe same place opposed to each other,either in discipline or in doctrine. Althoughthere be two opposing societies ormore in one place, both or all claiming tobe Christ’s Church in that place, yet weare quite sure that only one of them canbe the real Church. So here, in this realmof England, speaking nationally, there isbut one Church, over which the archbishopsof Canterbury and York, withtheir suffragans, preside: and in each diocesethere is only that one Church, overwhich the diocesan presides, a branch ofthe national Church, as the national is abranch of the universal Church: andagain, in each parish there is but oneChurch, forming a branch of the diocesanChurch, over which the parochial ministerpresides.

“Religion being, therefore, a matterpartly of contemplation, partly of action, wemust define the Church, which is a religioussociety, by such differences as do properlyexplain the essence of such things; that isto say, by the object or matter whereaboutthe contemplation and actions of the Churchare properly conversant; for so all knowledgeand all virtues are defined. Whereupon,because the only object which separatethours from other religions is JesusChrist, in whom none but the Churchdoth believe, and whom none but theChurch doth worship, we find that accordinglythe apostles do everywhere distinguishhereby the Church from infidels andfrom Jews, accounting them which callupon the name of our Lord Jesus Christto be his Church.”—Hooker’s Eccl. Pol.Hooker’s assertion as to the Church in thiscountry must be so far modified, that now,by change of political circumstances, theChurches of England and Ireland arepolitically united, and form but one Church,over which two primates, that of Canterburyand Armagh, of co-ordinate jurisdiction,preside, with other archbishops andsuffragans, &c.—Jebb.

CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA.It is not possible, in such a publicationas this, to give an account of the variousbranches of the one Catholic Church,which are to be found in the various partsof the world; but it would be impropernot to notice the Church in the UnitedStates of America, since it is indebted forits existence, under the blessing of theGreat Head of the Church Universal,to the missionary labours of the Church ofEngland; or rather we should say, ofmembers of that Church acting under thesanction of their bishops, and formed intothe Society for the Propagation of theGospel in Foreign Parts. Before theAmerican Revolution it can scarcely besaid that the Church existed in our Americancolonies. There were congregationsformed chiefly through the Society justmentioned, and the clergy who ministeredin these congregations were under thesuperintendence of the bishop of London.We may say that the first step taken forthe organization of the Church was afterthe termination of the revolutionary war,at a meeting of a few of the clergy of NewYork, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, atNew Brunswick, N. Y., in May, 1784.Though this meeting was called on otherbusiness, yet the project of a generalunion of the churches throughout theStates became a topic of sufficient interestto lead to the calling of anothermeeting, to be held in October following,in the city of New York. At this lattermeeting, “although the members composingit were not vested with powers178adequate to the present exigencies of theChurch, they happily, and with great unanimity,laid down a few general principlesto be recommended in the respective States,as the ground on which a future ecclesiasticalgovernment should be established.”It was also recommended that the severalStates should send clerical and lay deputiesto a future meeting in Philadelphia,on September the twenty-seventh, of thefollowing year. In the interim, thechurches of Connecticut, having madechoice of the Rev. Dr. Seabury for a bishop,he had proceeded to England witha view to consecration. In this applicationhe was not successful, the Englishbishops having scruples, partly of a politicalnature, and partly relative to the receptionwith which a bishop might meet,under the then imperfect organization ofthe Church in America. Resort wastherefore had to the Church in Scotland,where Dr. Seabury received consecrationin November, 1784.

According to appointment, the firstgeneral convention assembled in 1785,in Philadelphia, with delegates from sevenof the thirteen States. At this conventionmeasures were taken for a revisal ofthe Prayer Book, to adapt it to the politicalchanges which had recently takenplace; articles of union were adopted; anecclesiastical constitution was framed; andthe first steps taken for the obtaining ofan episcopate direct from the Church ofEngland.

In June, 1786, the convention againmet in Philadelphia. A correspondencehaving meanwhile been carried on withthe archbishops and bishops of the EnglishChurch, considerable dissatisfaction wasexpressed on their part relative to somechanges in the liturgy, and to one pointof importance in the constitution. Thelatter of these was satisfied by the proceedingof the then session, and the formerwere removed by reconsideration ina special convention summoned in Octoberin the same year. It soon appearing thatDr. Provoost had been elected to theepiscopate of New York, Dr. White tothat of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Griffith forVirginia, testimonials in their favour weresigned by the convention. The two formersailed for England in November, 1786,and were consecrated at Lambeth on the4th of February in the following year, bythe Most Reverend John Moore, archbishopof Canterbury. Before the endof the same month they sailed for NewYork, where they arrived on Easter Sunday,April 7th, 1787.

In July, 1789, the general conventionagain assembled. The episcopacy ofBishops White and Provoost was recognised;the resignation of Dr. Griffith, asbishop elect of Virginia, was received;and in this and an adjourned meeting ofthe body, in the same year, the constitutionof 1786 was remodelled; union was happilyeffected with Bishop Seabury and thenorthern clergy; the revision of the PrayerBook was completed; and the Churchalready gave promise of great future prosperity.In September, 1790, Dr. Madisonwas consecrated bishop of Virginia atLambeth in England, by the same archbishop,who, a few years before, had impartedthe apostolic commission to Drs.White and Provoost. There being nowthree bishops of the English succession,besides one of the Scotch, everythingrequisite for the continuation and extensionof the episcopacy was complete.Accordingly the line of American consecrationopened in 1792, with that of Dr.Claggett, bishop elect of Maryland. In1795 Dr. Smith was consecrated for SouthCarolina; in 1797 the Rev. Edward Bass,for Massachusetts, and in the same yearDr. Jarvis, for Connecticut, that diocesehaving become vacant by the death ofBishop Seabury. From that time theconsecration of bishops has proceededaccording to the wants of the Church,without impediment, to the present day.At the beginning of the present centurythe Church had become permanentlysettled in its organization, and its stabilityand peace were placed on a securefooting. In 1811 there were already eightbishops and about two hundred and thirtyother clergymen distributed through thirteenStates. A spirit of holy enterprisebegan to manifest itself in measures forthe building up of the Church west of theAlleghany Mountains, and in other portionsof the country, where heretofore ithad maintained but a feeble existence.The ministry numbers in its ranks men ofthe first intellectual endowments, and ofadmirable self-devotion to the cause of thegospel. With a steady progress, unawedby the assaults of sectarianism and thereproaches of the fanatic, the Churchgradually established itself in the affectionsof all who came with a spirit of candourto the examination of her claims.The blessing of her Great Head wasapparent, not only in the peace whichadorned her councils, but in the demandswhich were continually made for a widerextension of her influence. Hence theestablishment of the General Theological179Seminary by Bishop Hobart (1817–1821),and afterwards of the Domestic and ForeignMissionary Society (1835); both of whichinstitutions were instrumental in providingheralds of the gospel for the distant placesof the West. These were followed by thediocesan seminaries of Virginia, Ohio, andKentucky, and efforts for the founding ofseveral in other dioceses. At the generalconvention of 1835, the whole Churchassumed the position of one grand missionaryorganization, and has already herbands of missionaries labouring in thecause of the Church in the remotest districtsof the country; and her banner hasbeen lifted up in Africa, China, Greece,and other foreign parts. The year 1852was distinguished by remarkable demonstrationsof communion between theChurches of England and America. TheAmerican Church, in token of her connexionwith the mother Church, and ofgratitude for benefits received from theSociety for the Propagation of the Gospelwhile the American States were part ofthe British dominions, deputed BishopM’Coskry, of Michigan, and Bishop DeLancey, of Western New York, to attendthe third Jubilee of the Society. Thesebishops were received in England with cordialaffection, and the bishop of Michiganpreached the Jubilee Sermon at St. Paul’scathedral. A few months later the Englishbishop Fulford, of Montreal, sharedin consecrating Dr. Wainwright, who hadbeen a member of the deputation to England,coadjutor bishop of Eastern NewYork. In 1853 Bishop Spenser, ArchdeaconSinclair, and the Rev. ErnestHawkins, were deputed by the Society forPropagating the Gospel to return the visitof the American prelates, and were receivedwith great cordiality by the generalconvention of the American Church. Anattempt to excite a Romanizing spirit onthe part of a few half-educated persons hassignally failed, by the suppression, for wantof support, of the Journal they established.With her 37 bishops, 2000 clergy, andmore than 2,000,000 of lay members;with her numerous societies for the spreadof the Bible and the Liturgy; and with herinstitutions of learning, and presses constantlypouring out the light of the truth,may we not predict, under the Divine protection,a day of coming prosperity, whenZion shall be a praise in all the earth;when her temples and her altars shall beseen on the far-off shores of the Pacific;when even “the wilderness and the solitaryplace shall be glad for them, and the desertshall rejoice and blossom as the rose?”

For a more detailed history of theChurch in America, the reader may consultBishop White’s Memoirs of the Protestantand Episcopal Church in America;Caswall’s America and the AmericanChurch; the History of the Church inAmerica in the Christian’s Miscellany:and the more recent History by BishopWilberforce, published in the Englishman’sLibrary.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND. (SeeAnglo-Catholic Church.) By the Churchof England we mean that branch of theCatholic Church which is established underits canonical bishops in England. Properlyspeaking, at present it forms only abranch of the united Church of Englandand Ireland. When and by whom theChurch was first introduced into Britainis not exactly ascertained, but it has beeninferred from Eusebius that it was firstestablished here by the apostles and theirdisciples; some have supposed, by St. Paul.According to Archbishop Usher, there wasa school of learning to provide the Britishchurches with proper teachers in the year182. But when the Britons were conqueredby the Anglo-Saxons, who were heathens,the Church was persecuted, and theprofessors of Christianity were either drivento the mountains of Wales, or reduced toa state of slavery. The latter circumstancesprepared the way for the conversionof the conquerors, who, seeing the piousand regular deportment of their slaves,soon learned to respect their religion. Wemay gather this fact from a letter writtenby Gregory, the bishop of Rome, in thesixth century, to two of the kings of France,in which he states that the English nationwas desirous of becoming Christian; andin which he, at the same time, complainsto those monarchs of the remissness oftheir clergy in not seeking the conversionof their neighbours. And hence it wasthat Gregory, with that piety and zeal forwhich he was pre-eminently distinguished,sent over Augustine, and about fortymissionaries, to England, to labour in thegood work. The success of these missionaries,the way having thus been pavedbefore them, was most satisfactory. Theyconverted Ethelbert, who was not onlyking of Kent, but Brætwalda, or chief ofthe Saxon monarchs. His example wassoon followed by the kings of Essex andEast Anglia, and gradually by the othersovereigns of England.

The successful Augustine then wentover to Arles in France, where he wasconsecrated by the prelate of that see;and, returning, became the first archbishop180of Canterbury, the patriarch and metropolitanof the Church of England. Hissee was immediately endowed with largerevenues by King Ethelbert, who likewiseestablished, at the instance of the archbishop,the dioceses of Rochester and London.Another portion of the Anglo-Saxonswere converted by the Scottishbishops. And thus gradually the Anglo-Saxonkings created bishoprics equal insize to their kingdoms. And the examplewas followed by their nobles, who convertedtheir estates into parishes, erecting fitplaces of worship, and endowing them withtithes.

It is a great mistake to suppose, as somedo, that the old churches in England werebuilt or endowed by laws of the state oracts of parliament. They were the fruitof the piety of individuals of all ranks,princes and nobles, and private citizens.This fact accounts for the unequal sizesof our dioceses and parishes: the dioceseswere (though subsequently subdivided) ofthe same extent as the dominions of therespective kings; the parishes correspondedwith the estate of the patrons of particularchurches. Nor was the regard ofthose by whom the Church was establishedand endowed, confined to the spiritualedification of the poor; no, they knew thatrighteousness exalteth a nation, and estimatingproperly the advantages of infusinga Christian spirit into the legislature, theysummoned the higher order of the clergyto take part in the national councils.

From those times to these, an uninterruptedseries of valid ordinations hascarried down the apostolical succession inour Church.

That in the Church of England purityof doctrine was not always retained may bereadily admitted. In the dark ages, whenall around was dark, the Church itselfsuffered from the universal gloom: thisneither our love of truth, nor our wishes,will permit us to deny. About the seventhcentury the pope of Rome began to establishan interest in our Church. Theinterference of the prelate of that greatsee, before he laid claim to any dominionof right, was at first justifiable, and didnot exceed just bounds, while it contributedmuch to the propagation of thegospel. That the bishop of Rome wasjustified as a Christian bishop, of highinfluence and position, in endeavouring toaid the cause of Christianity here in England,while England was a heathen nation,will not be disputed by those whorecognise the same right in the archbishopof Canterbury with respect to foreignheathens. But, in after ages, what wasat first a justifiable interference was so increasedas to become an intolerable usurpation.This interference was an usurpationbecause it was expressly contrary tothe decisions of a general council of theChurch, and such as the Scripture condemns,in that the Scripture places allbishops on an equality; and so they oughtto continue to be, except where, for thesake of order, they voluntarily consent tothe appointment of a president or archbishop,who is nothing more than a primusinter pares, a first among equals. Thisusurpation for a time continued, and withit were introduced various corruptions, indoctrine as well as in discipline.

At length, in the reign of Henry VIII.,the bishops and clergy accorded with thelaity and government of England, andthrew off the yoke of the usurping popeof Rome. They, at the same time, correctedand reformed all the errors of doctrine,and most of the errors of discipline,which had crept into our Church duringthe reign of intellectual darkness andpapal domination. They condemned themonstrous doctrine of transubstantiation,the worship of saints and images, communionin one kind, and the constrainedcelibacy of the clergy; having first ascertainedthat these and similar errors wereobtruded into the Church in the middleages. Thus restoring the Church to itsancient state of purity and perfection, theyleft it to us, their children, as we now findit. They did not attempt to make new,their object was to reform, the Church.They stripped their venerable mother ofthe meretricious gear in which superstitionhad arrayed her, and left her in that plainand decorous attire with which, in thesimple dignity of a matron, she had beenadorned by apostolic hands.

Thus, then, it seems that ours is the oldChurch of England, tracing its origin, notto Cranmer and Ridley, who only reformedit; but that it is the only Church of England,which traces its origin up throughthe apostles to our Saviour Himself. Toadopt the words of a learned and piouswriter: “The orthodox and undoubtedbishops of Great Britain are the only personswho, in any manner, whether by ordinationor possession, can prove their descentfrom the ancient saints and bishopsof these isles. It is a positive fact thatthey, and they alone, can trace their ordinationsfrom Peter and Paul, throughPatrick, Augustine, Theodore, Colman,Columba, David, Cuthbert, Chad, Anselm,Osmund, and all the other worthies of our181Church.” “It is true that there are someschismatical Romish bishops in theserealms, but they are of a recent origin, andcannot show the prescription and possessionthat we can. Some of these teachersdo not profess to be bishops of ourchurches, but are titular bishops of placeswe know not. Others usurp the titles ofvarious churches in these islands, but areneither in possession themselves, nor canprove that their predecessors ever occupiedthem. The sect (the sect of EnglishPapists or Roman Catholics) arose in thereign of Queen Elizabeth, when certainpersons, unhappily and blindly devoted tothe see of Rome, refused to obey and communicatewith their lawful pastors, who,in accordance with the laws of God andthe canons, asserted the ancient independenceof the British and Irish Church; andthe Roman patriarch then ordained a fewbishops to sees in Ireland, which were alreadyoccupied by legitimate pastors. InEngland this ministry is of later origin;for the first bishop of that communion wasa titular bishop of Chalcedon in the seventeenthcentury.

The ecclesiastical state of England, as itstands at this day, is divided into two provincesor archbishoprics, of Canterburyand York, which are again subdivided intoseveral dioceses. (See Archbishop.)

For the safeguard of the doctrine anddiscipline of the Church of England, manyprovisions are made both by the civil andcanon law.

Whoever shall come to the possession ofthe crown of England shall join in communionwith the Church of England, as by lawestablished. (12 & 13 Will. III. c. 2, s. 3.)

By the 1 Will. III. c. 6, an oath shall beadministered to every king or queen whoshall succeed to the imperial crown of thisrealm, at their coronation; to be administeredby one of the archbishops or bishops,to be thereunto appointed by such king orqueen; that they will do the utmost intheir power to maintain the laws of God,the true profession of the gospel, and Protestantreformed religion established bylaw; and will preserve unto the bishopsand clergy of this realm, and to the churchescommitted to their charge, all such rightsand privileges as by law do or shall appertainunto them, or any of them.

And by the 5 Anne, c. 5, the king, athis coronation, shall take and subscribe anoath to maintain and preserve inviolablythe settlement of the Church of England,and the doctrine, worship, discipline, andgovernment thereof, as by law established.(s. 2.)

By Canon 3, whoever shall affirm thatthe Church of England, by law established,is not a true and apostolical Church, teachingand maintaining the doctrine of theapostles, let him be excommunicated ipsofacto, and not restored but only by thearchbishop, after his repentance and publicrevocation of this his wicked error.

And by Canon 7, whoever shall affirmthat the government of the Church ofEngland under Her Majesty, by archbishops,bishops, deans, archdeacons, andthe rest that bear office in the same, isantichristian, or repugnant to the word ofGod, let him be excommunicated ipso facto,and so continue until he repent, and publiclyrevoke such his wicked errors.

And moreover, seditious words, in derogationof the established religion, are indictable,as tending to a breach of thepeace.

CHURCH OF IRELAND. Of the firstintroduction of the Church into Irelandwe have no authentic records; nor is itnecessary to search for them, since, of thepresent Church, the founder, under God,was St. Patrick, in the fifth century. Fromhim it is that the present clergy, the reformedclergy, and they only, have theirsuccession, and through him from theapostles themselves. That, by a regularseries of consecrations and ordinations, thesuccession from Patrick and Palladius, andthe first Irish missionaries, was kept up untilthe reign of Queen Elizabeth, our opponents,the Irish Papists, will allow. Thequestion, therefore, is whether that successionwas at that time lost. The onus probandirests with our opponents, and wedefy them to prove that such was the case.It is a well-known fact, that of all thecountries of Europe, there was not one inwhich the process of the Reformation wascarried on so regularly, so canonically, soquietly, as it was in Ireland. Carte, thebiographer of Ormond, having observedthat the Popish schism did not commencein England until the twelfth year of QueenElizabeth’s reign, but that for eleven yearsthose who most favoured the pretensionsof the pope conformed to the reformedCatholic Church of England, remarks,“The case was much the same in Ireland,where the bishops complied with the Reformation,and the Roman Catholics (meaningthose who afterwards became Roman, insteadof remaining reformed Catholics)resorted in general to the parish churchesin which the English service was used,until the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign.”It is here stated that the bishops of theChurch of Ireland, that is, as the Papists182will admit, the then successors of St. Patrickand his suffragans, those who had aright to reform the Church of Ireland, consentedto the Reformation; and that, untilthe end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, (andshe reigned above forty-four years,) therewas no pretended Church, under the dominionof the pope, opposed to the trueCatholic Church, as is unfortunately nowthe case. The existing clergy of the Churchof Ireland, whether we regard their orderor their mission, and consequently theChurch itself, are the only legitimate successorsof those by whom that Church wasfounded. That in the Church of Ireland,as well as in the Church of England, corruptionsin doctrine as well as in practiceprevailed before the Reformation, and thatthe pope of Rome gradually usurped overit an authority directly contrary to one ofthe canons of a general council of theChurch Universal, (that of Ephesus,) wefully admit. But that usurpation was resistedand renounced, and those corruptions removedand provided against at the Reformation.After the English Reformation theIrish Church received the English liturgy,in conformity with the principle now professedby the English government, thoughnot always consistently or fairly carried out,of promoting a close ecclesiastical unitybetween the two countries. Articles ofReligion, of a Calvinistic tendency, werepassed by the Irish convocation of 1615,but in 1635 the English Articles were receivedand approved by a canon of convocation,and have ever since been subscribedby Irish clergymen. In 1662 the revisedPrayer Book of England was adoptedby the Irish convocation. At the timeof the union of the two kingdoms, the twoChurches were united under the title ofthe United Church of England and Ireland.Doubts have been expressed as to whatthis union means. It does not meanunion in doctrine. The Churches were infull communion in every respect before;and still are, except in a few particulars,merely circumstantial. It does not meandistinct synodical rights, for the two Englishprovinces have their convocations distinctone from the other, and the decreesof the one do not, of necessity, bind theother. The union is national and political.When the two kingdoms became politicallyand legislatively one, the two Churches, inconformity with the ancient and avowedprinciples of English government, were declaredto be identified. This identificationwas solemnly declared by the sovereignand parliament of both countries, as an indispensableand fundamental article of union,asserted by the spiritual lords of each;without the slightest reclamation on thepart of the clergy or laity. Now this declarationof legislative union is in fact asolemn declaration on the part of the stateof identification of interests. If each ofthe English provinces of the United Churchclaim synodical rights, a right of advisingwhen the great interests of the Church areconcerned, the claim of the Irish provincesof the same Church are equally strong, arestrictly parallel. If the property andrights of the English clergy are to be protected,the Irish clergy have as strong aclaim to protection. How far the avowedprinciple has been acted upon, it is notdifficult to determine. The property ofthe Irish clergy has been dealt with uponprinciples altogether different from thosewhich still protected the property of theirEnglish brethren. No provision whateverwas made for perpetuating the Irish convocations,which are still in abeyance, evenas to outward form, though formerly theyhad as defined a system as in England.(See Convocation.) In an age, when themultiplication of bishops has been urged,and generally admitted as necessary, theChurch in Ireland has been disheartenedby a retrograde movement. For, in oppositionto the earnest reclamation of herclergy, ten of her bishops were, by a verytyrannical act of the state, suppressed;and two of her archiepiscopal sees (Casheland Tuam) reduced to the rank of suffragans;and this to meet a mere fiscalexigency, to provide for the Church Rates;for which, be it observed, the clergy ofIreland, whose revenues have been in manyother ways legislatively curtailed, are nowtaxed.

The words of the fifth article of the Unionwith Ireland are these: “That it be the fiftharticle of Union, that the Churches of Englandand Ireland, as now by law established,be united into one Protestant EpiscopalChurch, to be called, The United Churchof England and Ireland; and that thedoctrine, worship, discipline, and governmentof the said United Church shall be,and shall remain in full force for ever, asthe same are now by law established forthe Church of England; and that the continuanceand preservation of the saidUnited Church, as the established Churchof England and Ireland, shall be deemedand taken to be an essential and fundamentalpart of the Union.”

The Church in Ireland had till latelyfour archbishops: 1. Armagh, with sevensuffragans, viz. Meath, Down, ‡Dromore,Derry, Kilmore, ‡Raphoe, and ‡Clogher.1832. 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 aremarked thus ‡ are now suppressed.] Formerlythere had been 32 bishops in all;but the sees had become so impoverishedthat it became necessary from time totime to unite some of these to others, (butfor reason and under sanction far differentfrom those which influenced the late innovations,)so that in the 17th century theywere much the same as stated above. Thebishops of Meath and Kildare had precedenceover the other bishops.—See Jebb’sCharge to the Clergy of Limerick.

CHURCH OF ROME. (See Pope,Popery, Council of Trent, Romanism.) TheChurch of Rome is properly that particularChurch over which the bishop of Romepresides, as the Church of England is thatChurch over which the bishop of Canterburypresides. To enter into the historyof that foreign Church, to describe itsboundaries, to explain those peculiar doctrines,which are contrary to Catholic doctrines,but which are retained in it, todiscuss its merits or its corruptions, wouldbe beside the purpose of this Dictionary.But there are certain schismatical communitiesin these kingdoms which have set upan altar against our altar, and which aredesignated as the Church of Rome in England,and the Church of Rome in Ireland;and with the claims of these schismaticalsects, in which the obnoxious doctrines ofthe Church of Rome, as asserted in theso-called general Council of Trent, aremaintained, and in which the supremacyof the pope of Rome is acknowledged, weare nearly concerned. It will be proper,therefore, to give an account of the introductionof Romanism or Popery into thiscountry and into Ireland, subsequently tothe Reformation. From the precedingarticles it will have been seen that theChurches of England and Ireland werecanonically reformed. The old CatholicChurch of England, in accordance with thelaw of God and the canons, asserted its ancientindependence. That many membersof the Church were in their hearts opposedto this great movement, is not only probable,but certain; yet they did not incurthe sin of schism by establishing a sect inopposition to the Church of England, untilthe twelfth year of Elizabeth’s reign, whenthey were hurried into this sin by foreignemissaries from the pope of Rome, andcertain 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, andthings come round again.”—Memoirs, ii.p. 280. “He may be right,” says Dr.Phelan, “in complimenting their orthodoxyat the expense of their truth; yet itis a curious circumstance, that their hypocrisy,while it deceived a vigilant andjustly suspicious Protestant government,should be disclosed by the tardy candourof their own historians.” The admission,however, is important; the admission of aRomanist that Romanism was for a seasonextinct, as a community, in these realms.The present Romish sect cannot, therefore,consistently claim to be what the clergyof the Church of England really and trulyare, the representatives of the founders ofthe English Church. The Romish clergyin England, though they have orders, haveno mission, on their own showing, and areconsequently schismatics. The Romanistsbegan to fall away from the Catholic Churchof England, and to constitute themselvesinto a distinct community or sect, about theyear 1570, that is, about forty years afterthe Church of England had suppressedthe papal usurpation. This act was entirelyvoluntary on the part of the Romanists.They refused any longer to obey theirbishops; and, departing from our communion,they established a rival worship, andset up altar against altar. This sect wasat first governed by Jesuits and missionarypriests, under the superintendence of Allen,a Roman cardinal, who lived in Flanders,and founded the colleges at Douay andRheims. In 1598, Mr. George Blackwellwas appointed archpriest of the EnglishRomanists, (see Archpriest,) and this formof ecclesiastical government prevailedamong them till 1623, when Dr. Bishopwas ordained titular bishop of Chalcedon,and sent from Rome to govern the Romishsect in England. Dr. Smith, the nextbishop of Chalcedon, was banished in 1628,and the Romanists were without bishopstill the reign of James II.—Palmer, ii. 252.During the whole of the reign of James I.,and part of the following reign, the Romishpriesthood, both in England and in Ireland,were in the interest, and many ofthem in the pay, of the Spanish monarchy.The titulars of Dublin and Cashel areparticularly mentioned as pensioners ofSpain. The general memorial of the Romishhierarchy in Ireland, in 1617, wasaddressed to the Spanish court, and weare told by Berrington, himself a Romanist,that the English Jesuits, 300 in number,were all of the Spanish faction. In184Ireland, as we have seen before, the bishopsalmost unanimously consented, in the beginningof Queen Elizabeth’s reign, to removethe usurped jurisdiction of the Romanpontiff, and consequently there, as in England,for a great length of time there werescarcely any Popish bishops. But “Swarmsof Jesuits,” says Carte, “and Romishpriests, educated in the seminaries foundedby King Philip II., in Spain and the Netherlands,and by the cardinal of Lorrainein Champagne, (where, pursuant to thevows of the founders, they sucked in, aswell the principles of rebellion, as of whatthey call catholicity,) coming over to thatkingdom, as full of secular as of religiousviews, they soon prevailed with an ignorantand credulous people to withdraw fromthe public service of the Church.” Macgauran,titular archbishop of Armagh, wassent over from Spain, and slain in an actof rebellion against his sovereign. In 1621there were two Popish bishops in Ireland,and two others resided in Spain. Thesepersons were ordained in foreign countries,and could not trace their ordinationsto the ancient Irish Church. The audacityof the Romish hierarchy in Irelandhas of late years been only equalled bytheir mendacity. But we know them whothey 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, theRomish sect—a sect it truly is in thatcountry, since there can be but one Church,and that is the Catholic, in the same place,(see article on the Church,) and all thatthey can pretend to is, that without havingany mission, being therefore in a state ofschism, they hold peculiar doctrines andpractices which the Church of Ireland mayhave practised and held for one, two, three,or at the very most four hundred out ofthe fourteen hundred years during whichit has been established; while even as acounterpoise to this, we may place thethree hundred years which have elapsedbetween the Reformation and the presenttime. Since the above article was written,the Romish sect has assumed a new characterin England. The pope of Romehas added to his iniquities by sending here,in 1850, schismatical prelates, with a viewof superseding the orthodox and catholicbishops of the English Church; an actwhich has increased the abhorrence ofPopery in every true Englishman’s heart,and which should lead to greater unionamong all who repudiate idolatry, and lovethe Lord Jesus.

CHURCH IN SCOTLAND. Theearly history of the ancient Church ofScotland, like that of Ireland, is involvedin much obscurity; nor is it necessary toinvestigate it, since, at the period of ourReformation, it was annihilated; it wasentirely subverted; not a vestige of theancient Christian Church of that kingdomremained. Meantime the Scottish nationwas torn by the fiercest religious factions.The history of what occurred at the so-calledReformation of Scotland—the fierceness,the fury, the madness of the people,who murdered with Scripture on theirlips—would make an infidel smile, and apious Christian weep. It is probable thata sense of the danger to his throne mayhave led King James I. to his first measures,taken before his accession to theEnglish crown, for the restoration of episcopacyin his own dominion. His firststep was to obtain, in December, 1597, anact of the Scottish parliament, “that suchpastors and ministers as the king shouldplease to provide to the place, title, anddignity of a bishop, abbot, or other prelate,should have voice in parliament as freelyas any ecclesiastical prelate had at anytime by-past.” This act was followed bythe appointment of certain ministers, withthe temporal title of bishops, in the nextyear.—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 parliamentshould have no place in the general assembly,unless they were authorized by acommission from the presbyters.” Thebishops, however, took their seats in parliament,and voted in the articles of unionfor the two kingdoms, A. D. 1601. Atlength, in A. D. 1610, the bishops were admittedas presidents or moderators in thediocesan assemblies; and, in 1612, “afterfifty years of confusion, and a multiplicityof windings and turnings, either to improveor set aside the plan adopted in1560,” (to use Bishop Skinner’s words,) “wesee an episcopal Church once more settledin Scotland, and a regular apostolical successionof episcopacy introduced, upon theextinction of the old line which had longbefore failed, without any attempt, real orpretended, to keep it up.” For in this yearthe king caused three of them to be consecratedin London; “and that,” says BishopGuthrie, “not without the consentand furtherance of many of the wisestamongst the ministry.” Now in commonjustice to Episcopalians it must be remembered,as Bishop Skinner observes, thatthe restoration of the primitive order was185strictly legal. “A regular episcopacy bycanonical consecration had been adoptedby the general assemblies of the Church, andconfirmed by unquestionable acts of parliament.”King Charles I. endeavoured tocomplete the good work which his fatherhad begun, but, for the sins of the Scottishpeople, he was not permitted to succeed inhis labour of love; nay, rather, the attemptto introduce the English Prayer Book soexasperated the Scots against him, thatthey finally proved their ignorance ofScripture, and their want of true Christianprinciples, by assenting to the parricide oftheir sovereign, when it was effected bytheir disciples in England. The generalassembly of 1638 was held in opposition tothe sovereign, and to the law; it declaredall assemblies since 1605 void; proscribedthe service book; and abjured Episcopacy,condemning it as antichristian, and the bishopswere excommunicated and deposed.In 1613, the Scotch general assemblypassed the Solemn League and Covenant,adopted by that assembly of divines atWestminster, who drew up the Confession,which afterwards was established by lawas the Faith of the Kirk of Scotland. TheCatholic Church, after the martyrdom ofCharles, became extinct in Scotland; butit was once more restored at the restorationof his son. By the solemn act ofparliament, Episcopacy was reestablished,and declared to be most agreeable to theword of God; and synods were constituted,very much upon the system of the Englishconvocation. Four Scottish divines wereagain consecrated in London in 1661. Theseprelates took possession of the several seesto which they had been appointed, and theother ten sees were soon canonically filledby men duly invested with the episcopalcharacter and function. So things remaineduntil the Revolution of 1688. Thebishops of Scotland, mindful of their oaths,refused to withdraw their allegiance fromthe king, and to give it to the Prince ofOrange, who had been elected by a portionof the people to sovereignty, under thetitle of William III. The Prince of Orangeoffered to protect them, and to preservethe civil establishment of the Church,provided that they would come over tohis interest, and support his pretensionsto the throne. This they steadily refusedto do; and consequently, by theprince and parliament, the bishops and theclergy were ordered either to conform tothe new government, or to quit theirlivings. There were then fourteen bishopsin Scotland, and nine hundred clergy ofthe other two orders. All the bishops,and by far the greater number of the otherclergy, refused to take the oaths; and inthe livings they were thus compelled torelinquish, Presbyterian ministers were ingeneral placed. And thus the Presbyteriansect was established (so far as it can beestablished by the authority of man) insteadof the Church in Scotland. It wasstated that this was done, not becausebishops were illegal and unscriptural, butbecause the establishment of the Churchwas contrary to the will of the people,who, as they had elected a king, ought, asit was supposed, to be indulged in the stillgreater privilege of selecting a religion.And yet it is said, in the Life of BishopSage, “it was certain, that not one of threeparts of the common people were then forthe presbytery, and not one in ten amongthe gentlemen and people of education.”The system of doctrine to which the establishedKirk of Scotland subscribes is theWestminster Confession of Faith, and tothe Kirk (for it was passed in 1643 by thegeneral assembly of the Kirk) belongs thenational and solemn League and Covenant,(a formulary more tremendous in its anathemasthan any bull of Rome,) to “endeavourthe extirpation of Popery andprelacy,” i. e. “Church government by archbishops,bishops, and all ecclesiastical officersdependent upon the hierarchy.” ThisLeague was approved by that very assemblyat Westminster, whose Confession wasnow nationally adopted. And certainly,during their political ascendency, the membersof that establishment have done theirbest to accomplish this, so far as Scotlandis concerned, although, contrary to theirprinciples, there are some among themwho would make an exception in favourof England, if the Church of Englandwould be base enough to forsake her sisterChurch in Scotland. That Church is nowjust in the position in which our Churchwould be, if it pleased parliament, in whatis profanely called its omnipotence, todrive us from our sanctuaries, and to establishthe Independents, or the Wesleyans,in our place.

The bishops of the Scottish Church, thusdeprived of their property and their civilrights, did not attempt to keep up thesame number of bishops as before the Revolution,nor did they continue the divisionof the country into the same dioceses, asthere was no occasion for that accuracy,by reason of the diminution which theirclergy and congregations had suffered,owing to the persecutions they had toendure. They have also dropped the designationof archbishops, now only making186use of that of Primus, (a name formerlygiven to the presiding bishop,) who beingelected by the other bishops, six in number,is invested thereby with the authorityof calling and presiding in such meetingsas may be necessary for regulating the affairsof the Church. The true Church ofScotland has thus continued to exist fromthe Revolution to the present time, notwithstandingthose penal statutes, of theseverity of which some opinion may beformed when it is stated, that the grandfatherof the present venerable bishop ofAberdeen, although he had taken the oathsto the government, was committed to prisonfor six months; and why? for the heinousoffence of celebrating Divine service accordingto the forms of the English Book ofCommon Prayer, in the presence of morethan four persons! But in vain has theScottish establishment thus persecuted theScottish Church; as we have said, she stillexists, perhaps, amidst the dissensions ofthe establishment, to be called back againto her own. The penal statutes were repealedin the year 1792. But even thenthe clergy of that Church were so far prohibitedfrom officiating in the Church ofEngland, that the clergyman, in whosechurch they should perform any ministerialact, was liable to the penalties of a premunire.Although a clergyman of anyof the Greek churches, although even aclergyman of the Church of Rome, uponhis renouncing those Romish peculiaritiesand errors, which are not held by ourScottish brethren, could serve at our altars,and preach from our pulpits, our brethrenin Scotland and America were preventedfrom doing so. This disgrace however hasnow been removed by the piety of the latearchbishop of Canterbury, who has obtainedan act which restores to the Church one ofher lost liberties. At the end of the lastcentury, the Catholic Church in Scotlandadopted those Thirty-nine Articles whichwere drawn up by the Church of Englandin the reign of Queen Elizabeth. They,for the most part, make use of our liturgy,though in some congregations the oldScotch liturgy is used, and it is expresslyappointed that it shall always be used atthe consecration of a bishop.

The Church of Scotland, before the politicalrecognition of Presbyterianism, hadfourteen bishops: viz. The archbishop ofSt. Andrew’s, primate of Scotland, withnine suffragans; viz. Edinburgh, Aberdeen,Moray, Dunkeld, Brechin, Caithness,Dunblane, Orkney, and Ross. The archbishopof Glasgow, with three suffragans;viz. Galloway, Argyle, and the Isles. Thebishops of Edinburgh and Galloway hadprecedence over the others. All the bishopssat in the Scottish parliament, butthey had no convocation, like those of theChurch of England in ancient times, theirsynods being episcopal. After the Reformation,their assemblies were long ofan anomalous kind, and bore witness to acontinual struggle between the episcopaland presbyterian, or rather democratic,principle, which finally prevailed. In1663, however, an act of parliament waspassed regulating their national synod.(See Convocation.)

CHURCH, GALLICAN, or THECHURCH OF FRANCE, although in communionwith the see of Rome, maintainedin many respects an independent position.(See Concordat and Pragmatic Sanction.)This term is very ancient, for we find itused in the Council of Paris, held in the year362, and the Council of Illyria, in 367.

This Church all along preserved certainancient rites, which she possessed time outof mind; neither were these privileges anygrants of popes, but certain franchises andimmunities, derived to her from her firstoriginal, and which she will take care neverto relinquish. These liberties dependedupon two maxims, which were alwayslooked upon in France as indisputable.The first is, that the pope had no authorityor right to command or order anything,either in general or particular, in whichthe temporalities or civil rights of thekingdom were concerned. The secondwas, that, notwithstanding the pope’s supremacywas owned in cases purely spiritual,yet, in France, his power was limitedand regulated by the decrees and canonsof ancient councils received in that realm.The liberties or privileges of the GallicanChurch were founded upon these twomaxims, and the most considerable of themare as follows:

I. The king of France has a right toconvene synods, or provincial and nationalcouncils, in which, amongst other importantmatters relating to the preservation of thestate, cases of ecclesiastical discipline arelikewise debated.

II. The pope’s legates à latere, who areempowered to reform abuses, and to exercisethe other parts of their legantine office,are never admitted into France unless atthe desire, or with the consent, of the king:and whatever the legates do there, is withthe approbation and allowance of the king.

III. The legate of Avignon cannot exercisehis commission in any of the king’sdominions, till after he hath obtained hisMajesty’s leave for that purpose.

187IV. The prelates of the Gallican Church,being summoned by the pope, cannot departthe realm upon any pretence whatever,without the king’s permission.

V. The pope has no authority to levyany tax or imposition upon the temporalitiesof the ecclesiastical preferments,upon any pretence, either of loan, vacancy,annates, tithes, procurations, or otherwise,without the king’s order, and the consentof the clergy.

VI. The pope has no authority to deposethe king, or grant away his dominionsto any person whatever. His Holiness canneither excommunicate the king, nor absolvehis subjects from their allegiance.

VII. The pope likewise has no authorityto excommunicate the king’s officers fortheir executing and discharging their respectiveoffices and functions.

VIII. The pope has no right to takecognizance, either by himself or his delegates,of any pre-eminencies or privilegesbelonging to the crown of France, the kingbeing not obliged to argue his prerogativesin 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 privilegesand powers, any more than those createdby the emperor.

X. It is not lawful for the pope to grantlicences to churchmen, the king’s subjects,or to any others holding benefices in therealm of France, to bequeath the titles andprofits of their respective preferments, contraryto any branch of the king’s laws, orthe customs of the realm, nor to hinder therelations of the beneficed clergy, or monks,to succeed to their estates, when they enterinto religious orders, and are professed.

XI. The pope cannot grant to any persona dispensation to enjoy any estate orrevenues, in France, without the king’sconsent.

XII. The pope cannot grant a licenceto ecclesiastics to alienate church lands,situate and lying in France, without theking’s consent, upon any pretence whatever.

XIII. The king may punish his ecclesiasticalofficers for misbehaviour in theirrespective charges, notwithstanding theprivileges of their orders.

XIV. No person has any right to holdany benefice in France, unless he be eithera native of the country, naturalized by theking, or has royal dispensation for thatpurpose.

XV. The pope is not superior to anœcumenical or general council.

XVI. The Gallican Church does not receive,without distinction, all the canons,and all the decretal epistles, but keepsprincipally to that ancient collection calledCorpus Canonicum, the same which PopeAdrian sent to Charlemagne towards theend of the eighth century, and which, inthe year 860, under the pontificate ofNicolas I., the French bishops declared tobe the only canon law they were obligedto acknowledge, maintaining that in thisbody the liberties of the Gallican Churchconsisted.

XVII. The pope has no power, for anycause whatsoever, to dispense with the lawof God, the law of nature, or the decreesof the ancient canons.

XVIII. The regulations of the apostolicchamber, or court, are not obligatory tothe Gallican Church, unless confirmed bythe king’s edicts.

XIX. If the primates or metropolitansappeal to the pope, his Holiness is obligedto try the cause, by commissioners or delegates,in the same diocese from which theappeal was made.

XX. When a Frenchman desires thepope to give him a benefice lying in France,his Holiness is obliged to order him an instrument,sealed under the faculty of hisoffice; and, in case of refusal, it is lawfulfor the person pretending to the beneficeto apply to the parliament of Paris, whichcourt shall send instructions to the bishopof the diocese to give him institution,which institution shall be of the same validityas if he had received his title underthe seals of the court of Rome.

XXI. No mandates from the pope, enjoininga bishop, or other collator, to presentany person to a benefice upon a vacancy,are admitted in France.

XXII. It is only by sufferance that thepope has what they call a right of prevention,to collate to benefices which the ordinaryhas not disposed of.

XXIII. It is not lawful for the pope toexempt the ordinary of any monastery, orany other ecclesiastical corporation, fromthe jurisdiction of their respective diocesans,in order to make the person soexempted immediately dependent on theholy see.

These liberties were esteemed inviolable,and the French kings, at their coronation,solemnly swore to preserve and maintainthem. The oath ran thus: “Promittovobis et perdono quod unicuique de vobiset ecclesiis vobis commissis canonicum privilegiumet debitam legem atque justitiamservabo.”

The bishoprics were entirely in the handsof the Crown. There were, in France, 18188archbishops, 112 bishops, 160,000 clergymenof various orders, and 3400 convents.

The archbishops were: 1. Rheims, (primateof 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, elevensuffragans. 11. Besançon, one suffragan.12. Arles, four suffragans. 13. Auch, tensuffragans. 14. Aix, five suffragans. 15.Alby, five suffragans. 16. Embrun, sixsuffragans. 17. Vienne, four suffragans.18. Cambray, two suffragans, with six otherbishops under foreign archbishops. Thearchbishop of Cambray and his suffragans,and the archbishop of Besançon with hissuffragan, and eight other bishops, werenot considered properly to form part of theGallican Church.

Such was the Church of France withthe “Gallican Liberties,” previously to thegreat French Revolution of 1789–1793.

Jansenism (see Jansenists) became veryprevalent in the Gallican Church before theRevolution; and the antipapal principle ofJansenism, combined with the revolutionarymania, developed in 1790 the civil constitutionof the clergy in France, under whichfalse appellation the constituent assemblyaffected extraordinary alterations in spiritualmatters. M. Bouvier, the late bishopof Mans, remarks, that this constitution“abounded with many and most grievousfaults.” “First,” he says, “the NationalConvention, by its own authority, withoutany recourse to the ecclesiastical power,changes or reforms all the old dioceses,erects new ones, diminishes some, increasesothers, &c.; (2.) forbids any Gallican churchor citizen to acknowledge the authority ofany foreign bishop, &c.; (3.) institutes anew mode of administering and rulingcathedral churches, even in spirituals; (4.)subverts the divine authority of bishops,restraining it within certain limits, and imposingon them a certain council, withoutwhose judgment they could do nothing,”&c. The great body of the Gallican bishopsnaturally protested against this constitution,which suppressed 135 bishoprics, anderected 83 in their stead, under differenttitles. The Convention insisted that theyshould take the oath of adhesion to thecivil constitution in eight days, on pain ofbeing considered as having resigned; and,on the refusal of the great majority, thenew bishops were elected in their place,and consecrated by Talleyrand, bishop ofAutun, assisted by Gobel, bishop of Lydda,and Miroudet of Babylon.

M. Bouvier proves, from the principlesof his Church, that this constitution wasschismatical; that all the bishops, rectors,curates, confessors, instituted by virtue ofit, were intruders, schismatics, and eveninvolved in heresy; that the taking of theoath to observe it was a mortal sin, andthat it would have been better to havedied a hundred times than to have done so.Certainly, on all the principles of Romanistsat least, the adherents of the civil constitutionwere in schism and heresy.

Nevertheless, these schismatics and hereticswere afterwards introduced into thecommunion of the Roman Church itself, inwhich they propagated their notions. Onthe signature of the Concordat betweenBonaparte and Pius VII. in 1801, for theerection of the new Gallican Church, thefirst consul made it a point, that twelve ofthese constitutional bishops should be appointedto sees under the new arrangements.He succeeded. “He caused tobe named to sees twelve of those sameconstitutionals who had attached themselveswith such obstinate perseverance, forten years, to the propagation of schism inFrance.... One of the partisans of thenew Concordat, who had been charged toreceive the recantation of the constitutionals,certified that they had renouncedtheir civil constitution of the clergy. Someof them vaunted, nevertheless, that theyhad not changed their principles; and oneof them publicly declared that they hadbeen offered an absolution of their censures,but that they had thrown it intothe fire!” The government forbad thebishops to exact retractations from theconstitutional priest, and commanded themto choose one of their vicars-general fromamong that party. They were protectedand supported by the minister of police,and by Portalis, the minister of worship.In 1803, we hear of the “indiscreet andirregular conduct of some new bishops,taken from among the constitutionals, andwho brought into their dioceses the samespirit which had hitherto directed them.”Afterwards it is said of some of them, thatthey “professed the most open resistance tothe holy see, expelled the best men fromtheir dioceses, and perpetuated the spiritof schism.” In 1804, Pius VII., being atParis, procured their signature to a declarationapproving generally of the judgmentsof the holy see on the ecclesiasticalaffairs of France; but this vague and generalformulary, which Bouvier and otherRomanists pretend to represent as a recantation,189was not so understood by thesebishops; and thus the Gallican Churchcontinued, and probably still continues, tonumber schismatical bishops and priests inher communion. Such is the boastedand most inviolable unity of the RomanChurch!

We are now to speak of the Concordatof 1801, between Bonaparte, first consulof the French republic, and Pope Pius VII.The first consul, designing to restore Christianityin France, engaged the pontiff toexact resignations from all the existingbishops of the French territory, both constitutionaland royalist. The bishopricsof old France were 130 in number; thoseof the conquered districts (Savoy, Germany,&c.) were 24; making a total of154. The constitutional bishops resignedtheir sees; those, also, who still remainedin the conquered districts, resigned themto Pius VII. Eighty-one of the exiledroyalist bishops of France were still alive;of these forty-five resigned, but thirty-sixdeclined to do so. The pontiff derogatedfrom the consent of these latter prelates,annihilated 159 bishoprics at a blow, createdin their place 60 new ones, and arrangedthe mode of appointment and consecrationof the new bishops and clergy,by his bull Ecclesia Christi and QuiChristi Domini. To this sweeping Concordatthe French government took careto annex, by the authority of their “corpslégislatif,” certain “Organic Articles,” relatingto the exercise of worship. Accordingto a Romish historian, they “renderedthe Church entirely dependent, andplaced everything under the hand ofgovernment. The bishops, for example,were prohibited from conferring orderswithout its consent; the vicars-generalof a bishop were to continue, even afterhis death, to govern the diocese, withoutregard to the rights of chapters; a multitudeof things which ought to have beenleft to the decision of the ecclesiasticalauthority were minutely regulated,” &c.The intention was, “to place the priests,even in the exercise of their spiritual functions,in an entire dependence on thegovernment agents!” The pope remonstratedagainst these articles—in vain:they continued, were adopted by the Bourbons,and, with some modifications, are inforce to this day; and the government ofthe Gallican Church is vested more in theconseil d’ etat, than in the bishops. Bonaparteassumed the language of piety, whilehe proceeded to exercise the most absolutejurisdiction over the Church. “Henceforwardnothing embarrasses him in the governmentof the Church; he decides everythingas a master; he creates bishoprics,unites them, suppresses them.” He apparentlyfound a very accommodating episcopacy.A royal commission, includingtwo cardinals, five archbishops and bishops,and some other high ecclesiastics, in 1810and 1811, justified many of the “OrganicArticles” which the pope had objected to;acknowledged that a national council couldorder that bishops should be institutedby the metropolitan or senior bishop, insteadof the pope, in case of urgent circumstances;and declared the papal bullof excommunication against those who hadunjustly deprived the pope of his states,was null and void.

These proceedings were by no meanspleasing to the exiled French bishops, whohad not resigned their sees, and yet beheldthem filled in their own lifetime by newprelates. They addressed repeated proteststo the Roman pontiff in vain. Hisconduct in derogating from their consent,suppressing so many sees, and appointingnew bishops, was certainly unprecedented.It was clearly contrary to all the canons ofthe Church universal, as every one admits.The adherents of the ancient bishops refusedto communicate with those whomthey regarded as intruders. They dwelton the odious slavery under which theywere placed by the “Organic Articles;”and the Abbés Blanchard and Gauchet,and others, wrote strongly against theConcordat, as null, illegal, and unjust;affirmed that the new bishops and theiradherents were heretics and schismatics,and that Pius VII. was cut off from theCatholic Church. Hence a schism in theRoman churches, which continues to thisday, between the adherents of the newGallican bishops and the old. The latterare styled by their opponents, “La PetiteEglise.” The truly extraordinary origin ofthe present Gallican Church sufficientlyaccounts for the reported prevalence of ultramontaneor high papal doctrines amongthem, contrary to the old Gallican doctrines,and notwithstanding the incessantefforts of Napoleon and the Bourbons toforce on them the four articles of theGallican clergy of 1682. They see, plainlyenough, that their Church’s origin restschiefly on the unlimited power of the pope.—Broughton.Palmer.

CHURCH, GREEK. The Oriental(sometimes called the Greek) Church, prevailsmore or less in Russia, Siberia, NorthAmerica, Poland, European Turkey, Servia,Moldavia, Wallachia, Greece, theArchipelago, Crete, Cyprus, the Ionian190Islands, Georgia, Circassia, Mingrelia, AsiaMinor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt. The vastand numerous Churches of the East, areall ruled by bishops and archbishops, ofwhom the chief are the four patriarchs ofConstantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, andJerusalem. The Russian Church was subjectto a fifth patriarch, from the latterpart of the sixteenth century, [1588,] butsince the reign of Peter the Great, the appointmentto this high office has been suspendedby the emperor, who deemed itspower too great, and calculated to rivalthat of the throne itself. It was abolishedin 1721. In its place Peter the Greatinstituted the “Holy Legislative Synod,”which is directed by the emperor....Many of these Churches still subsist afteran uninterrupted succession of eighteenhundred years: such as the Churches ofSmyrna, Philadelphia, Corinth, Athens,Thessalonica, Crete, Cyprus. Many others,founded by the apostles, continued to subsistuninterruptedly, till the invasion of theSaracens in the seventh century, and revivedagain after their oppression had relaxed.Such are the Churches of Jerusalem,Antioch, Alexandria, and others; fromthese apostolical Churches the whole OrientalChurch derives its origin and succession;for wherever new Churches werefounded, it was always by authority of theancient societies previously existing. Withthese all the more recent Churches heldclose communion; and thus, by the consanguinityof faith and discipline andcharity, were themselves apostolical. Theywere also apostolical in their ministry; forit is undeniable, that they can produce aregular uninterrupted series of bishops,and of valid ordinations in their churches,from the beginning. No one denies thevalidity of their ordination.—Palmer.

The descendants of the ancient Christiansof the East, who still occupy theOriental sees, are called the Greek Church.The Greek Church was not formerly soextensive as it has been since the emperorsof the East thought proper to lessen orreduce the other patriarchates, in order toaggrandize that of Constantinople; a taskwhich they accomplished with the greaterease, as they were much more powerfulthan the emperors of the West, and hadlittle or no regard to the consent of thepatriarchs, 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 solearbiters in all ecclesiastical concerns; insomuch,that princes themselves at lengthbecame obliged to have recourse to them,and were subservient to their directions onevery momentous occasion.

The Greek Churches, at present, deservenot even the name of the shadow of whatthey were in their former flourishing state,when they were so remarkably distinguishedfor the learned and worthy pastorswho presided over them; but now nothingbut wretchedness, ignorance, and povertyare visible amongst them. “I have seenchurches,” says Ricaut, “which were morelike caverns or sepulchres than places setapart for Divine worship; the tops thereofbeing almost level with the ground. Theyare erected after this humble manner forfear they should be suspected, if theyraised them any considerable height, ofan evil intention to rival the Turkishmosques.” It is, indeed, very surprisingthat, in the abject state to which theGreeks at present are reduced, the Christianreligion should maintain the leastfooting amongst them. Their notions ofChristianity are principally confined to thetraditions of their forefathers and theirown received customs; and, among otherthings, they are much addicted to externalacts of piety and devotion, such as the observanceof fasts, festivals, and penances:they revere and dread the censures of theirclergy; and are bigoted slaves to their religiouscustoms, many of which are absurdand ridiculous; and yet it must be acknowledged,that, although these errors reflect aconsiderable degree of scandal and reproachupon the holy religion they profess, theynevertheless prevent it from being entirelylost and abolished amongst them. A firewhich lies for a time concealed under a heapof embers, may revive and burn again asbright as ever; and the same hope may beconceived of truth, when obscured by thedark clouds of ignorance and error.

Caucus, archbishop of Corfu, in his Dissertationon what he calls the erroneousdoctrines of the modern Greeks, dedicatedto Gregory XIII., has digested their tenetsunder the following heads:

I. They rebaptize all Romanists whoare admitted into their communion.

II. They do not baptize their childrentill they are three, four, five, six, ten, andeven sometimes eighteen years of age.

III. They exclude confirmation and extremeunction from the number of thesacraments.

IV. They deny there is any such placeas purgatory, although they pray for thedead.

V. They deny the papal supremacy, andassert that the Church of Rome has abandonedthe doctrines of her fathers.

191VI. They deny, by consequence, thatthe Church of Rome is the true Catholicmother Church, and on Holy Thursdayexcommunicate the pope and all the Latinprelates, as heretics and schismatics, prayingthat all those who offer up unleavenedbread in the celebration of the sacramentmay be covered with confusion.

VII. They deny that the Holy Ghostproceeds from the Father and the Son.

VIII. They refuse to receive the hostconsecrated by Romish priests with unleavenedbread. They likewise wash thealtars on which Romanists have celebratedmass, and will not suffer a Romish priestto officiate at their altars.

IX. They assert that the usual form ofwords, wherein the consecration, accordingto the Church of Rome, wholly consists,is not sufficient to change the bread andwine into the body and blood of Christ.

X. They insist that the sacrament ofthe Lord’s supper ought to be administeredin both kinds to infants, even beforethey are capable of distinguishing thisspiritual food from any other, because itis a Divine institution. For which reasonthey give the eucharist to infants immediatelyafter baptism, and look upon theRomanists as heretics for not observingthe same custom.

XI. They hold that the laity are underan indispensable obligation, by the law ofGod, to receive the communion in bothkinds, and look on the Romanists as hereticswho maintain the contrary.

XII. They assert that no members ofthe Church, when they have attained toyears of discretion, ought to be compelledto receive the communion every Easter, butshould have free liberty to act accordingto the dictates of their own conscience.

XIII. They pay no religious homage, orveneration, to the holy sacrament of theeucharist, even at the celebration of theirown priests; and use no lighted taperswhen they administer it to the sick.

XIV. They are of opinion that suchhosts as are consecrated on Holy Thursdayare much more efficacious than those consecratedat other times.

XV. They maintain that matrimony is aunion which may be dissolved. For whichreason they charge the Church of Romewith being guilty of an error, in assertingthat the bonds of marriage can never bebroken, even in case of adultery, and thatno person upon any provocation whatsoevercan lawfully marry again.

XVI. They condemn all fourth marriages.

XVII. They refuse to celebrate the solemnitiesinstituted by the Romish Churchin honour of the Virgin Mary and theSaints. They reject likewise the religioususe of graven images and statues, althoughthey admit of pictures in their churches.

XVIII. They insist that the canon ofthe mass of the Roman Church ought tobe abolished, as being full of errors.

XIX. They deny that usury is a mortalsin.

XX. They deny that the subdeaconryis at present a holy order.

XXI. Of all the general councils thathave been held in the Catholic Church bythe popes at different times, they pay noregard to any after the sixth, and rejectnot only the seventh, which was the secondheld at Nice, for the express purpose ofcondemning those who rejected the use ofimages in their Divine worship, but allthose which have succeeded it, by whichthey refuse to submit to any of their institutions.

XXII. They deny auricular confessionto be a Divine precept, and assert that it isonly a positive injunction of the Church.

XXIII. They insist that the confessionof the laity ought to be free and voluntary;for which reason they are not compelledto confess themselves annually, norare they excommunicated for the neglectof it.

XXIV. They insist that in confessionthere is no Divine law which enjoins theacknowledgment of every individual sin,or a discovery of all the circumstancesthat attend it, which alter its nature andproperty.

XXV. They administer the communionto their laity both in sickness and in health,though they have never applied themselvesto their confessors; the reason of whichis, that they are persuaded all confessionsshould be free and voluntary, and that alively faith is all the preparation that isrequisite for the worthy receiving of thesacrament of the Lord’s supper.

XXVI. They look down with an eye ofdisdain on the Romanists for their observanceof the vigils before the nativity of ourblessed Saviour, and the festivals of theVirgin Mary and the apostles, as well asfor their fasting in Ember-week. Theyeven affect to eat meat more plentifully atthose times than at any other, to testifytheir contempt of the Latin customs. Theyprohibit, likewise, all fasting on Saturdays,that preceding Easter only excepted.

XXVII. They condemn the Romanistsas heretics, for eating such things as havebeen strangled, and such other meats asare prohibited in the Old Testament.

192XXVIII. They deny that simple fornicationis a mortal sin.

XXIX. They insist that it is lawful todeceive an enemy, and that it is no sin toinjure and oppress him.

XXX. They are of opinion that, inorder to be saved, there is no necessity tomake restitution of such goods as havebeen stolen or fraudulently obtained.

XXXI. To conclude: they hold thatsuch as have been admitted into holyorders may become laymen at pleasure.From whence it plainly appears that theydo not allow the character of the priesthoodto be indelible. To which it may beadded, that they approve of the marriageof their priests, provided they enter intothat state before their admission into holyorders, though they are never indulged inthat respect after their ordination.

The patriarch of Constantinople assumesthe honourable title of Universal or ŒcumenicalPatriarch. As he purchases hiscommission of the Grand Seignior, it maybe easily supposed that he makes a tyrannicaland simoniacal use of a privilegewhich he holds himself by simony. Thepatriarchs and bishops are always singlemen; but the priests (as observed before)are indulged in marriage before ordination;and this custom, which is generallypractised all over the Levant, isvery ancient. Should a priest happento marry after ordination, he can officiateno longer as priest, which is conformableto the injunctions of the Council ofNeocesarea. The marriage, however, isnot looked upon as invalid; whereas, inthe Romish Church, such marriages arepronounced void and of no effect, becausethe priesthood is looked upon as a lawfulbar or impediment.—Broughton.

Their Pappas, or secular priests, nothaving any settled and competent livings,are obliged to subsist by simoniacal practices.“The clergy,” says Ricaut, “arealmost compelled to sell those Divine mysterieswhich are intrusted to their care.No one, therefore, can procure absolution,be admitted to confession, have his childrenbaptized, be married or divorced, orobtain an excommunication against hisadversary, or the communion in time ofsickness, without first paying down a valuableconsideration. The priests too oftenmake the best market they can, and fix aprice on their spiritual commodities in proportionto the devotion or abilities of theirrespective customers.”

The national Church of the kingdom ofGreece has lately been reconstructed similarlyto that of Russia, by the establishmentof a synod.—See King’s Rites of theGreek Church, and Cowel’s Account of theGreek Church, 1722.

CHURCH, ARCHITECTURE OF.There seems to be an absurdity in themodern practice of building churches forthe ritual of the nineteenth century, onthe model of churches designed for theritual of the fourteenth century. And fora service such as ours, nothing more is requiredthan a nave and a chancel; the onlydivisions which we find in the primitiveEastern churches. But as we have inheritedchurches which were erected duringthe middle ages, it is rather importantthat we should understand their designedarrangement. We find in such churches anave (navis) with its aisles (alæ); a chancel;a tower, generally at the west end; and aporch, generally to the second bay of thesouth aisle. The uses of the nave andchancel are obvious; the aisles were addedin almost all cases perhaps, prospectivelyat least in all, that they might serve forplaces for the erection of chantry altars,and for the same end served the transeptsand chancel aisles, or side chapels, to thechancels, sometimes found even in smallchurches. To the chancel, generally atthe north, a vestry was often attached; andthis was sometimes enlarged into a habitationfor the officiating priest, by the additionof an upper chamber, with fire-placeand other conveniences. But the morefrequent place for this domus inclusa wasover the porch, when it is commonly calledparvise; and sometimes the tower hasevidently been made habitable, though, inthis case, it may be rather suspected thatmeans of defence have been contemplated.In the domus inclusa, in the vestry, and inthe parvise, was often an altar, which notunfrequently remains. (See Altar.)

The chancel was separated from thenave by a screen, cancelli, from which theword chancel is derived, and over thescreen a loft was extended, bearing therood—a figure of our blessed Lord on thecross, and, on either side, figures of theBlessed Virgin and of St. John. But fewrood lofts remain, but the screen is of frequentoccurrence, especially in the northernand eastern counties. The loft wasgenerally gained by a newel stair runningup the angle between the chancel and thenave, but sometimes apparently by moveablesteps. The side chapels were generallyparted off from the adjoining parts ofthe church by screens, called parcloses.The chancel, if any conventual body wasattached to the church, was furnished withstalls, which were set against the north193and south walls, and returned against therood screen, looking east. Connected withthe altar, and sometimes, also, with someof the chantry altars, were sedilia, in thesouth wall of the chancel, varying in numberfrom one to five, for the officiating clergy;and, eastward of these, the piscina; alsoan aumbrie, or locker, in the north chancelwall. The altar and these accessories weregenerally raised at least one step above thelevel of the rest of the chancel floor, andthe chancel itself the like height from thenave. The font stood against the firstpillar to the left hand, entering at the southporch; it was often raised on steps, andfurnished with an elaborate cover. (SeeBaptistery.) The pulpit always stood inthe nave, generally against a north pillarin cathedrals; but in other churches, generallyagainst a south pillar, towards theeast. The seats for the congregation wereplaced in a double series along the nave,with an alley between, and looking east.There are a few instances of seats withdoors, but none of high pews till the timeof the Puritans.

The doors to the church were almostalways opposite to one another in thesecond bay of the aisles: besides these,there was often a west door, and this isgenerally supposed to denote some connexionwith a monastic body, and was,perhaps, especially used on occasions ofgreater pomp, processions, and the like.What is usually called the priest’s door,at the south side of the chancel, opensalways from within, and was, therefore, not(as is usually supposed) for the priest toenter by: in which case, moreover, it wouldrather have been to the north, where theglebe house usually stands. Was it forthe exit of those who had assisted at mass?A little bell-cot is often seen over the naveand altar, or on some other part of thechurch, called the service-bell-cot; for thebell rung at certain solemn parts of theservice of the mass; as at the words “Sanctus,sanctus, sanctus Deus Sabaoth,” andat the elevation of the Host. If, as issupposed, those who were not in the churchwere accustomed to kneel at this time, thereis an obvious reason for the external positionof this bell.

CHURCHING OF WOMEN. Thebirth of man is so truly wonderful, that itseems to be designed as a standing demonstrationof the omnipotence of God. Andtherefore that the frequency of it may notdiminish our admiration, the Church ordersa public and solemn acknowledgment tobe made on every such occasion by thewoman on whom the miracle is wrought;who still feels the bruise of our first parents’fall, and labours under the curse whichEve then entailed upon her whole sex.

As to the original of this custom, it isnot to be doubted but that, as many otherChristian usages received their rise fromother parts of the Jewish economy, so didthis from the rite of purification, which isenjoined so particularly in the twelfthchapter of Leviticus. Not that we observeit by virtue of that precept, which wegrant to have been ceremonial, and so notnow of any force; but because we apprehendsome moral duty to have been impliedin it by way of analogy, which must beobligatory upon all, even when the ceremonyis ceased. The uncleanness of thewoman, the set number of days she is toabstain from the tabernacle, and the sacrificesshe was to offer when she first cameabroad, are rites wholly abolished, andwhat we no ways regard; but then theopen and solemn acknowledgment of God’sgoodness in delivering the mother, andincreasing the number of mankind, is aduty that will oblige to the end of theworld. And therefore, though the motherbe now no longer obliged to offer thematerial sacrifices of the law, yet she isnevertheless bound to offer the evangelicalsacrifice of praise. She is still publicly toacknowledge the blessing vouchsafed her,and to profess her sense of the fresh obligationit lays her under to obedience.Nor indeed may the Church be so reasonablysupposed to have taken up this ritefrom the practice of the Jews, as she maybe, that she began it in imitation of theBlessed Virgin, who, though she was rathersanctified than defiled by the birth of ourLord, and so had no need of purificationfrom any uncleanness, whether legal ormoral; yet wisely and humbly submittedto this rite, and offered her praise, togetherwith her blessed Son, in the temple. Andthat from hence this usage was derivedamong Christians seems probable, not onlyfrom its being so universal and ancient,that the beginning of it can hardly anywherebe found; but also from the practiceof the Eastern Church, where the motherstill brings the child along with her, andpresents 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 Orderof the Purification of Women.” But thatneither of these terms implied, that thewoman had contracted any uncleanness inher state of child-bearing, may not onlybe inferred from the silence of the officesboth in the Greek Church and ours, in194relation to any uncleanness; but is alsofurther evident from the ancient laws relatingto this practice, which by no meansground it upon any impurity from whichthe woman stands in need to be purged.And therefore, when our own liturgy cameto be reviewed, to prevent all misconstructionsthat might be put upon the word,the title was altered, and the office named,(as it is still in our present Common PrayerBook,) “The Thanksgiving of Womenafter Child-birth, commonly called, TheChurching of Women.”—Dean Comber,Wheatly.

When Holy Scripture describes excessivesorrow in the most expressive manner, itlikens it to that of a woman in travail.And if this sorrow be so excessive, howgreat must the joy be to be delivered fromthat sorrow! commensurate certainly, andof adequate proportion: and no less must bethe debt of thankfulness to the benefactor,the donor of that recovery; whence a necessityof “thanksgiving of women afterchild-birth.” If it be asked, why the Churchhath appointed a particular form for thisdeliverance, and not for deliverance fromother cases of equal danger? the answer is,the Church did not so much take measureof the peril, as accommodate herself tothat mark of separation which God himselfhath put between this and other maladies.“To conceive and bring forth insorrow” was signally inflicted upon Eve;and, in her, upon all mothers, as a penaltyfor her first disobedience (Gen. iii. 16);so that the sorrows of child-birth have, byGod’s express determination, a more directand peculiar reference to Eve’s disobediencethan any other disease whatsoever;and, though all maladies are theproduct of the first sin, yet is the maledictionspecifically fixed and applied to thisalone. Now, when that which was ordainedprimarily as a curse for the firstsin, is converted to so great a blessing,God is certainly in that case more to bepraised in a set and solemn office.—L’ Estrange.

In the Greek Church the time for performingthis office is limited to be on thefortieth day; but, in the West, the timewas never strictly determined. And soour present rubric does not pretend tolimit the day when the woman shall bechurched, but only supposes that she willcome “at the usual time after her delivery.”The “usual time” is now abouta month, for the woman’s weakness willseldom permit her coming sooner. Andif she be not able to come so soon, she isallowed to stay a longer time, the Churchnot expecting her to return her thanks fora blessing before it is received.—Wheatly.

It is required, that whenever a womanis churched, she “shall come into thechurch.” And this is enjoined, first, forthe honour of God, whose marvellous worksin the formation of the child, and the preservationof the woman, ought publicly tobe owned, that so others may learn to puttheir trust in him. Secondly, that thewhole congregation may have a fit opportunityfor praising God for the too muchforgotten mercy of their birth. And, thirdly,that the woman may, in the properplace, own the mercy now vouchsafed her,of being restored to the happy privilege ofworshipping God in the congregation ofhis saints.

How great, therefore, is the absurditywhich some would introduce, of stiflingtheir acknowledgments in private houses,and of giving thanks for their recoveryand enlargement in no other place thanthat of their confinement and restraint; apractice which is inconsistent with thevery name of this office, which is called“the churching of women,” and which consequentlyimplies a ridiculous solecism, ofbeing churched at home. Nor is it anythingmore consistent with the end and devotionsprescribed by this office, than it iswith the name of it. For with what decencyor propriety can the woman pretend to“pay her vows in the presence of all God’speople, in the courts of the Lord’s house,”when she is only assuming state in a bedchamberor parlour, and perhaps only accompaniedwith her midwife or nurse? Togive thanks, therefore, at home (for by nomeans call it “churching”) is not only anact of disobedience to the Church, but ahigh affront to Almighty God; whosemercy they scorn to acknowledge in achurch, and think it honour enough donehim, if he is summoned by his priest towait on them at their house, and to takewhat thanks they will vouchsafe him there.But methinks a minister, who has any regardfor his character, and considers thehonour of the Lord he serves, should disdainsuch a servile compliance and submission,and abhor the betraying of hisMaster’s dignity. Here can be no pretenceof danger in the case, should thewoman prove obstinate, upon the priest’srefusal (which ministers are apt to urgefor their excuse, when they are prevailedupon to give public baptism in private);nor is the decision of a council wanting toinstruct him, (if he has any doubts uponaccount of the woman’s ill health,) that heis not to perform this office at home, though195she be really so weak as not to be able tocome 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 requireany thanks for a mercy, before hehas vouchsafed it: but if she comes as soonas her strength permits, she discharges herobligations both to him and the Church.—Wheatly.

The rubric, at the end of the service,directs the woman that cometh to give herthanks, to offer the accustomed offerings.By “the accustomed offerings” is to beunderstood some offering to the ministerwho performs the office, not under the notionof a fee or reward, but of somethingset apart as a tribute or acknowledgmentdue to God, who is pleased to declare himselfhonoured or robbed according as suchofferings are paid or withheld. We seeunder the law, that every woman, whocame to be purified after child-bearing,was required to bring something that puther to an expense; even the poorest amongthem was not wholly excused, but obligedto do something, though it were but small.And though neither the kind nor the valueof the expense be now prescribed, yet surethe expense itself should not covetously besaved: a woman that comes with any thankfulnessor gratitude should scorn to offerwhat David disdained, namely, “of thatwhich costs nothing.” And indeed withwhat sincerity or truth can she say, as sheis directed to do in one of the Psalms, “Iwill pay my vows now in the presence ofall his people,” if at the same time she designsno voluntary offering, which vowswere always understood to imply?

But, besides the accustomed offering tothe minister, the woman is to make a yetmuch better and greater offering, namely,an offering of herself, to be a reasonable,holy, and lively sacrifice to God. For therubric declares, that “if there be a communion,it is convenient that she receivethe holy communion;” that being the mostsolemn way of praising God for him bywhom she received both the present andall other God’s mercies towards her; anda means also to bind herself more strictlyto spend those days in his service, which,by this late deliverance, he hath added toher life.—Wheatly.

In the Greek and Ethiopic Churcheswomen upon these occasions always didreceive the holy sacrament; and it seemsin this very Church above a thousand yearsago; and still we carry them up to thealtar to remind them of their duty. Anddoubtless the omission of it occasions thetoo soon forgetting of this mercy, and thesudden falling off from piety, which we seein too many. Here they may praise Godfor our Lord Jesus Christ, and for thislate temporal mercy also: here they mayquicken their graces, seal their vows andpromises of obedience, offer their charity,and begin that pious life to which they areso many ways obliged. To receive thesacrament, while the sense of God’s goodnessand her own engagements is so freshupon her, is the likeliest means to makeher remember this blessing long, applyit right, and effectually to profit by it.Wherefore let it not be omitted on thisoccasion.—Dean Comber.

The woman is directed to kneel down in“some convenient place, as hath been accustomed.”No general rule is either prescribedor observed as to time or place, andtherefore these are matters which fall withinthe office of the ordinary to determine.Many read the office just before the GeneralThanksgiving: others, though not so usually,at some part of the Communion Service;some at the altar, others at the desk: thewoman in some churches occupies a seatspecially set apart for this office; in othersshe kneels at the altar table, and theremakes her offering. And in others a customprevails (which does not seem worthyof imitation) of performing this service atsome time distinct from the office of CommonPrayer.

CHURCH RATE. (See Rate.)

CHURCHWARDENS. These arevery ancient officers, and by the commonlaw are a lay corporation, to take care ofthe goods of the church, and may sue andbe 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 landswithin the parish.

In the ancient episcopal synods, thebishops were wont to summon diverscreditable persons out of every parish, togive information of, and to attest the disordersof clergy and people. They werecalled testes synodales; and were, in aftertimes, a kind of empanelled jury, consistingof two, three, or more persons in everyparish, who were, upon oath, to presentall heretics and other irregular persons.And these, in process of time, becamestanding officers in several places, especiallyin great cities, and from hence werecalled synods-men, and by corruptionsidesmen: they are also sometimes calledquestmen, from the nature of their office,in making inquiry concerning offences.And these sidesmen or questmen, by Canon90, are to be chosen yearly in Easter week,196by the minister and parishioners, (if theycan agree,) otherwise to be appointed bythe ordinary of the diocese. But for themost part this whole office is now devolvedupon the churchwardens, together withthat other office which their name moreproperly imports, of taking care of thechurch and the goods thereof, which haslong been their function.

By Canon 118. The churchwardens andsidesmen shall be chosen the first weekafter Easter, or some week following, accordingto the direction of the ordinary.

And by Canon 89. All churchwardensor questmen in every parish shall bechosen by the joint consent of the ministerand the parishioners, if it may be; butif they cannot agree upon such a choice,then the minister shall choose one, andthe parishioners another; and withoutsuch a joint or several choice, none shalltake upon them to be churchwardens. Butif the parish is entitled by custom to chooseboth churchwardens, then the parson isrestrained of his right under this canon.For further information on this subjectthe reader is referred to Dean Prideaux’s“Practical Guide to the Duties of Churchwardensin the execution of their Office,” anew edition of which has recently appeared,edited by C. G. Prideaux, barrister-at-law.(See Sidesmen and Visitation.)

CHURCHYARD. The ground adjoiningto the church, in which the deadare buried. As to the original of burial-places,many writers have observed, that,at the first erection of churches, no partof the adjacent ground was allotted for theinterment of the dead; but some place forthis purpose was appointed at a furtherdistance. This practice continued untilthe time of Gregory the Great, when themonks and priests procured leave, fortheir greater ease and profit, that a libertyof sepulture might be in churches or placesadjoining to them. But, by the ninthcanon, entitled De non sepeliendo in ecclesiis,this custom of sepulture in churcheswas restrained, and no such liberty allowedfor the future, unless the person was apriest or some holy man, who, by themerits of his past life, might deserve suchpeculiar favour.

By Canon 85. The churchwardens orquestmen shall take care that the churchyardsbe 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 lawthe same appertains.

The churchyard is the freehold of theparson: but it is the common burial-placeof the dead, and for that reason it is to befenced at the charge of the parishioners,unless there is a custom to the contrary,or for a particular person to do it, in respectof his lands adjoining to the churchyard;and that must be tried at commonlaw. But though the freehold is in theparson, he cannot cut down trees growingthere, except for the necessary repairs ofthe chancel; because they are planted andgrow there for the ornament and shelterof the church. (See Burial and Cemetery.)

CIBORIUM. A small temple or tabernacleplaced upon the altar of Roman Catholicchurches, and containing the consecratedwafer.

CIRCUMCELLIONS. A sect of theDonatist Christians in Africa, in the fourthcentury, being so called, because theyrambled from one town to another, andpretended to public reformation and redressingof grievances; they manumittedslaves without their master’s leave, forgavedebts which were none of their own, andcommitted a great many other insolencies:they were headed by Maxides and Faser.At the beginning of their disorders theymarched only with staves, which theycalled the staves of Israel, in allusion tothe custom of the Israelites eating thepaschal lamb with staves in their hands,but afterwards they made use of all sortsof arms against the Catholics. Donatuscalled them the saints’ chiefs, and revengedhimself by their means upon the Catholics.A mistaken zeal for martyrdom made thesepeople destroy themselves; some of themthrew themselves down precipices, othersleaped into the fire, and some cut theirown throats: so that their bishops, notbeing able to prevent such horrible andunnatural violences, were obliged to applythemselves to the magistracy to put anend 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, tocommemorate the active obedience of ourLord in fulfilling all righteousness, whichis one branch of the meritorious cause ofour redemption; and by that means abrogatingthe severe injunctions of theMosaical establishment, and putting usunder the grace of the gospel. The institutionof this feast is of very considerableantiquity. In the sixth century a specialand appropriate service for it was in use.It sometimes took the name of the “Octaveof Christmas,” or the eighth day fromthat festival, being observed on January1st. (See Octave.) It is one of the scarlet197days at the universities of Cambridge andOxford.

CISTERCIANS. Towards the conclusionof the 11th century, Robert, abbotof Molême, in Burgundy, having employed,in vain, his most zealous efforts to revivethe decaying piety and discipline of hisconvent, and to oblige his monks to observemore exactly the rule of St. Benedict,retired with about twenty monks to aplace called Citeaux, in the diocese ofChalons. In this retreat Robert foundedthe famous order of the Cistercians, whichmade a most rapid and astonishing progress,spread through the greatest part of Europein the following century, was enrichedwith the most liberal and splendid donations,acquired the form and privileges ofa spiritual republic, and exercised a sortof dominion over all the monastic orders.The great and fundamental law of thisnew fraternity was the rule of St. Benedict,which was to be rigorously observed. (SeeBenedictines.) To this were added severalother injunctions intended to maintain theauthority of the rule. The first Cistercianmonastery in England was that of Waverley,in Surrey, 1129. In the reign of Edward I.there were sixty-one Cistercianmonasteries.—Monast. Angl.; Hist. desOrd. Relig. tom. v. c. 33.

CITATION. This is a precept underthe seal of the ecclesiastical judge, commandingthe person against whom thecomplaint is made to appear before him,on a certain day, and at a certain placetherein mentioned, to answer the complaintin such a cause, &c.

CLAIRE, ST. A religious order ofwomen in the Romish Church, the secondthat St. Francis instituted. This orderwas founded in 1213, and was confirmedby Innocent III., and after him by HonoriusIII., in 1223. It took its name fromits first abbess and nun, Clara of Assisi, andwas afterwards divided into Damianistsand Urbanists; the first follow the ancientdiscipline in all its rigour, but the otherthe rule with Urban IV.’s allowance.—Hist.des Ord. Relig. t. vii. c. 25.

CLARENDON, CONSTITUTIONSOF. Certain constitutions made in thereign of Henry II., A. D. 1164, in a parliamentor council held at Clarendon, avillage three miles distant from Salisbury.These are as follows:—

I. When any difference relating to theright of patronage arises between the laity,or between the laity and clergy, the controversyis to be tried and ended in theking’s courts.

II. Those churches which are fees of theCrown cannot be granted away in perpetuitywithout the king’s consent.

III. When the clergy are charged withany misdemeanour, and summoned by thejusticiary, they shall be obliged to maketheir appearance in his court, and pleadto such parts of the indictments as shallbe put to them. And likewise to answersuch articles in the ecclesiastical court asthey shall be prosecuted for by that jurisdiction;always provided that the king’sjusticiary shall send an officer to inspectthe proceedings of the court Christian.And in case any clerk is convicted orpleads guilty, he is to forfeit the privilegeof his character, and be protected by theChurch no longer.

IV. No archbishops, bishops, or parsonsare allowed to depart the kingdom withouta licence from the Crown; and, providedthey have leave to travel, they shall givesecurity not to act or solicit anythingduring their passage, stay, or return, tothe prejudice of the king or kingdom.

V. When any of the laity are prosecutedin the ecclesiastical courts, the charge oughtto be proved before the bishop by legaland reputable witnesses: and the courseof the process is to be so managed, thatthe archdeacon may not lose any part ofhis right, or the profits accruing to his office:and if any offenders appear screenedfrom prosecution upon the score either offavour or quality, the sheriff, at the bishop’sinstance, shall order twelve sufficient menof the vicinage to make oath before thebishop, that they will discover the truthaccording to the best of their knowledge.

VI. Excommunicated persons shall notbe obliged to make oath, or give securityto continue upon the place where they live,but only to abide by the judgment of theChurch, in order to their absolution.

VII. No person that holds in chief ofthe king, or any of his barons, shall beexcommunicated, or any of their estatesput under an interdict, before applicationmade to the king, provided he is in thekingdom: and in case his Highness is outof England, then the justiciary must beacquainted with the dispute, in order tomake satisfaction: and thus that whichbelongs to the cognizance of the king’scourt must be tried there, and that whichbelongs to the courts Christian must beremitted to that jurisdiction.

VIII. In case of appeals in ecclesiasticalcauses, the first step is to be made fromthe archdeacon to the bishop, and fromthe bishop to the archbishop; and if thearchbishop fails to do him justice, a furtherrecourse may be had to the king; by whose198order the controversy is to be finally decidedin the archbishop’s court. Neithershall it be lawful for either of the partiesto move for any further remedy withoutleave from the Crown.

IX. If a difference happen to arise betweenany clergyman and layman concerningany tenement; and that the clerk pretendsit held by frank-almoine, and thelayman pleads it a lay-fee, in this case thetenure shall be tried by the inquiry andverdict of twelve sufficient men of theneighbourhood, summoned according tothe custom of the realm; and if the tenement,or thing in controversy, shall befound frank-almoine, the dispute concerningit shall be tried in the ecclesiasticalcourt; but if it is brought in a lay-fee, thesuit shall be followed in the king’s courts,unless both the plaintiff and defendanthold the tenement in question of the samebishop; in which case the cause shall betried in the court of such bishop or baron,with this further proviso, that he who isseized of the thing in controversy shall notbe disseized pending the suit, upon thescore of the verdict above-mentioned.

X. He who holds of the king in anycity, castle, or borough, or resides uponany of the demesne lands of the Crown, incase he is cited by the archdeacon orbishop to answer to any misbehaviour belongingto their cognizance; if he refusesto obey their summons, and stand to thesentence of the court, it shall be lawful forthe ordinary to put him under an interdict,but not to excommunicate him tillthe king’s principal officer of the townshall be pre-acquainted with the case, inorder to enjoin him to make satisfaction tothe Church. And if such officer or magistrateshall fail in his duty, he shall be finedby the king’s judges. And then the bishopmay exert his discipline on the refractoryperson as he thinks fit.

XI. All archbishops, bishops, and otherecclesiastical persons, who hold of the kingin chief, and the tenure of a barony, are,for that reason, obliged to appear beforethe king’s justices and ministers, to answerthe duties of their tenure, and to observeall the usages and customs of the realm;and, like other barons, are bound to bepresent at trials in the king’s court, tillsentence is to be pronounced for the losingof life or limbs.

XII. When any archbishopric, bishopric,abbey, or priory of royal foundation,becomes vacant, the king is to makeseizure; from which time all the profits andissues are to be paid into the exchequer,as if they were the demesne lands of theCrown. And when it is determined thevacancy shall be filled up, the king is tosummon the most considerable persons ofthe chapter to the court, and the electionis to be made in the chapel royal, with theconsent of our sovereign lord the king,and by the advice of such persons of thegovernment as his Highness shall think fitto make use of. At which time the personelected, before his consecration, shall beobliged to do homage and fealty to theking, as his liege lord; which homageshall be performed in the usual form, witha clause for the saving the privilege of hisorder.

XIII. If any of the temporal barons, orgreat men, shall encroach upon the rightsof property of any archbishop, bishop, orarchdeacon, and refuse to make satisfactionfor the wrong done by themselves or theirtenants, the king shall do justice to theparty aggrieved. And if any person shalldisseise the king of any part of his lands,or trespass upon his prerogative, the archbishops,bishops, and archdeacons shallcall him to an account, and oblige him tomake the Crown restitution.

XIV. The goods and chattels of thosewho lie under forfeitures of felony ortreason, are not to be detained in anychurch or churchyard, to secure themagainst seizure and justice; because suchgoods are the king’s property, whetherthey are lodged within the precincts of achurch, or without it.

XV. All actions and pleas of debt,though never so solemn in the circumstancesof the contract, shall be tried inthe king’s court.

XVI. The sons of copyholders are notto be ordained without the consent of thelord of the manor where they were born.

CLERESTORY. That part of a churchwith aisles which rises on the nave archesover the aisle roofs. Constructively, theclerestory is often to be referred to theroof. The original roof of small, andsometimes even of large, churches usuallycovered nave and aisles at one span. Whenthe original roof needed repair, the oldtimbers were made available by cuttingoff the ends which had suffered most. Butthis process rendered them unfit for acompass roof of high pitch. An addition,therefore, was made to the walls of thenave, by which the roof might rise as highas before in the centre, though of lowerpitch.

CLERGY. (See Bishop, Presbyter,Priest, Deacon, Apostolical Succession,Orders.) The general name given to thebody of ecclesiastics of the Christian Church,199in contradistinction to the laity. It is derivedfrom κλῆρος, a lot or portion.

The distinction of Christians into clergyand laity was derived from the JewishChurch, and adopted into the Christian bythe apostles themselves. Wherever anynumber of converts was made, as soon asthey were capable of being formed into acongregation or church, a bishop or presbyter,with a deacon, were ordained tominister to them, as Epiphanius relatesfrom the ancient histories of the Church.The author of the Comment on St. Paul’sEpistles, under the name of St. Ambrose,says, indeed, that at first all Christ’sdisciples were clergy, and had all a generalcommission to preach the gospel andbaptize: but this was in order to convertthe world, and before any multitude ofpeople were gathered, or churches founded,wherein to make a distinction. But, assoon as the Church began to spread itselfover the world, and sufficient numberswere converted to form themselves into aregular society, then rulers, and other ecclesiasticalofficers, were appointed amongthem, and a distinction made that eachmight not interfere with the other.

The clergy, originally, consisted only ofbishops, priests, and deacons; but, in thethird century, many inferior orders wereappointed, as subservient to the office ofdeacon, such as subdeacons, acolyths,readers, &c.

There is another name for the clergy,very commonly to be met with in theancient councils, which is that of canonici:a name derived from the Greek wordκάνων, which signifies, among other things,the roll or catalogue of every church, inwhich the names of the ecclesiastics, belongingto each church, were written.

The privileges and immunities whichthe clergy of the primitive ChristianChurch enjoyed, deserve our notice. Inthe first place, whenever they travelledupon necessary occasions, they were to beentertained by their brethren of the clergy,in all places, out of the public revenues ofthe Church. When any bishop or presbytercame to a foreign Church, they wereto be complimented with the honoraryprivilege of performing divine offices, andconsecrating the eucharist in the church.If any controversies happened among theclergy, they freely consented to have themdetermined by their bishops and councils,without having recourse to the secularmagistrate for justice. The great care theclergy had of the characters and reputationsof those of their order appears fromhence, that, in all accusations, especiallyagainst bishops, they required the testimonyof two or three witnesses, accordingto the apostle’s rule; they likewise examinedthe character of the witnesses, before theirtestimony was admitted; nor would theysuffer a heretic to give evidence againsta clergyman. These instances relate tothe respect which the clergy mutually paidto each other.

With regard to the respect paid to theclergy by the civil government, it consistedchiefly in exempting them from some kindof obligations, to which others were liable,and in granting them certain privilegesand immunities which others did not enjoy.Thus, by a law of Justinian, no secularjudge could compel a bishop to appear ina public court, to give his testimony, butwas to send one of his officers to take itfrom his mouth in private; nor was abishop obliged to give his testimony uponoath, but only upon his bare word. Presbyters,we find, were privileged from beingquestioned by torture, as other witnesseswere. But a still more extensive privilegewas, the exemption of the clergy from theordinary cognizance of the secular courtsin all causes purely ecclesiastical; suchbeing reserved for the hearing of thebishops and councils, not only by thecanons of the Church, but by the laws ofthe state also; as appears from severalrescripts of the emperors Constantius, Valentinian,Gratian, Theodosius the Great,Arcadius and Honorius, Valentinian II.,and Justinian.

Another privilege, which the clergy enjoyedby the favour of Christian princes,was, that, in certain cases, they were exemptfrom some of the taxes laid upon therest of the Roman empire. In the firstplace, they were exempt from the censuscapitum, or personal tribute, but not fromthe census agrorum, or tribute arising frommen’s lands and possessions. In the nextplace they were not obliged to pay theaurum tironicum, soldiers’ money, nor theequorum canonicorum adæratio, horse money;which were taxes laid on some provinces,for furnishing the emperor withnew levies, and fresh horses, for the wars.A third tax from which the clergy wasexempt was the χρυσάργυροι, the silver andgold tax, which was laid upon trade andcommerce; and the fourth, the metatum,so called from the word metatores, whichsignifies the emperor’s forerunners or harbingers;being a duty incumbent on thesubjects of the empire to give entertainmentto the emperor’s court and retinue,when they travelled. The clergy were alsoexempt from contributing to the reparation200of highways and bridges, and from theduties called angariæ and parangariæ, &c.,by which the subjects were obliged tofurnish horses and carriages for the conveyingof corn for the use of the army.

Another sort of immunity which theclergy enjoyed, was their exemption fromcivil offices in the Roman empire. Butthis privilege was confined to such of theclergy as had no estates, but what belongedto the Church by the laws of Constantine.For the Christian princes always made awide difference between the public patrimonyof the Church, and the privateestates of such of the clergy as had landsof a civil or secular tenure. For the one,the clergy were obliged to no duty orburden of civil offices; but for the other,they were, and could not be excused fromthem otherwise than by providing propersubstitutes to officiate for them.

After this account of the privileges ofthe ancient Christian clergy, it may notbe improper to take some notice of theprincipal laws made for the regulation oftheir lives and conversations.

And, first, we may observe what sort ofcrimes were thought worthy of degradation.It was not every slight failing orinfirmity, 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 beadded, drinking and gaming, those twogreat consumers of time, and enemies toall noble undertakings and generous services;as, also, the taking of money uponusury, which is condemned by many ofthe ancient canons as a species of covetousnessand cruelty. And therefore,instead of lending upon usury, the clergywere obliged to be exemplary for the contraryvirtues, hospitality and charity tothe poor, frugality, and a contempt of theworld. And, to guard against defamationand scandal, it was enacted by the canonsof several councils, that no bishops, presbyters,or deacons should visit widowsand virgins alone, but in the company andpresence of some other of the clergy, orsome grave Christians.

With regard to the laws, more particularlyrelating to the exercise of theduties and offices of their function, theclergy were, in the first place, obliged tolead studious lives. But it was not allsorts of studies that were equally recommendedto them: the principal was thestudy of the Holy Scriptures, as being thefountains of that learning, which was mostproper for their calling. Next to theScriptures, they were to study the canonsof the Church, and the best ecclesiasticalauthors. In after ages, in the time ofCharles the Great, we find some lawsobliging the clergy to read, together withthe canons, Gregory’s book “De CuraPastorali.” As to other books, they weremore cautious and sparing in the studyand use of them. Some canons forbad abishop to read heathen authors; nor washe allowed to read heretical books, exceptwhen there was occasion to confute them,or to caution others against the poison ofthem. But the prohibition of heathenlearning was to be understood with a littlequalification. It was only forbidden sofar as it tended to the neglect of Scriptureand more useful studies. We pass over theobligations incumbent on them to attendthe daily service of the Church, to bepious and devout in their public addressesto God, to be zealous in defending thetruth, and maintaining the unity of theChurch, &c.

By the ecclesiastical laws, no clergymanwas allowed to relinquish or desert hisstation without just grounds and leave:yet, in some cases, resignation was allowedof,—such as old age, sickness, or otherinfirmity. No clergyman was to removefrom one diocese to another, without theconsent, and letters dimissory, of his ownbishop. The laws were no less severeagainst all wandering clergymen, or suchas, having deserted their own church,would fix in no other, but went rovingfrom place to place: these some of theancients called βακαντιβοι or Vacantivi.By the laws of the Church, the bishopswere not to permit such to officiate intheir dioceses, nor indeed so much as tocommunicate in their churches. Otherlaws there were, which obliged the clergyto residence, or a constant attendanceupon their duty. The Council of Sardicahas several canons relating to this matter.Others inhibited pluralities, or the officiatingin two parochial churches. Inpursuance of the same design, of keepingthe clergy strict and constant to their duty,laws were also made to prohibit them followingany secular employment, whichmight divert them too much from theirproper business and calling. In sometimes and places, the laws of the Churchwere so strict about this matter, that theywould not suffer a bishop, or presbyter,to be left trustee to any man’s will. Byother laws they were prohibited from takingupon them the office of pleading at thebar in any civil contest.

Another sort of laws respected the outwardbehaviour of the clergy. Such were201the laws against corresponding and conversingtoo freely with Jews, and Gentilephilosophers; and the canons which restrainedthem from eating and drinking ina tavern, or being present at the publictheatres. To this sort of laws we mayreduce the ancient rules which concernthe garb and habit of the clergy; whichwere to be such as might express thegravity of their minds, without any affectation,or superstitious singularity. As tothe kind or fashion of their apparel, itdoes not appear, for several ages, thatthere was any other distinction observedtherein between them and the laity, thanthe modesty and gravity of their garb,without being tied to any certain habit, orform of dress.

These were the principal laws and regulationsby which the clergy of the primitiveChristian Church were governed; andit is remarkable, that the apostate emperorJulian was so convinced of their excellency,that he had a design of reformingthe heathen priesthood upon the model ofthe Christian clergy.

The clergy of the Church of Rome aredistinguished into regular and secular.The regular clergy consist of those monks,or religious, who have taken upon themholy orders, and perform the offices of thepriesthood in their respective monasteries.The secular clergy are those who are notof any religious order, and have the careand direction of parishes. The canons ofsuch cathedrals as were not monasticfoundations were so called; i.e. secularcanons. In the Saxon times these mightbe married. The Protestant clergy are allseculars.

The Romish Church forbids the clergyof her communion to marry, and pretendsthat a vow of perpetual celibacy, or abstinencefrom conjugal society, was requiredof the clergy, as a condition of their ordination,even from the apostolical ages.But the contrary is evident from innumerableexamples of bishops and presbyters,who lived, in those early ages, in astate of matrimony.—Bingham. (SeeCelibacy.)

CLERK. This word is in fact only anabbreviation of the word clericus, or clergyman.It is still used, in a few instances,to designate clergymen: as clerk of theking’s closet, clerks in orders in certainparish churches. In foreign churches, itis usually applied to the ministers in minororders. But it is now used to designatecertain laymen, who are appointed to conductor lead the responses of the congregation,and otherwise to assist in the servicesof the church. In most cathedrals andcollegiate churches, and in some colleges,there are several of these lay clerks (seeVicar Choral, Secondary, and Stipendiary);in parish churches, generally, there is butone, who is styled the parish clerk. Thesewere, originally, real clerks, i. e. clergymen,generally in minor orders, who assistedthe officiating priest. But the minororders have long ceased to be conferred,except as symbolical steps towards thehigher grades of the ministry; so that incountries of the Romish communion, aswell as among ourselves, the office whichused to be performed by one or more clergymenhas devolved upon laymen. Therecan be little doubt that, in parishes wherethere are more than one clergyman resident,the duties of the parish clerk shouldbe performed by them, especially in leadingthe responses, singing, giving notices,&c.; but long custom has so familiarizedus to the services of a lay-clerk, that wepermit him, as of right, to do even in thepresence of the clergy what, strictly speaking,belongs to the clerical office. It is agreat fault in a congregation when theypermit the lay-clerk to do more than leadthem in the responses or their singing. Theeighteenth canon directs all persons, man,woman, and child, to say in their dueplaces, audibly with the minister, the Confession,the Lord’s Prayer, and the Creed,and make such other answers to the publicprayer as are appointed in the Book ofCommon Prayer; and the laity forfeit ahigh privilege when they leave their shareof the service to the lay-clerk alone.

Clerks are mentioned in the PrayerBook in the Rubric before the second occurrenceof the Lord’s Prayer, in Morningand Evening Prayer: “The minister,clerks, and people shall say the Lord’sPrayer with a loud voice:” in the MarriageService, “The minister and clerks, goingto the Lord’s table, shall say or sing thisPsalm following:” in the Burial Service,“The priest and clerks meeting the corpseat the entrance of the churchyard, &c.,shall say or sing:” and when they are cometo the grave, “The priest shall say, or thepriest and clerks shall sing:” and in theCommination Service, “The priest andclerks, kneeling, (in the place where theyare accustomed to say the Litany,) shallsay this Psalm, Miserere mei, Deus.” Theclerk in the singular number is mentionedbut once only, which is in the MarriageService; where the man is directed to laythe ring on the book “with the accustomedduty to the priest and clerk.”—Jebb.

Canon 91. Parish clerks to be chosen by202the minister.—No parish clerk upon anyvacation shall be chosen, within the city ofLondon, or elsewhere within the provinceof Canterbury, but by the parson or vicar:or, where there is no parson or vicar, bythe minister of that place for the timebeing; which choice shall be signified bythe said minister, vicar, or parson, to theparishioners the next Sunday following, inthe time of Divine service. And the saidclerk shall be of twenty years of age at theleast, and known to the said parson, vicar,or minister, to be of honest conversation,and sufficient for his reading, writing, andalso for his competent skill in singing, ifit may be. And the said clerks so chosenshall have and receive their ancient wageswithout fraud or diminution, either at thehands of the churchwarden, at such timesas hath been accustomed, or by their owncollection, according to the most ancientcustom of every parish.

Since the making of this canon, theright of putting in the parish clerk hasoften been contested between incumbentsand parishioners, and prohibitions prayed,and always obtained, to the spiritual court,for maintaining the authority of the canonin favour of the incumbent, against the pleaof custom in behalf of the parishioners.

All incumbents once had the right ofnomination of the parish clerks, by thecommon law and custom of the realm.

Parish clerks, after having been dulychosen and appointed, are usually licensedby 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 appointedto the office of parish clerk, whichis to be held under the same tenure as thatof a stipendiary curacy. Lay-clerks mayalso be dismissed by the minister, withoutthe intervention of a mandamus from theQueen’s Bench.

By 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 35, a parish clerk,for assisting at a marriage, without bannsor licence, shall forfeit five pounds forevery such offence.

CLINIC BAPTISM. Baptism on a sickbed (κλινη) was so called in the primitiveChurch. In the earlier ages of Christianitycertain solemn days were set apart for theadministration of holy baptism, and onlyon extraordinary occasions were convertsbaptized, except on one or other of thosedays; but if one already a candidate forbaptism fell sick, and if his life was endangered,he was allowed to receive clinicbaptism. There was, however, a kind ofclinics to whom great suspicion attached;some persons who were converts to thedoctrines of Christianity would not bebaptized while in health and vigour,because of the greater holiness of life towhich they would account themselvespledged, and because they thought thatbaptism administered on their death-bedwould wash away the sins of their life.Such persons, though they recovered aftertheir baptism, were held to be underseveral disabilities, and especially theywere not admitted as candidates for holyorders.

CLOISTER. (See Monastery.) Acovered walk, not unusually occupying thefour sides of a quadrangle, which is almostan invariable appendage to a monastic orancient collegiate residence. The mostbeautiful cloister remaining in England isat Gloucester cathedral. Several of thecathedrals which were not monastic haveor had cloisters; as York, old St. Paul’s,Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lincoln, Salisbury,Wells; formerly St. Patrick’s inDublin; and some colleges, as New College,Magdalen, and Corpus at Oxford;Winchester College. A cloister was projectedfor King’s College by the founder,but never executed. St. George’s Chapelat Windsor has also a cloister.

CLUNIAC MONKS. Religious of theorder of Clugni. It is the first branch ofthe order of St. Benedict.

St. Bernon, abbot of Gigniac, of the familyof the earls of Burgundy, was thefounder of this order. In the year 910,he built a monastery for the reception ofBenedictine monks, in the town of Clugni,situated in the Maconnois, a little provinceof France, on the river Saone. The nobleabbey of Clugni was destroyed in 1789.

The monks of Clugni (or Cluni) wereremarkable for their sanctity. They everyday sang two solemn masses. They sostrictly observed silence, that they wouldrather have died than break it before thehour of prime. When they were at work,they recited psalms. They fed eighteenpoor persons every day, and were so profuseof their charity in Lent, that one year,at the beginning of Lent, they distributedsalt meat, and other alms, among 7000poor.

The preparation they used for makingthe bread which was to serve for the eucharistis worthy to be observed. Theyfirst chose the wheat grain by grain, andwashed it very carefully. Then a servantcarried it in a bag to the mill, and washedthe grindstones, and covered them withcurtains. The meal was afterwards washedin clean water, and baked in iron moulds.

The extraordinary discipline observed in203the monasteries of Clugni soon spread itsfame in all parts. France, Germany, England,Spain, and Italy, desired to have someof these religious, for whom they built newmonasteries. They also passed into theEast; and there was scarcely a place inEurope where the order was not known.

The principal monasteries in which thediscipline and rules of Clugni were observed,were those of Tulles in the Limousin,Aurillac in Auvergne, Bourgdieuand Massa in Berri, St. Benet on the Loirein the Orleanois, St. Peter le Vif at Sens,St. Allire of Clermont, St. Julian of Tours,Sarlat in Perigord, and Roman-Mourier inthe country of Vaux.

This order was divided into ten provinces,being those of Dauphiné, Auvergne,Poitiers, Saintonge, and Gascony, inFrance; Spain, Italy, Lombardy, Germany,and England.

At the general chapters, which were atfirst held yearly, and afterwards everythree years, two visitors were chosen forevery province, and two others for the monasteriesof nuns of this order, fifteen definitors,three auditors of causes, and twoauditors of excuses. There were formerlyfive principal priories, called the five firstdaughters of Clugni; but, since the dissolutionof the monasteries in England,which involved that of St. Pancrace, atLewes in Sussex, there remained but fourprincipal priories, being those of La Charitésur Loire, St. Martin des Champs atParis, Souvigni, and Souxillanges.

The Cluniac monks were first broughtinto England by William, earl of Warren,about the year of our Lord, 1077. Thesereligious, though they lived under the ruleof St. Benedict, and wore a black habit,yet, because their discipline and observancesdiffered in many things from thoseof the Benedictines, therefore they werenot called Benedictines, but monks of theorder of Clugni. In the reign of Henry V.,the Cluniac monasteries, by reason of thewar between England and France, werecut off from the obedience of the abbot ofClugni, nor were they permitted to haveany intercourse with the monasteries oftheir order out of England. The monasteriesof Cluniac monks in England amountedin number to thirty-eight.—Broughton’sBibliotheca Historico-Sacra.

COADJUTOR. In cases of any habitualdistemper of the mind, whereby theincumbent is rendered incapable of theadministration of his cure, such as frenzy,lunacy, and the like, the laws of the Churchhave provided coadjutors. Of these thereare many instances in the ecclesiasticalrecords, both before and since the Reformation;and we find them given generallyto parochial ministers, (as most numerous,)but sometimes also to deans, archdeacons,prebendaries, and the like; and no doubtthey may be given, in such circumstances,at the discretion of the ordinary, to anyecclesiastical person having ecclesiasticalcure and revenue.

CŒNOBITES. Monks, who lived togetherin a fixed habitation, and formedone large community under a chief, whomthey called father or abbot. The word isderived from κοινοβιον, vitæ communis societas.(See Monks.)

COLIDEI. (See Culdees.)

COLLATION. This is where a bishopgives a benefice, which either he had aspatron, or which came to him by lapse.

This is also a term in use among ecclesiasticalwriters to denote the spare mealon days of abstinence, consisting of breador other fruits, but without meat.

COLLECTS. These are certain briefand comprehensive prayers, which arefound in all known liturgies and publicdevotional offices. Ritualists have thoughtthat these prayers were so called, becausethey were used in the public congregationor collection of the people; or from the factof many petitions being here collectedtogether in a brief summary; or becausethey comprehend objects of prayer collectedout of the Epistles and Gospels.But whatever may be the origin of theterm, it is one of great antiquity. It isindeed difficult to trace the antiquity ofrepeating collects at the end of the service.It certainly, however, prevailed in ourown Church, the Church of England, evenduring the period preceding the NormanConquest. The very collects that we stilluse, formed part of the devotional officesof our Church long before the Reformation.They are generally directed to Godthe Father, in the name of Jesus Christour Lord; for so they usually conclude,though sometimes they are directed toChrist himself, who is God co-equal andco-eternal with the Father. They consistusually of two parts, an humble acknowledgmentof the adorable perfection andgoodness of God, and a petition for somebenefits from him. Among the advantagesresulting from the regulation of the Churchin making use of these short collects are,—therelief they give to the worshipper;the variety they throw into the service;the fixing of attention by new impulses ofthought; the solemnizing of the mind byfrequent invocations of the hearer ofprayer; the constant reference of all our204hopes to the merits and mediation ofChrist, in whose name every collect isoffered; and, lastly, the inspiring feeling,that in them we are offering up our prayersin the same words which have been onthe lips of the martyrs and saints of allages.

The more usual name in the LatinChurch was collectæ, collects, because theprayers of the bishop, which in any partof the service followed the joint prayersof the deacon and congregation, were botha recollection and recommendation of theprayers of the people. In this senseCassian takes the phrase, colligere orationem,when speaking of the service in the Egyptianmonasteries and Eastern churches, hesays, “after the psalms they had privateprayers, which they said partly standingand partly kneeling; which being ended,he that collected the prayer rose up, andthen they all rose up together with him,none presuming to continue longer uponthe ground, lest he should seem rather topursue his own prayers than go along withhim who collected the prayers, or closed upall with his concluding collect.” Where wemay observe, that a collect is taken for thechief minister’s prayer at the close of somepart of Divine service, collecting and concludingthe people’s preceding devotions.Uranius, speaking of one John, bishop ofNaples, who died in the celebration ofDivine service, says, “he gave the signalto the people to pray, and then, havingsummed up their prayers in a collect, heyielded up the ghost.”—Bingham.

Walapidus Strabo, as quoted by Wheatly,says that they are so called becausethe priest collects the petitions of all in acompendious brevity. To which Dr. Bisseassents, and considers the word to meanthe collecting into one prayer the petitionswhich were anciently divided betweenhim and the people by versicles andresponses. They are in fact used in contradistinctionto the alternate versicles,and the larger and less compendiousprayers.

Morinus, in his notes on Greek Ordination,remarks on the resemblance betweenthe Greek word συναπτὴ, and the Latin collecta:but shows that the συναπτὴ, thoughmeaning a connected prayer, has a very differentuse. The συναπτὴ was sometimes asort of litany, sometimes a set of versiclesresembling the “preces” of the RomanChurch, or our versicles and responsesafter the Creed. The συναπτὴ μέγαλη,again, is like our Prayer for the ChurchMilitant. The Greek εὐχὴ, said after theσυναπτὴ, is more like our collect: butthere is nothing exactly resembling it inthe Greek formularies. Their prayers aregenerally much longer.

The collects are (for the most part)constructed upon one uniform rule, consistingof three parts. (1.) The commemorationof some special attribute ofGod. (2.) A prayer for the exercise ofthat attribute in some special blessing.(3.) A prayer for the beneficial and permanentconsequences of that blessing.The punctuation of the Prayer Book mostaccurately brings out the meaning of thecollects. The apodosis of the sentence is(for the most part) begun by a capitalletter.

In many of the collects, God is desiredto hear the petitions of the people, thosethat the people had then made before thecollect. These come in at the end ofother devotions, and were by some of oldcalled missæ, that is to say, dismissions,the people being dismissed upon the pronouncingof them and the blessing; thecollects themselves being by some of theancients called blessings, and also sacramenta,either for that their chief use wasat the communion, or because they wereuttered per sacerdotum, by one consecratedto holy offices.—Sparrow.

Our Reformers observed, first, that someof those collects were corrupted by superstitiousalterations and additions, made bysome later hand. Secondly, that the modernRoman missals had left some of theprimitive collects quite out, and put intheir stead collects containing some oftheir false opinions, or relating to theirinnovations in practice. Where the masshad struck out an old, and put in a new,collect, agreeable to their new and falsedoctrines or practices, there the Reformersrestored the old collect, being pure andorthodox. At the restoration of KingCharles II., even those collects made orallowed at the Reformation were strictlyreviewed, and what was deficient was supplied,and all that was but incongruouslyexpressed was rectified; so that now theyare complete and unexceptionable, andmay be ranked into three several classes.First, the ancient primitive collects, containingnothing but true doctrine, voidof all modern corruptions, and having astrain of the primitive devotion, beingshort, but regular, and very expressive;so that it is not possible to touch moresense in so few words: and these are thosetaken out of Pope Gregory’s Sacramentary,or out of those additions made to it by theabbot Grimoaldus. Many of these wereretained in their native purity in the205missals of York and Salisbury, and thebreviaries; but were no more depreciatedby standing there than a jewel by lyingon a dunghill. The second order of collectsare also ancient as to the main; butwhere there were any passages that hadbeen corrupted, they were struck out, andthe old form restored, or that passagerectified; and where there was any defectit was supplied. The third order are suchas had been corrupted in the Romanmissals and breviaries, and contained somethingof false doctrine, or at least of superstition,in them; and new collects weremade, instead of these, at the Reformation,under King Edward VI.; and some fewwhich were wanting were added, anno1662.—Comber.

The objection, that our service is takenfrom the Popish, affects chiefly the collects.But those of ours which are the samewith theirs, are mostly derived from prayerbooks brought over in the days of thatpope by whose means our Saxon ancestorswere converted to Christianity, above1100 [now 1200] years ago; and they wereold ones then, much older than the mainerrors of Popery.—Secker.

It appears that the service of the Churchis far more ancient than the Roman missal,properly speaking. And whoever has attendedto the superlative simplicity, fervour,and energy of the prayers, will haveno hesitation in concluding, that theymust, the collects particularly, have beencomposed in a time of true evangelicallight and godliness.—Milner’s Church Hist.

It is the boast of the Church of England,and her praise, that her Common Prayercorresponds with the best and most ancientliturgies which were used in the Churchin the most primitive and purest times.—Directionsto Commissioners in 1661.

Here I entreat the people to rememberthat these collects, and the followingprayers, are to be vocally pronounced bythe minister only, though the people areobliged to join mentally therein. Whereforelet none of the congregation disturbthe rest, especially those that are nearthem, by muttering over their prayers inan audible manner, contrary to the designand rule of the Church, which always tellsthe people when their voices are allowedto be heard, and consequently commandsthem at all other times to be silent, andto speak to God in a mental manner only.—Bennett.

COLLECTS FOR THE DAY. OurChurch, endeavouring to preserve not onlythe spirit, but the very forms, as much asmay be, and in a known tongue, of ancientprimitive devotion, has retained the samecollects.

For the object, they are directed toGod, in the name of “Jesus Christ ourLord;” a few are directed to Christ;and in the Litany some supplications to theHoly Ghost, besides that precatory hymnof “Veni Creator,” in the book of Ordination.Some collects, especially for greatfestivals, conclude with this acknowledgment,—thatChrist, with the Father,and the Holy Ghost, “liveth and reigneth,one God, world without end.” This seemsto be done to testify what the Scripturewarrants, that although, for more congruity,we in the general course of ourprayers go to the Father by the Son,yet that we may also invocate both the Sonand the Holy Ghost; and that while wecall upon one, we equally worship andglorify all three together.

For their form and proportion, as theyare not one long-continued prayer, butdivers short ones, they have many advantages;the practice of the Jews of old, inwhose prescribed devotions we find a certainnumber of several prayers or collects,to be said together; the example of ourLord in prescribing a short form; andthe judgment and practice of the ancientChristians in their liturgies. St. Chrysostom,among others, commends highly, shortand frequent prayers with little distancesbetween. And they are most convenientfor keeping away coldness, distraction, andillusions from our devotion; for what wesaid in praise of short ejaculations, is truealso concerning collects; and that notonly in respect of the minister, but thepeople also, whose minds and affectionsbecome hereby more erect, close, and earnest,by the oftener breathing out theirhearty 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; anhumble acknowledgment of the adorableperfection and goodness of God, and acongruous petition for some benefit fromhim. The first is seen not only in the collectsfor special festivals or benefits, butin those also that are more general; foreven in such what find we in the beginningof them, but some or other of theseand the like acknowledgments?—ThatGod is almighty, everlasting, full of goodnessand pity; the strength, refuge, andprotector of all that trust in him; withoutwhom nothing is strong, nothing is holy.That there is no continuing in safetywithout him; that such is our weaknessand frailty, that we have no power of206ourselves to help ourselves, to do anygood, or to stand upright, and thereforecannot but fall. That we put no trust inanything that we do, but lean only uponthe help of his heavenly grace. That he isthe author and giver of all good things;from whom it comes that we have anhearty desire to pray, or do him any trueor laudable service. That he is alwaysmore ready to hear than we to pray, andto give more than we desire or deserve;having prepared for them that love himsuch good things as pass man’s understanding.—Sparrow.

That most of our collects are very ancient,appears by their conformity to theEpistles and Gospels, which were selectedby St. Hierom, and put into the lectionaryascribed to him. Many believed he firstframed them for the use of the RomanChurch, in the time of Pope Damasus, above1300 [now nearly 1500] years ago. Certainit is that Gelasius, who was bishop ofRome above 1200 years since, [A. D. 492–6,]did range those collects, which were thenused, into order, and composed some newones; and that office of his was again correctedby Pope Gregory the Great, A. D.600, whose Sacramentary contains most ofthose collects which we now use.—Comber.

One of the principal reasons why ourpublic devotions are, and should be,divided into short collects, is this,—ourblessed Saviour hath told us, that whatsoeverwe ask the Father in his namehe will give it us. It cannot then but benecessary that the name of Christ befrequently inserted in our prayers, thatso we may lift up our hearts unto him,and rest our faith upon him, for the obtainingthose good things we pray for.And therefore, whatsoever we ask of God,we presently add, “through Jesus Christour Lord.”—Wheatly.

The petitions are not in one long prayer,but several short ones; which method iscertainly as lawful as the other, and, wethink, more expedient. It reminds usoftener of the attributes of God andmerits of Christ, which are the ground ofour asking in faith; and, by the frequencyof saying “Amen,” it stirs up our attentionand warms our devotions, which aretoo apt to languish.—Secker.

We may refer to Shepherd on the CommonPrayer for a classified arrangementof the collects; (1.) which were retainedfrom ancient liturgies at the Reformation;(2.) which were altered by the Reformersand reviewers; and (3.) which werecomposed anew. Those composed anewin 1549 are the collects for the 1st and2nd Sunday in Advent, Christmas, theEpiphany, Quinquagesima, Ash-Wednesday,1st Sunday in Lent, 1st and 2nd Sundaysafter 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 ourliturgy are those of the day, and the 2ndand 3rd at Morning and Evening Prayerrespectively; the Prayer for all Conditionsof Men, which is called also a collect;the prayer preceding the ten commandments,the prayer for the sovereign in theCommunion Service, and the six occasionalcollects following it; the prayerfollowing the Lord’s Prayer in the ConfirmationService; the prayer precedingthe psalm in the Visitation of the Sick,that in the Communion of the Sick, andthe prayer preceding the blessing in theBurial of the Dead; three in the Orderingof Priests and Deacons respectively, andone in the Consecration of Bishops.

COLLEGE. A community. Hence wespeak of an episcopal college, or college ofbishops. It was an old maxim of Romanlaw, that by fewer than three persons acollege could not be formed. Hence, asa bishop is to be consecrated not by asingle bishop, but by a synod or college,at least three are required to be presentat each consecration. Every corporation,in the civil law, is called a college, and soit has been applied in England, in somerare instances, irrespective of social combinations:and abroad it was very extensivelyapplied to incorporated boards. Butin England it generally implies a societyof persons, living in a common habitation,and bound together by statutes which haverespect to their daily life. The minor corporationsof the universities, and those ofEton and Winchester, are specially sotermed: and residences for the members,a chapel, hall, and library, are consideredas essential features of the college. As itis unquestionable that our academical collegeswere all instituted for the promotionof godliness, as well as of human knowledge,that they were intended to be handmaidsof the Church, as their highest function,besides nurseries of good learning, theydeserve special notice in a Church Dictionary.All cathedral and collegiatechurches are colleges; and the word inthis sense comprehends all the membersof each establishment, whether inferior orsuperior. The buildings of some of our207cathedrals containing the residence of themembers, are still often popularly called“the college.” The word is also appliedto those inferior corporations attached tothe cathedrals of old foundation. (SeeMinor Canons and Vicars Choral.)

The colleges of our universities are eachindependent societies, having their ownstatutes, and property as strictly theirown as that of any lay proprietor. Stillthey are connected with a greater corporation,which is called the university. Ithas been commonly thought, that theserelations between minor and major academicalcorporations is an anomaly peculiarto England. The fact is otherwise.The most ancient universities, as Paris,Bologna, and Salamanca, had each severalcolleges, which bore an analogous relationto the university. (See University.)

COLLEGIATE CHURCHES. Churcheswith a body of canons and prebendaries,&c., and inferior members, with corporateprivileges. The services and forms inthese churches are, or ought to be, likethose in cathedral churches. The numberof collegiate churches has been much diminishedsince the Reformation; those atpresent existing in England, are Westminster,Windsor, Southwell, Wolverhampton,Middleham, and Brecon; and in Ireland,the collegiate church of Galway.

COLLYRIDIANS. Certain hereticsthat worshipped the Virgin Mary as agoddess, and offered cake in sacrifice toher; they appeared in the fourth century,about the year 373. Their name is derivedfrom κολλυρα, a little cake.

COMMANDRIES. New houses of thesame kind among the Knights Hospitallersas the Preceptories among the Templars.(See Preceptories.)

COMMEMORATIONS. The recitalof the names of famous martyrs and confessors,patriarchs, bishops, kings, greatorthodox writers, munificent benefactors:which recitation was made at the altar outof diptychs or folded tables. There areCommemoration days at Oxford and Cambridge,on which the names of all theknown benefactors to the universities areproclaimed, special psalms and lessonsrecited, and special collects and versicles.These have been coeval with the Reformation,and sanctioned by the highest authority.(See Diptychs.)

COMMENDAM. Commendam is aliving commended by the Crown to the careof a clergyman until a proper pastor isprovided for it. These commendams forsome time have been seldom or nevergranted to any but bishops, who, whentheir bishoprics were of small value, were,by special dispensation, allowed to holdtheir previous benefices, which, on theirpromotion, had devolved into the patronageof the Crown.

COMMENDATORY LETTERS. (SeeLiteræ formatæ.)

COMMENTARY. An exposition; abook of annotations on Holy Scripture.

In selecting a commentary much care isnecessary, because a skilful commentatormay wrest the Scriptures so as to makethem support his private opinion. A Calvinistmakes Scripture speak Calvinism,an Arminian makes it speak Arminianism.The question to be asked, therefore, is,According to what principle does the annotatorprofess to interpret Scripture? Ifhe takes the Church for his guide; if heprofesses to interpret according to the doctrinesof the Church, although he may errin a matter of detail, he cannot seriouslymislead us. We may instance the thirdchapter of St. John’s Gospel. How verydifferent will be the meaning of that chapterinterpreted by a Calvinist, who deniesthe scriptural doctrine of baptismal regeneration,from the meaning which willbe attached to it by one who holds thetruth as it is taught in the Church, andwho, with the Church of England, in theOffice for the Baptism of Persons in RiperYears, applies what is said in that chapterto baptismal grace.

To give a complete list of commentariesis, in such a work as the present, impossible.The reader who would pursue thesubject is referred to the authorities mentionedin the next article, Commentators.Some of the leading commentaries mostused in the Church of England are heregiven.

Theophylact; the last edition of whoseworks is that published at Venice, 1754–1763,in four volumes, folio. In Theophylactwe have the pith of St. Chrysostom,whose works also are useful, especially hisHomilies on St. Matthew and on St. Paul’sEpistles. They have lately been translated.

“Critici Sacri, sive Annotata doctissimorumVirorum in Vetus ac Novum Testamentum;quibus accedunt Tractatusvarii Theologico-Philologici,” 9 tomis in 12voluminibus. Amsterdam, 1698, folio.

This is considered the best edition of thisgreat work, which was first published inLondon, in 1660, in nine volumes, folio, underthe direction of the celebrated BishopPearson and other learned divines. In 1701there were published at Amsterdam, “ThesaurusTheologico-Philologicus,” in two208volumes folio, and two additional volumesin 1732. These complete the work.

“Mathæi Poli Synopsis Criticorum aliorumqueSS. Interpretum,” London, 1669–1674;five volumes, folio. This has beenreprinted, the best edition being that ofUtrecht, 1686. It is a valuable abridgmentand consolidation of the “CriticiSacri.” It gives the conclusions, withoutthe arguments, of that work.

Bishop Hall’s “Contemplations on theOld and New Testament,” of which valuablework there have been several reprints.

Patrick, Lowth, Whitby, and Arnold’s“Commentary on the Bible.” London,1727–1760: seven volumes, folio. Reprintedin 4to, 1821; and lately in large8vo. This is a standard work.

“An Exposition of the Old and NewTestament,” by the Rev. Matthew Henry:folio, five volumes. There have beenmany reprints of this truly excellent commentary.

“A Commentary on the Books of theOld and New Testaments, in which are insertedthe Notes and Collections of JohnLocke, Esq., Daniel Waterland, D. D., andthe Earl of Clarendon and other learnedpersons, with Practical Improvements.”London, 1770: three volumes, folio. Thiswas reprinted in six volumes, 4to, in 1801,by Dr. Coke, a Methodist, with some retrenchmentsand unimportant additions,and goes by the name of “Coke’s Commentary.”It is very useful for practicalpurposes.

“The Holy Bible, with Original Notesand Practical Observations,” by ThomasScott, M. A., Rector of Aston Sandford:London. This has been often reprinted.

“The Holy Bible, with Notes,” by ThomasWilson, D. D., Bishop of Sodor andMan: London, 1785: three volumes, 4to.Whatever comes from the pen of BishopWilson is valuable; but the notes arerather suggestive than illustrative.

“The Holy Bible, with Notes explanatoryand practical;” taken principally fromthe most recent writers of the UnitedChurch of England and Ireland, preparedand arranged by Dr. D’Oyley and BishopMant. Oxford and London, 1817: threevolumes, 4to, and since reprinted. Thiswork, published under the sanction of theSociety for promoting Christian Knowledge,is perhaps the most sound and usefulthat we possess.

It is impossible to enumerate the commentatorson separate books of the Bible,but we may mention Dean Graves on thePentateuch, Bishops Horne and Horsley onthe Psalms, Bishop Lowth on Isaiah, Dr.Blayney on Jeremiah, Archbishop Newcomeon Ezekiel, Mr. Wintle on Daniel,Bishop Horsley on Hosea, Dr. Blayney onZechariah, Dr. Stock on Malachi, Dr. Pocockeon Hosea, Joel, Micah, and Malachi;Archbishop Newcome on the TwelveMinor Prophets.

On the New Testament, we may refer toHammond, Whitby, Burkitt, Doddridge,Bishop Pearce, Dr. Trapp, Bishop Porteuson St. Matthew, Biscoe on the Acts, Macknight,Bishop Fell, Bishop Davenant, Pyleon the Epistles, Archbishop Leighton on St.Peter, Mede, Daubeny, Lowman, Sir IsaacNewton, and Bishop Newton on the Apocalypse.We have omitted, in this list, contemporarywriters, for obvious reasons, andwe have referred to commentaries chieflyused by English churchmen; the morelearned reader will, not without caution,have recourse to foreign critics also; ofwhom we may mention, as persons muchconsulted, Vitringa, Tittmann, Bengel,Olshausen, Tholuck, Wolfius, Raphelius,Calmet, and Hengstenberg. The “CatenaAurea” of Thomas Aquinas has lately beentranslated; but it is useful rather to theantiquarian and the scholar, than to thosewho wish to ascertain the exact meaning ofScripture; and in the quotations from theFathers, Aquinas is not to be depended upon.

COMMENTATORS. “A complete historyof commentators,” says Mr. HartwellHorne, “would require a volume of noordinary dimensions.” The reader who isdesirous of prosecuting this subject, willfind much interesting information relativeto the early commentators in Rosenmüller’s“Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorumin Ecclesiâ Christianâ, inde abApostolorum Ætate usque ad Origenem,1795–1814.” This elaborate work treatsexclusively of the early commentators.Father Simon’s “Histoire Critique deVieux Testament,” 4to, 1680, and his“Histoire Critique des Principaux Commentateursdu Nouveau Testament,” 4to,Rotterdam, 1689, contain many valuablestrictures on the expositors of the Old andNew Testament up to his own time. In1674 was published at Frankfort, in twovolumes folio, Joh. Georg. Dorschei “BibliaNumerata, seu Index Specialis in VetusTestamentum ad singula omnium LibrorumCapita et Commenta.” It contains a list ofcommentators, 191 in number, who hadillustrated every book, chapter, or verse ofthe Scriptures, with reference to the books,chapters, and pages of their several works.The merits and demerits of commentatorsare likewise discussed in Walchius’s “BibliothecaTheologica Selecta;” in Ernesti’s209“Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti;”in Morus’s “Acroases Academicæ.” ProfessorKeil, in his “Elementa HermeneuticesNovi Testamenti,” and Professor Beck,in “Monogrammata Hermeneutices, LibrorumNovi Fœderis,” Seiler’s BiblicalHermeneutices, (translated from the Germanby Dr. Wright, 1835,)—respectivelynotice the principal expositors of theScriptures.

COMMINATION, means a threat ordenunciation of vengeance. There is anancient office in the Church of England,entitled, “A Commination, or denouncingof God’s Anger and Judgment against Sinners,with certain Prayers, to be used onthe first Day of Lent, and at other times, asthe Ordinary shall appoint.” This office,says Mr. Palmer, is one of the last memorialswe retain of that solemn penitence,which during the primitive ages occupiedso conspicuous a place in the discipline ofthe Christian Church. In the earliest ages,those who were guilty of grievous sinswere solemnly reduced to the order ofpenitents; they came fasting and clad insackcloth and ashes on the occasion, andafter the bishop had prayed over them,they were dismissed from the church.They then were admitted gradually tothe classes of hearers, substrati, and consistentes,until at length, after long trialand exemplary conduct, they were againdecreed worthy of communion. This penitentialdiscipline at length, from variouscauses, became extinct, both in theEastern and Western Churches: and, fromthe twelfth or thirteenth century, the solemnoffice of the first day of Lent was theonly memorial of this ancient disciplinein the West. The Church of Englandhas long used this office nearly as we doat present, as we find almost exactly thesame appointed in the MS. Sacramentaryof Leofric, which was written for our Churchabout the ninth or tenth century; andyear by year she directs her ministers tolament the defection of the godly disciplinewe have been describing.

The preface which the Church has prefixedto this office will supply the room ofan introduction. It informs us that, “inthe primitive Church, there was a godlydiscipline; that, at the beginning of Lent,such persons as stood convicted of notoriouscrimes were put to open penance, andpunishment in this world, that their soulsmight 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 wasinflicted, is thus recorded by Gratian: Onthe first day of Lent the penitents were topresent themselves before the bishop,clothed with sackcloth, with naked feet,and eyes turned to the ground: and thiswas to be done in the presence of the principalclergy of the diocese, who were tojudge of the sincerity of their repentance.These introduced them into the Church,where the bishop, all in tears, and the restof the clergy, repeated the seven penitentialpsalms. Then, rising from prayers, theythrew ashes upon them, and covered theirheads with sackcloth; and then withmournful sighs declared to them, that asAdam was cast out of paradise, so theymust be cast out of the Church. Then thebishop commanded the officers to turnthem out of the church doors, and all theclergy followed after, repeating that curseupon Adam, “In the sweat of thy browthou shalt eat bread.” The like penancewas inflicted upon them the next time thesacrament was administered, which wasthe Sunday following. And all this wasdone, to the end that the penitents, observinghow great a disorder the Churchwas in by reason of their crimes, shouldnot lightly esteem of penance.

Though this discipline was severe, yetthe many good consequences of it showedit worthy the imitation of the Church insucceeding ages; so that it was ancientlyexercised in our own, as well as in foreignchurches. But in latter ages, during thecorruption of the Church of Rome, thisgodly discipline degenerated into a formaland customary confession upon Ash Wednesdays,used by all persons indifferently,whether penitents or not, from whom noother testimony of their repentance wasrequired, than that they should submit tothe empty ceremony of sprinkling ashesupon their heads. But this our wise reformersprudently laid aside as a mereshadow and show; and not without heartygrief and concern, that the long continuanceof the abominable corruptions of theRomish Church, in their formal confessionsand pretended absolutions, in their sale ofindulgences, and their sordid commutationsof penance for money, had let thepeople loose from those primitive bands ofdiscipline, which tended really to theiramendment, but to which, through therigour and severity it enjoins, they foundit impracticable to reduce them again.However, since they could not do whatthey desired, they desired to do as muchas they could; and therefore, till the saiddiscipline may be restored again, (which israther to be wished than expected in theselicentious times,) they have endeavoured210to supply it as well as they were able, byappointing an office to be used at thisseason, called “A Commination, or denouncingof God’s Anger and Judgmentsagainst Sinners;” that so the people, beingapprized of God’s wrath and indignationagainst their wickedness and sins, may notbe encouraged, through the want of disciplinein the Church, to follow and pursuethem; but be moved, by the terror of thedreadful judgments of God, to supply thatdiscipline to themselves, by severely judgingand condemning themselves, and so toavoid being judged and condemned at thetribunal of God.

2. But, besides “the first day of Lent,”on which it is expressly enjoined, it is alsosupposed, in the title of it, to be used “atother times, as the ordinary shall direct.”This was occasioned by the observation ofBucer; for it was originally ordered uponAsh Wednesdays only, and therefore inthe first Common Prayer Book, it had noother title, but “The First Day of Lent,commonly called Ash Wednesday.” ButBucer approving of the office, and notseeing reason why it should be confined toone day, and not used oftener, at leastfour times a year, the title of it was alteredwhen it came to be reviewed; from whichtime it was called, “A Commination againstSinners, with certain Prayers to be used atdivers times in the Year.” How often, orat what particular times, we do not findprescribed; except that Bishop Cosin informsus from the Visitation Articles ofArchbishop Grindal for the province ofCanterbury, in the year 1576, that it wasappointed three times a year; namely, onone of the three Sundays next beforeEaster, on one of the two Sundays nextbefore Pentecost, and on one of the twoSundays next before Christmas; that is, Isuppose the office was appointed yearly tobe used on these three days, as well as onAsh Wednesday. For that Ash Wednesdaywas then the solemn day of all, and onwhich this office was never to be omitted,may be gathered from the preface, whichis drawn up for the peculiar use of thatday. And accordingly we find, that, in theScotch Common Prayer, a clause was added,that it was to be used “especially on thefirst day of Lent, commonly called AshWednesday.” However, in our own liturgy,the title stood as above, till the lastreview, when a clause was added for thesake of explaining the word commination;and the appointing of the times on whichit should be used was left to the discretionof the bishop, or the ordinary. Sothat the whole title, as it stands now, runsthus: “A Commination, or denouncing ofGod’s Anger and Judgments against Sinners,with certain Prayers to be used onthe first Day in Lent, and at other Times, asthe Ordinary shall appoint.” The ordinaries,indeed, seldom or never make use ofthe power here given them, except thatsometimes they appoint part of the office,namely, from the fifty-first Psalm to theend, to be used upon solemn days of fastingand humiliation. But as to the wholeoffice, it is never used entirely but uponthe day mentioned in the title of it, namely,“the first day of Lent.”—Wheatly.

The Commination properly means thatpart of the special service which precedesthe Psalm; the rest coming under thetitle of “certain prayers;” and it wouldseem that the latter are alone to be used atother times that the ordinary shall appoint.—Jebb.

COMMISSARY, is a title of jurisdiction,appertaining to him that exercisesecclesiastical jurisdiction, in places so fardistant from the chief city, that the chancellorcannot call the people to the bishop’sprincipal consistory court without greattrouble to them.

Chancellors, or bishops’ lawyers, werefirst introduced into the Church by the2nd canon of the Council of Chalcedon,and were men trained up in the civil andcanon law, to direct bishops in matters ofjudgment relating to ecclesiastical affairs.

Whatever the extent of the chancellor’sauthority as a judge may be, throughoutthe diocese, with relation to the bishop’s,it is quite clear that the commissary’s authorityextends only to such particularcauses, in such parts of the diocese, forwhich he holds the bishop’s commission toact.

In the Clementine constitutions thisofficer is termed officialis foraneus. Bythe 21st of Henry VIII. c. 13, he shall notbe within the statute of non-residence; hemay 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 nothold good beyond the life of the ordinary,and does not bind his successor: where, byprescription or by composition, there arearchdeacons, who have jurisdiction in theirarchdeaconries, as in most places they have,there the office of commissary is superfluous.—SeeGibson’s Codex, vol. i. IntroductoryDiscourse, p. 25.

COMMON PRAYER. (See Liturgy.)By Common Prayer we are to understanda form of prayer adapted and enjoined forcommon or universal use: in the vernacular211language, such as may be understoodof people, and in which they are requiredto join with one heart and voice. It iscontrasted with those services which haveeither actually or virtually become exclusive,or confined to but a few: such as theforms of matins in the Roman breviary,which from its extreme length, and fromthe inconvenience of the hour when it isprescribed to be recited, are impracticableto the people, to all in fact but the inmatesof monasteries or collegiate churches. Such,indeed, are all those services which arewritten in a language which is no longervernacular.

Bishop Sparrow observes, that the CommonPrayer contains in it many holy officesof the Church; as prayers, confessions offaith, holy hymns, divine lessons, priestlyabsolutions, and benedictions; all whichare set and prescribed, not left to privatemen’s fancies to make or alter. So it wasof old ordained. Conc. Carthag. can. 106,“It is ordained, that the prayers, prefaces,and impositions of hands, which are confirmedby the Synod, be observed andused by all men: these, and no other.”So is our 14th English Canon.... “And asthese offices are set and prescribed, so arethey moreover appointed to be one andthe same throughout the whole nationalChurch.”

By Canon 4. “Whosoever shall affirmthat the form of God’s worship in theChurch of England, established by law,and contained in the Book of CommonPrayer and Administration of the Sacraments,is a corrupt, superstitious, or unlawfulworship of God, or containeth anythingin it that is repugnant to the Scriptures,let him be excommunicated ipso facto,and not restored but by the bishop of theplace, or archbishop, after his repentanceand public revocation of such his wickederrors.”

By Canon 38. “If any minister, afterhe has subscribed to the Book of CommonPrayer, shall omit to use the form ofprayer, or any of the orders or ceremoniesprescribed in the Communion Book, lethim be suspended; and if after a monthhe does not reform and submit himself,let him be excommunicated; and then, ifhe shall not submit himself within thespace of another month, let him be deposedfrom the ministry.”

And by Canon 98. “After any judgeecclesiastical has pronounced judiciallyagainst contemners of ceremonies, for notobserving the rites and orders of theChurch of England, or for contempt ofpublic prayer, no judge ad quem shallallow of his appeal, unless the party appellantdo first personally promise andavow, that he will faithfully keep andobserve all the rites and ceremonies of theChurch of England, as also the prescribedform of Common Prayer, and do likewisesubscribe to the same.

COMMUNION. This is one of thenames given to the sacrament of the eucharist,and was undoubtedly taken fromSt. Paul’s account of that sacrament,where he teaches, as the learned Dr.Waterland observes, that the effect of thisservice is the communion of the body andblood of Christ. (1 Cor. x. 16.) Hedoes not, indeed, call the sacrament bythat name, as others have done since. Hewas signifying what the thing is, or whatit does, rather than how it was then called.(See Eucharist, Lord’s Supper, and Consecrationof the Elements.)

The office for the Holy Communion is adistinct office, and there is no direction atwhat time of the day it shall be used, onlycustom, in accordance with the almost invariableusage of Christendom, has determinedthat it shall be used in the forenoon.The communion is appointed forevery Sunday, only the Church has orderedthat there shall be no communion exceptfour (or three at least) communicate withthe priest. The absence of the weekly eucharisttherefore proves one of two things;either that the sin of the people is sogreat that even in large parishes threesuch persons ready to communicate arenot to be found every Sunday, and so onlypart of the service can be used; or else ifthree communicants can be found, the sinof the clergy is great in not having weeklycommunion. “In cathedral and collegiatechurches, where there are many priestsand deacons, they shall all receive the communionwith the priest every Sunday atthe least.” We here subjoin the directionsof the canons and rubric.

The rubric decrees, there shall none beadmitted to the holy communion untilsuch time as he be confirmed, or be readyand desirous to be confirmed.

By the canons of Archbishop Peckham,1279, it is ruled that none shall give thecommunion to the parishioner of anotherpriest, without his manifest licence; whichordinance shall not extend to travellers,or to persons in danger, nor to cases ofnecessity.

And by Canon 28. “The churchwardensor questmen, and their assistants, shallmark, as well as the minister, whetherany strangers come often and commonlyfrom other parishes to their church, and212show their minister of them, lest perhapsthey be admitted to the Lord’s tableamongst others; which they shall forbid,and remit such home to their own parishchurches and ministers, there to receivethe communion with the rest of their ownneighbours.”

Rubric. “And if any be an open andnotorious evil liver, or have done anywrong to his neighbours by word or deed,so that the congregation be thereby offended,the curate, having knowledgethereof, shall call him and advertise him,that in anywise he presume not to cometo the Lord’s table until he has openlydeclared himself to have truly repentedand amended his former naughty life, thatthe congregation may thereby be satisfied,which before were offended; and that hehas recompensed the parties to whom hehas done wrong; or at least declare himselfto be in full purpose so to do, as soonas he conveniently may.”

Rubric. “The same order shall thecurate use with those between whom heperceiveth malice and hatred to reign, notsuffering them to be partakers of theLord’s table until he know them to bereconciled. And if one of the parties soat variance be content to forgive, fromthe bottom of his heart, all that the otherhas trespassed against him, and to makeamends for that he himself has offended,and the other party will not be persuadedto a godly unity, but remain still in hisfrowardness and malice, the minister inthat case ought to admit the penitent personto the holy communion, and not himthat is obstinate. Provided that everyminister so repelling any, as is specifiedin this or the next preceding paragraphof this rubric, shall be obliged to give anaccount of the same to the ordinary,within fourteen days after at the farthest;and the ordinary shall proceed against theoffending person according to the canon.”

By Canon 26. “No minister shall in anywiseadmit to the receiving of the holycommunion any of his cure or flock, whichbe openly known to live in sin notoriouswithout repentance; nor any who havemaliciously and openly contended withtheir neighbours; nor any churchwardensor sidesmen who refuse or neglect to makepresentment of offences according to theiroaths.”

By Canon 27. “No minister, when hecelebrateth the communion, shall wittinglyadminister the same to any but to such askneel, under pain of suspension; nor,under the like pain, to any that refuse tobe present at public prayers, according tothe order of the Church of England; norto any that are common and notoriousdepravers of the Book of Common Prayerand Administration of the Sacraments, andof the orders, rites, and ceremonies thereinprescribed; or of anything that is containedin the book of ordering priests andbishops; or to any that have spokenagainst and depraved his Majesty’s sovereignauthority in causes ecclesiastical; exceptevery such person shall first acknowledgeto the minister before the churchwardenshis repentance for the same, andpromise by word (if he cannot write) thathe will do so no more; and except (if hecan write) he shall first do the same underhis handwriting, to be delivered to theminister, and by him sent to the bishopof the diocese, or ordinary of the place.Provided that every minister so repellingany (as is specified either in this or thenext preceding constitution) shall uponcomplaint, 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 theirbrethren, either by adultery, whoredom,incest, or drunkenness, or by swearing,ribaldry, usury, or any other uncleanness,or wickedness of life, such notorious offendersshall not be admitted to the holycommunion till they be reformed.”

Canon 71. “No minister shall administerthe holy communion in any private house,except it be in times of necessity, whenany being either so impotent as he cannotgo to the church, or very dangerouslysick, are desirous to be partakers of thisholy sacrament, upon pain of suspensionfor the first offence, and excommunicationfor the second. Provided that houses arehere reputed for private houses, whereinare no chapels dedicated and allowed bythe ecclesiastical laws of this realm. Andprovided also, under the pains before expressed,that no chaplains do administerthe communion in any other places, but inthe chapels of the said houses; and thatalso they do the same very seldom uponSundays and holy-days; so that both thelords and masters of the said houses andtheir families shall at other times resortto their own parish churches, and therereceive the holy communion at least onceevery year.”

Canon 22. “We do require every ministerto give warning to his parishionerspublicly in the church at morning prayer,the Sunday before every time of his administeringthat holy sacrament, for theirbetter preparation of themselves; whichsaid warning we enjoin the said parishioners213to accept and obey, under the penaltyand danger of the law.”

And by the rubric. “The minister shallalways give warning for the celebration ofthe holy communion upon the Sunday orsome holy-day immediately preceding.”

Rubric. “So many as intend to be partakersof the holy communion shall signifytheir names to the curate, at least sometime the day before.”

Rubric. “There shall be no celebrationof the Lord’s supper, except there be aconvenient number to communicate withthe priest, according to his discretion.And if there be not above twenty personsin the parish, of discretion to receive thecommunion, yet there shall be no communion,except four (or three at the least)communicate with the priest. And incathedral and collegiate churches and colleges,where there are many priests anddeacons, they shall all receive the communionwith the priest every Sunday at theleast, except they have reasonable causeto the contrary.” The rubric impliesdaily communion. “The Collect, Epistle,and Gospel, appointed for the Sunday, shallserve all the week after, when it is not inthis book otherwise ordered.” In the FirstBook of King Edward, daily communion isexpressly mentioned. “Upon Wednesdaysand Fridays... though there be noneto communicate with the priest, yet thesedays, after the Litany ended, the priestshall... say all things at the altar, appointedto be said at the celebration of theLord’s supper, until after the offertory.”“In cathedral churches, or other places,where there is daily communion,” &c.From the Pietas Londinensis it appearsthat in some London churches at thebeginning of the last century, the communionwas celebrated daily in the octaves ofthe great festivals. And a remembrance ofthis daily communion was formerly kept upat Durham, where, in Bishop Cosin’s time,the ante-communion was daily performed,as it still is at St. Patrick’s, on Wednesdaysand Fridays in Lent.

Canon 82. “Whereas we have no doubtbut that in all churches convenient anddecent tables are provided and placed forthe celebration of the holy communion,we appoint that the same tables shall fromtime to time be kept and repaired in sufficientand seemly manner, and covered intime of Divine service with a carpet ofsilk or other decent stuff, thought meet bythe ordinary of the place, if any questionbe made of it, and with a fair linen clothat the time of the ministration as becomeththat table; and so stand, saving when theholy communion is to be administered, atwhich time the same shall be placed in sogood sort within the church or chancel,as thereby the minister may be more convenientlyheard of the communicants inhis prayer and ministration, and the communicantsalso more conveniently and inmore number may communicate with thesaid minister.”

By Canon 20. “The churchwardens,against the time of every communion,shall, at the charge of the parish, with theadvice and direction of the minister, providea sufficient quantity of fine whitebread, and of good and wholesome wine,for the number of communicants that shallreceive there; which wine shall be broughtto the communion table in a clean andsweet standing pot or stoop of pewter, ifnot of purer metal.”

And by the rubric. “The bread andwine for the communion shall be providedby the curate and churchwardens at thecharge of the parish. And to take awayall occasion of dissension and superstition,which any person has or might have concerningthe bread and wine, it shall sufficethat the bread be such as is usual to beeaten, but the best and purest wheat breadthat conveniently may be gotten.”

In the rubric, in the communion serviceof the Second Edward VI., it was ordained,that, “whyles the clearkes do syng theoffertory, so many as are disposed shalloffer to the poore mennes boxe, every oneaccordinge to his habilitie and charitablemynde.”

And by the present rubric, “whilst thesentences of the offertory are in reading,the deacons, churchwardens, or other fitperson appointed for that purpose, shallreceive the alms for the poor, and otherdevotions 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 itupon the holy table.” And “after theDivine service ended, the money given atthe offertory shall be disposed of to suchpious and charitable uses as the ministerand churchwardens shall think fit; whereinif they disagree, it shall be disposed of asthe ordinary shall appoint.”

Rubric. “Such ornaments of the church,and of the ministers thereof, at all timesof their ministration, shall be retainedand be in use as were in this Church ofEngland by the authority of parliament,in the second year of the reign of KingEdward VI.” And by the rubric of 2 EdwardVI., which had this authority of parliament,it is ordained, that “upon the214day, and at the time appointed for theministration of the holy communion, thepriest that shall execute the holy ministryshall put upon him the vesture appointedfor that ministration; that is to say, awhite albe plain, with a vestment or cope:and where there be many priests or deacons,then so many shall be ready to helpthe priest in the ministrations as shall berequisite, and shall have upon them likewisethe vestures appointed for their ministry,that is to say, albes with tunicles.And whensoever the bishop shall celebratethe holy communion in the church, orexecute any other public ministration, heshall have upon him, besides his rochet, asurplice or albe, and a cope or vestment,and also his pastoral staff in his hand, orelse borne or holden by his chaplain.”

And by Canon 24. “In all cathedralchurches, the holy communion shall be administeredupon principal feast days, sometimesby the bishop, if he be present, andat sometimes by a canon or prebendary,the principal minister using a decent cope,and being assisted with the Gospeller andEpistler agreeably, according to the advertisementspublished anno 7 Eliz.”

Art. 28. “Transubstantiation (or thechange of the substance of bread and wine)in the supper of the Lord cannot be provedby Holy Writ; but is repugnant to theplain words of Scripture, overthroweth thenature of a sacrament, and hath given occasionto many superstitions.”

Art. 30. “The cup of the Lord is notto be denied to the lay people; for boththe parts of the Lord’s sacrament, byChrist’s ordinance and commandment,ought to be ministered to all Christian menalike.”

And by the statute of the 1 Edward VI.c. 1. “Forasmuch as it is more agreeableto the first institution of the said sacrament,and more conformable to the commonuse and practice of the apostles and of theprimitive Church, for above 500 years afterChrist’s ascension, that the same shouldbe administered under both the kinds, ofbread and wine, than under the form ofbread only; and also it is more agreeableto the first institution of Christ, and tothe usage of the apostles and the primitiveChurch, that the people should receive thesame with the priest, than that the priestshould receive it alone; it is enacted thatthe said most blessed sacrament be commonlydelivered and ministered unto thepeople, under both the kinds, that is tosay, of bread and wine, except necessityotherwise require. And also that the priestwhich shall minister the same shall, at theleast one day before, exhort all personswhich shall be present likewise to resortand prepare themselves to receive the same.And when the day prefixed cometh, aftergodly exhortation by the minister made,(wherein shall be further expressed thebenefit and comfort promised to themwhich worthily receive the holy sacrament,and danger and indignation of Godthreatened to them which shall presume toreceive the same unworthily, to the endthat every man may try and examine hisown conscience before he shall receive thesame,) the said minister shall not, withouta lawful cause, deny the same to any personthat will devoutly and humbly desireit; not condemning hereby the usage ofany Church out of the king’s dominions.”

Rubric. “If any of the bread and wineremain unconsecrated, the curate shallhave it to his own use; but if any remainof that which was consecrated, it shall notbe carried out of the church, but the priest,and such other of the communicants as heshall then call unto him, shall immediatelyafter the blessing reverently eat and drinkthe same.”

By a constitution of Archbishop Langtonit is enjoined, that no sacrament of theChurch shall be denied to any one, uponthe account of any sum of money; but ifanything hath been accustomed to be givenby the pious devotion of the faithful, justiceshall be done thereupon to the churchesby the ordinary of the place afterwards.

And by the rubric. “Yearly at Easter,every parishioner shall reckon with theparson, vicar, or curate, or his or theirdeputy or deputies, and pay to them orhim all ecclesiastical duties, accustomablydue, then and at that time to be paid.”

By the ancient canon law, every layman(not prohibited by crimes of a heinousnature) was required to communicate atleast thrice in the year, namely, at Easter,Whitsuntide, and Christmas; and theCouncil of Agdæ, A. D. 500, enacted thatthe secular clergy not communicating atthose times were not to be reckonedamongst the Catholics. The fourth Councilof Lateran, A. D. 1215, reduced the necessarynumber of times to one, and theCouncil of Trent has sanctioned this as therule for the Romish Church. Our reformerslaudably reverted to the earlierorder, directing by the rubric in the Bookof Common Prayer, that “every parishionershall communicate at least three times inone year, of which Easter to be one.”

And by Canon 21. “In every parishchurch and chapel where sacraments areto be administered, the holy communion215shall be administered by the parson, vicar,or minister, so often, and at such times, asevery parishioner may communicate at theleast three times in the year, whereof thefeast of Easter to be one; according asthey are appointed by the Book of CommonPrayer. And the churchwardens orquestmen, and their assistants, shall mark,(as well as the minister,) whether all andevery of the parishioners comes so oftenevery year to the holy communion as thelaws and constitutions do require.” Canon28. “And shall yearly, within forty daysafter Easter, exhibit to the bishop or hischancellor, the names and surnames of allthe parishioners, as well men as women,which being of the age of sixteen yearsreceived not the communion at Easter before.”

By Canon 24. “All deans, wardens,masters, or heads of cathedral and collegiatechurches, prebendaries, canons, vicars,petty canons, singing men, and all othersof the foundation, shall receive the communionfour times yearly at the least.”And by Canon 23. “In all colleges andhalls, within both the universities, themasters and fellows, such especially as haveany pupils, shall be careful that all theirsaid pupils, and the rest that remain amongthem, do diligently frequent public serviceand sermons, and receive the holy communion,which we ordain to be administeredin all such colleges and halls thefirst and second Sunday of every month;requiring all the said masters, fellows, andscholars, and all the rest of the students,officers, and all other the servants there,so to be ordered, that every one of themshall communicate four times in the yearat the least, kneeling reverently and decentlyupon their knees, according to theorder of the communion book prescribedin that behalf.”

By the 1 Edward VI. c. 1. “Whosoevershall deprave, despise, or contemn the mostblessed sacrament of the body and bloodof our Saviour Jesus Christ, commonlycalled the sacrament of the altar, and inScripture, the supper and table of the Lord,the communion and partaking of the bodyand blood of Christ, in contempt thereof,by any contemptuous words or by anywords of depraving, despising, or reviling;or whosoever shall advisedly in any otherwise contemn, despise, or revile the saidmost blessed sacrament, contrary to theeffects and declaration above-said, shallsuffer imprisonment of his body, and makefine and ransom at the king’s will.”

Rubric. “Upon the Sundays, and otherholy-days, (if there be no communion,)shall be said all that is appointed at thecommunion, until the end of the generalprayer for the whole state of Christ’sChurch militant here in earth, togetherwith one or more of the collects last beforerehearsed, concluding with the blessing.”

Since the death of Christ hath reconciledGod to mankind, and his intercessionalone obtains all good things for us, weare enjoined to make all our prayers in hisname; and, as a more powerful way ofinterceding, to commemorate his passionby celebrating the holy eucharist, which inthe purest ages was always joined to theirpublic and common prayers. (Acts ii. 42.)And as evidence that our Church wishes itwere so still, she appoints a great part ofthis office to be used on all Sundays andholy-days, and orders the priest to say itat the altar, the place where all the prayersof the Church of old were wont to be made,because there was the proper place tocommemorate Jesus our only Mediator,by whom all our prayers become accepted.And hence the ancients call this office “theservice of the altar,” which in the time ofcelebration was then also, as our rubricnow enjoins, covered with a fair linencloth. As for the primitive and originalform of administration, since Christ didnot institute any one method, it was variousin divers churches, only all agreed inusing the Lord’s Prayer, and reciting thewords of institution, which therefore somethink was all the apostles used; but theirsuccessors in several churches added severaldevout forms thereunto, which beingjoined to the original order used by thefounder of each church, was for greaterhonour called by the name of that firstauthor; and hence we have now the liturgyused at Jerusalem, called “The Liturgyof 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 thefancy of adding to them in every age, havecontracted many superstitions of later times,and yet do still contain many genuine andsubstantial pieces of true primitive devotion,easily distinguished from the modernand corrupt additions. But since none ofthese apostolical liturgies were believed ofDivine institution, St. Basil and St. Chrysostommade new forms for their ownchurches, now generally used in the East;and St. Ambrose and St. Gregory theGreat composed sacramentaries for theirseveral churches; and the Christians inSpain had a peculiar order for this office,called the Mazarabic form; the GallicanChurch had another distinct from all these;216so had the Irish Church, and St. Gregorywas so far from imposing the Roman missalon this Church of England, that headvises Augustine the monk to review allliturgies, and take out of them what wasbest, and so to compose a form for thisnation. And when the Roman missal(afterward imposed here) was shamefullycorrupted, our judicious reformers madeuse of this ancient and just liberty; and,comparing all liturgies, they have out ofthem all extracted what is most pure andprimitive, and so composed this admirableoffice, which, as Bishop Jewel affirms,“comes as nigh as can be to the apostolicand ancient Catholic Church,” and indeedis the most exact now extant in the Christianworld, the explaining whereof willeffectually serve to assist the communicantin order to a worthy preparation beforethe receiving, devout affections in receiving,and the confirming of his holy purposesafterwards: for it doth instruct usin all that is necessary to be known andto be done in this sacred and sublime duty,and is contrived in this curious method.(See Liturgy.)

The whole communion office consists offour parts. First, a more general preparationto the communion, and as either commonto the whole congregation in the exerciseof, 1. Repentance, by the Lord’sPrayer, the collect for Purity, and the tencommandments. 2. Holy desires, by thecollects for the King and the Day. 3. Ofobedience, by the hearing of the Epistleand Gospel. 4. Of faith, by repeatingthe Creed. 5. Of charity, by the Offertoryand the prayer for the holy CatholicChurch: or else this general preparationis proper to those who ought to communicate,namely, the warning before thecommunion, and the exhortation to it.Secondly, there is the more immediatepreparation, contained in, 1. The properinstructions, in the exhortation at thecommunion, and the immediate invitation.2. The form of acknowledging our offences,in the confession. 3. The meansof insuring our pardon, by the absolution,and the sentences. 4. The exciting ourlove and gratitude, in the preface, and thehymn called Trisagium. Thirdly, thereis the celebration of the mystery, consistingof, 1. The communicant’s humble approach,in the address. 2. The minister’sblessing the elements, in the prayer ofconsecration. 3. His distributing themaccording to the form of administration.Lastly, there is the post-communion, containing,1. Prayers and vows, in the Lord’sPrayer, the first and second prayers afterthe Communion. 2. Praises and thanksgiving,in the Gloria in excelsis. 3. Thedismission by the final blessing.—DeanComber.

This service is called “The CommunionService” in the liturgy; and well itwere that the piety of the people weresuch as to make it always a communion.The Church, as appears by her patheticalexhortation before the communion,and the rubric after it, labours to bringmen oftener to communicate than sheusually obtains. Private and solitary communions,of the priest alone, she allowsnot; and therefore, when others cannot behad, she appoints only so much of the serviceas relates not of necessity to a presentcommunion, and that to be said at theholy table: and upon good reason; theChurch thereby keeping, as it were, herground, visibly minding us of what shedesires and labours towards, our more frequentaccess to that holy table: and in themean while, that part of the service, whichshe uses, may perhaps more fitly be called“the second service” than “the communion.”And so it is often called, thoughnot in the rubric of the liturgy, yet indivers fast-books, and the like, set out byauthority. If any should think, that itcannot properly be called the second service,because the morning service andLitany go before it, which indeed are twodistinct services,—whereby this shouldseem to be the third, rather than thesecond service,—it is answered, that sometimesthe communion service is used uponsuch days as the Litany is not; and thenit may, without question, be called thesecond service. Nay, even then, whenthe Litany and all is used, the communionservice may be very fitly called thesecond service; for though, in strictness ofspeech, the Litany is a service distinct, yetin our usual acceptation of the word service,—namely,for a complete service with all theseveral parts of it, psalms, readings, creeds,thanksgivings, and prayers,—so the Litanyis not a service, nor so esteemed, but called“the Litany,” or supplications; and lookedupon sometimes, when other offices follow,as a kind of preparative, though a distinctform, to them, as to the Communion,Commination, &c. And therefore it wasa custom in some churches, that a bell wastolled while the Litany was saying, to givenotice to the people that the communionservice was now coming on.—Bp. Sparrow.

Of the many compellations given tothis sacrament in former ages, our Churchhas very wisely thought fit to retain thesetwo (namely, the exhortation before and217the rubric after the communion service)in her public service, as those which aremost ancient and scriptural. As for thename of “the Lord’s supper,” which namethe Papists cannot endure to have thissacrament called by, because it destroystheir notion of a sacrifice, and their use ofprivate mass, we find this given to it, asits proper name in the apostles’ time, bySt. Paul himself, “when ye come togetherinto one place, this is not to eat the Lord’ssupper.” (1 Cor. xi. 20.) And this nameis frequently given to it by ancient writers.So for “the communion;” this is plainlyanother scriptural name of the same holysacrament. “The cup of blessing whichwe bless, is it not the communion of theblood of Christ?” (1 Cor. x. 16.) Whichname is given to it, partly, because by thiswe testify our communion with Christ ourHead; partly, because it unites us togetherwith all our fellow-Christians; partly, becauseall good Christians have a right topartake of it; hence, with St. Chrysostomand St. Basil, “to communicate” is thecommon word to express the participationof this sacrament.—Dr. Nicholls.

The reason why it is enjoined that noticeshall be given to the minister whenwe intend to communicate is, that theminister of the parish may have time toinform himself of the parties who designto receive: so that, if there be any amongthem who are not duly qualified, he maypersuade them to abstain for some time;or, in case of their refusal, repel them.Now, in several cases, persons may be unqualifiedto partake of this sacrament,either by the prescript of God’s word, or bythe canons of the Church.

1. A want or a contempt of the rite ofconfirmation 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 theholy communion, until such time as he beconfirmed, or be ready and desirous to beconfirmed.” This is agreeable to theprovisions of the ancient Church; andthe only reasonable impediment to confirmationis the want of a bishop near theplace.

2. Persons excommunicate, or who aredoing penance by church censure for anynotorious fault, are unqualified to receive;for such persons are shut out from thecommunion, and therefore called excommunicate.

3. Persons under phrensy are unqualifiedto partake of the holy communion. Andall persons, under the foregoing want ofqualification, may lawfully be refused admissionto the communion by the minister;for the ecclesiastical law imposes greatpenalties upon the minister, who shall givethem the communion in such cases.

4. A person may be unqualified by notoriouswickedness, or flagitiousness of life.But of this more in the next note.—Dr.Nicholls.

In the primitive times, when disciplinewas strictly maintained, all such persons,as soon as known, were put under censure;but if, before censure, they offered themselvesat the communion, they were repelled.And indeed such severe disciplinemight not be amiss, whilst it was groundedonly upon piety and zeal for God’s honour,as it was in those devout times. But,afterwards, some persons being debarredfrom the communion out of private piqueand resentment, an imperial injunctionprohibited all, both bishops and presbyters,from shutting out any one from thecommunion, before just cause be shownthat the holy canons do give them powerso to do. And the canon law did notallow a discretionary power to the priestto thrust away every ill person from thesacrament: “a vicious person, offering himselfto receive the communion, is not to beexpelled, but is to be carried privatelyaside, and to be exhorted not to receivethe communion.” Indeed the later canonistsdid 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 werethe compilers of our rubrics in Edwardthe Sixth’s time, as appears from theirwording this rubric, “If any be an openand notorious evil liver,” &c. But, however,they limited this discretionary powerof the minister, obliging him, even in “notorious”crimes, to “admonish” such personsfirst to abstain, and only upon obstinacyto repel. But, nevertheless, thisformerly gave occasion to several exceptionsand disputes; and therefore, in the lastrevision of the Common Prayer, repulsionwas not left to the absolute power of theminister, but he was obliged to give noticethereof to the diocesan, and to take hisadvice therein. And still it remains souncertain, what is “notoriety,” both inpresumption, law, and fact, that a ministeris not out of danger of transgressing hisrule, if, before judicial conviction of acrime, he goes further than admonishingany person to abstain.—Dr. Nicholls. Ourlaw in England will not suffer the ministerto judge any man as a notorious offender,but him who is convicted by some legalsentence.—Bp. Andrewes.

218Notoriety in fact is one thing, and notorietyin presumption is another. Andin either case it should be a notoriety inlaw too, to indemnify the minister for proceedingupon the rubric, or to render himsafe, in point of law, for repelling any personfrom the communion.

Upon the whole of the matter, however,though this rubric may “require someexplanation,” as Bishop Cosin remarks,“for the avoiding of disputes and doubtsbetween the communicants and curates;”yet, if it be taken in all its parts, namely,that no person, however “notoriouslywicked,” shall be withheld from the communion,till he be admonished to withdrawhimself; and that when he is repelledupon his obstinacy, it is only till such timeas the advice of the ordinary can be hadtherein, to whom the curate is obliged togive early notice of such his act; it seemsin this view the best, and I think the onlyecclesiastical, rule we have to go by insuch case; nor doth it appear liable to exceptions,unless it be in that particular, ofhow far we are safe in acting accordingto it.

But, as this is properly a point of law,it is not so fit for me to undertake anydetermination of it; it must be left to thegentlemen of that profession. Only thusmuch I would put in, that, if a clergyman’sconduct in this matter shall appear to beupright, dispassionate, and disinterested,(and I wish it may never appear otherwise,)so as to gain the approbation of reasonableand indifferent persons,—which I think itwould gain in all notorious and flagrantcases, which are those mentioned in therubric,—it is to be hoped and presumed,that the interpreters of the law would, intheir turn too, show him all the favour andregard they could.—Archdeacon Sharp.

COMMUNION OF THE SICK. Inthis office we have an example of the benevolentcare exhibited by the Church towardsher suffering members. As allmortal men be subject to many suddenperils, diseases, and sicknesses, and everuncertain what time they shall depart outof this life, the Church has not only providedfor their baptism, and for the visitationsof the pastor, but has authorized anddirected the administration to them of“the most comfortable sacrament of thebody and blood of Christ.”

Although the Church maintains that theeucharist, as a general rule, is to be publiclyadministered in the consecrated houseof God, and has signified her disapprovalof solitary communion in all cases; yet,when by sickness her members are incapableof presenting themselves at the altar,there is a wise and tender relaxation ofher usages, corresponding with the peculiarnecessity of the case. This too “isexactly conformable to the most earlypractice of the primitive Church; for thereis nothing more frequently mentioned bythe ancient writers, than the care of theChurch to distribute the eucharist to alldying persons that were capable of receivingit.”

“There are many instances,” says Palmer,“in antiquity, of the celebration ofthe eucharist in private for the sick. ThusPaulinus, bishop of Nola, caused the eucharistto be celebrated in his own chamber,not many hours before his death.Gregory Nazianzen informs us, that hisfather communicated in his own chamber,and that his sister had an altar at home;and Ambrose is said to have administeredthe sacrament in a private house at Rome.The Church is therefore justified in directingthe eucharist to be consecrated in privatehouses, for the benefit of the sick;and she has taken care, in the rubric immediatelypreceding the office, that thesacrament shall be decorously and reverentlyadministered.”

In the distribution of the elements, therubric orders that the sick person shallreceive last. This is done, “because thosewho communicate with him, through fearof some contagion, or the noisomeness ofhis disease, may be afraid to drink out ofthe same cup after him.”

By a constitution of Archbishop Peckham,the sacrament of the eucharist shallbe carried with due reverence to the sick,the priest having on at least a surplice orstole, with a light carried before him in alantern, with a bell, that the people maybe excited to due reverence; who by theminister’s direction shall be taught toprostrate themselves, or at least to makehumble adoration, wheresoever the Kingof Glory shall happen to be carried underthe cover of bread.

But by the rubric of the 2 Edward VI.it was ordered, that there shall be no elevationof the host, or showing the sacramentto the people.

By the present rubric, before the officefor the Communion of the Sick, it is orderedas follows: “Forasmuch as all mortal menbe subject to many sudden perils, diseases,and sicknesses, and ever uncertain whattime they shall depart out of this life;therefore, to the intent they may be alwaysin a readiness to die whensoever it shallplease Almighty God to call them, curatesshall diligently from time to time (but219especially in the time of pestilence orother infectious sickness) exhort theirparishioners to the often receiving of theholy communion of the body and bloodof our Saviour Christ, when it shall bepublicly administered in the church; that,so doing, they may, in case of sudden visitation,have the less cause to be disquietedfor lack of the same. But if the sickperson be not able to come to the church,and yet is desirous to receive the communionin his house, then he must givetimely notice to the curate, signifying alsohow many there are to communicate withhim, (which shall be three, or two at theleast,) and having a convenient place inthe sick man’s house, with all things necessaryso prepared, that the curate mayreverently minister, he shall there celebratethe holy communion.

“But if a man, either by reason of extremityof sickness, or for want of warningin due time to the curate, or for lack ofcompany to receive with him, or by anyother just impediment, do not receive thesacrament of Christ’s body and blood,the curate shall instruct him, that if he dotruly repent him of his sins, and stedfastlybelieve that Jesus Christ hath suffereddeath upon the cross for him, and shedhis blood for his redemption; earnestlyremembering the benefits he hath thereby,and giving him hearty thanks therefore;he doth eat and drink the body and bloodof our Saviour Christ profitably to hissoul’s health, although he do not receivethe sacrament with his mouth.

“In the time of plague, sweat, or othersuch like contagious times of sickness ordiseases, when none of the parish can begotten to communicate with the sick intheir houses, for fear of infection, uponspecial request of the deceased, the ministermay only communicate with him.”

It has been the constant usage of theChurch, in all probability derived from theapostolical times, for persons dangerouslysick to receive the holy sacrament of theLord’s supper for their spiritual comfortand assistance. Hence this private communionobtained the name of viaticumamong the Latins, and a correspondentname among the Greeks; that is, provision,as it were, laid in to sustain themin their journey to the other world. OurChurch follows this example of the primitiveages. And rather than the sick manshould want so necessary a comfort, weare allowed to dispense it in a privatehouse, and to a small company, which inother cases we avoid. Indeed there aredivers weighty reasons why the dyingChristian should receive this sacrament,and why ministers should persuade themto it, and labour to fit them for the worthyreceiving of it. For, 1. This is thehighest mystery of religion, and fittest forthose who are by sickness put into a heavenlyframe and are nearest to perfection.2. This is God’s seal of remission to allthat receive it with penitence and faith.3. This arms them against the fear ofdeath, by setting Jesus before them, whodied for them, and hath pulled out thesting of death. 4. This assures them oftheir resurrection, by keeping them membersof Christ’s body. (John vi. 54.) 5.It declares they die in the peace and communionof the true Church, out of whichthere is no salvation. And if the sick manhave done all the duties in the foregoingoffice, he is prepared to die, and thereforefit for this communion; and if he do receiveit with devotion, the comfortable assurancesof God’s love which he gets herewill never leave him till he see God faceto face. We shall only add, that, lest thefears of the Divine displeasure which sickmen are very apt to entertain, shouldtrouble their minds, and hinder their joyand comfort in this holy ordinance, theChurch hath chosen a peculiar Epistle andGospel on purpose to comfort them anddeliver them from these fears, and alsomade a proper collect to beg patience forthem under this their affliction. All whichare so plain they need no explication, butonly require the sick man’s devout attention,and then it is hoped they will notfail of their desired effect.—Dr. Nicholls.Dean Comber.

COMMUNION OF SAINTS. (SeeSaints.) This is an article of the Creed inwhich we profess to believe, as a necessaryand infallible truth, that such persons as aretruly sanctified in the Church of Christ,while they live among the crooked generationsof men, and struggle with the miseriesof this world, have fellowship withGod the Father, (1 John i. 3; 2 Peteri. 4,) with God the Son, (1 John i. 3;2 John 9; John xvii. 20, 21, 23,) with Godthe Holy Ghost, (Phil. ii. 1; 2 Cor. xiii.14,) as dwelling with them, and takingup THEIR habitations in them; that theypartake of the care and kindness of theblessed angels, who take delight in theministration for their benefit, being “ministeringspirits sent forth to minister forthem who shall be heirs of salvation”(Heb. i. 14; Luke xv. 10; Matt, xviii. 10);that besides the external fellowship whichthey have in the word and sacraments,with all the members of the Church, they220have an intimate union and conjunctionwith all the saints on earth, as the livingmembers of Christ. (1 John i. 7; Col.ii. 19.) Nor is this union separated bythe death of any; but as Christ, in whomthey live, is the Lamb slain from thefoundation of the world, so have they fellowshipwith all the saints, who, from thedeath of Abel, have departed in the truefaith and fear of God, and now enjoy thepresence of the Father, and follow theLamb whithersoever he goeth. (Heb. xii.22, 23.) “Indeed,” says Bishop Pearson,from whom this article is taken, “thecommunion of saints in the Church ofChrist with those who are departed is demonstratedby their communion with thesaints alive. For if I have communionwith a saint of God as such, while heliveth here, I must still have communionwith him when he is departed hence; becausethe foundation of that communioncannot be removed by death. The mysticalunion between Christ and his Church,the spiritual conjunction of the memberswith the head, is the true foundation ofthat communion which one member hathwith another, all the members living andincreasing by the same influence whichthey receive from him. But death, whichis nothing else but the separation of thesoul from the body, maketh no separationin the mystical union, no breach of thespiritual conjunction; and, consequently,there must continue the same communion,because there remaineth the same foundation.Indeed the saint before his deathhad some communion with the hypocrite,as hearing the word, professing the faith,receiving the sacraments together; whichbeing in things only external, as theywere common to them both, and all suchexternal actions ceasing in the persondead, the hypocrite remaining loseth allcommunion with the saint departing, andthe saints surviving cease to have fartherfellowship with the hypocrite dying. Butseeing that the true and unfeigned holinessof man, wrought by the powerful influenceof the Spirit of God, not only remaineth,but also is improved after death; seeingthat the correspondence of the internalholiness was the true communion withother persons during life, they cannot besaid to be divided by death, which hathno power over that sanctity by which theywere first conjoined. But although thiscommunion of the saints in paradise andon earth, upon the mystical union ofChrist their head, be fundamental andinternal, yet what acts or external operationsit produces is not so certain. Thatwe communicate with them in hope ofthat happiness which they actually enjoyis evident; that we have the Spirit of Godgiven us as an earnest, and so a part oftheir felicity, is certain. But what theydo in heaven in relation to us on earthparticularly considered, or what we oughtto perform in reference to them in heaven,besides a reverential respect and study ofimitation, is not revealed unto us in theScriptures, nor can be concluded by necessarydeduction from any principles ofChristianity. They who first found thispart of the article in the creed, and deliveredtheir exposition to us, have madeno greater enlargement of this communion,as to the saints of heaven, than the societyof hope, esteem, and imitation on our side,of desires and supplications on their side;and what is now taught by the Church ofRome is as an unwarrantable, so a novitious,interpretation.”

COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. Theprincipal advocates of Popery at the beginningof the Reformation were not willingto own, that the universal practice ofthe primitive Church was against the modernsacrilege of denying the cup to thepeople; and, therefore, though they confessedthere were some instances in antiquity,of communion under both kinds, yetthey maintained the custom was not universal.So Eckius and Harding, andmany others. But they who have sinceconsidered the practice of the ancientChurch more narrowly, are ashamed of thispretence, and freely confess, that for twelvecenturies there is no instance of the people’sbeing obliged to communicate onlyin one kind, in the public administrationof the sacrament; but in private they thinksome few instances may be given. This isCardinal Bona’s distinction. “It is verycertain,” says he, “that anciently all ingeneral, both clergy and laity, men andwomen, received the holy mysteries in bothkinds, when they were present at the solemncelebration of them, and they bothoffered and were partakers. But out ofthe time of sacrifice, and act of the Church,it was customary always and in all placesto communicate only in one kind. In thefirst part of the assertion all agree, as wellCatholics as sectaries; nor can any onedeny it, that has the least knowledge ofecclesiastical affairs. For the faithful alwaysand in all places, from the very first foundationof the Church to the twelfth century,were used to communicate under the speciesof bread and wine; and in the beginningof that age the use of the cup began bylittle and little to be laid aside, whilst221many bishops interdicted the people theuse of the cup, for fear of irreverence andeffusion.” (Book ii. c. 18, n. 1.) And whatthey did first for their own Churches, wasafterward confirmed by a canonical sanctionof the Council of Constance [A. D.1414].... At this day the Greeks, andMaronites, and Abyssins, and all the Orientals,never communicate but in bothkinds, as Bona himself confesses (Book ii.c. 18, n. 2).—Bingham. The following isthe 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, thatthe Christian people ought to receive theholy sacrament of the eucharist under bothkinds of bread and wine; and do everywherecommunicate the laity, not only inthe bread, but also in the wine; and pertinaciouslyassert also, that they ought tocommunicate after supper, or else not fasting,doing this contrary to the laudablecustom of the Church, which is agreeableto reason, which they damnably endeavourto reprobate as sacrilegious, this presentholy general Council of Constance, lawfullyassembled in the Holy Ghost, earnestlydesiring to protect the safety of thefaithful against this error, after much andmature deliberation had of many who arelearned both in Divine and human law,declares, decrees, and determines, that,although Christ instituted this venerablesacrament after supper, and administeredit to his disciples under both kinds of breadand wine, yet, notwithstanding this, thelaudable authority of the sacred canons,and the approved custom of the Churchhas observed, that this sacrament oughtnot to be performed after supper, nor bereceived by the faithful unless fasting,except in the case of sickness, or any othernecessity, either duly conceded or admittedby the Church; and, in like manner, thatalthough in the primitive Church this sacramentwas received of the faithful underboth kinds, yet for the avoiding any dangersand scandals, the custom has reasonablybeen introduced, that it be receivedby the officiating persons under both kinds,but by the laity only under the kind ofbread; since it is to be believed mostfirmly, and in nowise to be doubted, thatthe whole body and blood of Christ istruly contained as well under the speciesof bread as under that of wine.”

On which we may fairly remark, “fullwell 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 apostleshis ministers to celebrate it, he bade themdo the same, “Do this in remembrance ofme.” But ye say, whosoever shall dare todo as Christ has bidden him, shall beeffectually punished. Can human impietyexceed this?—Perceval.

COMMUNION TABLE. A name forthe altar in the Christian Church. It isboth altar and table. An altar with respectto the oblation; a table with respect tothe feast. (See Altar.)

COMMUTATION OF PENANCE.Penance is an ecclesiastical punishment,used in the discipline of the Church, whichaffects the body of the penitent; by whichhe is obliged to give public satisfaction tothe Church for the scandal he has occasionedby his evil example. Commutationof Penance is the permission granted bythe ecclesiastical judge to pay a certainsum of money for pious uses, in lieu ofpublic penance. (See Penitents.)

COMPETENTES. An order of catechumensin the primitive Church, beingthe immediate candidates for baptism.

COMPLINE, or COMPLETORIUM,was, before the Reformation, the last serviceof the day. This hour of prayer wasfirst appointed by the celebrated abbotBenedict, in the sixth century.

The Church of England, at the revisionof our offices in the reign of Edward theSixth, only prescribed public worship inthe morning and the evening; and inmaking this regulation she was perfectlyjustified: for though it is the duty ofChristians to pray continually, yet theprecise times and seasons of prayer, termedcanonical hours, do not rest on any Divinecommand; nor have they ever been pronouncedbinding on all Churches by anygeneral council: neither has there beenany uniformity in the practice of theChristian Church in this respect. Besidesthis, the Churches of the Alexandrianpatriarchate, which were founded by theholy evangelist Mark, only appointed twopublic assemblies in the day; and no morewere customary, even in the monasteriesof Egypt, the rest of the day being left forprivate and voluntary prayer and meditation.Thus also the Church of Englandleft her clergy and people to follow inprivate the injunction of the apostle, to“pray without ceasing;” for, as JohnCassian observes, a voluntary gift of praiseand prayer is even more acceptable toGod than those duties which are compelledby the canons; and, certainly, the Churchof England did not intend that her childrenshould offer the sacrifice of praise222and thanksgiving only in the morning andevening when she appointed those seasonsfor public worship. Indeed, we find thata book of private devotion, containingoffices for several hours of prayer, andentitled the “Horarium,” was published byroyal authority, A. D. 1560, from whichDr. Cosin, bishop of Durham, chiefly derivedhis “Collection of Private Devotion,”&c. The office of Evensay, or EveningPrayer, is a judicious abridgment of theoffice of Evensay and Compline, as formerlyused by the English Church.—Palmer.

CONCEPTION (IMMACULATE) OFTHE HOLY VIRGIN. The immaculateconception is a festival of the RomanChurch, observed on December 8, in honourof the alleged conception of theVirgin Mary without sin. The doctrineitself was invented about the middle of thetwelfth century. The devotion offered tothe Blessed Virgin having grown to anextravagant height, it was asserted bysome obscure theologians, not only thatshe was sanctified from her birth, but alsothat she was conceived without sin. Theopinion was at first generally condemned,and it would have had its place amongother forgotten heresies, if Duns Scotus,the great opponent of the Dominicans,had not undertaken its defence.

The testimony of Scripture to the universalcorruption of human nature is asplain as possible, and no trace of any exceptionis to be found. The witness of theprimitive Church is equally clear, and nota single writer, for more than a thousandyears, can be cited as having given theleast countenance to the modern view.

But although the Roman Church hasafforded the highest sanction and encouragementto a doctrine which is condemnedalike by Scripture and the Fathers,the inconsistencies and contradictionsof its authorized teaching on thesubject are endless. The Council of Basle,for instance, in its thirty-sixth session, declaredthe belief in the immaculate conceptionto be conformable to the Catholicfaith; but on the other side it is urged, thatthe council was in schism when it passedthe decree, on account of the depositionwhich it had pronounced against Eugenius.The Council of Trent, in its decree on thesubject of original sin, expressly statedthat it had no intention of including theBlessed Virgin in the terms which it employed;but in conclusion it only enjoinedthe observance of the decree of Sixtus IV.,which left the question open. The partiesof Dominicans and Franciscans were soequally balanced that the Council did notventure to pronounce in favour of the oneat the expense of the other. Their disputeswere only kept from proceeding toextremity by the intervention of the legate.Pius V. in the same way, forbade the censureof those who denied, as well as ofthose who affirmed, the doctrine. GregoryXV. prohibited the imputation of originalsin to the Blessed Virgin, even in privatedisputations; but he made an exception infavour of the Dominicans, that is to say,while giving his highest sanction to thedogma, he granted an immunity to thosewho had from the first resisted it. AlexanderVII. decreed that the immaculateconception is a pious doctrine and worthyof honour, but he forbade the censure ofthose who should reject it. The universityof Paris, at one period, compelled all candidatesfor the highest degree in theologyto bind themselves to defend it; while atthe same time the chief authority in theChurch permitted its denial. Austria receivedfrom Benedict XIII. the grant ofan office for the immaculate conception,but the phrase itself is carefully excludedfrom the prayers. The evidence, such asit is, on both sides is equally conflicting.The Franciscans, for instance, produced arevelation of St. Bridget in favour of thedoctrine, while the Dominicans appealed toa similar revelation made to St. Catherineof Sienna, in which the contrary is affirmed.A question was raised in consequence,whether one of the so called saints is not tobe believed rather than the other, thoughboth have their place as objects of worshipin the Roman calendar.

To sober-minded Christians it seems asidle a question as ever occupied the time,or roused the bad passions, of theologicaldisputants, since, according to ThomasAquinas and others, it regards only an inconceivablyminute instant of time; yet itsufficed at one period to throw the wholekingdom of Spain into confusion, and ithas furnished for centuries the watchwordof parties in the Roman Church, who havemaintained the fiercest opposition to eachother; and the controversy is still undecided.Although it is said that the doctrineis full of blessing, that the whole of Christendomis devoutly waiting for its authoritativedeclaration, and that this would bethe great glory and joy of an age which isto witness the restoration of catholicity,the See of Rome is restrained by great andinsurmountable difficulties. If the immaculateconception were decreed to be anecessary article of faith, no one coulddeny that an addition had been made to223the ancient creeds, and in a case to whicheven the loose principle of developmentcould hardly be made applicable: while atthe same time there would be an impliedcondemnation not only of the primitivefathers, but of the greatest theologianswhom the Church of Rome has ever produced.

CONCEPTION OF OUR LADY. Areligious order in the Romish Church,founded by Beatrix de Sylva, sister ofJames, first count of Portolegro, in thekingdom of Portugal. This lady, beingcarried to the court of Castile by Elizabeth,daughter of Edward, king of Portugal,whom the king of Castile hadmarried, and the king falling in love withher on account of her beauty, the jealousqueen locked her up in a chamber, whereshe left her without meat or drink forthree days. In this condition she imploredthe assistance of the Virgin Mary,who, according to the legendary statement,appeared to her and comforted her, promisingher a speedy release, which soonhappened. But Beatrix, fearing the furtherresentment of the queen, privatelywithdrew from court, and fled to Toledo;where arriving, she retired to a monasteryof Dominican nuns, in which she continuedforty years in the practice of all sorts ofausterities. Here she again imagined, orpretended, that the Virgin Mary reappearedto her, and inspired her with thedesire of founding an order in honour ofher own immaculate conception. To thisend she obtained of the queen a grant ofthe palace of Galliana, where was a chapeldedicated to the honour of St. Faith.Beatrix, accompanied by twelve youngmaids of the Dominican monastery, tookpossession of it in the year 1484. Thesereligious were habited in a white gownand scapulary, and a blue mantle, andwore on their scapulary the image of theBlessed Virgin. Pope Innocent VIII.confirmed the order in 1489, and grantedthem permission to follow the rule of theCistercians. The pious foundress died inthe year 1490, at sixty-six years of age.

After the death of Beatrix, CardinalXimenes put the nuns of the Conceptionunder the direction of the Franciscans, asbeing the most zealous defenders of theimmaculate conception; at the same time,he gave them the rule of St. Clara tofollow. The second convent of the orderwas founded in the year 1507, at Torrigo,in the diocese of Toledo, which producedseven others, the first of which was atMadrid. This order passed into Italy,and got footing in Rome and Milan. Inthe 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 grandoffice of the Franciscans, recite on Sundaysand holy-days a lesser office, called theoffice of the Conception of the Holy Virgin.—Broughton.

CONCEPTION, MIRACULOUS. Theproduction of the human nature of theSon of God out of the ordinary course ofgeneration, by the power of the HolyGhost. (Matt. i. 18, 25.)

It were not difficult to show that themiraculous conception, once admitted, naturallybrings after it the great doctrinesof the incarnation and the atonement.The miraculous conception of our Lordevidently implies some higher purpose ofhis coming than the mere business of ateacher. The business of a teacher mighthave been performed by a mere man,enlightened by the prophetic spirit. Forwhatever instruction men have the capacityto receive, a man might have been madethe instrument to convey. Had teaching,therefore, been the sole purpose of ourSaviour’s coming, a mere man might havedone the whole business, and the supernaturalconception had been an unnecessarymiracle. He, therefore, who came inthis miraculous way, came upon somehigher business, to which a mere man wasunequal. He came to be made a sin-offeringfor us, that we might be made therighteousness of God in him.—Bp. Horsley.

CONCLAVE. The place where thecardinals meet for the choosing of a newpope: the assembly itself is also called bythis name, and it depends upon the membersthemselves to choose the place, althoughfor some time the Vatican has beenconstantly used. Here they erect, in a largeapartment, as many cells of deal wood asthere are cardinals, with lodges and placesfor the conclavists, who shut themselvesin to wait and serve the cardinals. Theselittle chambers have their numbers, andare drawn by lot, so that it often happensthat cardinals of different factions lodgenear one another. These are made upduring the nine days’ ceremony for thepope’s funeral; during which time anybodymay go in and see the cells, which arehung on the outside with green serge orcamlet, only those that belong to thefavourites of the deceased, or are such ashad been promoted by him, are coveredwith deep violet-coloured cloth, and overeach are the arms of the cardinal wholives in it. Between the cells and thewindows of the palace there is a long224gallery for the convenience of the conclave,and it is from this that the cells receivetheir light. The day after the pope’sburial, that is, the tenth after his decease,the cardinals, having heard mass, invokethe Holy Ghost (as they term it) and goin procession two by two into the conclave,where they all meet in the chapel everymorning and evening for a scrutiny, whichis done by writing their suffrages in littlebillets, and putting them into a chalicethat stands upon the altar: when all areput in, two cardinals are chosen by therest to read those openly who are named,and to keep an account of the number ofeach, and this is done till two-thirds joinfor the same person; but a pope is seldomchosen after this manner. When it appearsthat after the scrutiny they do notagree, they come to what they call anaccez or access, that is, a trial whether hewho has most voices in the scrutiny couldreach to two-thirds; but it is observablethat they cannot give their suffrages in theaccez to those whom they have appearedfor in the scrutiny. If this does notsucceed, they have recourse to the way ofinspiration, (as they term it,) which is anopen declaration, or rather combination ofmany cardinals to cry together such acardinal is pope. For example, AltieriPapa is begun by one or two chiefs of aparty, when they find suffrages enough toassure them that this method will not fail,and then the rest of the cardinals areforced to join, that they may not incur thepope’s displeasure, who would be chosenin spite of them. The scrutiny is managedin the following manner: each cardinalprepares his billet, wherein he writes hisown name and that of the person for whomhe votes, and another word of device; thecardinal’s name is written under the foldof the paper, and sealed with a seal forthat purpose. The name of the chosen iswritten by the conclavist under anotherfold without the seal, and the word bywhich the cardinal knows that it is hisname which is read, is written on theoutside, as Deo volente, or the like; thefold which covers the cardinal’s name isnever 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 hasgiven another besides that in the scrutiny,seeing two billets with different personsunder the same name; and at the end ofthe scrutiny and accez, if the suffrage benot sufficient to complete the election,they burn all the billetings that the electors’names may be kept secret. Eachcardinal during the conclave is allowedbut two servants, or three at most, andthis only to princes, or for some particularprivilege. Several seek for this employmentbecause the new-elected pope giveseach conclavist three or four hundredlivres, and they have the pleasure of seeingall that passes: yet the place is troublesomeenough, because they must take intheir meat and drink from a certain placecommon to all that live in the same part,must wait at table, and be as strictly confinedas their masters.—Augusti.

CONCORDANCE, a dictionary or indexto the Bible, wherein all the leadingwords are ranged alphabetically, and thebooks, chapters, and verses wherein theyoccur, referred to, to assist in finding outpassages, and comparing the several significationsof the same word. The earliestattempt at a Concordance is the collectionof parallel passages in the margin of the5th volume of the Complatensian Polyglot.The first English Polyglot was publishedby John Merbeck, or Marbeck, a celebratedEnglish musician, in 1550.

Of English Concordances, Cruden’s iswell known and valued by every biblicalstudent.

Crutwell’s “Concordance of Parallels” isuseful, but the number of parallel passagesreferred to, and sometimes the slightnessof their connexion, renders the work lessuseful on ordinary occasions than the marginalreferences in our Bibles.

Gastrell’s “Christian Institutes,” Lockeand Dodd’s “Common-place Book ofScripture,” Strutt’s work with the sametitle, and Matthew Talbot’s “Analysis ofthe Holy Bible,” all assume the characterof a concordance. The best Hebrew concordanceis Calasios. For the Septuagint,Trommius, for the Greek Testament,Schmidt, (a very beautiful 12mo edition ofwhich was edited by Mr. Greenfield in1830,) and for the Vulgate, CardinalHugo’s Concordance may be consulted.

CONCORDAT. An instrument executedin 1801, between Bonaparte andPope Pius VII., to which the presentGallican Church owes its origin, in a muchstronger sense than any in which theRomanist can refer the origin of theChurch of England to the Reformation.For an account of this concordat thereader is referred to the article on theChurch of France. (See Church.)

CONCORDAT. There is also a muchearlier agreement between the crown ofFrance and the pope, generally known bythe same name, viz. the agreement ofFrancis I. with Pope Leo X. in 1516,225to abolish the Pragmatic Sanction; andhere we must observe, that Clothaire II.issued an edict in 615, approved by allthe bishops of his kingdom, assembledat the fifth Council of Paris, by whichhe ordered that no bishop, though chosenby the clergy and people, should be consecratedif the king did not approve ofhim: and he that should be nominated bythe king should be accepted, if the metropolitanfound no just cause to reject him.Now King Charles VII., in the Council ofBourges, in 1439, established the PragmaticSanction, whereby part of the clergy,without consulting with the people or thearchbishops, or other bishops of provinces,chose their bishops, leaving the king theprivilege of consenting to and confirmingthe election if he liked it. This the courtof Rome resented; the court first desired,and afterwards in the Lateran Council cited,this king and the clergy of France to appearand give their reasons, why they didnot abolish that ordinance; whereuponKing Francis I. made this agreement, calleda Concordat, with Pope Leo X., wherebythe king had the power to nominate suchas he thought fit for bishops, &c.; and thepope, if he found no fault, either in respectof the capacity or life of the person in nomination,was to issue the papal bull forthe consecration. The parliament, clergy,and the university of Paris were muchagainst registering this agreement; and,though they consented to it at last, yetthey solemnly protested, that they did itonly in obedience to the king’s repeatedcommands. This concordat differed fromthat of Clothaire, that the pope, by this,had no power to examine the ability of theperson elected; so that, in his time, theyconsecrated their bishops, without troublingthemselves to send to Rome for bulls.(See Pragmatic Sanction.)

CONCORDAT, GERMANIC, or theConcordat of Germany. A treaty relatingto ecclesiastical affairs, made in 1488, betweenPope Nicholas V. and the emperorFrederick III., confirmed by Clement VIII.and Gregory XIII. It comprehendedfour parts; in the first of which the popereserved to himself the conferring of allvacant benefices at Rome, and 100 days’journey from it, of whatever degree, eithersecular or regular, which before went byelection, without exception of cardinals orother officers of the holy see. The secondconcerns the elections that are to be confirmedby the pope, as metropolises, cathedrals,and monasteries, depending immediatelyon the pope, and having theprivilege of canonical election. The thirdconcerns livings that are successively givenby the popes and their proper patrons;that the pope has the privilege to conferboth secular and regular livings, for themonths of January, March, May, July,September, November; and the bishop orarchbishop within the district of their diocesesduring the other months. The fourthand last part speaks of the annates or first-fruits,after the death or removal of theincumbent.

CONDIGNITY and CONGRUITY.Terms used by the schoolmen to expresstheir peculiar opinions relative to humanmerit and deserving. The Scotists maintainthat it is possible for man in hisnatural state so to live as to deserve thegrace of God, by which he may be enabledto obtain salvation; this natural fitness(congruitas) for grace, being such as tooblige the Deity to grant it. Such is themerit of congruity. The Thomists, on theother hand, contend that man, by the Divineassistance, is capable of so living asto merit eternal life, to be worthy (condignus)of it in the sight of God. In thishypothesis, the question of previous preparationfor the grace which enables himto be worthy, is not introduced. This isthe merit of condignity.

Article XIII. “Works done before thegrace of Christ, and the inspiration of hisSpirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuchas they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ,neither do they make men meet to receivegrace, or (as the school-authors say) deservegrace of congruity: yea, rather, forthat they are not done as God hath willedand commanded them to be done, wedoubt not but they have the nature of sin.”

CONDUCT. A name given to chaplainsof colleges in the university of Cambridgeand at Eton; meaning a “Capellanusconductitius.” (See Chaplain.)

CONFALON, or GONFALON, Societyof the. So called from the Gonfalon, orbanner, bearing the figure of the VirginMary, which was their ensign.—Raynaldus.A confraternity of seculars in the Churchof Rome, called penitents, established firstof all by some Roman citizens in 1267:and confirmed by Pope Gregory XIII. in1576. Henry III. began one at Paris in1583, and himself assisted in the habit ofa penitent, at a procession wherein the cardinalof Guise carried the cross, and hisbrother the duke of Mayenne was masterof the ceremonies.

CONFESSION. (See Auricular Confession.)The verbal acknowledgment ofsin. The following are the rules laid downby the Church of England on this subject.226The Warning for the Celebration of theHoly Communion: “Because it is requisitethat no man should come to the holy communionbut with a full faith in God’smercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore,if there be any of you who by thismeans cannot quiet his conscience therein,but requireth further comfort or counsel,let him come to me, or to some other discreetand learned minister of God’s word,and open his grief, that by the ministrationof God’s holy word he may receive thebenefit of absolution, together with ghostlycounsel and advice to the quieting of hisconscience, and avoiding of all scruple anddoubtfulness.” Rubric, in the Office forthe Visitation of the Sick: “Here shallthe sick person be moved to make a specialconfession of his sins, if he feel his consciencetroubled with any weighty matter.After which confession, the priest shallabsolve him (if he humbly and heartilydesire it) after this sort.” By the 113thcanon, empowering ministers to preventoffences at the court of visitation, it is providedthat “if any man confess his secretand hidden sins to the minister, for theunburdening of his conscience, and to receivespiritual consolation and ease ofmind from him, he shall not in anywisebe bound by this constitution, but isstrictly charged and admonished that hedo not at any time reveal and make knownto any person whatsoever, any crime oroffence so committed to his trust andsecrecy, (except they be such crimes as, bythe laws of this realm, his own life maybe called in question for concealing thesame,) under pain of irregularity.”

In the primitive Church, no other confessionof sins was required in order toreceive baptism than the general renunciationof the devil and all his works.

Nor did the Church lay any obligationon the consciences of men, to make eitherpublic or private confession of their sinsto any but God, in order to qualify themfor the communion. The confessions of theprimitive Christians were all voluntary,and not imposed upon them by any lawsof the Church. Notwithstanding which itmust be owned, that private confession,though not absolutely required, yet wasallowed and encouraged by the ancients,in some cases, and upon special occasions.For, first, they advised men, in case oflesser sins, to make confession mutually toeach other, that they might have eachother’s prayers and assistance, according tothe advice of St. James, “Confess yourfaults one to another, and pray for oneanother, that ye may be healed.” Which,though it be produced by the Romanistsin favour of auricular confession to a priest,yet the ancients understood it only as adirection to Christians to confess mutuallyto each other. 2. In case of injuries doneto any private person, it was expected thatthe offender should make a private confessionof his fault to the person injured. 3.When men were under any perplexities ofmind, or troubles of conscience, this wasanother case in which they were directedto have recourse to some pastor, and totake his counsel and advice. 4. Origengives another reason for confessing privatesins to the priest, which is, that he was thefittest judge when it was proper to dopublic penance for private offences. (SeePenitentiary.)—Bingham, b. xv. ch. 8, § 6.

The Romish Church not only requiresconfession as a duty, but has advanced itto the dignity of a sacrament; and thisgreatly adds to the power of the clergy ofthat Church over the laity. “Confessionsubmits a fearful penitent, whose conscienceis oppressed with scruples, loadedwith remorse, and weakened by the remembranceof its sins, to the absolute willof a cunning priest, who beholds sceptresat his feet, humbles crowns, and makesthose tremble who strike terror into wholenations.” Confession, in the Church ofRome, must be made in the day-time, and,if possible, when there are people in thechurch. As soon as the penitent comesup to the confessional, or the seat of thepriest who confesses, he makes the sign ofthe cross, and asks the confessor’s blessing.Then the penitent kneels, with his handsclasped and uplifted. The confessional isopen before, and has two lattice windowsin it, one on each side. The confessorsits with his cap on his head, and his earstooped towards the penitent, in whichposture he receives his confession in awhisper; whence it is called auricular confession.This ended, the priest uncovershimself, and stretching out his right handtowards the penitent, pronounces the absolution.(See Penance.)—Casal de Veter.Christ. Ritib. Alet’s Ritual.

That confession is a custom observed inthe Greek Church is past all dispute.Ricaut calls this practice “One of the fundamentalpillars of the Eastern Churches;the axis upon which their whole ecclesiasticalpolity turns, and that without whichthe clergy would no longer have anyauthority or influence over the consciencesof the people, and would very seldom beable to reprove them in a country wherethey could fly to the arms of infidels forshelter and protection against the censures227and reprehensions of their own pastors.”There are four stated times in the year forconfession. The penitent withdraws withthe priest to some remote corner of thechurch, where he sits down, with his headuncovered, and the confessor assures him,the angel of the Lord is there present to takehis confession, exhorting him at the sametime to conceal none of his sins. Afterconfession, the penitent receives absolution,and gives the priest a small gratuityof money for his trouble. If we may credita judicious and learned traveller, the practiceof confession is enormously abused bythe Greeks. If a penitent acknowledgeshe has robbed another, the priest asks himwhether the person injured be a native ofhis own country, or a Frank: if the penitentanswers, the latter, “Then there is noharm done,” says the priest, “provided weshare the booty between us.” These arenatural consequences of the ignorance andpoverty of the Greeks in general.—Tournefort’sVoyages.

“It standeth with us in the Church ofEngland,” saith Hooker, “as touching publicconfession, thus: First, seeing day byday we in our Church begin our publicprayers to Almighty God with public acknowledgmentof our sins, in which confessionevery man, prostrate before hisglorious majesty, crieth against himself,and the minister with one sentence pronouncethuniversally all clear whose acknowledgmenthath proceeded from a truepenitent mind, what reason is there everyman should not, under the general termsof confession, represent to himself hisown particulars whatsoever, and adjoiningthereto that affection which a contritespirit worketh, embrace to as full effectthe words of Divine grace, as if the samewere severally and particularly uttered,with addition of prayers, imposition ofhands, and all ceremonies and solemnities,that might be used for the strengtheningof men’s affiance in God’s peculiar mercytowards them? The difference of generaland particular forms in confession, is not somaterial that any man’s safety or ghostlygood should depend upon it.” “As forprivate confession,” says Bishop Jewel,“abuses and errors set apart, we condemnit not, but leave it at liberty.”—Broughton.Bingham.

All that can plainly be deduced fromthe scriptural doctrine concerning confessionis this, that, in common or ordinarysins, we are to acknowledge them beforeAlmighty God, either particularly in ourprivate, or generally in our public devotion;but as for some sins of a more extraordinarykind, the heinousness whereofordinary Christians may not be sufficientlyapprized of, or which may be attendedwith such nice circumstances as perplextheir consciences, here resort is proper tobe made to the ministers of the Church,who, as physicians of the soul, are bestable to advise the fittest remedies uponsuch uncommon emergencies. Matters ofthis kind stood within these limits fora considerable time after the first propagatingof the gospel; but, during thepiety of very early times, another sortof confession came in use, for it havingbeen the practice for excommunicates,before their reception into the Church, tomake a solemn confession of their faultsbefore the whole congregation, some personswho had fallen into a great sin, thoughthey had never been censured for it,thought it a part of their duty to takeupon themselves a public shame for it,by discovering it to the whole congregationthey were members of, and todesire their prayers to God for their pardon.Some difficulties and inconveniencearising from this practice, about the year360, the office of a public penitentiary inthe Greek Church began, who was to bea presbyter of good conversation, prudent,and one who could keep a secret; towhom those who were lapsed into anygreater sin might confess it; and he, accordingto his discretion, was to enjoin apenance for it. But still there was nocommand for all people to confess theirsins to this presbyter. In the LatinChurch, the practice of public confessionto the whole congregation continued 100years longer, viz. till the time of PopeLeo, which was about the year 450, who,by an injunction of his, did abrogate it;and, after some time, the Greek Churchbegan to grow weary of this private confessionto a penitentiary, and so laid itaside. But whilst private confession toministers was practised, in some of theearlier ages of the Church, recourse washad to them only as spiritual physiciansand counsellors, as appears by many passagesof antiquity. In the Council ofLateran, A. D. 1215, every person, of eachsex, was obliged once in a year to confessto the minister of his parish, the sinswhich he had been guilty of. Auricularconfession to the priest being thus established,some of the school divines of theRomish Church carried it to furtherlengths, 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 discovered228to them, with all its aggravating circumstances,&c. All which horrible tyrannyover men’s consciences, and diving intothe secrets of families and governments,was confirmed by the Council of Trent.The excellent compilers of our liturgy,willing to settle this upon the ancientbottom, ordered only a general confessionof sins to be pronounced by all personsindifferently, not requiring any particularconfessions to be made, thereby comingmuch nearer to the apostolical practicethan the Roman liturgy can pretend to,in all which service there is no confessionwhich the people share in; for their“Confiteor tibi, Domine,” &c. in the mass,relates to the priest, and the “ConfiteorDeo omnipotenti,” “Beatæ Mariæ,” &c. inthe breviary, is the confession only of theclergy.—Nicholls.

Forms of confession are generally to bemet with in the liturgies of antiquity, buta form superior, or equal, to our own isnowhere 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 atthe same time it is so particular, that itincludes every kind of sin. Where theminister is not too precipitate, when heallows the congregation time to repeat it,with such deliberation, that their heartsmay go along with their words, each individualmay, and ought, under the generalform, to make a particular mental confessionof his own personal sins, known only toGod and his own conscience.—Shepherd.

At the time of the review of the liturgy,A. D. 1661, it was objected by the Presbyterianclergy against this Confession,that there was no preparatory prayer forGod’s assistance and acceptance; and thatit was defective in not clearly expressing“original sin,” nor enumerating actual sinswith their aggravations. To which it wasanswered by the Episcopalian commissioners,that the preparatory sentences, andthe preceding exhortation, amply suppliedthis; and that the form being so generalis rather a perfection than a defect, as insuch case all may join, since in manythings we offend all. And as to the noticeof original sin, they conceived that to besufficiently acknowledged in the sentence,(with others, as the “devices and desiresof our own hearts,” &c.,) “and there is nohealth in us.” With respect to the generalterms used throughout the Common PrayerBook, dissenters have complained of suchexpressions as, “that we may do God’swill”—“that we may be kept from allevil,” &c.; to which the Episcopalians properlyremark, “these are almost the veryterms in the Lord’s Prayer; so that theymust reform that, before they can pretendto amend our liturgy in these petitions.”

The reader may judge how far the objectionsare worthy of notice, by the formcomposed by Calvin himself, and used bythe French reformed Churches, which isas follows:—“O Lord God, eternal andalmighty Father, we acknowledge andconfess before thy sacred Majesty, that weare miserable sinners, conceived and bornin sin and iniquity; prone to evil, and indisposedto every good work; and thatbeing vicious, we make no end of transgressingthy holy commandments. Herebywe call destruction upon ourselves fromthy just judgment. But yet, O Lord, weare heartily sorry for having offended thee,and we condemn ourselves and sins bytrue repentance, desiring thy grace mayrelieve our misery. Therefore, O God,merciful Father, vouchsafe us thy mercy,in the name of thy Son Jesus Christ ourLord. Blot out our sins, and purge awayall our filth, and daily increase in us thegifts of thy Holy Spirit. That we, acknowledgingour iniquity from the bottomof our hearts, may more and more displeaseourselves, and be excited to truerepentance; which, mortifying us and allour sins, may produce in us the fruits ofrighteousness and innocence, acceptableunto thee through the same Jesus Christour Lord.” It appears, indeed, that ourConfession was in great measure suggestedby this form, or rather by the translationof it made by Valerandus Pollanus, forthe reformed congregation of Strasburg.—SeeLaurence’s Bampton Lectures.

There is hardly anything in public worshipwhich requires more caution andprudence in the ordering of it, than thatconfession of sin which is to be made bythe whole congregation; it may be tooloose and general on the one side, or itmay be too particular and distinct on theother. There may be this inconveniencein a confession very short and general,that takes in all, that it does not so wellserve to excite or to express that duesense of sin, nor to exercise that humilityand self-abasement, wherewith we shouldalways confess our sins to God. On theother hand, the inconvenience of a veryparticular and distinct confession of sinswill be this, that some sins, with their aggravations,may be confessed in the nameof the whole congregation, of which it isby no means to be supposed that all areguilty; and then they, who through thegrace of God have been kept from them,229cannot in good earnest make such confession.—Clagett’sAnswer to Dissenters.

The General Confession with the Absolution,was first inserted in the Morningand Evening Prayer, by the Second Bookof King Edward VI.

A Confession was formerly recited in theoffice for the first hour of the morning, accordingto the rites of the English Churches.It occurred in the course of prayers whichcame at the end of the service: and had thisarrangement been regarded by the reformers,the Confession and Absolution wouldnow be placed immediately before the collectfor the day. There were, however, goodreasons for placing the Confession at thebeginning of the office. Christian humilitywould naturally induce us to approach theinfinitely holy God with a confession ofour sinfulness and unworthiness; and thisposition of the Confession is justified bythe practice of the Eastern Church in thetime of Basil, who observes that the peopleall confessed their sins with great contrition,at the beginning of the nocturnalservice, and before the psalmody andlessons commenced.—Palmer.

Even in the most penitential parts ofour service, even in the midst of accommodationto the wants of persons entering ona course of amendment, there is a prospectopened, of mature, established, and victoriousChristianity.... Our “Almightyand most merciful Father” is entreatednot only to remit the punishment, but toabolish the power of sin. And the absolutionand remission of our sins itself, ismade to consist, not merely in the reversalof a sentence, and removal of a curse, butin the influence of the Holy Spirit, consequenton true repentance, and productive,not of mere temporary and outward amendment,but of that inward abiding “purityand holiness, for the rest of our life,”which, “at the last,” will bring us to“God’s eternal joy.”—Bishop Jebb.

CONFESSIONS OF FAITH. Thesystems of theology drawn up by foreignreformers were frequently called Confessionsof Faith. The following are the Confessionsof the different Churches.

1. That of the Greek Church, entitled“The Confessions of the True and GenuineFaith,” which was presented to MohammedII., in 1453, but which gave place to the“Orthodox Confession of the Catholic andApostolic Greek Church,” composed byMogila, metropolitan of Kiev, in Russia,and approved in 1643, with great solemnity,by the patriarchs of Constantinople,Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Itcontains the standard of the principles ofthe Russian Greek Church.—See Mr.Palmer’s (of Magd. Coll. Oxf.) Collectionof Russian Symbolical Books; and Mr.Neale’s Hist. of the Greek Church.

2. The Church of Rome, though she hasalways received the Apostles’, Nicene, andAthanasian Creeds, had no fixed publicand authoritative symbol till the Councilof Trent. A summary of the doctrinescontained in the canons of that council isgiven in the creed published by Pius IV.,(1564,) in the form of a bull. It is introducedby the Nicene Creed, to which itadds twelve articles, comprising those doctrineswhich the Church of Rome finallyadopted after her controversies with theReformers. (See Creed of Pope PiusIV.)

3. The Lutherans call their standardbooks of faith and discipline, “Libri SymboliciEcclesiæ Evangelicæ.” They containthe three creeds above mentioned, theAugsburg Confession, the Apology for thatConfession by Melancthon, the Articles ofSmalcald, drawn up by Luther; the Catechismsof 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 byMelancthon,) Wurtemberg, Suabian, Pomeranian,Mansfeldtian, and CopenhagenConfessions agree in general with the symbolicalbooks of the Lutherans, but are ofauthority only in the countries from whichthey are respectively called.

4. The Confessions of the CalvinisticChurches are numerous. The followingare the principal:—(1.) The Helvetic Confessionsare three—that of Basle, 1530;the Summary and Confession of the HelveticChurches, 1536; and the “ExpositioSimplex,” &c., 1566, ascribed to Bullinger.(2.) The Tetrapolitan Confession, 1531,—whichderives its name from the four citiesof Strasburg, Constance, Memmingen,and Lindau, by the deputies of which itwas signed,—is attributed to Bucer. (3.)The Palatine or Heidelberg Confession,framed by order of the Elector PalatineJohn Casimir, 1575. (4.) The Confessionof the Gallic Churches, accepted at the firstsynod of the reformed, held at Paris, 1559.(5.) The Confession of the ReformedChurches in Belgium, drawn up in 1559,and approved in 1561. (6.) The Confessionof Faith of the Kirk of Scotland,which was that composed by the assemblyat Westminster, was received as the standardof the Scotch national faith, in 1690.—Seethe following article. See also Harmonyof Confessions, or the Faith of Christianand Reformed Churches, 1643; and230Sylloge Confessionum, sub tempus ReformandæEcclesiæ, Oxon. 1804.

CONFESSION OF FAITH, WESTMINSTER.The Confession of Faithwhich was drawn up by the Puritans inEngland, and which is adopted by theScottish establishment. The ordinanceunder which the assembly which drew upthis Confession sat at Westminster commencesthus:

An Ordinance of the Lords and Commonsassembled in Parliament, for the callingof an Assembly of learned and godlyDivines, and others, to be consultedwith by the Parliament, for the settlingof the government and liturgy of theChurch of England; and for vindicatingand clearing of the doctrine of the saidChurch from false aspersions and interpretations.June 12, 1643.

Whereas, amongst the infinite blessingsof Almighty God upon this nation, noneis nor can be more dear unto us than thepurity of our religion; and for that, asyet, many things remain in the liturgy,discipline, and government of the Church,which do necessarily require a further andmore perfect reformation than as yet hathbeen attained; and whereas it hath beendeclared and resolved by the Lords andCommons assembled in Parliament, thatthe present Church-government by archbishops,their chancellors, commissars,deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons,and other ecclesiastical officers dependingupon the hierarchy, is evil, and justly offensiveand burdensome to the kingdom, agreat impediment to reformation andgrowth of religion, and very prejudicial tothe state and government of this kingdom;and therefore they are resolved that thesame shall be taken away, and that such agovernment shall be settled in the Churchas may be most agreeable to God’s holyword, and most apt to procure and preservethe peace of the Church at home,and nearer agreement with the Church ofScotland, and other Reformed Churchesabroad; and, for the better effecting hereof,and for the vindicating and clearing ofthe doctrine of the Church of Englandfrom all false calumnies and aspersions, itis thought fit and necessary to call anAssembly of learned, godly, and judiciousDivines, who, together with some membersof both the Houses of Parliament, areto consult and advise of such matters andthings, touching the premises, as shall beproposed unto them by both or either ofthe Houses of Parliament, and to givetheir advice and counsel therein to both oreither of the said Houses, when, and asoften as, they shall be thereunto required.

The Confession consists of thirty-threechapters, of which the following are theheads:—

The Westminster Confession of Faithwas approved by the general assembly ofthe Kirk of Scotland, on the 27th ofAugust, 1647, Sess. 23, and was ratifiedby Act of the Scottish Parliament, 7thFebruary, 1649.—See next article.

CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THEKIRK OF SCOTLAND, or THE NATIONALCOVENANT.

Subscribed at first by the King’s Majesty,and his Household, in the Year 1580;thereafter by persons of all ranks in theyear 1581, by ordinance of the Lords ofsecret council, and acts of the GeneralAssembly; subscribed again by all sortsof persons in the year 1590, by a newordinance of council, at the desire of the231General Assembly: with a general bondfor the maintaining of the true Christianreligion, and the King’s person; and,together with a resolution and promise,for the causes after expressed, to maintainthe true religion, and the King’sMajesty, according to the foresaid Confessionand acts of Parliament, subscribedby Barons, Nobles, Gentlemen, Burgesses,Ministers, and Commons, in theyear 1638: approven by the GeneralAssembly 1638 and 1639; and subscribedagain by persons of all ranks andqualities in the year 1639, by an ordinanceof council, upon the supplicationof the General Assembly, and act of theGeneral Assembly, ratified by an act ofParliament 1640; and subscribed byKing 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 dueexamination of our own conscience inmatters of true and false religion, we arenow throughly resolved in the truth by theword and Spirit of God: and therefore webelieve with our hearts, confess with ourmouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantlyaffirm, before God and the wholeworld, that this only is the true Christianfaith and religion, pleasing God, and bringingsalvation to man, which now is, by themercy of God, revealed to the world by thepreaching of the blessed evangel; and isreceived, believed, and defended by manyand sundry notable kirks and realms, butchiefly by the kirk of Scotland, the King’sMajesty, and three estates of this realm, asGod’s eternal truth, and only ground of oursalvation; as more particularly is expressedin the Confession of our Faith, establishedand publickly confirmed by sundry acts ofParliaments, and now of a long time hathbeen openly professed by the King’s Majesty,and whole body of this realm bothin burgh and land. To the which Confessionand Form of Religion we willingly agreein our conscience in all points, as untoGod’s undoubted truth and verity, groundedonly upon his written word. Andtherefore we abhor and detest all contraryreligion and doctrine; but chiefly all kindof Papistry in general and particular heads,even as they are now damned and confutedby the word of God and Kirk of Scotland.But, in special, we detest and refuse theusurped authority of that Roman Antichristupon the Scriptures of God, upon thekirk, the civil magistrate, and consciencesof men; all his tyrannous laws made uponindifferent things against our Christianliberty; his erroneous doctrine against thesufficiency of the written word, the perfectionof the law, the office of Christ, and hisblessed evangel; his corrupted doctrineconcerning original sin, our natural inabilityand rebellion to God’s law, our justificationby faith only, our imperfect sanctificationand obedience to the law; the nature,number, and use of the holy sacraments;his five bustard sacraments, with all hisrites, ceremonies, and false doctrine, addedto the ministration of the true sacramentswithout the word of God; his cruel judgmentagainst infants departing without thesacrament; his absolute necessity of baptism;his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation,or real presence of Christ’s body inthe elements, and receiving of the same bythe wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensationswith solemn oaths, perjuries, anddegrees of marriage forbidden in the word,his cruelty against the innocent divorced;his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood;his profane sacrifice for sins of thedead and the quick; his canonization ofmen; calling upon angels or saints departed,worshipping of imagery, relicks, andcrosses; dedicating of kirks, altars, days;vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayersfor the dead; praying or speaking in astrange language, with his processions,and blasphemous litany, and multitude ofadvocates or mediators; his manifoldorders, auricular confession; his desperateand uncertain repentance; his general anddoubtsome faith; his satisfactions of menfor 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’sgood creatures, with the superstitious opinionjoined therewith; his worldly monarchy,and wicked hierarchy; his threesolemn vows, with all his shavellings ofsundry sorts; his erroneous and bloodydecrees made at Trent, with all the subscribersor approvers of that cruel andbloody band, conjured against the kirkof God. And finally, we detest all hisvain allegories, rites, signs, and traditionsbrought in the kirk, without oragainst the word of God, and doctrine ofthis true reformed kirk; to the which wejoin ourselves willingly, in doctrine, faith,religion, discipline, and use of the holysacraments, as lively members of the samein Christ our Head: promising and swearing,by the great name of the Lord ourGod, that we shall continue in the obedienceof the doctrine and discipline of this232kirk,[3] and shall defend the same, accordingto our vocation and power, all the daysof our lives; under the pains contained inthe law, and danger both of body and soulin the day of God’s fearful judgment.

And seeing that many are stirred up bySatan, and that Roman Antichrist, topromise, swear, subscribe, and for a time usethe holy sacraments in the kirk deceitfully,against their own conscience; mindinghereby, first, under the external cloak ofreligion, to corrupt and subvert secretlyGod’s true religion within the kirk; andafterward, when time may serve, to becomeopen enemies and persecutors of the same,under vain hope of the pope’s dispensation,devised against the word of God, to hisgreater confusion, and their double condemnationin the day of the Lord Jesus:we therefore, willing to take away allsuspicion of hypocrisy, and of such doubledealing with God, and his kirk, protest,and call the Searcher of all hearts forwitness, that our minds and hearts do fullyagree with this our Confession, promise,oath, and subscription: so that we are notmoved with any worldly respect, but arepersuaded only in our conscience, throughthe knowledge and love of God’s true religionimprinted in our hearts by the HolySpirit, as we shall answer to him in the daywhen the secrets of all hearts shall bedisclosed.

And because we perceive, that the quietnessand stability of our religion and kirkdoth depend upon the safety and good behaviourof the King’s Majesty, as upon a comfortableinstrument of God’s mercy grantedto this country, for the maintaining of hiskirk, and ministration of justice amongstus; we protest and promise with ourhearts, under the same oath, hand-writ, andpains, that we shall defend his person andauthority with our goods, bodies, and lives,in the defence of Christ, his evangel, libertiesof our country, ministration of justice,and punishment of iniquity, against allenemies within this realm or without, aswe desire our God to be a strong and mercifuldefender to us in the day of our death,and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; towhom, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit,be all honour and glory eternally. Amen.

Likeas many Acts of Parliament, notonly in general do abrogate, annul, andrescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions,canons civil or municipal, with allother ordinances, and practique penaltieswhatsoever, made in prejudice of the truereligion, and professors thereof; or of thetrue kirk, discipline, jurisdiction, and freedomthereof; or in favours of idolatryand 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 beutterly suppressed, according to the intentionof the Acts of Parliament, repeatedin the fifth Act, Parl. 20, King James VI.And to that end they ordain all Papistsand priests to be punished with manifoldcivil and ecclesiastical pains, as adversariesto God’s true religion, preached, and bylaw established, within this realm, Act 24,Parl. 11, King James VI.; as commonenemies to all Christian government, Act18, Parl. 16, King James VI.; as rebellersand gainstanders of our Sovereign Lord’sauthority, Act 47, Parl. 3, King James VI.;and as idolaters, Act 104, Parl. 7, KingJames VI. But also in particular, by andattour the Confession of Faith, do abolishand condemn the Pope’s authority andjurisdiction out of this land, and ordainsthe 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 repugnantto any of the articles of the true andChristian religion, publicly preached andby law established in this realm; andordains 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 thePope’s kirk, and the idolatry of the mass;and ordains all sayers, wilful hearers, andconcealers of the mass, the maintainersand resetters of the priests, Jesuits, traffickingPapists, to be punished withoutany exception or restriction, Act 5, Parl.1, Act 120, Parl. 12, Act 164, Parl. 13, Act193, Parl. 14, Act 1, Parl. 19, Act 5, Parl.20, King James VI., do condemn all erroneousbooks and writs containing erroneousdoctrine against the religion presentlyprofessed, or containing superstitiousrites and ceremonies Papistical, wherebythe people are greatly abused, and ordainsthe home-bringers of them to be punished,Act 25, Parl. 11, King James VI., do condemnthe monuments and dregs of bygoneidolatry, as going to crosses, observing thefestival days of saints, and such other superstitious233and Papistical rites, to the dishonourof God, contempt of true religion,and fostering of great error among thepeople; and ordains the users of them tobe punished for the second fault as idolaters,Act 104, Parl. 7, King James VI.

Likeas many Acts of Parliament are conceivedfor maintenance of God’s true andChristian religion, and the purity thereof,in doctrine and sacraments of the truechurch of God, the liberty and freedomthereof, in her national, synodal assemblies,presbyteries, sessions, policy, discipline,and jurisdiction thereof; as thatpurity of religion, and liberty of the churchwas used, professed, exercised, preached,and confessed, according to the reformationof religion in this realm. As for instance,the 99th Act, Parl. 7, Act 25, Parl.11, Act 114, Parl. 12, Act 160, Parl. 13, ofKing James VI., ratified by the 4th Act ofKing Charles. So that the 6th Act, Parl.1, and 68th Act, Parl. 6, of King JamesVI., in the year of God 1579, declare theministers of the blessed evangel, whomGod of his mercy had raised up, or hereaftershould raise, agreeing with them thatthen lived, in doctrine and administrationof the sacraments; and the people thatprofessed Christ, as he was then offeredin the evangel, and doth communicatewith the holy sacraments (as in the reformedkirks of this realm they were presentlyadministrate) according to the Confessionof Faith, to be the true and holy kirk ofChrist Jesus within this realm. Anddecerns and declares all and sundry, whoeither gainsay the word of the evangel receivedand approved as the heads of theConfession of Faith, professed in Parliamentin the year of God 1560, specified alsoin the first Parliament of King James VI.,and ratified in this present Parliament, moreparticularly do express; or that refuse theadministration of the holy sacraments, asthey were then ministrated; to be nomembers of the said kirk within this realm,and true religion presently professed, solong as they keep themselves so dividedfrom the society of Christ’s body. Andthe subsequent Act 69, Parl. 6, of KingJames VI. declares, that there is no otherface of kirk, nor other face of religion,than was presently at that time, by thefavour of God, established within thisrealm: “Which therefore is ever styledGod’s true religion, Christ’s true religion,the true and Christian religion, anda perfect religion;” which, by manifoldActs of Parliament, all within this realmare bound to profess, to subscribe the articlesthereof, the Confession of Faith, torecant all doctrine and errors repugnantto 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, areordained to search, apprehend, and punishall contraveners: For instance, Act 5, Parl.1, Act 104, Parl. 7, Act 25, Parl. 11, KingJames VI.; and that, notwithstanding ofthe King’s Majesty’s licences on the contrary,which are discharged, and declaredto be of no force, in so far as they tend inanywise to the prejudice and hinder of theexecution of the Acts of Parliament againstPapists and adversaries of true religion,Act 106, Parl. 7, King James VI. On theother part, in the 47th Act, Parl. 3, KingJames VI. it is declared and ordained.Seeing the cause of God’s true religionand his Highness’s authority are so joined,as the hurt of the one is common to both;that none shall be reputed as loyal andfaithful subjects to our sovereign Lord, orhis authority, but be punishable as rebellersand gainstanders of the same, whoshall not give their confession, and maketheir profession of the said true religion:and that they who, after defection, shallgive the confession of their faith of new,they shall promise to continue therein intime coming, to maintain our sovereignLord’s authority, and at the uttermost oftheir power to fortify, assist, and maintainthe true preachers and professors ofChrist’s religion, against whatsoever enemiesand gainstanders of the same; and,namely, against all such, of whatsoevernation, estate, or degree they be of, thathave joined or bound themselves, or haveassisted, or assist, to set forward and executethe cruel decrees of the Council ofTrent, contrary to the true preachers andprofessors of the word of God; which isrepeated, word by word, in the articles ofpacification at Perth, the 23rd of February,1572, approved by Parliament the last ofApril, 1573, ratified in Parliament 1587,and related Act 123, Parl. 12, of KingJames VI.; with this addition, “That theyare bound to resist all treasonable uproarsand hostilities raised against the true religion,the King’s Majesty, and the trueprofessors.”

Likeas, all lieges are bound to maintainthe King’s Majesty’s royal person and authority,the authority of Parliaments, withoutthe which neither any laws or lawfuljudicatories can be established, Acts 130and 131, Parl. 8, King James VI., and thesubjects’ liberties, who ought only to live234and be governed by the King’s laws, thecommon laws of this realm allenarly, Act48, Parl. 3, King James I., Act 79, Parl.6, King James IV.; repeated in the Act131, Parl. 8, King James VI.; which ifthey be innovated and prejudged, “thecommission anent the union of the twokingdoms of Scotland and England, whichis the sole act of the 17th Parl. of KingJames VI., declares,” such confusion wouldensue as this realm could be no more afree monarchy: because, by the fundamentallaws, ancient privileges, offices, andliberties of this kingdom, not only theprincely authority of his Majesty’s royaldescent hath been these many ages maintained,but also the people’s security oftheir lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties,and dignities preserved. And, therefore,for the preservation of the said truereligion, laws, and liberties of this kingdom,it is statute by the 8th Act, Parl. 1,repeated in the 99th Act, Parl. 7, ratifiedin the 23rd Act, Parl. 11, and 114th Act,Parl. 12, of King James VI., and 4th Act,Parl. 1, of King Charles I., “That allKings and Princes at their coronation,and reception of their princely authority,shall make their faithful promise by theirsolemn oath, in the presence of the eternalGod, that, enduring the whole time oftheir lives, they shall serve the same eternalGod, to the uttermost of their power,according as he hath required in his mostholy word, contained in the Old and NewTestament; and according to the sameword, shall maintain the true religion ofChrist Jesus, the preaching of his holyword, the due and right ministration ofthe sacraments now received and preachedwithin this realm, (according to the Confessionof Faith immediately preceding,)and shall abolish and gainstand all falsereligion contrary to the same; and shallrule the people committed to their charge,according to the will and command ofGod revealed in his foresaid word, and accordingto the laudable laws and constitutionsreceived in this realm, nowise repugnantto the said will of the eternal God;and shall procure, to the uttermost of theirpower, to the kirk of God, and wholeChristian people, true and perfect peace inall time coming; and that they shall becareful to root out of their empire all hereticsand enemies to the true worship ofGod, who shall be convicted by the truekirk of God of the foresaid crimes.”Which was also observed by his Majesty,at his coronation in Edinburgh, 1633, asmay be seen in the order of the coronation.

In obedience to the commandment ofGod, conform to the practice of the godlyin former times, and according to the laudableexample of our worthy and religiousprogenitors, and of many yet living amongstus, which was warranted also by act ofcouncil, commanding a general band to bemade and subscribed by his Majesty’s subjectsof all ranks; for two causes: onewas, For defending the true religion, as itwas then reformed, and is expressed in theConfession of Faith above written, and aformer large Confession established bysundry acts of lawful General Assembliesand of Parliaments, unto which it hath relation,set down in public Catechisms; andwhich hath been for many years, with ablessing from Heaven, preached and professedin this kirk and kingdom, as God’sundoubted truth, grounded only upon hiswritten word. The other cause was, Formaintaining the King’s Majesty, his personand estate; the true worship of Godand the King’s authority being so straitlyjoined, as that they had the same friendsand common enemies, and did stand andfall together. And finally, being convincedin our minds, and confessing with ourmouths, that the present and succeedinggenerations in this land are bound to keepthe foresaid national oath and subscriptioninviolable.

We Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses,Ministers, and Commons undersubscribing,considering divers times before,and especially at this time, the dangerof the true reformed religion, of the King’shonour, and of the public peace of thekingdom, by the manifold innovations andevils, generally contained, and particularlymentioned in our late supplications, complaints,and protestations; do hereby profess,and before God, his angels, and theworld, solemnly declare, That with ourwhole heart we agree, and resolve all thedays of our life constantly to adhere untoand to defend the foresaid true religion,and (forbearing the practice of all innovationsalready introduced in the mattersof the worship of God, or approbation ofthe corruptions of the public governmentof the kirk, or civil places and power ofkirkmen, till they be tried and allowed infree assemblies and in parliament) to labour,by all means lawful, to recover thepurity and liberty of the Gospel, as it wasestablished and professed before the foresaidnovations. And because, after dueexamination, we plainly perceive, and undoubtedlybelieve, that the innovationsand evils contained in our supplications,complaints, and protestations, have nowarrant of the word of God, are contrary235to the articles of the foresaid Confession,to the intention and meaning of the blessedreformers of religion in this land, to theabove-written Acts of Parliament; and dosensibly tend to the re-establishing of thePopish religion and tyranny, and to thesubversion and ruin of the true reformedreligion, and of our liberties, laws, andestates; we also declare, That the foresaidConfessions are to be interpreted, andought to be understood of the foresaid novationsand evils, no less than if every oneof them had been expressed in the foresaidConfessions; and that we are obligedto detest and abhor them, amongst otherparticular heads of Papistry abjured therein.And therefore, from the knowledgeand conscience of our duty to God, to ourKing and country, without any worldlyrespect or inducement, so far as humaninfirmity will suffer, wishing a furthermeasure of the grace of God for this effect;we promise and swear, by the greatname of the Lord our God, to continuein the profession and obedience ofthe foresaid religion; and that we shalldefend the same, and resist all these contraryerrors and corruptions, according toour vocation, and to the uttermost of thatpower that God hath put in our hands, allthe days of our life.

And in like manner, with the same heart,we declare before God and men, That wehave no intention nor desire to attemptanything that may turn to the dishonourof God, or to the diminution of the King’sgreatness and authority; but, on the contrary,we promise and swear, That weshall, to the uttermost of our power, withour means and lives, stand to the defenceof our dread Sovereign the King’s Majesty,his person and authority, in the defenceand preservation of the foresaid true religion,liberties, and laws of the kingdom;as also to the mutual defence and assistanceevery one of us of another, in thesame cause of maintaining the true religion,and his Majesty’s authority, withour best counsel, our bodies, means, andwhole power, against all sorts of personswhatsoever; so that whatsoever shall bedone to the least of us for that cause, shallbe taken as done to us all in general, andto every one of us in particular. Andthat we shall neither directly nor indirectlysuffer ourselves to be divided orwithdrawn, by whatsoever suggestion,combination, allurement, or terror, fromthis blessed and loyal conjunction; norshall cast in any let or impediment thatmay stay or hinder any such resolution asby common consent shall be found to conducefor so good ends; but, on the contrary,shall by all lawful means labour tofurther and promote the same: and if anysuch dangerous and divisive motion bemade to us by word or writ, we, and everyone of us, shall either suppress it, or, ifneed be, shall incontinent make the sameknown, that it may be timeously obviated.Neither do we fear the foul aspersions ofrebellion, combination, or what else ouradversaries, from their craft and malice,would put upon us; seeing what we do isso well warranted, and ariseth from anunfeigned desire to maintain the trueworship of God, the majesty of our King,and the peace of the kingdom, for thecommon happiness of ourselves and ourposterity.

And because we cannot look for a blessingfrom God upon our proceedings, exceptwith our profession and subscriptionwe join such a life and conversation as beseemethChristians who have renewed theircovenant with God; we therefore faithfullypromise for ourselves, our followers,and all others under us, both in public,and in our particular families, and personalcarriage, to endeavour to keep ourselveswithin the bounds of Christianliberty, and to be good examples to othersof all godliness, soberness, and righteousness,and of every duty we owe to Godand man.

And, that this our union and conjunctionmay be observed without violation,we call the living God, the searcherof our hearts, to witness, who knoweththis to be our sincere desire and unfeignedresolution, as we shall answer to JesusChrist in the great day, and under thepain of God’s everlasting wrath, and ofinfamy and loss of all honour and respectin this world: most humbly beseechingthe Lord to strengthen us by his HolySpirit for this end, and to bless our desiresand proceedings with a happy success;that religion and righteousness mayflourish in the land, to the glory of God,the honour of our King, and peace andcomfort of us all. In witness whereof, wehave subscribed with our hands all thepremises.

The article of this covenant, whichwas at the first subscription referred tothe determination of the General Assembly,being now determined; and thereby thefive articles of Perth, the government ofthe kirk by bishops, and the civil placesand power of kirkmen, upon the reasonsand grounds contained in the Acts of theGeneral Assembly, declared to be unlawful236within this kirk, we subscribe accordingto the determination aforesaid.

This, together with the Solemn Leagueand Covenant, (which see,) is bound upwith and added to the Westminster Confessionof Faith, and published by authorityof the Scottish Establishment. Butan eminent member of that establishmentofficiating at present as a dissenting ministerin London, asserts that no licentiate orminister of the Scottish Establishment hassigned or been asked to sign this, or theSolemn League and Covenant, for the last150 years. This does not, however, exoneratethe religious community which stillpublishes these documents authoritativelyfrom the charge of intolerance; and allclasses of Episcopalians, including ofcourse the Church of England, are involvedin these fearful anathemas.

CONFESSION OF AUGSBOURG, orAUGUSTAN CONFESSION. A confessionof faith, drawn up by Melancthon,and presented by him and Luther to theemperor Charles V. at Augsbourg, in theyear 1530. It was divided into two parts,and was designed to support all the pointsof the Lutheran reformation, and to showthe heterodoxy of the Church of Rome.—Maimbourg,Hist. du Lutheranisme.

The first part contained twenty-one articles.The first acknowledged and agreedto all the decisions of the first four generalcouncils, concerning the Trinity. The secondadmitted of original sin, but definedit differently from the Church of Rome,making it to consist only in concupiscence.The third contained the substance of theApostles’ Creed. The fourth maintained,against the Pelagians, that a man cannotbe justified by the mere strength andcapacity of nature; and, against the RomanCatholics, that justification is theeffect 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 HolySpirit, but differed from that communion,by asserting that this Divine operation isnever present without faith. The sixth affirmed,that our faith ought to producegood works, purely in obedience to God,and not in order to our own justification.The seventh made the true Church to consistof none but the righteous. The eighthacknowledged the validity of the sacraments,though administered by hypocritesor wicked persons. The ninth asserted,against the Anabaptists, the necessity ofinfant baptism. The tenth acknowledgedthe presence of the body and blood ofChrist under the consecrated elements;adding, that this mysterious presence inthe holy sacrament continued with theelements only during the time of receiving,and that the eucharist ought to be givenin both kinds. The eleventh granted thenecessity of absolution to penitents, butdenied their being obliged to make a particularconfession of their sins. The twelfthcondemned the Anabaptists, who affirm,that whoever is once justified cannot fallfrom grace; as also the Novatians, whorefused absolution to sins committed afterbaptism; asserting withal, against theChurch of Rome, that a repenting sinneris not made capable of forgiveness by anyacts of penance whatever. The thirteenthrequired actual faith from those who participateof the sacraments. The fourteenthforbad those, who were not lawfully called,to teach in the Church, or administer thesacraments. The fifteenth appointed the observationof the festivals, and prescribed theceremonies of the Church. The sixteenthacknowledged the obligation of civil laws.The seventeenth acknowledged the resurrection,heaven, and hell, and condemnedthe two following errors of the Anabaptistsand Fifth-monarchy men; viz. Thatthe punishment of the devils and thedamned will have an end, and that thesaints will reign with Christ a thousandyears upon earth. The eighteenth declared,that our wills are not sufficientlyfree, in actions relating to the promotingof our salvation. The nineteenth maintained,that, notwithstanding God createdman, and still continues to preserve him,God neither is, nor can be, the author of sin.The twentieth affirmed, that good worksare not altogether unprofitable: and thetwenty-first forbad the invocation of saints.

The second part of the Augustan Confessionis altogether in opposition to theChurch of Rome, referring to the sevenprincipal abuses, on which the Lutheransfound the necessity of separating from thecommunion of that Church. The first headenjoined communion in both kinds, andforbad the procession of the holy sacrament.The second condemned the celibacyof priests. By the third, private masseswere abolished, and some part at least ofthe congregation were obliged to communicatewith the priest. The fourth declaredagainst the necessity of making a particularconfession of sins to the priest. Thefifth rejected tradition. The sixth disallowedof monastic vows: and the seventhasserted, that the power of the Churchconsisted only in preaching the gospeland administering the sacraments.

237This confession of faith was signed bythe Elector of Saxony, and his eldest son,by the Marquis of Brandenbourg, by theLandgrave of Hesse, the Prince of Hainault,and the republics of Nuremberg andRutlingua. It was argued before the emperorCharles V., but rejected; the RomanCatholics having a majority of votes in thecouncil. This was followed by a conferencebetween seven deputies of each party;in which, Luther being absent, Melancthon,by his mollifying explanations, broughtboth sides to an agreement in relation tofifteen of the first twenty-one articles. Butthe conference broke up without adjustingall the differences between them.

CONFESSIONAL. (See Confession andAuricular Confession.) An enclosed seator recess in Roman churches where penitentsmake confession to the priests.

CONFESSOR. A name given to thosewho confessed the doctrine of Christ beforeheathen or persecuting judges; or tothose who firmly endured punishment fordefending the faith: if they died undertheir torments they were called martyrs.Our Lord says that he will confess beforehis heavenly Father them that shall confesshim before men. (Matt. x. 32.) TheChurch of England can bless God forhaving honoured her with many confessors,especially during the persecution whichwas, under the usurpation of Oliver Cromwell,raised against her by Presbyterians,Independents, and Infidels. In the timeof Queen Mary, also, there were confessors,as well as martyrs.

CONFESSOR, in the Romish Church,is a priest who receives confession. (SeeAuricular Confession.)

CONFIRMATION. This is a Latinword which signifies strengthening. It isused to express the rite in which theindwelling grace of the Holy Ghost issought for those who have been madechildren of God in baptism; to whichsacrament it is, strictly speaking, a supplementalrite. This ordinance is calledconfirmation, because they who duly receiveit are confirmed or strengthened forthe fulfilment of their Christian duties bythe grace therein bestowed upon them.The words which accompany confirmationin the Eastern Churches are, “The sealof the gift of the Holy Ghost:” and theeffect of it is well expressed in that ancientprayer which, from the earliest times, hasbeen used in all the Western Churches:“Almighty and everlasting God, who hastvouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants,by water and the Holy Ghost, andhast given unto them forgiveness of alltheir sins,—pour into them thy sevenfoldSpirit, the Holy Comforter from heaven;”or, “Strengthen them, we beseechthee, with the Holy Ghost, the Comforter.”In the Greek and African Churches confirmationis administered with chrism, anunguent consecrated by a bishop; in theLatin Churches with the same, at a bishop’shands; in the English Churches, by layingon of the bishop’s hands, the only ritementioned in connexion with it in theScriptures: “Then laid they their handsupon them, and they received the HolyGhost.” (Acts viii. 17.)

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, confirmation(there spoken of under the term“laying on of hands”) is ranked amongthe chief fundamentals of Christian doctrine,(Heb. vi. 2,) and must therefore beof perpetual obligation. In the first agesof the Church, confirmation appears tohave been administered in all cases assoon after baptism as possible, as it continuesto be in the Greek and AfricanChurches. But in the Western Churches,for the last three or four hundred years,the bishops have interposed a delay ofseven years after infant baptism: whichdelay in the English Churches has latterlybeen extended to fifteen or sixteen years—thedetermination of the age being left tothe bishop. At the last revision of ourPrayer Book, in 1661, confirmation wasmade an occasion of requiring from thosewho have been baptized in infancy, a renewal,in their own persons, of the engagementsof the baptismal covenant. Thedispositions of mind required of those whowould benefit by confirmation are thesame which are necessary to fit men forreceiving grace in the sacraments; namely,repentance and faith: without which,where persons are capable of them, neitherthis nor any of the means of grace canbenefit those to whom they are administered.

No persons are admissible to the holycommunion unless they have been confirmed,or are ready and desirous to beconfirmed.—Rubric.

When children are well instructed inthe vow made for them at baptism, by theChurch Catechism, it is then required theyshould take it upon themselves, and beconfirmed by the bishop: which holy riteof confirmation, though it were not institutedby Christ, and so be not properlya sacrament, yet the apostles did lay theirhands on such as had been before baptizedby an inferior minister. (Acts viii. 14–17;and xix. 6.) This custom the primitiveChurch imitated in the bishops laying on238their hands with holy prayers, upon personsthat had been baptized; which wasbelieved to convey the Holy Spirit tothem for enabling them to keep their vow.And this holy rite is still retained in theEastern and Western Churches, and in allProtestant Churches where they have bishops.And we have an excellent officefor it, containing, first, the preparation forit by a serious admonition to all that cometo it, a solemn engagement from the partiesto keep their vow, with some acts of praiseand 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 isconcluded with prayers; general, as theLord’s Prayer; and peculiar to the occasion,as the two collects; and with a finalblessing.

The person who doth confirm is abishop, to which order the ancient Churchdid always reserve the dispensing of thisrite, because the apostles only did this(Acts viii. 14); and therefore the bishopsare highly obliged to take care that all intheir dioceses, who need and desire it, maynot want the opportunity of coming to it.The persons who are to be confirmed areall that have been baptized, from the timethey come to years of discretion, or howeverto be able to understand the natureof their baptismal vow, which they are hereto take upon themselves; and since webaptize infants, it is more necessary tobring them to confirmation; and their godfatherscan no way better acquit themselvesof the charge they have undertaken, thanby taking care, as the Church in this exhortationrequires, that they may learntheir catechism, and understand their vow;and here solemnly, before God and manywitnesses, renew it in their own name.For, secondly, the bishop doth particularlyinquire, if they do here in God’s presence,and before all the congregation, renewthat solemn vow in their own names madeat their baptism; and if they do engage toperform and do what was promised forthem by their sureties: to which they mustevery one answer, with great reverenceand serious consideration, that “they do.”Thirdly, the bishop and the priests thatare present begin their devotions, encouragingthe parties who have promised this,by minding them that they shall have“help” from him that made heaven andearth, (Psal. cxxiv. 7,) and praising Godfor bringing these persons into so blesseda condition. (Psal. cxiii. 2.) Finally, desiringhim to hear the prayers now tobe made for them. Fourthly, there is alarger form of prayer made by the bishop,wherein he first acknowledges God’s mercyin granting them regeneration and pardonof their sins in their baptism; and nowthat they are to exercise that warfare theythen engaged themselves to, he prays fora larger supply of God’s holy Spirit withits sevenfold gifts (Isa. xi. 2); so thatthey may be made so wise as to understandtheir duty, and so strong as to perform it,desiring they may by his ministry havethese gifts conveyed to them now, and, bytheir diligent improving of them, keepthem for ever.

Being thus prepared, the rite itself isnow to be administered by the ancientceremony of laying the bishop’s hand onthe head of each person, used by theapostles as the means of conveying theHoly Spirit (Acts viii. 17); whence thewhole office is called laying on of hands(Heb. vi. 2); (yet the Papists omit thisapostolical ceremony, and use the anointingwith chrism, which came later into theChurch). The bishop also gives a solemnblessing to every one, desiring God to defendthat person with his heavenly grace,from forsaking his faith, or breaking God’scommandments; that is, to take him forhis own, and seal him with his Spirit, sothat he may ever after look on him as oneof his own children, and praying that hemay daily increase in grace and grow wiserand better, until he be fit for that heavenlykingdom which God hath promised to himin baptism; and this prayer thus offeredup by a holy man, and one of the chiefofficers of Christ’s Church, shall be effectualto the obtaining of the Spirit for allthat have duly prepared themselves, anddo sincerely make and renew this vow.And now the bishop concludes the office,first with the usual form, desiring Godmay be with them, to assist them in theseprayers, as they also desire he may be withhis spirit who is to offer them; calling alsoupon God, as the common Father of allthat are confirmed, and so in covenantwith him: to which is joined the propercollect, beginning with a preface, whichconfesseth, that this good desire and resolutionof these persons to keep their vowcame from God, and by him they musthave grace acceptably to perform it. Andthen here are petitions for them, first, thatas the bishop’s hand was over them, so thegood hand of his providence signified therebymay be ever over them to preserve them:secondly, that the Holy Spirit, now impartedto them by this holy rite, may beever with them, the blessed effect of whichis here declared to be, that this will make239them understand God’s word, and enablethem to obey it, so that at the end of theirlives they may be certainly saved throughJesus Christ; to whom, with the wholeTrinity, for these means of salvation, we offerup our praises and acknowledgments: andto this is added a devout collect out of theCommunion Service, that God, who hathsealed these his vowed servants with hisSpirit, will direct, sanctify, and govern theirsouls and bodies in the ways of his laws,so that they may ever be holy, safe, andhappy. Finally, the office is concludedwith the bishop’s blessing, who now in thename of God wishes the blessing of theFather, Son, and Holy Ghost may benow bestowed on you, and remain uponyou for ever. Thus our Church appointsthis necessary and pious office shall bedone; and the due administration thereofwould highly conduce to make the benefitsof baptism more visible, to increase knowledgeand piety in the younger sort, andto secure them from being seduced byPapists or sectaries; it would make theChurch to flourish and be at unity, andconvey mighty blessings to all that reverentlyand devoutly receive it: wherefore,as the bishops are ready to do their part,let all that want it be willing and very desirousto come, and let parents and masters,and especially godfathers and godmothers,encourage them to come to it, and labourto fit them for it, that it may be done toGod’s glory and their comfort.—DeanComber.

CONFIRMATION OF A BISHOP.To understand what is meant by the confirmationof a bishop, it may be proper tostate the process adopted in England beforea presbyter can be consecrated to theepiscopal office, the king having issued hiscongé d’ élire to the dean and chapter, andnominating, in his “letters missive,” theperson whom he thinks fit to be chosen.The dean and chapter are obliged, withintwenty days next after the receipt of thislicence, to make the election, which beingaccepted by the party elected, is certifiedboth to the sovereign and to the archbishopof the province. If the dean andchapter fail to certify the election withintwenty days after the delivery of the “lettersmissive,” they incur the penalty ofpræmunire; and if they refuse to elect,the king may nominate by letters patent.The election being certified, the king grantshis royal assent under the great seal, directedto the archbishop, commanding himto confirm and consecrate the bishop thuselected; and the archbishop subscribes it“fiat confirmatio,” and grants a commissionto his vicar-general for that purpose.The vicar-general issues a citation to summonopposers, which is affixed on the doorof Bow Church, and three proclamationsare made thereof; this being certified tothe vicar-general, at the time and placeappointed, the proctor for the dean andchapter exhibit the royal assent, and thearchbishop’s commission directed to thevicar-general. After this, a long andformal process is gone through, and aftersix 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 anddecreed to be good. (See Bishops, Electionof.)

Not only bishops, but deans of manycathedrals, were confirmed by their diocesans;as at St. Paul’s in London, andSt. Patrick’s in Dublin. See OughtonOrdo Judicium de ecclesici Cathedr. cxxvii.,and Mason’s Hibernia, p. 219.

CONFORMITY, DECLARATIONOF. A declaration is required of all personswho are to be licensed or instituted toan ecclesiastical charge in the Church ofEngland, in the following words:—“I,A. B., do declare that I will conform tothe liturgy of the Church of England, asit is now by law established.” This declarationis to be made and subscribed beforethe bishop or his commissary, and themaking and subscription thereof is to betestified under the episcopal seal of thebishop, and under the hand of the bishopor his commissary. (See also Reading in.)

CONGÉ D’ ÉLIRE. This is a Frenchterm, and signifies leave to choose: and isthe king’s writ or licence to the dean andchapter of the diocese to choose a bishop, inthe time of vacancy of the see. Prior to thereign of Henry I., the kings of Englandused to invest bishops with the ring andstaff, in virtue of their donative right.Henry I. so far ceded this right as to givea congé d’ élire to deans and chapters forthe election of bishops. Henry VIII.added “letters missive,” nominating theperson whom he required them to elect,under pain of præmunire; and EdwardVI. (1 Edw. VI. c. 1, 2) abolished electionsby writ of congé d’ élire, as being“indeed no elections,” and “seeming alsoderogatory and prejudicial to the king’sprerogative royal, to whom only appertaineththe collation and gift of all archbishoprics,and bishoprics, and suffraganbishops, within his Highness’s said realm.”The statute goes on to enact, “That no240election of any archbishop or bishop shallbe made by the dean and chapter;” butthat the king by his “letters patent, at alltimes when the archbishopric or bishopricbe void, shall confer the same to any personwhom the king shall think meet.” Thisstatute was repealed by Queen Mary, andnever afterwards revived. The law nowrests upon the 25 Henry VIII. c. 20, whichstatute was revived by Queen Elizabeth.—Burn.(See Jurisdiction.) But in Ireland,the act of 2 Eliz. c. 4, establishedthe same manner of appointment by thesovereign, without election, as the Englishact of Edward, and so it has continued tothis day.

CONGREGATION. In its largest sense,this word includes the whole body of Christianpeople, considered as assembled, notlocally, but in some act of fellowship, aswhen it is said, “Let the congregation ofsaints praise Him:” but the word is morecommonly used for the worshippers, beingmembers of the true Church assembled ina particular place; a sense in which theword is plainly used in the prayer for theChurch militant, where an especial distinctionis made between all God’s people, orthe congregation of the saints, and the particularcongregation present when the prayeris used: “To all Thy people give Thyheavenly grace, and especially to this congregationhere present.” The word congregationfollows therefore the use of theword Church; we use “The Church” for thewhole body of Christ’s people, and “aChurch,” or “this Church,” for a particularportion of them. And as a Church is theimmediate bond of union to each individualwith the Church, so is a congregation theimmediate company with which the individualjoins, and the immediate sign of hisadherence to the congregation of saints.Thus, in the Order of Confirmation, thepreface declares that before the Churchchildren should ratify their baptismal vow,and they are consequently asked by thebishop whether they do this “in the presenceof God and of this congregation.”Congregation and Church are consideredby our translators convertible terms: e.g.Psal. xxii. 22, “In the midst of the congregation”is rendered in Heb. ii. 12, “Inthe midst of the Church.”

CONGREGATION IN THE PAPALCOURT, means a committee of cardinalsmet for the despatch of some particularbusiness, and each congregation is denominatedfrom the peculiar business it has todespatch.

I. The Pope’s Congregation, institutedby Sixtus V.—They are to prepare themost difficult beneficiary matters, whichare afterwards to be debated in the consistory,in the presence of the pope. Thiscongregation is composed of several cardinals,whose number is not fixed. Thecardinal-deacon, or, in his absence, someother cardinal chosen by the pope pro tempore,presides in this assembly. The affairstreated in it are, the erecting of new seesand cathedral churches; re-unions, suppressions,and resignations of bishoprics,coadjutorships, alienations of church revenues;and, lastly, the taxes and annates ofall the benefices to which the pope collates.

II. The Congregation of the Holy Office,or Inquisition. This congregation was institutedby Pope Paul III., at the desireof Cardinal Caraffa, who, being afterwardsraised to the pontificate under the name ofPaul IV., enlarged the privileges thereof,to which Sixtus V. added statutes, by whichmeans this tribunal became so powerfuland formidable, that the Italians at thattime used to say, “Il sommo pontifice Sistonon la perdonarebb’ a Christo,” i. e. “PopeSixtus would not pardon Christ himself.”

This congregation generally consists oftwelve cardinals, and sometimes manymore, as also of a considerable number ofprelates and divines of different orders,both secular and regular, who are calledConsulters and Qualificators of the HolyOffice. This congregation takes cognizanceof heresies, and all novel opinions; as alsoof apostasy, magic, witchcraft, the abuse ofthe sacraments, and the spreading of perniciousbooks. For this purpose, an assemblyis held every Wednesday at the generalof the Jacobins, and every Thursday beforethe pope, who is president thereof.

The palace of the Holy Office serveslikewise by way of prison for such as areaccused or suspected of the above-mentionedcrimes; who, in case they are foundguilty, are delivered over to the seculararm. But at present they seldom go furtherthan punishing them with perpetualimprisonment. Nor is this tribunal asrigorous and severe as in Spain, Portugal,and other countries where the Inquisitionis established. (See Inquisition.)

III. The Congregation de PropagandâFide.—It was instituted by Gregory XV.,and consists of eighteen cardinals, one ofthe secretaries of state, an apostolical prothonotary,a referendary, an assistant orlateral judge, and a secretary of the HolyOffice. All these prelates and officers meetin the pope’s presence, as often as occasionrequires, in order to examine whatevermay be of advantage to religion, and toconsult about missions, &c.

241IV. The Congregation for explaining theCouncil of Trent.—At the breaking up ofthat council, Pius IV. deputed certain cardinalswho had assisted in it, to put an endto all doubts which might arise concerningits decrees. Sixtus V. fixed this congregation,and empowered it to interpret allpoints both of discipline and faith. Thiscongregation meets once a week at thepalace of the senior cardinal, the wholeassembly being composed of persons ofthat dignity. The president is chosen outof the body by the pope, and is paid twelvehundred crowns of gold yearly out of theapostolic chamber. The other cardinalshave no salaries, but think it the highesthonour to assist in explaining the mostimportant matters relating to religion.

V. The Congregation of the Index.—Thefathers of the so-called Council of Trent,considering the great number of perniciousand heretical books published since theinvention of printing, deputed certain cardinals,and other divines, to examine intosuch books. These deputies drew up alist of them, divided into several classes;and the council gave orders for correcting,in a second impression, whatever these examinershad altered or expunged. PopePius V. confirmed the establishment of thiscongregation, and empowered it to examineall books written since the Councilof Trent, and all such as shall be publishedhereafter. This congregation is composedof several cardinals, and a secretaryof the order of St. Dominic; but it seldomassembles, except on affairs of the highestimportance. (See Indexes.)

VI. The Congregation of Immunities,established by Pope Urban VIII., in orderto obviate the difficulties and disputes whicharose in the judgments of such suits aswere carried on against churchmen forvarious matters, whether civil or criminal.This congregation is composed of severalcardinals, nominated by his Holiness, andtakes cognizance of all ecclesiastical immunitiesand exemptions. It is held inthe palace of the senior cardinal everyTuesday.

VII. The Congregation of Bishops andRegulars.—Pope Sixtus V., in the beginningof his pontificate, united two congregations,under the name above-mentioned.It is composed of a certain number of cardinalsat his Holiness’s pleasure, and of aprelate, who is the secretary thereof, andhas six writers under him. This congregationhas power to regulate all such disputesas arise between bishops and themonastic orders, and assembles every Fridayfor that purpose.

VIII. The Congregation for the Examinationof Bishops, instituted by GregoryXIV., to examine into the qualificationsof all such churchmen as are nominated tobishoprics. It is composed of eight cardinals,six prelates, ten divines of differentorders, both secular and regular, some ofwhom must be doctors of the canon law.These examiners are chosen by the pope,and assemble in his palace every Tuesdayand Friday, when any affair is to be examined.All the Italian bishops are obligedto submit to this examination before theyare consecrated; and for this purpose theypresent themselves upon their knees beforehis Holiness, who is seated in an easychair, whilst the examiners, standing oneach hand of him, interrogate them onsuch heads of divinity and the canon lawas they think proper. Such as are raisedto the cardinalate, before they are madebishops, are dispensed from this examination;as are all cardinal-nephews.

IX. The Congregation of the Morals ofBishops, instituted by Pope Innocent XI.,to inquire into the morals of churchmenrecommended to ecclesiastical dignities. Itis composed of three cardinals, two bishops,four prelates, and a secretary, who is thepope’s auditor. It is held alternately inthe palaces of the three cardinals, wherethey examine very strictly the certificatesof the life and manners of the candidates.However, those who have led irregularlives, find several ways of eluding the examinationof this tribunal.

X. The Congregation for the Residenceof Bishops.—It has the power of enjoining,or dispensing with, the residence ofthe Italian bishops, and obliging all abbotsto reside in their several communities. Itconsists of three cardinals, three prelates,and a secretary. But, having very littlebusiness, they assemble but seldom, andthat only at the request of such bishops orabbots as desire to be absent from theirchurches, for reasons specified in their petitions.

XI. The Congregation for such Monasteriesas are to be suppressed.—This congregationwas instituted by Pope InnocentX., to inquire into the state of theItalian monasteries, and to suppress thosewhose temporalities were so far diminished,that the remainder was not sufficient forthe maintenance of six religious. It iscomposed of eight cardinals and a certainnumber of monks, deputed by the provincialsof orders to take care of their interests.This assembly regulates the pretensionsof founders and benefactors, andtheir heirs, and disposes of the remains of242the temporalities of abandoned and ruinedhouses: it likewise examines the petitionsof such communities, or cities, as desire torebuild, and found anew, any monastery,for which it despatches the proper instruments.

XII. The Congregation of the ApostolicalVisitation.—It is composed of a certainnumber of cardinals and prelates,whose business it is to visit, in the nameof the pope, as archbishop of Rome, thesix bishoprics, suffragans to the metropolisof Rome.

XIII. The Congregation of Relics.—Itis composed of six cardinals and four prelatesand their business is to superintendthe relics of ancient martyrs, that are saidto be frequently found in catacombs andother subterraneous places in Rome, andto distinguish their bones, shrines, andtombs, from those of the heathens, whowere buried undistinguished in those subterraneouscaverns. After the congregationhas pronounced sentence on the validityof any relics, they are consigned to thevicar and the pope’s sacristan, who distributethem to such as desire them.

XIV. The Congregation of Indulgences.—Thiscongregation, the number of whosecardinals and prelates is not fixed, assemblesin the palace of the senior cardinal,to examine into the causes and motives ofthose who sue for indulgences. The registrarof this congregation sends the minutesand conclusions of petitions to thesecretary of the briefs, who despatchesthem under the fisherman’s seal.

XV. The Congregation of Rites.—PopeSixtus V. founded this congregation toregulate the ceremonies and rites of thenew offices of saints, which are added tothe Romish calendar, when any person iscanonized. It has authority to explain therubrics of the mass-book and breviary,when any difficulties are started in relationthereto; and its power extends to pronouncesentence, from which there is noappeal, on all disputes relating to the precedencyof churches. It is composed ofeight cardinals and a secretary, who assembleonce a month in the palace of thesenior cardinal.

XVI. The Congregation for the Buildingof Churches.—Pope Clement VIII. foundedthis congregation, to superintend the buildingof St. Peter’s church, adjoining to theVatican, and it is employed, to this day,in repairing and beautifying it. It consistsof eight cardinals and four prelates,who assemble at the palace of the seniorcardinal on the Monday or Saturday nearestto the beginning and middle of eachmonth. This congregation has the peculiarprivilege of altering the last wills andtestaments of those who bequeath sums tobe employed in pious uses, and to applythe money towards supporting the fabricof St. Peter’s.—Broughton.

CONGREGATION is also applied inEngland to one of the assemblies of theuniversity of Oxford, consisting of Regents,who transact the ordinary business of theuniversity.

CONGREGATIONALISTS are nearlythe same as Independents. (See Independents.)The chief point of difference isthat the Congregationalists hold the principleof a communion of Churches.

CONGRUITY. (See Condignity.)

CONSANGUINITY. Alliance byblood, as affinity is alliance by marriage.

Certain degrees of consanguinity areamong the impediments to marriage, bothby the law of nature and by the revealedword of God. These degrees, as well asthose of affinity, are defined by the Church,and are expressed in a table drawn up byArchbishop Parker, in 1563, and set forthby authority. This table is as follows:

243CONSECRATION. The solemn actof dedicating anything or person to a Divineservice and use.

CONSECRATION OF A BISHOP.By this we mean the separating of a personfor the holy office of a bishop, by impositionof hands and prayer. Accordingto a canon of the first Nicene Council, theremust be four, or at least three, bishopspresent at the consecration of a bishop.The form used in the Church of Englandmay be found in the Book of CommonPrayer. And it is stated in the prefacethereto, that “no one shall be accounted ortaken to be a bishop, or suffered to executethe same function, unless he be called, tried,and admitted thereunto according to thatform, or hath had formerly episcopal consecration.”The concluding portion of thissentence recognises the validity of consecrationsgiven in foreign churches by anyother form adopted by those Churches.Thus a French, or an Italian, or a Greekbishop, conforming to the rules of theChurch of England, requires no fresh consecration,but is at liberty to officiateamong us.

By the eighth canon, “Whoever shallaffirm or teach, that the form and mannerof making and consecrating bishops, priests,and deacons, containeth anything in it thatis repugnant to the word of God; or thatthey who are made bishops, priests, or deaconsin that form are not lawfully made,nor ought to be accounted, either by themselvesor others, to be truly either bishops,priests, or deacons, until they have someother calling to those Divine offices; lethim be excommunicated ipso facto, not tobe restored until he repent, and publiclyrevoke such his wicked errors.”

And by the thirty-sixth of the Thirty-nineArticles, “the book of consecration ofarchbishops and bishops, and ordering ofpriests and deacons, lately set forth in thetime of Edward VI., and confirmed at thesame time by authority of parliament, dothcontain all things necessary to such consecratingand ordering; neither hath it anythingthat of itself is superstitious and ungodly.And therefore whosoever are consecratedor ordered according to the ritesof that book, since the second year of theforenamed King Edward unto this time, orhereafter shall be consecrated or orderedaccording to the same rites, we decree allsuch to be rightly, orderly, and lawfullyconsecrated and ordered.” And by the Actof Uniformity in the 13th and 14th CharlesII., all subscriptions to be made unto theThirty-nine Articles shall be construed toextend (touching the said thirty-sixtharticle) to the book containing the formand manner of making, ordaining, andconsecrating of bishops, priests, and deacons,in this said act mentioned, as thesame did heretofore extend unto the bookset 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 Headstory, one of the most flimsy, as well aswicked, inventions of the Romanists, to invalidatethe orders of the Church of England.It refers to the consecration ofArchbishop Parker, on which depends thevalidity of orders in the English Church:for if Archbishop Parker’s consecrationwas not good, all those who were consecratedby him were not bishops, becausehe could not confer that character uponothers which he had not himself.

The Papists assert that his consecration244was irregular, both as to the place whereit was performed, which they say was atthe Nag’s Head Tavern, Cheapside, and asto the manner of doing it, which they saywas by one of the bishops then present,who laid the Bible on Dr. Parker’s head,and then pronounced the words, “Takethou authority,” &c. It is further objected,that three of the four bishops then presentwere only bishops elect, and had no sees;and that the other was a suffragan.

The story, which has long since beenabundantly refuted, and which is now givenup by the best authorities among the Romanists,was as follows: The queen issuedforth her warrant, directed to the bishopof Llandaff; to Dr. Scory, elect of Hereford;Dr. Barlow, elect of Chichester; Dr.Coverdale, elect of Exeter; and Dr. Hodgkins,suffragan of Bedford. All thesepersons met at the Nag’s Head Tavern,where it had been usual for the dean ofthe Arches and the civilians to refreshthemselves, after any confirmation of abishop; and there one Neale, who wasBonner’s chaplain, peeped through a holein the door, and saw all the other bishopsvery importunate with Llandaff, who hadbeen dissuaded by Bonner to assist in thisconsecration, which he obstinately refusing,Dr. Scory bid the rest kneel, and he laidthe Bible on each of their shoulders orheads and pronounced these words, “Takethou authority,” &c., and so they stood upall bishops. This story was certainly inventedafter the queen’s reign; for if ithad been true, it is so remarkable, thatsome of the writers of that time wouldundoubtedly have taken notice of it. ButBishop Burnet has discovered the falsityof it, from an original manuscript of theconsecration of this very archbishop, whichwas done in the chapel at Lambeth, onSunday, the 17th of December, in the firstyear of the queen’s reign, where Dr. Parkercame a little after five in the morningin a scarlet gown and hood, attended bythe said four bishops, and lighted by fourtorches; and there, after prayers, Dr.Scory preached; and then the otherbishops presented the archbishop to him,and the mandate for his consecration beingread by a doctor of the civil law, and hehaving taken the oaths of supremacy, andsome prayers being said, according to theform of consecration then lately published,all the four bishops laid their hands on thearchbishop’s head, and said, “Receive theHoly Ghost,” &c. And this was done inthe presence of several other clergy. SeeArchbishop Bramhall’s “Consecration andSuccession of Protestant Bishops Justified,”with the additions in vol. iii. of hisworks, Oxford, 1844.

CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES.The law recognises no place as a churchuntil it has been consecrated by thebishop.

In the Church of England the bishop isleft to his own discretion as to the form hewill use in the consecration of a church;but in the 21 Henry VIII. c. 13, whichlimits the number of chaplains that eachperson may have, one reason assigned whya bishop may retain six chaplains is becausehe must occupy that number in theconsecration of churches.

The custom of solemnly setting apart,from ordinary and secular use, whateveris appropriated to the service of AlmightyGod, has the highest possible sanction; formany are the instances of it recorded in theHoly Scriptures. True it is that there isno record of any such ceremonial havingbeen used among Christians in referenceto churches, before the fourth century,though some ritualists are of opinion thata form of dedication was common muchearlier. No sooner, however, was thesword of persecution sheathed, and Godpermitted his Church to serve him in allgodly quietness, than such solemnities becamegeneral. Then, as Eusebius tells us,“there was an incessant joy, and theresprung up for all a certain celestial gladness,seeing every place, which but a shorttime before had been desolated by theimpieties of the tyrants, reviving again,and recovering from a long and deadlydistemper; temples again rising from thesoil to a lofty height, and receiving asplendour far exceeding those which hadbeen formerly destroyed.” And again:“after this the sight was afforded us, soeagerly desired and prayed for by all,—thefestivals of dedications, and consecrationsof the newly-erected houses of prayerthroughout the cities. After this, theconvention of bishops, the concourse offoreigners from abroad, the benevolenceof people to people, the unity of the membersof Christ concurring in one harmoniousbody. Then was it according to theprophetic declaration, mystically indicatingwhat would take place, ‘bone was broughtto bone, and joint to joint,’ and whatsoeverother matters the Divine word faithfullyintimated before. There was, also, oneenergy of the Divine Spirit pervadingall the members, and one soul among all,one and the same ardour of faith, one songof praise to the Deity; yea now, indeed,complete and perfect solemnities of theprelates and heads of the Church, sacred245performances of sacred rites, and solemnrituals of the Church. Here you mighthear the singing of psalms; there, theperformance of divine and sacred mysteries.The mystic symbols of our Saviour’spassion were celebrated; and, atthe same time, each sex of every age,male and female, with the power of themind, and with a mind and whole heartrejoicing in prayer and thanksgiving, gaveglory to God, the author of all good.Every one of the prelates present alsodelivered panegyrical discourses, desirousof adding lustre to the assembly, accordingto the ability of each.” One such discourse,pronounced by Eusebius himself, still remains.

In his Life of Constantine, Eusebius givesan instance of the ceremonial thus describedin the consecration, amid a fullsynod of bishops of the church of Jerusalem,which Constantine had built overour Saviour’s sepulchre, A. D. 335. Socratesrecords a similar consecration of thefamous church of Antioch, called DominicumAureum, which was begun by Constantineand finished by Constantius, A. D.341. Testimony to the prevalency of thiscustom is also borne by St. Athanasius,who defends himself in his apology toConstantius, (c. 14–18,) when chargedwith having used a building for publicworship, before it was dedicated by theemperor, and consecrated by himself, onthe ground of necessity; for since duringLent the congregations in the ordinarychurches had been so crowded as to proveinjurious to the persons present, and anticipatingstill more crowded assemblies atEaster, he thought himself justified, undersuch circumstances, to use an edifice whichwas unconsecrated. St. Gregory Nazianzenlikewise speaks of this ceremonialas an ancient custom παλαιὸς νόμος.

Such then were the offices connectedwith the consecration of churches in primitivetimes. Bishops, from distant provinces,with a vast concourse of clergy andlaity, were present; an appropriate sermonor sermons were preached; the holy eucharistwas always administered; in thecourse of which prayers suitable to the occasionwere offered. Of these prayers oneis still preserved in the writings of St.Ambrose.

On this model it was that the consecrationservices of the Church Catholic wereformed, each church, at first, varying innon-essentials, as circumstances may haverequired.

In the English Church, various recordsof very early date exist relating to theconsecration of churches. Geoffrey ofMonmouth, who professes to follow Gildas,says that in the time of King Lucius (A. D.162) pagan temples were consecrated inBritain to the honour of the true God.And we find from Bede, that the passagejust quoted from Eusebius was applicableto our own island. It is known thatBertha, wife of Ethelbert, king of Kent,repaired or rebuilt a church, first builtby the Romans, and had it dedicated tothe honour of St. Martin of Tours, aneminent saint among the Christians of hernative country. This was the churchgranted by Ethelbert to Augustine, onhis landing in the isle of Thanet, A. D.596. Some time after his arrival, Gregorythe Great sent Augustine particular instructionsabout the dedication of thetemples of the Anglo-Saxons; and whenthe bishop had his episcopal see assignedhim in the royal city, he recovered thereina church, which he was informed had beenbuilt by the ancient Roman Christians, andconsecrated it in the name of our holySaviour, God and Lord, Jesus Christ.From the same historian we learn, thatLaurentius, Augustine’s successor in theprimacy, consecrated a church to St. Peterand St. Paul, afterwards called St. Augustine’s,in honour of Augustine, whohad commenced building it. Mellitus,who succeeded Laurentius, consecratedthe church of the Holy Mother of God,built by King Eadbald, A. D. 622. Thereis a detailed account of the consecrationof the church of Ripon, by Wilfrid, archbishopof York, A. D. 665, given in the Lifeof that prelate, written by Eddius andFridegode. Numerous subsequent canonsare found, bearing on the same subject.For instance, one of Archbishop Ecgbriht’s“Excerptions,” A. D. 740, relates to the consecrationof churches. In Archbishop Wilfrid’scanons, A. D. 816, it is ordered:

“When a church is built, let it be consecratedby the bishop of its own diocese,according to the ministerial book.”

Again, in the canons of ArchbishopCorboyl, A. D. 1126, in the canons at Westminster,A. D. 1138, and in ArchbishopRichard’s canons, A. D. 1175, similar injunctionsare given.

From the constitutions of Otho, A. D.1237, it would appear—so unfounded isthe boast of the Romanists, that the timewhen Popery was dominant in Englandwas a period of reverence and devotionnever since known to her Church—thatthis solemnity was then much neglected.This is evident from the first of thesecanons, which, after observing that the246dedication of royal temples is known tohave taken its beginning from the OldTestament, and was observed by the holyfathers in the New Testament, under whichit ought to be done with the greater careand dignity, &c., goes on to enact,

“That because we have ourselves seen,and heard by many, that so wholesome amystery is despised, at least neglected, bysome, (for we have found many churches,and some cathedrals, not consecrated withholy oil though built of old,) we, therefore,being desirous to obviate so great a neglect,do ordain and give in charge, thatall cathedrals, conventual and parochialchurches, which are ready built, and theirwalls perfected, be consecrated by thediocesan bishops, to whom they belong, orothers authorized by them, within twoyears: and let it so be done in a like timein all churches hereafter to be built; andlest so wholesome a statute grow into contempt,if such like places be not dedicatedwithin two years from the time of theirbeing finished, we decree them to remaininterdicted from the solemnization of massesuntil they be consecrated, unless they beexcused for some reasonable cause.”

In the constitutions of Othobon, A. D.1268, there is a similar canon.

From these canons it is plain, that theoffice of consecration had contracted manyof those Romish superstitions which wereretained until the Reformation. Not thatour reformers, when reforming the otherservices of the Church, extended theirlabours to that of consecration. Indeed,as that was a period, to use the words ofBishop Short, when more churches weredestroyed than built, there was no immediateuse for the service in question. Thistask was reserved for Bishop Andrews,whose service was compiled, as were allthe offices of the English Church, from theformularies in use before the Reformation.

Unanswerable as was Hooker’s defenceof the consecration of churches, it wasinsufficient to protect Laud from the clamourof his implacable enemies, when heconsecrated St. Catherine Cree church, asbishop of London, in 1630. And in thewell-known London petition, presented tothe Long Parliament, by the notoriousAlderman Pennington, about ten yearslater, the consecration of churches wasnot forgotten to be included “among themanifold evils, pressures, and grievances,caused, practised, and occasioned by theprelates and their dependants.”

At the Restoration the custom revived,and the subject was again discussed; butas there was no authorized office, (Laud,having been prevented from drawing up aform, as he intended, in the convocationof 1640,) the preparation of one was committedto Bishop Cosin in the convocationof 1661. When prepared it was presentedto the house, and referred to a committeeof four bishops for revision, but nothingseems ultimately to have been done aboutit. Since that period each bishop hasadopted any form he thought best, thoughperhaps the form of consecrating churches,chapels, and churchyards, or places ofburial, which was sent down by the bishopsto the lower houses of convocation, (1712,)and altered by a committee of the wholehouse, is the one, not that it is enjoinedby any competent authority, now mostgenerally 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 Consecrationof Churches.)

CONSECRATION OF THE ELEMENTS.The following is the rubricwith reference to the consecration of theelements in the Lord’s supper: “Whenthe priest, standing before the table, hathso ordered the bread and wine, that hemay with the more readiness and decencybreak the bread before the people, andtake the cup into his hands, he shallsay the prayer of consecration.” If itbe asked, whether the priest is to saythis prayer standing before the table, orat the north end of it, I answer, at thenorth end of it; for, according to therules of grammar, the participle “standing”must refer to the verb “ordered,” and notto the verb “say.” So that, whilst thepriest is “ordering the bread and wine,”he is to stand before the table; but whenhe says the prayer, he is to stand so as“that he may with the more readiness anddecency break the bread before the people,”which must be on the north side. For ifhe stood “before” the table, his body wouldhinder the people from seeing; so that hemust not stand there, and consequently hemust stand on the north side; there being,in our present rubric, no other place mentionedfor performing any part of thisoffice. In the Romish Church indeed theyalways stand “before” the altar during thetime of consecration, in order to preventthe people from being eye-witnesses oftheir operation in working their pretendedmiracle; and in the Greek Church theyshut the chancel door, or at least draw aveil or curtain before it, I suppose, uponthe same account. But our Church, thatpretends no such miracle, enjoins, we see,247the direct contrary to this, by ordering thepriest so “to order the bread and wine,that he may with the more readiness anddecency break the bread and take the cupinto his hands before the people.” Andwith this view it is probable the Scotchliturgy ordered, that, “during the time ofconsecration, the presbyter should stand atsuch a part of the holy table, where he maywith the more ease and decency use bothhis hands.”—Wheatly.

The consecration of the elements beingalways esteemed an act of authority, andstanding being therefore a more properposture, as well as a more commodious one,for this purpose, the priest is here directedto stand.—Collis.

We do not eat our common food withoutfirst praying for a blessing on it; whichpious custom is so universal, that it is certainlya piece of natural religion; howmuch more then are we obliged, before weeat and drink this bread and wine, whichChrist designed to set forth the mysteryof his death, to consecrate it and set itapart by a solemn prayer; especially sinceChrist himself in the institution of thissacred ordinance, while he was teachinghis apostles how to celebrate it, did use aform of blessing over it (Matt. xxvi. 26);which St. Paul calls “giving thanks.”(1 Cor. xi. 24.) Wherefore all churchesin the world, from the apostles’ days, haveused such a form, the ancient and essentialpart of which is the words of our Saviour’sinstitution; for, since he makes this sacramentalcharge, it hath been thought fit byall churches to keep his own words, whichbeing pronounced by a lawful priest, doproperly make the consecration; whereforeour Church has cut off all the later superstitiousadditions, by which the RomanChurch hath corrupted this form, and givenus a prayer of consecration, consisting onlyof the words of our Saviour’s institution,and a proper prayer to introduce it. Thefirst part is a prayer directed to “AlmightyGod our heavenly Father,” commemoratinghis mercy in giving his Son to diefor us, and the all-sufficient merit of hisdeath, together with his command for ourremembering it in this sacrament; and onthese grounds desiring that, since we obeyhim in thus celebrating it, we may thereinreceive Christ’s body and blood. Thesecond part is the repetition of the wordsand actions of our Lord at the institution,concerning both the time and the mannerof its institution.—Dean Comber.

If it be here demanded, to what wordsthe consecration of the elements ought tobe ascribed, I answer, to the prayer of thefaithful offered by the priest, and to thewords of institution repeated by him.This was the sense of the ancient Churchof Christ, which used them both in theireucharistical offices; and never held, thatthe elements were changed from theircommon to a more sublime use and efficacyby the bare repeating of the words, “Thisis my body,” and “This is my blood,” asthe Papists absurdly hold. To bring aboutthis change must be the work of the HolyGhost; and thereupon it is requisite, thatwe should pray to God, to endue theelements with this life-giving virtue. Nowthe words of institution can by no meansbe called a prayer: they were addressedby our Saviour to his disciples, and notto 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. Andthough when he said, “This is my body,this is my blood,” these words effectuallymade them so, showing that it was his willand pleasure that they should be taken ashis sacramental body and blood; thoughthe virtue of those words, once spoken byChrist, doth still operate towards makingthe bread and wine his body and blood;yet, as now used and spoken by the priest,they do not contain in them any suchpower, unless they be joined with prayerto God.

Our Lord himself did, besides pronouncingthem, give thanks and bless theelements. Thus our Church uses prayer,as well as the words of institution; anddoth not attribute the consecration to theone without the other. “If the consecratedbread or wine be all spent, before all havecommunicated, the priest,” it is true, isordered by the rubric to “consecratemore,” by repeating only the words of institution.But the virtue of the prayer,which the Church hath last made, is to beunderstood as concurring therewith; andthis is only a particular application to theseparticular elements. Hence comes thepropriety of saying “Amen” at the end ofthose words; which would not be so properlyadded, unless it referred back to thepreceding petitions. And that this is thesense of the Church of England is furtherplain, in that she in her rubric calls this“the prayer of consecration,” in which thewords of institution are contained; and itis addressed to Almighty God, &c., whereasthe words of Christ were not supplicatoryto God, but declaratory to his disciples.

After the same manner, in the “Office ofPublic Baptism,” in imitation of the customof the ancient Christians, who dedicated248the baptismal water to the holy and spiritualuse for which it was designed, ourChurch not only repeats the words of institutionof that other sacrament, butlikewise adds a solemn prayer, that Godwould “sanctify the water to the mysticalwashing away of sin.” And, as in that sacramentshe joins the prayer of the faithfulto the words of Christ, so in the sacramentof the altar she thinks them bothnecessary to complete the consecration.—ArchdeaconYardley.

A prayer of consecration, or setting apartthe bread and wine to the sacred purposein which they are about to be employed,hath been used for that end at least 1600years. And the mention which ours makesof the institution of the Lord’s supper,from the words, “who in the same nightthat he was betrayed,” to the conclusion,is in every old liturgy in the world. TheRomanists have put into their prayer ofconsecration names of saints, and commemorationsof the dead which we havethrown out. And indeed we have leftnothing that so much as needs explaining,unless it may be useful to observe, thatour Saviour’s “one oblation of himself”is opposed to the various kinds of oblationsunder the law; and, “once offered,” to thecontinual repetition of them: though probablya further view was to intimate, thathe is not, as the Papists pretend, reallysacrificed anew in this holy ordinance.—Abp.Secker.

The death of Christ, if we regard thepersons for whom it was undergone, is a“sacrifice;” if we regard him who offeredit, it is a free “oblation;” if we considerhim 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, forthe sins of one kind, or the offences of onenation or of one person, but for the sins ofall the world. Let none therefore mistake,or imagine we are about to sacrificeChrist again, as the Roman Church falselyteacheth; for that is not only needless andimpossible, but a plain contradiction to St.Paul, who affirms, that Jesus was offeredonly “once” (Heb. ix. 26; x. 10, 12); andby that “one oblation he hath perfectedfor ever them that are sanctified” (ver.14); so that there needs “no more offeringfor sin” (ver. 18).—Dean Comber.

From these passages of the Epistle tothe Hebrews it is plain, to use BishopOverall’s words, that “Christ can be nomore offered, as the doctors and priests ofthe Roman party fancy it to be, and vainlythink that, every time they say mass, theyoffer up and sacrifice Christ anew, asproperly and truly as he offered up himselfin his sacrifice upon the cross. Andthis is one of the points of doctrine, andthe chief one, whereof the Popish massconsisteth; abrogated and reformed hereby the Church of England, according tothe express word of God.”

CONSERVATORIES. Public schoolsof music in Italy, so called because theyare intended to preserve the purity of thescience and practice of music. The Conservatoriosare pious foundations, kept upat the expense of rich citizens, in whichorphans, foundlings, and the children ofpoor parents are boarded, lodged, andtaught gratuitously. There are separatefoundations for pupils of each sex. Theseinstitutions, which ought to provide thechurches of Italy with well-instructedchoristers, and to limit their attention tothis object, do in fact supply the theatre,as well as the Church, with the most admiredperformers. See Dr. Burney’sPresent State of Music in France andItaly, for an account of these conservatorios.

CONSISTENTES. (English, Co-standers.)The last order of penitents in theprimitive Church, so called from theirhaving the liberty, after other penitents,energumens, and catechumens were dismissed,to stand with the faithful at thealtar, and join in the common prayers,and see the oblation offered; but yet theymight neither make their own oblations,nor partake of the eucharist with them.—Bingham.

CONSISTORY. A word used to denotethe Court Christian, or Spiritual Court.Every bishop has his consistory court heldbefore his chancellor or commissary, inhis cathedral church, or other convenientplace of his diocese, for ecclesiastical causes.In the Church of England, before the NormanConquest, the ecclesiastical jurisdictionwas not separated from the civil; forthe earl and bishop sat in one court, thatis, in the ancient county court.

CONSTANCE, COUNCIL OF. Thiscouncil assembled in 1414, by the combinedauthority of the emperor and thepope. It was attended by thirty cardinals,three patriarchs, twenty archbishops, onehundred and fifty bishops, besides an immensenumber of the inferior clergy. Itincluded sovereign princes, electors ofGermany, as well as representatives fromevery country in communion with Rome.Its objects were, to put an end to the249schism, to reform the Church, and to putdown the so-called heresy of Bohemia.

During a period of nearly forty yearsrival popes had claimed the see of Rome;and the whole of Christendom had beenscandalized by their intrigues, their falsehoods,and their mutual anathemas. Eachside had the support of universities and oflearned divines. Each pleaded a Divine revelation,which was said to have been communicatedon behalf of the one to St.Bridget, and of the other to St. Catherineof Sienna.

The council not only removed the twopopes whose title had been previously disallowed,but also deposed the third, whohad been legitimately appointed, and hadforfeited his right by many and greatcrimes. The wickedness of John XXIII.seems to have been almost without parallel.Some charges against him wereindeed suppressed, because it was thoughtthat the papacy itself would be endangeredby their publication; but enough wasproved on unquestionable testimony toinsure unanimous consent to his deposition.

In the mean while the necessity of reformationwas urged on all sides. In thecouncil itself, cardinals and bishops, aswell as other divines, declaimed againstthe ignorance and vicious lives of theclergy, which bore testimony to the illeffects resulting from the lengthenedschism; while the German people presenteda memorial demanding reformationof the evils by which they affirmed theChurch to be overrun, and that it shouldtake place of all other business. A vehementcontest on this subject ensued betweenthe secular and ecclesiastical authorities,somewhat similar to that whichafterwards occurred at Trent; but in theend the urgent duty was postponed untilthe election of the pope had taken place,and then it was successfully evaded.

John Huss, who was a learned and eloquentman, of blameless life, and of greatinfluence, arrived at Constance soon afterthe meeting of the council. He had embracedthe opinions of Wickliff, and hadbeen especially earnest in denouncing theavarice and immoralities of the priests, aswell as the frauds practised upon the peopleby pretended miracles. He was accusedand thrown into prison. The emperor atfirst expressed great indignation at hisarrest, but having been influenced by membersof the council, he not only withdrewhis protection, but deputed the elector palatine,as vicar of the empire, to place himin the hands of the secular magistrate.The pleas on which this breach of faithhave been defended by Roman writers areinconsistent and self-contradictory. Someendeavour to maintain that Huss did notpossess the safe-conduct until after hisarrest; some, that he broke the conditionson which it was granted; and some, thatno engagement of the emperor could limitthe authority of the council. All impartialjudges have long been agreed in condemningthe act as a deep and indelibledisgrace to the Roman Church. Theletters of the martyr himself, as well as thelanguage of his defence, describe in touchingand Christianly terms, the harshnessand injustice with which he was treated.Having resisted all efforts to procure hisrecantation, whether by threats or persuasion,he was condemned, and met hisdeath with wonderful calmness and heroism,on the 7th July, 1415. The immediateeffect of his condemnation, and thatof Jerome of Prague, which speedily followed,was to kindle the flames of civil warin Bohemia, during which the names ofWickliff and Huss formed the watchwordon the one side, and that of the pope onthe other. It is said that the descendantof Sigismund, in the fourth generation,believed himself to be suffering underthe wrath of God on account of his ancestor’ssin.

In the fourth and fifth sessions, theabsolute superiority of a general councilover the pope was expressed in the formof an exact decree. It was declared thatthe council holds its authority directlyfrom Christ; and that all persons, includingthose of papal dignity, are amenableto its jurisdiction, and are liable to punishmentfor disobedience. No languagecould be more precise than that whichwas employed. The same doctrine hadbeen previously asserted in the Council ofPisa; and was afterwards confirmed inthe Council of Basle. It was the judgmentof the constitutional party which hadgradually become strong in the RomanChurch; and it was now embodied in thesolemn act by which three popes were setaside, and Martin V. substituted in theirplace; in the validity of whose appointmentthe papal succession is inseparablybound up. The decision of the councilwas gravely and deliberately adopted; andit had the fullest support of the learneddivines who were present, such as CardinalP. d’ Ailli, who had been chancellor of theuniversity of Paris, and his still more illustriouspupil and successor John Gerson,who, beyond all other theologians, influencedand represented the mind of that250age. It has always furnished an insurmountabledifficulty to controversialistsof the ultramontane school. They cannotreject its authority without giving up thelegitimacy of every pope since Martin V.;while, on the other hand, it is plainly atvariance with the decrees of the Council ofFlorence.

The decrees of their fourth and fifthsessions have been strenuously maintainedby the Gallican Church, especially by Bossuet,and the very learned men who sharedhis opinions in the seventeenth century;as well as by the universities of Paris,Louvain, and Cologne.

Materials for the history of the Councilof Constance are provided abundantly bythe invaluable collection of documentsmade by H. Von der Hardt.

CONSUBSTANTIAL. Co-essential; ofthe same substance with another. Thus wesay of our blessed Lord, that he is consubstantialwith the Father, being “of onesubstance with the Father.” The term(ὁμοούσιος) was first adopted by the fathersin the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, to expressmore precisely the orthodox doctrine, andto serve as a precaution against the subtletiesof the Arians, who admitted everything except the consubstantiality, using aword similar in sound, but very differentin meaning, ὁμοιούσιος. This word is stillthe distinguishing criterion between thecatholic or orthodox Christian and theArian heretic.

CONSUBSTANTIATION. The Romishdivines fell into the error of endeavouringto explain the manner in which our blessedLord is present in the eucharist. (SeeTransubstantiation.) Luther and his followers,while opposing the Romanists, fellinto a similar error, only insisting on adifferent manner of explaining the inexplicablemystery. Luther and his followersmaintained, that, after the consecrationof the elements, the body andblood of our Saviour are substantiallypresent together with the bread and wine.This doctrine is called consubstantiation.They believe that the real body and bloodof our Lord are united in a mysteriousmanner, through the consecration, withthe bread and wine, and are received withand under them in the sacrament of theLord’s supper.

CONTRITION. (See Attrition.) Romanistsdefine contrition to be a sorrowfor sin, with a sincere resolution of reforming.The word is derived from theLatin conterere, to break or bruise. ThePsalmist says, “A broken and a contriteheart, 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 anunnery. For its architectural arrangements,see Monastery.

CONVENTICLE. A diminutive of convent,denoting properly a cabal, or secretassembly of a part of the monks of a convent,to make a party in the election of anabbot. It is now the legal term to denoteany place of worship used by those whodepart from the Church of England.

By the 73rd canon it is thus ordained:“Forasmuch as all conventicles and secretmeetings of priests and ministers have everbeen justly accounted very hateful to thestate of the Church wherein they live, wedo ordain that no priests or ministers ofthe Word of God, nor any other persons,shall meet together in any private house,or elsewhere, to consult upon any matteror course to be taken by them, or upontheir motion or direction by any other,which may any way tend to the impeachingor depraving of the doctrine of theChurch of England, or the Book of CommonPrayer, or any part of the governmentor discipline now established in theChurch of England, under pain of excommunicationipso facto.”

CONVERSION. A change of heartand life from sin to holiness. This change,when it takes place in a heathen or aninfidel, comprises a reception and confessionof the truths of Christianity: when ittakes place in a person already baptizedand a Christian in profession, it implies asaving and influential impression on hisheart, of those truths which are alreadyreceived by the mind and acknowledgedwith the lips. To the heathen and infidelconversion is absolutely and always necessaryto salvation. The baptized Christianmay by God’s grace so continue in thatstate of salvation in which he was placedin baptism, (see Church Catechism,) thatconversion, in this sense, is not necessaryto him: still even he, day by day, will fallinto sins of infirmity, and he will need renewalor renovation: and all these—thedaily renewal of the pious Christian, theconversion of the nominal Christian, andthe conversion of the infidel or heathen—arethe work of the Holy Spirit of God onthe hearts of men.

Some persons have confused conversionwith regeneration, and have taught that allmen—the baptized, and therefore in factregenerate—must be regenerated afterwards,or they cannot be saved. Now thisis in many ways false; for regeneration,251which the Lord Jesus Christ himself hasconnected with holy baptism, cannot berepeated: moreover, not all men (thoughindeed most men do) fall into such sinafter baptism, that conversion, or, as theyterm it, regeneration, is necessary to theirsalvation; and if a regeneration were necessaryto them, it could only be obtainedthrough a repetition of baptism, whichwere an act of sacrilege. Those who speakof this supposed regeneration, uncharitablyrepresent the orthodox as denying the necessityboth of regeneration and of conversion;because they themselves call theseby wrong names, and the orthodox onlyproclaim their necessity in their true sense.

They who object to the expression BaptismalRegeneration, by regeneration mean,for the most part, the first influx of irresistibleand indefectible grace; grace thatcannot be repelled by its subject, and whichmust issue in his final salvation. Now, ofsuch grace our Church knows nothing, andof course, therefore, means not by regenerationat baptism the first influx of suchgrace. That the sins, original and actual,of the faithful recipient of baptism, arewashed away, she doth indeed believe; andalso that grace is given to him by the immediateagency of the Holy Spirit; yetso that the conscience thus cleansed maybe again defiled, and that the baptizedperson may, and often does, by his ownfault, fall again into sin, in which if he diehe shall without doubt perish everlastingly;his condemnation not being avoided,but rather increased, by his baptismal privilege.So that, in fact, we say not thatany one is regenerated at baptism, accordingto the meaning of these words in thelips of our opponents. And if they willnot admit that baptism is the Divinelyappointed medium of regeneration in oursense of that term, what grace can theyimagine so trifling as to comport with theirviews of that sacrament, and at the sametime so lofty and essential, as to be contemplatedby Christ in the solemn institutionof a sacrament; and in his declarationsconcerning the efficacy and necessityof that sacrament; and by the apostles,and the whole Church, in their sense of thesame matter, and their consequent practice?What approaches most nearly tothat grace of their own imagining, whichthey call regeneration, is the repentancenot to be repented of, and followed byfruits of righteousness to the glory ofGod’s grace, and to the salvation of theChristian, which we call conversion or renewal,and attribute to the same Spiritfrom whom we receive our new life atbaptism; and which we hold to be as necessaryto the salvation of one who hasfallen from his baptismal purity, (and whohas not so fallen?) as we hold baptismalregeneration to be, and as they hold theirsupposed regeneration. Except in words,then, we and our opponents are morenearly agreed than is at first sight apparent;and if the choice of terms be thechief point at issue, we have this to say forthe expressions which we use, that theyare consentient, and even identical, withthose which are used in the Scriptures;and that they are the same which thewhole Church employed, until the days ofcertain founders of sects, called after theirown names at the continental Reformation;so that they rest on the highest possiblegrounds of Scripture and authority.—Poole.(See Regeneration.)

CONVOCATION (see Synod.) is an assemblyof the bishops and other clergy ofeach of the provinces of the Church ofEngland to consult on matters ecclesiastical.As much is in these days said ofconvocation, and as many seem to thinkthat a convocation must be holden to settlethe disputes now unhappily prevailingamong the clergy, it may be interesting ifwe extend this article, that we may supplyour readers with a history of convocations.It will be abridged from the account givenby Dr. Burn.

That the bishop of every diocese inEngland, as in all other Christian countries,had power to convene the clergy ofhis diocese, and, in a common synod orcouncil, with them to transact such affairsas specially related to the order and governmentof the churches under his jurisdiction,is not to be questioned. Theseassemblies of the clergy were as old almostas the first settlement of Christianityamongst us, and, amidst all other revolutions,continued to be held till the time ofKing Henry VIII.

What the bishop of every diocese didwithin his own district, the archbishop ofeach province, after the kingdom wasdivided into provinces, did within his properprovince. They called together firstthe bishops, afterwards the other prelates,of their provinces; and by degrees addedto these such of their inferior clergy asthey thought needful. In these two assembliesof the clergy (the diocesan synodsand provincial councils) only the spiritualaffairs of the Church were wont for a longtime to be transacted: so that, in this respect,there was no difference between thebishops and clergy of our own and of otherChristian churches. Our metropolitans252and their suffragans acted by the samerules here as they did in all other countries.They held these assemblies by thesame power, convened the same persons,and did the same things in them. Whenthe papal authority had prevailed here,as in most other kingdoms and countriesin Europe, by the leave of our kings, andat the command of the legates sent fromRome, another and yet larger sort of councilswas introduced amongst us, of thebishops and prelates of the whole realm.These were properly national Churchcouncils, and were wont to be held forsome special designs, which either the pope,the king, or both, had to promote by them.

But besides these synods common to uswith all other Christian Churches, andwhich were in their nature and end, aswell as constitution, properly and purelyecclesiastical, two other assemblies therewere of the clergy of this realm, peculiarto our own state and country; in which theclergy were convened, not for the spiritualaffairs of the Church, but for the good andbenefit of the realm, and to act as membersof the one as well as of the other. Nowthe occasion of these was this: when thefaith of Christ was thoroughly plantedhere, and the piety of our ancestors hadliberally endowed the bishops and clergyof the Church with temporal lands andpossessions, not only the opinion which thepolitical government had of their prudenceand piety prompted it to take the most eminentof them into the public councils, but theinterest which they had by that means inthe state made it expedient so to do, andto commit the direction and managementof offices and affairs to them. Hence ourbishops first, and then some of our otherprelates, (as abbots and priors,) were veryearly brought into the great councils of therealm, or parliament, and there consultedand acted together with the laity. Andin process of time, our princes began tohave a further occasion for them. Forbeing increased both in number and inwealth, not only our kings, but the peoplebegan to think it reasonable, that theclergy should bear a part in the publicburdens, as well as enjoy their share ofthe public treasure. Hence our Saxonancestors, under whom the Church wasthe most free, yet subjected the lands ofthe clergy to the threefold necessity ofcastles, bridges, and expeditions. Andthe granting of aids in these cases broughton assemblies of the clergy, which wereafterwards distinguished by the name ofconvocations.

In the Saxon times, the lords spiritual(as well as the other clergy) held by frankalmoigne,but yet made great part (as wassaid) of the grand council of the nation;being the most learned persons that, inthose times of ignorance, met to makelaws and regulations. But William theConqueror turned the frankalmoigne tenuresof the bishops and some of the greatabbots into baronies; and from thenceforwardsthey were obliged to send personsto the wars, or were assessed to theescuage, (which was a fine or payment inmoney instead thereof,) and were obligedto attend in parliament. But the body ofthe clergy had no baronies, and holdingby frankalmoigne, were in a great measureexempt from the charges which wereassessed upon the laity, and were thereforeby some other way to be broughtunder the same obligation. In order hereuntoseveral measures were taken, till atlast they settled into that method whichfinally obtained, and set aside the necessityof any other way. First, the pope laid atax upon the Church for the use of theking; and both their powers uniting, theclergy were forced to submit to it. Next,the bishops were prevailed with, uponsome extraordinary occasions, to obligetheir clergy to grant a subsidy to the king,in the way of a benevolence; and for this,letters of security were granted back bythe king to them, to insure them that whatthey had done should not be drawn intoexample or consequence. And these concessionswere sometimes made by thebishops in the name of their clergy; butthe common way was, that every bishopheld a meeting of the clergy of his diocese.Then they agreed what they would do;and empowered first the bishops, afterwardstheir archdeacons, and finally proctorsof their own, chosen for that end, tomake the concession for them.

Thus stood this matter till the time ofEdward the First, who, not willing to continueat such a precarious rate with hisclergy, took another method; and, afterseveral other experiments, fixed at lastupon an establishment, which has, to acertain extent, continued ever since, viz.that the earls and barons should be calledto parliament as formerly, and embodiedin one house; and that the tenants inburgage should also send their representatives;and that the tenants by knight’sservice, and other soccage tenants in thecounties, should send their representatives;and these were embodied in the otherhouse. He designed to have the clergyas a third estate; and as the bishops wereto sit per baroniam in the temporal parliament,253so they were to sit with theinferior clergy in convocation. And theproject and design of the king was, that,as the two temporal estates charged thetemporalities, and made laws to bind alltemporal things within this realm; so thisother body should have given taxes tocharge the spiritual possessions, and havemade canons to the ecclesiastical body:to this end was the præmunientes clause(so called from the first word thereof) inthe summons to the archbishops and bishops,by which he required them to summonsuch of their inferior clergy to comewith them to parliament, as he then specifiedand thought sufficient to act for thewhole body of the clergy. This alteredthe convocation of the Church of Englandfrom the foreign synods; for these weretotally composed of the bishops, who werepastors of the Church; and therefore thebishops only were collected to composesuch foreign synods, to declare what wasthe doctrine, or should be the discipline, ofthe Church.

Edward I. projected making the clergya 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 mighthave their consent to the taxes and assessmentsmade on that body. But the clergy,foreseeing they were likely to be taxed,alleged that they could not meet under atemporal authority, to make any laws orcanons to govern the Church. And thisdispute was maintained by the archbishopsand bishops, who were very loath theclergy should be taxed, or that they shouldhave any interest in making ecclesiasticalcanons, which formerly were made by thesole authority of the bishops; for even ifthose 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 provincialconstitution of the bishops. Thewhole body of the Church being thus dissatisfied,the archbishops and bishopsthreatened to excommunicate the king:but he and the temporal estate took it soill that the clergy would not bear anypart of the public charge, that they werebeforehand with them, and the clergywere all outlawed, and their possessionsseised into the king’s hands. This sohumbled the clergy that they at last consentedto meet. And to take away all pretence,there was a summons, besides thepræmunientes clause, to the archbishop,that he should summon the bishops, deans,archdeacons, colleges, and whole clergy ofhis province. From hence, therefore, thebishops, deans, archdeacons, colleges, andclergy, met by virtue of the archbishop’ssummons; to which, being an ecclesiasticalauthority, they could not object. And sothe bishops and clergy came to convocationby virtue of the archbishop’s summons;they esteeming it to be in his power, whetherhe would obey the king’s writ ornot: but when he had issued his summons,they could not pretend it was nottheir duty to come. But the præmunienteswrit was not disused; because it directedthe manner in which the clergy were toattend, to wit, the deans and archdeaconsin person, the chapter by one, and theclergy by two proctors. So that the clergywere doubly summoned; first, by the bishop,to attend the parliament; and, secondly,by the archbishop, to appear inconvocation. And that the archbishopmight not appear to summon them solelyin pursuance of the king’s writ, he for themost part varied in his summons from theking’s writ, both as to the time and placeof their meeting. And lest it might bethought still (of which they were veryjealous) that their power was derived fromtemporal authority, they sometimes meton the archbishop’s summons without theking’s writ; and in such convocation theking demanded supplies, and by such requestowned the episcopal authority ofconvening. So that the king’s writ wasreckoned by the clergy no more than onemotive for their convening. From henceforward,instead of making one state ofthe kingdom, as the king designed, theclergy composed two ecclesiastical synods,i. e. of Canterbury and York, under thesummons of each of the archbishops; andbeing forced into those two synods beforementioned, they sat and made canons, bywhich each respective province was bound,and gave aids and taxes to the king. Butthe archbishop of Canterbury’s clergy,and that of York, assembled each in theirown province; and the king gratified thearchbishops, by suffering this new body ofconvocation to be formed in the nature ofa parliament. The archbishop sat as king;his suffragans sat in the upper house ashis peers; the deans, archdeacons, and theproctor for the chapter represented theburghers; and the two proctors for theclergy, the knights of the shire. And sothis body, instead of being one of theestates as the king designed, became anecclesiastical 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, yet254they did not make a part of the parliamentproperly so called. Sometimes indeed thelords, and sometimes the commons, werewont to send to the convocation for someof their body to give them advice in spiritualmatters: but still this was only byway of advice; for the parliament havealways insisted that their laws, by theirown natural force, bind the clergy; as thelaws of all Christian princes did in the firstages of the Church. And even the convocationtax always passed both houses ofparliament, since it could not bind as alaw till it had the consent of the legislature.

Thus the case stood when the act ofsubmission (25 Henry VIII. c. 19) wasmade; by which it is enacted as followeth:—“Whereasthe king’s humble and obedientsubjects, the clergy of this realm ofEngland, have not only acknowledged, accordingto the truth, that the convocationof the same clergy is, always hath been,and ought to be assembled only by theking’s writ; but also submitting themselvesto the king’s Majesty have promised, inverbo sacerdotii, that they will never fromhenceforth presume to attempt, allege,claim, or put in ure, enact, promulge, orexecute any new canons, constitutions, ordinances,provincial or other, or by whatsoevername they shall be called, in theconvocation, unless the king’s most royalassent and licence may to them be had, tomake, promulge, and execute the same,and that his Majesty do give his mostroyal assent and authority in that behalf:it is therefore enacted, according to thesaid submission, that they, nor any of them,shall presume to attempt, allege, claim, orput in ure any constitutions or ordinancesprovincial, by whatsoever name or namesthey may be called, in their convocationsin time coming (which shall always be assembledby authority of the king’s writ);unless the same clergy may have the king’smost royal assent and licence to make,promulge, and execute such canons, constitutions,and ordinances, provincial orsynodal; upon pain of every one of thesaid clergy doing contrary to this act, andbeing thereof convict, to suffer imprisonment,and make fine at the king’s will.”

It was resolved upon this statute, by thetwo chief justices and divers other justices,at a committee before the lords inparliament, in the eighth year of James I.,1. That a convocation cannot assemble attheir convocation without the assent of theking. 2. That after their assembly theycannot confer, to constitute any canons,without licence of the king. 3. Whenthey upon conference conclude any canons,yet they cannot execute any of their canonswithout the royal assent. 4. Thatthey cannot execute any after the royalassent, but with these four limitations:(1.) that they be not against the prerogativeof the king; nor (2.) against thecommon law; nor (3.) against the statutelaw; nor (4.) against any custom of therealm.

The clergy having continued to tax themselvesin convocation as aforesaid, theseassemblies were regularly kept up till theact of the 13 Charles II. c. 4, was passed,when the clergy gave their last subsidy: itbeing then judged more advantageous tocontinue the taxing them by way of landtaxand poll-tax, as it had been in thetime of the Long Parliament during thecivil wars.

And in the year 1664, by a privateagreement between Archbishop Sheldonand the Lord Chancellor Clarendon, andother the king’s ministers, it was concludedthat the clergy should silently waive theprivilege of taxing their own body, andpermit themselves to be included in themoney bills prepared by the commons.And this hath made convocations unnecessaryto the Crown, and inconsiderablein themselves.

And since that time the clergy havebeen allowed to vote in choosing knightsof the shire, as other freeholders, which informer times they did not.

And from that time the convocation hasnever passed any synodical act; and fromthenceforth, until the year 1700, for themost part they were only called, and veryrarely did so much as meet together in afull body, and with the usual solemnity.It is true that, during the remainder ofKing Charles the Second’s reign, when theoffice of prolocutor was void by death orpromotion, so many of the lower housecame together as were thought sufficientto choose a new one; and those membersthat were about the town commonly met,during parliament, once a week, had prayersread, and were formally continued tillthe parliament was dissolved, and the convocationtogether with it. And in KingJames the Second’s time, the writs issuedout of course, but the members did notmeet. In the year 1689, after the accessionof William and Mary to the throne, aconvocation was not only called, but beganto sit in due form; but their resolutionscame to nothing. And from thencetill the year 1700 they were only called,but did not meet; but in that year, andever since, at the meeting of the parliament,the convocation of the clergy has255likewise been solemnly opened, and thelower clergy have been permitted to formthemselves into a house, and to choosetheir prolocutor; nor have they been finallydismissed as soon as that solemnity wasover, but they continued from time to timetill the parliament hath broke up, or beendissolved. And now it seems to be agreedthat they are of right to be assembled concurrentlywith parliaments, and may actand proceed as provincial councils, whenher Majesty in her royal wisdom shall judgeit expedient.

In Ireland, the convocations of the fourprovinces assembled all together in Dublin;and were formed exactly upon themodel of those of England; consisting ofthe upper house, consisting of the bishops;and of the lower, consisting of deans, archdeacons,proctors of the chapters, andproctors of the clergy of each diocese.—SeeWilkins’s Concilia, iv. 496, and for therules and privileges of the convocation, iv.632.

Mr. Stephens, in his Introduction to theIrish Common Prayer Book, (xxxvii. &c.,)remarks that, “In 1615, a convocation ofthe Irish clergy, formed after the modelof the English convocation, assembled inDublin. This seems to have been the firstconvocation ever held in Ireland. Theclergy do not appear to have granted anysubsidies, or ever to have claimed the rightof taxing themselves.... In the reignof Henry VIII. there does not seem to beany reference of ecclesiastical matters tothe convocation, nor any claim of exemptionon the part of the clergy.” [He thenquotes the preamble of 28 Henry VIII. c.12.] “In the second year of Elizabeth aparliament was assembled, and no mentionis made of a convocation, though actswith respect to the Church were passed.And in the third year of Elizabeth therewas not any parliament, yet she signifiesher pleasure to Lord Sussex, the lordlieutenant, for a general meeting of theclergy, and the establishment of the Protestantreligion. This of course was anorder to summon not a convocation, butthe ancient synod of the clergy, which hadthe power of settling all matters concerningreligion.... In Ireland the provincialsynod had not been suspended, and bytheir consent given at three different timesin the reign of Edward,... the clergy revivedthe use of the English liturgy, andexpressed their conformity to the doctrineof the English Church.” There is, indeed,a passage in the Manuscript Collections ofDudley Loftus, which has been adducedas proof of a convocation having been heldin 1560: “This year was held a convocationof bishops at the queen’s command,for establishing the Protestant religion.”But he must have used the word convocationmerely “to express a meeting of thebishops, and would have adopted a verydifferent phraseology to describe the meetingof the convocation.” See also Ebrington’sLife of Ussher, 38–40. As beforeobserved, (see Church of Ireland,) no provisionwhatever has been made since theIrish Union, for the assembling even formallyof the convocation of the Irish provinceof the Church. Still it appears (vide11 Parl. Reg. 164 and 274) that it was byno means intended that the Irish provincesshould be deprived of their convocations.It was proposed on the 20th April, 1800,that the archbishops, bishops, and clergyof Ireland, should be summoned to sit inthe convocation of the United Church.Mr. Pitt expressly said, in proposing theamendment to this resolution, “that theprosperity of the Church of Ireland nevercould be permanent, unless it be a part ofthe Union to have, as a guard, power tothe United Parliament to make some provisionin this respect;” i.e. convocation.“And afterwards,” he said, “it was judgedbetter to omit the insertion of any provisionalarticle respecting the convocation,till the Union actually took place.” Thispledge has never been redeemed.—See anarticle 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 themeetings of the national synod, or, as itis called in England, the convocation ofthe Church of Scotland; and an act waspassed, That this synod shall consist ofthe two archbishops and their suffragans,all the deans and archdeacons, the fixedmoderators, along with one minister ofevery presbytery, and one commissionerfrom each of the four universities: Thatthe synod, then constituted, is to meet atsuch places and times as his Majesty byproclamation shall appoint, and is to debate,treat, consider, consult, conclude, anddetermine upon such pious matters, causes,and things, concerning the doctrine, worship,discipline, and government of thisChurch, as his Majesty shall, from time totime, under his loyal hand, deliver, or causeto be delivered, to the archbishop of St.Andrew’s, president of the said nationalassembly, to be by him offered to theirconsideration: That unless his Majesty orhis commissioner be present, no nationalassembly can be held: And that no act,canon, order, or ordinance, shall be owned256as an act of the national synod of theChurch of Scotland, but such as shall havebeen considered, consulted, and agreedupon by the president and major part ofthe number above specified.—Skinner’sEccles. Hist. of Scotland.

COPE. (Cappa, called also pallium, orpluviale.) A kind of cloak worn duringDivine service by the clergy. It reachesfrom the neck nearly to the feet, and isopen in front, except at the top, where itis united by a band or clasp. It is in usein the Western Church only; and is probablyonly a modification of the vestment,or chasuble. The latter, in the RomanChurch, is used by the officiating priest atmass only; the other, by all orders of theclergy in procession, &c., on solemn occasions.The rubrics of King Edward VI.,still legally in force, prescribe a cope or vestmentfor the priest administering the holycommunion, and for the bishops, when executingany public ministration in thechurch; for which a vestment may besubstituted either by priest or bishop. Bythe 24th canon the cope only is prescribedto the priest administering the communion,and that only in cathedral churches. Butthe rubric being subsequently enacted,which refers to the regulation of EdwardVI.’s First Prayer Book, the latter is morestrictly to be considered as the law of theChurch. It was used in several churchesand college chapels in the 17th century,(see Jebb’s Church Service, p. 217,) and wasin use at Durham cathedral and Westminstertill the middle of the last century.De Foe, in his anonymous Tour throughEngland, 1762, says that “the old vestments,which the clergy before the Reformationwore, are still used on Sundays andholidays, by the residents.” And Dr. Collis,in his Rubric of the Church of England examined,1737, says that “no copes areworn at present in any cathedral or collegiatechurch in the ministration of the holycommunion, except in the churches ofWestminster and Durham.” The copehas always been worn by officiating bishops,and by the dean and prebendaries of Westminsterat coronations, and occasionallyat state funerals.

COPIATÆ. The office of the Copiatæ,(κοπιάω, to travail,) who are called in LatinFossarii, was to superintend funerals, andto see that all persons had a decent burial.They performed their office gratuitouslytowards the poor.—Cave.

COPTS. The Monophysite, or Jacobite,Christians of Egypt, who have been foreleven centuries in possession of the patriarchalchair of Alexandria, and the dominantsect among the Christians of thatregion, are called Copts. They were placedin possession of the Egyptian churches onthe irruption of the Saracens in the seventhcentury. Their numbers are now perhapsabout 100,000. They have three liturgies,one ascribed to St. Basil, which they useon fast days; that of St. Cyril, which theyuse in Lent; and that of St. Gregory,which they use on festivals. Their serviceis very much crowded with ceremonies.The Coptic tongue, in which their worshipis conducted, is to them a dead language,and not even understood by many of theirpriests. Their habits of life are ascetic,and they have many monasteries. Theyhave a patriarch, who resides at Cairo, buttakes his title from Alexandria.

CORBEL. A bracket. A projectionsupporting a weight; and so corbel-table,a table or horizontal projection supportedby corbels. Corbel-tables are almost confinedto the Norman, Transition, and EarlyEnglish periods. Corbels in other placesare of course continued; they are often ofextreme beauty.

CORDELIERS. (Monks of the Orderof St. Francis.) They wear coarse greycloth with a little cowl, and a rope girdlewith three knots; from this girdle theyare called Cordeliers. They are the samewith the Minorites; but had the name ofCordeliers given them upon this occasion,they having repulsed the infidels in a warwhich St. Louis made against them, theking asked their name, and was answered,they were des Gens des Cordelies—peoplewith cords about them. (See Franciscans.)

CORONATION. The solemn religiousrite by which a sovereign prince is consecratedto his high office, in which alsothe queen consort in Christian countriesis usually associated with her husband, notfor office’ sake, but honoris gratia.

By ancient custom the coronation of thesovereign of England belongs to the archbishopof Canterbury, and that of thequeen consort to the archbishop of York.The place is Westminster Abbey. Thekings of Scotland were crowned at Scone.

According to Mr. Palmer, (Supplement,)the coronation of sovereigns may be tracedto A. D. 457, when Leo was crowned emperorby Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople.Pepin was the first Frenchmonarch who was crowned. The firstcoronation in England was that of Egferthking of Mercia; and we have still theforms used in the time of the Heptarchy,from which our coronation service (slightlymodified from time to time) is substantiallyderived.—See Dr. Silver’s Coronation257Service, or Consecration of the Anglo-SaxonKings.

It is a form of immemorial prescription,substantially the same as that used at theinauguration of our Christian monarchs inSaxon times, and sanctioned by the solemnapproval of all the estates of the realm,the nobility, the clergy, and the people,assembled at its celebration. The prayersare framed in the best spirit of antiquity,with the rhythm so characteristic of primitiveforms, and with an elevation andmajesty of sentiment unsurpassed in anypart of our liturgy. The service is, however,peculiarly valuable, as recordingcertain high religious and political principles,which of course must be consideredas receiving the full sanction of the Churchand nation. Thus, there is an acknowledgmentof the sovereignty of Christover the whole world, and the derivationof all kingly power from Him. “Whenyou see this orb set under the cross, rememberthat the whole world is subject tothe power and empire of Christ our Redeemer.For He is the Prince of thekings of the earth, King of kings, andLord of lords; so that no man can reignhappily, who derives not his authorityfrom Him, and directs not all his actionsaccording to His laws.” It is declaredthat Christian sovereigns, like the Jewishkings of old, are consecrated to the fulnessof their office by the religious rite of unction,and that their function is not merelysecular. “Bless and sanctify thy chosenservant Victoria, who by our office andministry is now to be anointed with thisoil, and consecrated Queen of this realm.”There is a strict recognition of the prerogativeof the clergy, empowered as theministers of Christ, to assert the dominionof our Lord, who exalts her to her holydignity: “Stand firm and hold fast fromhenceforth the seat and the state of royaland imperial dignity, which is this daydelivered to you in the name and by theauthority of Almighty God, and by thehands of us the bishops and servants ofGod, though unworthy: and as you see usto approach nearer to God’s altar, so vouchsafethe more graciously to continue tous your royal favour and protection. Andthe Lord God Almighty, whose ministerswe are, and the stewards of his mysteries,establish you therein in righteousness, thatit may stand fast for evermore.”—Palmer.

CORNET. A species of horn or trumpetformerly much used in the Churchservice; in the king’s chapel especially.Dr. Rimbault, in his Notes on RogerNorth’s Memoirs of Music, states, that inthe Statutes of Canterbury cathedral,provision is made for players on sackbutsand cornets, on high festivals. After theRestoration, as appears from North’s Lifeof Guildford, the cornet was used at Durhamand York cathedrals; and MatthewLock says, that for about a year after theopening of the Royal Chapel, the cornetwas used to supply the want of treblevoices.

Evelyn, in his Memoirs, (21 Dec. 1663,)complains of violins being substituted inthe Royal Chapel, “instead of the ancient,grave, and solemn wind-music, accompanyingthe organ:” and that “we no moreheard the cornet, which gave life to theorgan, that instrument quite left off, inwhich the English were so skilful.”—Jebb.

CORPORAL. This is the name givento the linen cloth which is spread over thebody, (corpus,) or consecrated bread, afterthe communion. It was of common use inthe Church in the fifth century, as is evidentfrom the testimony of Isidore of Pelusium,who observes that the design ofusing it was to represent the body of ourSaviour being wrapped in fine linen byJoseph of Arimathea.

The direction concerning this “fair linencloth” in our Order of the Holy Communionis as follows: “When all have communicated,the minister shall return to theLord’s table, and reverently place upon itwhat remaineth of the consecrated elements,covering the same with a fair linencloth.” Our reformers may have been influencedin their retention of this decentceremony after consecration, as a protestagainst the elevation of the host, and“gazing” at the sacrament.

CORPUS CHRISTI, FEAST OF. ARoman festival, instituted by Pope UrbanIV., A. D. 1264, and observed on the Thursdayof the week after Pentecost. Theinstitution was the natural result of theacceptance of the doctrine of transubstantiation.Hildebert of Tours was the firstwho made use of the high-sounding termtransubstantiatio. Most of the earlierscholastics, and the disciples of Lanfrancin particular, had, however, previously defendedboth the doctrine of the change ofthe bread into the body of Christ, andthat of the accidentia sine subjecto; but itwas not made an article of faith till thetime of Innocent III. By the institutionof the Corpus Christ day, by Urban, thisdoctrine was expressed in a liturgical form,and its popularity was secured. The festivalwas established in honour of the consecratedhost, and with a view to its adoration.Its origin is connected with some258of those “lying wonders,” in which weread one of the marks of the scripturalcondemnation of the Church of Rome.The Romish legend states that, in 1230,Juliana, a nun of Liege, while looking atthe full moon, saw a gap in its orb; and,by a peculiar revelation from heaven,learned that the moon represented theChristian Church, and the gap the want ofa certain festival—that of the adoration ofthe body of Christ in the consecrated host—whichshe was to begin to celebrate, andannounce to the world. In 1264, while apriest at Bolsena, who did not believe inthe change of the bread into the body ofChrist, was going through the ceremonyof benediction, drops of blood fell on hissurplice, and when he endeavoured to concealthem in the folds of his garment,formed bloody images of the host. Thebloody surplice is still shown as a relic atCivita Vecchia. It was in this year thatPope Urban published his bull, and it iswith such authority that the Church ofRome is contented!

CORSNED. (See Ordeal.)

COUNCILS. (See Synod.) General orœcumenical councils, or synods, are assembliesof bishops from all parts of the Church,to determine some weighty controversies offaith or discipline. Of such councils theCatholic or Universal Church has neverreceived or approved more than six, althoughthe Romish Church acknowledgesseveral others. This is one of the manyinstances in which the Romish Church isat variance with the Catholic Church. Thefirst Catholic Council is that of Nice, whichwas convened by the emperor Constantine,A. D. 325, to terminate the controversyraised by Arius, presbyter of Alexandria,who denied the Divinity of the Son of God,maintaining that he was a creature broughtforth from nothing, and susceptible of viceand virtue. The council condemned hisdoctrine as heretical, and declared thefaith of the Church in that celebratedcreed called the Nicene Creed, which isrepeated by us in the Communion Service,and which has, ever since its promulgation,been received and venerated by the UniversalChurch, and even by many sects andheretics. This council also made severalregulations in matters of discipline. Thesecond general council was that of Constantinople,assembled by the emperorTheodosius the Elder, in 381, to appeasethe troubles of the East. The heresy ofMacedonius, who blasphemously taughtthat the Holy Ghost was a creature, washerein anathematized, and the NiceneCreed was brought into its present form bythe addition of some passages concerningthe orthodox doctrine of the incarnation,and of the real Divinity of the HolyGhost. The third general council wasassembled at Ephesus, A. D. 431, by theemperor Theodosius the Younger, to determinethe controversy raised by Nestorius,bishop of Constantinople, who declaimedagainst the title of Theotokos,(Mother of God,) which the Church hadlong applied to the mother of him whowas both God and man; and taught thatthe Son of man and God the Word weredifferent persons, connected only by amoral or apparent union, contrary to theScripture, which declared that “the Wordwas made flesh and dwelt among us,” andthat God purchased the Church “with hisown blood.” (Acts xx. 28.) By this councilthe Nestorian heretics were condemned.The fourth general council was assembledby the emperor Marcian, in 451, at Chalcedon.This council published a confession,or definition of faith, in which thedoctrine and creed of the three precedingCouncils of Nice, Constantinople, andEphesus, were confirmed, and the orthodoxdoctrine of the existence of two perfectand distinct natures, the Divine and human,in the unity of the person of our LordJesus Christ, was clearly defined. Eutyches,and Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria,who maintained that there was only onenature in our Lord Jesus Christ, afterthe incarnation or union of the Divinityand humanity, were condemned as hereticsby this council. The fifth general council,commonly called the Second Council ofConstantinople, was convened by the emperorJustinian, in 553; but it is only tobe viewed as a supplement to the thirdgeneral council, being engaged like it incondemning the Nestorian heresy. Thesixth council, called the Third Council ofConstantinople, was assembled in 680, bythe emperor Constantine Pogonatus. Itstands in the same relation to the fourthcouncil that the fifth does to the third.“These are the only councils,” says Mr.Palmer, “which the Universal Church hasever received and approved as general.”The doctrine of these general councils,having been approved and acted on by thewhole body of the Catholic Church, andthus ratified by an universal consent, whichhas continued ever since, is irrefragablytrue, unalterable, and irreformable; norcould any Church forsake or change thedoctrine without ceasing to be Christian.

In the act of the first of Elizabeth...the commissioners, in their judgment ofheresies, were enjoined to adhere, in the259first place, to the authority of the canonicalScriptures; secondly, to the decisionsof the first four general councils; andthirdly, to the decision of any other generalcouncil, founded on the express and plainwords of Holy Scripture. In this act, oneparticular deserves, and demands, veryspecial attention; namely, the unqualifieddeference paid to the first four generalcouncils. The latest of these councils satand deliberated in the year 451. A pointof time, therefore, is fixed, previously towhich the Church of England unreservedlyrecognises the guidance of the CatholicChurch, in the interpretation of Christianverities.—Bishop Jebb, Appendix to PracticalSermons.

Provincial councils consist of the metropolitanand the bishops subject to him.Diocesan councils are assemblies of thebishop and his presbyters to enforce canonsmade by general or provincial councils,and to consult and agree upon rules ofdiscipline for themselves. (For an accountof the Romish councils, see Lateran. Forthe authority of councils in the Church ofEngland, see Heresy.)

COUNSEL. Besides the common significationof the word, it is frequently usedin Scripture to signify the designs or purposesof God, or the orders of his providence.(Acts iv. 28, and Psalm lxxiii.24.) It also signifies his will concerningthe way of salvation. (Luke vii. 30;Acts xx. 27.)

This word is also used by the doctors ofthe Romish Church, to denote those preceptswhich they hold to be binding uponthe faithful, in virtue of an implied directionor recommendation of our Lord andhis apostles. Thus the celibacy of theclergy is numbered by them among “evangelicalcounsels,” which, receiving theacceptance of the Church, they hold, heretically,to be equally binding with the commandsof canonical Scripture.

COURT CHRISTIAN. The ecclesiasticalcourts are so designated. In the Churchof England there are six spiritual courts.

1. The Archdeacon’s Court, which isthe lowest, and is held in such placeswhere the archdeacon, either by prescriptionor composition, has jurisdiction inspiritual or ecclesiastical causes within hisarchdeaconry. The judge of this courtis called the official of the archdeaconry.

2. The Consistory Courts of the archbishopsand bishops of every diocese, heldin their cathedral churches, for trial of allecclesiastical causes within the diocese.The bishop’s chancellor or commissary isthe judge.

3. The Prerogative Court, held at Doctors’Commons, in London, in which alltestaments and last wills are proved, andadministrations upon the estates of intestatesgranted, where the party diesbeyond seas or within his province, leavingbona notabilia.

4. The Arches Court, (so called becauseanciently held in the arched church ofSt. Mary, in Cheapside, London,) is thatwhich has jurisdiction upon appeal in allecclesiastical causes, except what belongto the Prerogative Court. The judge isthe official principal of the archbishop.

5. The Court of Peculiars, of the archbishopof Canterbury, subservient to, andin connexion with, that of the Arches.

6. The Court of Delegates, so calledbecause the judges are delegated and sitin virtue of the king’s commission, underthe great seal, pro hac vice, upon appealsto the king on ecclesiastical matters. Thepowers of this court are now in Englandtransferred to the Judicial Committee ofthe Privy Council. It remains in Ireland.(See Delegates, and Appeal.)

COVENANT. A mutual agreementbetween two or more parties. (Gen. xxi.32.) In the Hebrew the word signifies,1. A disposition, dispensation, institution,or appointment of God to man. (Hebrewsix. 16, 17, 20.) 2. The religious dispensationor institution which God appointedto Abraham and the patriarchs. (Acts iii.25; Luke i. 72; Acts vii. 8.) 3. Thedispensation from Sinai. (Heb. viii. 9;Gal. iv. 24.) 4. The dispensation of faithand free justification, of which Christ isthe Mediator, (Heb. vii. 22–viii. 6,)and which is called new in respect of theold or Sinai covenant, (2 Cor. iii. 6; Heb.viii. 8, 13; ix. 15,) and whence the NewCovenant or Testament became the titleof the books in which this new dispensationis contained. Into this covenant we areadmitted by union with Christ; and intounion with Christ all infants, and suchadults as are properly qualified by faith andrepentance, may be admitted in holy baptism.(Gal. iii. 27.) 5. The old dispensationis used for the books of Moses containingthat dispensation by St. Paul. (2Cor. iii. 14.)

We renew our baptismal covenant inour confirmation, and in each faithful participationof the eucharist.

COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.This is said to be the mutual stipulationbetween the everlasting Father and theco-eternal Son, relating to the salvation ofour fallen race, previously to any act uponthe part of Christ under the character of260Mediator. That there was such a covenant,either tacit or express, we may assuredlyconclude, from the importance ofthe work undertaken by God the Son,and the awful sacrifice made for its accomplishment.All the prophecies whichrelate to what was to be done by theMessiah on the one hand, and the benefitsand rewards which were to be conferredupon him and his people on the other,may properly be considered as intimationsof such a covenant. (1 Pet. i. 11. CompareJohn 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, undertookto become incarnate, to dwell acertain time upon earth, subject to the lawof human nature; directing his whole conductwhile he should continue here, insuch a manner as most effectually to promotethe honour of his Father and thesalvation of his people; that at length hewould voluntarily deliver himself to sufferingsand death, and remain for a timein the grave; thereby, in human nature,offering a satisfaction to the law of perfectobedience to the will of the Creator, whichhuman nature had violated, and removingthe obstacle to the operation of Divinemercy, which Divine justice interposed;also, that, after his resurrection and ascensioninto heaven, he would employ hisrenewed life as the God-Man, and hisextensive authority in the mediatorialkingdom, to the same great purposes whichengaged him to become incarnate. (Ps.xl. 6–9; Heb. x. 5–10; Isa. lxi. 1–3;Luke iv. 18; Isa. i. 5, 6.) God theFather, on the other hand, stipulated toproduce a human body for his co-eternalSon, in the womb of the Virgin; that hewould strengthen his human nature bythe gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit,for the extraordinary work before him;that he would raise him from the dead, andelevate his human nature to the righthand of power; and that he would acceptthe atonement when offered. It is added,that God the Holy Ghost stipulated toregenerate, renew, and sanctify those ofmankind, whom God the Father gave tohis 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, comparedwith 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 agreedto by the Scots in 1638, for maintainingthe Presbyterian religion free from innovation.In 1581, the general assemblyof Scotland drew up a confession of faith,or national covenant, condemning the episcopalgovernment of the Christian Church,under the name of hierarchy. It wassigned by James VI., who was compelledto enjoin it upon all his subjects. It wasagain subscribed in 1590 and 1596; and,in 1638, it was taken with an oath on thepart of the subscribers, to maintain religionin the state it was in in 1580. Theoath annexed to the confession of faithreceived the name of Covenant, and thosewho subscribed it were called Covenanters.(See Confession of Faith, Westminster.)

CREDENCE, or CREDENTIAL. Atable or shelf near the altar, on which thebread and wine to be used in the eucharistare placed, previously to consecration,called in the Greek Church τράπεζα προθεσέος,mensa propositionis. The table ofProthesis in the Greek Church is placed ina side vestry; and here many prefatoryprayers and ceremonies are performed,before the priest goes into the chancel.The word credence appears to be derivedfrom the Italian “credenzare,” to tastemeats and drink before they were offeredto be enjoyed by another; an ancient courtpractice, which was performed by the cup-bearersand carvers, who for this reasonwere also called in German credenzer.Hence also the credenz-teller—credence-plate,on which cup-bearers credenced thewine; and, in general, a plate on which aperson offers anything to another: credenztisch,credence-table, a sideboard, an artificialcupboard with a table for the purposeof arranging in order and keepingthe drinking apparatus therein. (SeeAdelung’s German Dictionary, word “Credenzen.”)This table or shelf is used forthe more convenient observance of therubric following the Offertory sentences, inwhich it is directed: “And when there isa communion, the priest shall THEN placeupon the table so much bread and wine ashe shall think sufficient.” Where the staffof the clergy is large, the rubric can beconveniently observed without this aid.Archbishop Laud, (Troubles and Tryal, ch.33,) in his chapel at Lambeth, had a credential,(or side-table,) from which theelements were fetched, and set reverentlyupon the communion table. He defendsthis, by saying that both Bishop Andrewesand some other bishops used it so all theirtime, and no exception taken. From theplan of the chapel of Bishop Andrewes, inArchbishop Laud’s possession, and adduced261as evidence against him by Prynne,it appears that the credential was placedon the south side of the communion table,the vessels for the communion being placedupon it. There are many credences invarious churches; among others, in thecollegiate and in St. John’s churches,Manchester, and in the parish church atLudlow, where they have been in use fromtime immemorial.—Jebb.

CREED. (See Apostles’ Creed, AthanasianCreed, Nicene Creed.) By the wordcreed (from credo, I believe) is meant thesubstance of the Christian’s faith. Thereare three creeds recognised by the CatholicChurch,—the Apostles’ Creed, the NiceneCreed, and the Athanasian Creed. TheLatin name for creed is symbolum, whichsignifies a watchword, or signal in war.Ludolph of Saxony, in his Life of Christ,describes the creeds of the Catholic Churchthus: “There are three symbols, (watchwordsor tokens, such as are used amongsoldiers of a garrison, to recognise theircomrades, and to detect insidious intruders,)—thefirst of the Apostles, the secondof the Nicene Council, the third ofSt. Athanasius; the first for instruction inthe faith, the second for the explanationof the faith, the third for defence of thefaith.” 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 aseries of creeds is simply this: the truthbeing but one and unvarying, the plainassertion of it is, in the first instance, allthat is necessary, all that can be done forit: and this was done by the Apostles’Creed. Error, on the other hand, is multiform;and consequently, as error uponerror continued to rise, correctives unthoughtof before were to be found tomeet the exigency: hence the NiceneCreed. Again, subsequent to that, newerrors were broached, the old were revived,clever evasions of the terms of the existingcreeds were invented, the vehemence ofopponents was increased; but all desiringstill, with all their mischievous errors, tobe within the pale of the Church, it becamestill more imperatively necessary to fencein the Church from such dangers; and thecreed called that of St. Athanasius, wascompiled from the logical forms of expressionwhich prevail in his writings, and thoseof similar champions of the catholic faith,and was very soon adopted by the Churchas an additional bulwark to preserve thatfaith in its original integrity and purity.Luther calls this creed, “the bulwark ofthe Apostles’ Creed.”

It is a mistake to imagine that creedswere, at first, intended to teach, in fulland explicit terms, all that should benecessary to be believed by Christians.They were designed rather for hints andminutes of the main credenda, to be recitedby catechumens before baptism; andthey were purposely contrived short, thatthey might be the more easily retainedin memory, and take up the less time inreciting. Creeds, very probably, at first,were so far from being paraphrases orexplications of the form of baptism, (or ofScripture 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 distinctlyunderstood, as any other words orforms could do. Hence it was that thecatechumens were to be instructed in thecreed, previously to baptism, for manydays together. As heresies gave occasion,new articles were inserted; not that theywere originally of greater importance thanany other articles omitted, but the oppositionmade to some doctrines rendered itthe more necessary to insist upon an explicitbelief and profession of them.—Waterland’sSermons on the Divinity of Christ.

As the apostles had foretold, “falseteachers” crept into the Church, and “privilybrought in damnable heresies, denyingthe Lord that bought them,” even “theonly Lord God, and our Lord JesusChrist.” (2 Pet. ii. 1, and Jude 4.) Asthese spread their poison, it became necessaryto provide an antidote; for whichpurpose it was wisely ordered, that creeds,or summaries of the Christian faith, shouldbe drawn up, and published for generaluse.—Waldo.

As to the primitive Churches, their constantway was to enlarge their creeds inproportion to the growth of heresies, thatso every corruption arising to the faith ofChrist might have an immediate remedy.The design was to keep up, as strictly aspossible, the whole fabric of the Christianfaith as it stands in Scripture; and if anypart came to be attacked, they were thento bend all their cares to succour and relievethat part, in order still to secure thewhole. The sum of Christian practice iscontained in two brief rules,—to love God,and to love one’s neighbour. But mistakesand perverse sentiments may arise;to correct and remove which it may benecessary to enlarge the rule of practice,and to branch it out into many otherparticulars.—Waterland on the AthanasianCreed.

If our creeds be found fault with for262not being expressed in scriptural termsonly, let them bear the blame who, by anartful misapplication of Scripture terms atfirst, made it necessary for the guardiansof the faith to express the Scripture doctrinein other terms, more explicit, andnot so liable to be perverted and abused.—Wheatlyon the Creeds.

We must ever lament that the misappliedcuriosity of men should have made it atall necessary to enlarge upon mysteriousdoctrines. It might have been fortunatefor the peace and tranquillity of the ChristianChurch, if the Apostles’ Creed hadbeen sufficient. But since men will be“wise above what is written,” some remedymust be found out, which may eithersatisfy or restrain their curiosity. Andwhoever peruses the several parts of theAthanasian Creed will find, that, so far fromcreating minute inquiries concerning thedoctrine of the Trinity, it is more especiallycalculated to discountenance and preventthem. Sublime truths require modestyand caution in our expressions; and whateverchecks presumption, prepares themind for the reception of sound and usefuldoctrine. The abuse of Scriptural languagefirst occasioned a deviation from itin creeds, and common candour will compelall parties to acknowledge the difficultyof finding proper words to express so muchas it was intended for us to know, and nomore.—Croft’s Bamp. Lectures.

CREED OF POPE PIUS IV. A succinctand explicit summary of the doctrinecontained in the canons of the Council ofTrent, is expressed in the creed which waspublished by Pius IV. in 1564, in the formof a bull, and which usually bears his name.It is received throughout the whole RomanCatholic Church; every person who is admittedinto the Roman Catholic Churchpublicly reads and professes his assent toit. It is by these additional articles to theNicene Creed, that the Romish Churchcuts itself off from the Church Catholic,and becomes heretical.

The tenor of it is as follows: “I, N., believeand profess, with a firm faith, all andevery one of the things which are containedin the Symbol of Faith, which isused in the holy Roman Church, viz.

“I believe in one God the Father Almighty,Maker of heaven and earth, andof all things visible and invisible; and inone Lord Jesus Christ, the only begottenSon of God, Light of light, true Godof true God, begotten, not made, consubstantialto the Father, by whom all thingswere made; who for us men, and for oursalvation, came down from heaven, andwas incarnate by the Holy Ghost of theVirgin Mary, and was made man, wascrucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,suffered, and was buried, and rose againthe third day according to the Scriptures,and ascended into heaven, sits at the righthand of the Father, and will come againwith glory to judge the living and thedead, of whose kingdom there will be noend; and in the Holy Ghost, the Lordand Life-giver, who proceeds from theFather and the Son; who, together withthe Father and the Son, is adored andglorified; who spoke by the prophets. Andone holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.I confess one baptism for the remission ofsins, and I expect the resurrection of thebody, and the life of the world to come.Amen.

“I most firmly admit and embrace apostolicaland ecclesiastical traditions, and allother constitutions and observances of thesame Church.

“I also admit the sacred Scriptures accordingto the sense which the holy motherChurch has held, and does hold, to whomit belongs to judge of the true sense andinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures; norwill I ever take and interpret them otherwisethan according to the unanimous consentof the Fathers.

“I profess also, that there are truly andproperly seven sacraments of the new law,instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, andfor the salvation of mankind, though allare not necessary for every one; viz. baptism,confirmation, eucharist, penance, extremeunction, order, and matrimony, andthat they confer grace; and of these, baptism,confirmation, and order cannot bereiterated without sacrilege.

“I also receive and admit the ceremoniesof the Catholic Church, received andapproved in the solemn administration ofall the above-said sacraments.

“I receive and embrace all and everyone of the things which have been definedand declared in the holy Council of Trent,concerning original sin and justification.

“I profess likewise, that in the mass isoffered to God a true, proper, and propitiatorysacrifice for the living and thedead; and that in the most holy sacramentof the eucharist there is truly, really,and substantially the body and blood,together with the soul and divinity, ofour Lord Jesus Christ; and that thereis made a conversion of the whole substanceof the bread into the body, and ofthe whole substance of the wine into theblood, which conversion the CatholicChurch calls transubstantiation.

263“I confess also, that, under either kindalone, whole and entire, Christ and a truesacrament is received.

“I constantly hold that there is a purgatory,and that the souls detained thereinare helped by the suffrages of the faithful.

“Likewise that the saints reigning togetherwith Christ, are to be honouredand invocated, that they offer prayers toGod for us, and that their relics are to bevenerated.

“I most firmly assert, that the imagesof Christ, and of the Mother of God evervirgin, and also of the other saints, are tobe had and retained; and that due honourand veneration are to be given to them.

“I also affirm, that the power of indulgenceswas left by Christ in the Church;and that the use of them is most wholesometo Christian people.

“I acknowledge the holy Catholic andApostolic Roman Church, the mother andmistress of all Churches; and I promiseand swear true obedience to the Romanbishop, the successor of St. Peter, prince ofthe apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ.

“I also profess and undoubtedly receiveall other things delivered, defined, and declaredby the sacred canons and generalcouncils, and particularly by the holyCouncil of Trent; and likewise I also condemn,reject, and anathematize all thingscontrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoevercondemned and anathematized by theChurch.

“This true catholic faith, out of whichnone can be saved, which I now freelyprofess and truly hold, I, N., promise, vow,and swear most constantly to hold andprofess the same, whole and entire, withGod’s assistance, to the end of my life.Amen.”

CRESSELLE. An instrument of wood,made use of in the Romish Church duringPassion week, instead of bells, to givenotice of Divine service. This is done inimitation of the primitive Christians, who,they suppose, made use of such an instrument,before the invention of bells, to calltheir brethren secretly to prayers. Thereare mysteries in the Cresselle. It representsChrist praying on the cross, andcalling nations to his preaching; as alsohis 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 pastoralstaff of an archbishop, and is to be distinguishedfrom the pastoral staff of a bishop;the latter terminating in an ornamentedcrook, while the crosier always terminatesin a cross. At the end of the CommonPrayer Book established in the secondyear of Edward VI., which is referred toas still obligatory, so far as the ornamentsof the church and of the ministers thereofare concerned, in the rubric immediatelybefore the Morning Prayer it is ordered,—“Whensoeverthe bishop shall celebratethe holy communion, or execute any otherpublic office, he shall have upon him, besideshis rochet, an alb, and cope or vestment,and also his pastoral staff in hishand, or else borne by his chaplain.”

CROSS. The cross was the instrumentof death to our most blessed Lord andSaviour, and it has been considered inall ages by the Church as the most appropriateemblem, or symbol, of the Christianreligion. The sign of the cross was madein the primitive Church in some part ofalmost every Christian office. The Churchof 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 honourthe name of the cross, being hateful amongthe Jews, so far that, under it, he comprehendednot only Christ crucified, but theforce, effects, and merits of his death andpassion, with all the comforts, fruits, andpromises which we receive or expectthereby. Secondly, the honour and dignityof the name of the cross begat areverent estimation even in the apostles’times, for aught that is known to the contrary,of the sign of the cross, which theChristians shortly after used in all theiractions; thereby making an outward showand profession, even to the astonishmentof the Jews, that they were not ashamedto acknowledge him for their Lord andSaviour, who died for them upon thecross. And this sign they not only usedthemselves, with a kind of glory, whenthey met with any Jews, but signed therewiththeir children, when they were christened,to dedicate them by that badge tohis service, whose benefits bestowed uponthem in baptism, the name of the crossdid represent. And this use of the signof the cross was held in the primitiveChurch, as well by the Greeks as by theLatins, with one consent, and great applause.At which time, if any had opposedthemselves against it, they would certainlyhave been censured as enemies of thename of the cross, and consequently ofChrist’s merits, the sign whereof theycould no better endure. This continualand general use of the sign of the cross, isevident by many testimonies of the ancientFathers. Thirdly, it must be confessed264that, in process of time, the sign of thecross was greatly abused in the Church ofRome, especially after that corruption ofPopery had once possessed it. But theabuse of a thing doth not take away thelawful use of it. Nay, so far was it fromthe purpose of the Church of England toforsake and reject the Churches of Italy,France, Spain, Germany, or any such likeChurches, in all things that they held andpractised, that, as Bishop Jewel’s “Apologyof the Church of England” confesseth,it doth with reverence retain thoseceremonies which do neither endamagethe Church of God, nor offend the mindsof sober men; and only departed fromthem in those particular points whereinthey were fallen, both from themselves intheir ancient integrity, and from the apostolicalChurches which were their firstfounders. In which respect, amongst someother very ancient ceremonies, the sign ofthe cross in baptism hath been retained inthis Church, both by the judgment andpractice of those reverend fathers andgrave divines in the days of King EdwardVI., of whom some constantly suffered forthe profession of the truth; and others,being exiled in the time of Queen Mary,did, after their return, in the beginning ofthe reign of our late dread sovereign, continuallydefend and use the same.”

The sign of the cross is appointed to beused at baptism. After the priest hathbaptized the child, he receives it intothe congregation, by this solemnity declaringthat he is by baptism made amember of the Church. (1 Cor. xii. 13.)“We are all baptized into one body.”And when he thus receives it, he signs itwith the sign of the cross, as of old it waswont, according to St. Augustine; and onthe forehead, the seat of blushing andshame, that he may not hereafter blush andbe ashamed of the disgraced cross ofChrist, as St. Cyprian saith. By thisbadge is the child dedicated to his service,whose benefits, bestowed upon him in baptism,the name of the cross in Holy Scripturedoes represent. Whosoever desiresto be fully satisfied concerning the use ofthe cross in baptism, let him read thethirtieth canon of our Church, in the year1603.—Bp. Sparrow.

The Church, studious to retain this ancientand universal ceremony of the purestprimitive times, was also careful to declineall fear of superstitious intendment; as ifshe thought the sacrament imperfect withoutit. Therefore, whereas the primitivemode made it to usher in baptism, ourChurch inverted the order, and made itcome after, and so to follow it, as she expresslyfirst declareth, “the child to be receivedinto the congregation of Christ’sflock, as a perfect member thereof, and notby any power ascribed to the sign of thecross.” (Canon 30.) And further to assureall distrustful minds, that she maketh itnot of the substance of the sacrament, shehath totally omitted it in the office of privatebaptism.—L’ Estrange.

The child, being now baptized, is becomea member of the Christian Church, intowhich the minister (as a steward of God’sfamily) doth solemnly receive it; and, forthe clearer manifestation that it now belongsto Christ, solemnly signs it in theforehead with the sign of the “cross.” Forthe better understanding of which primitiveceremony, we may observe, that it was anancient rite for masters and generals tomark the foreheads or hands of their servantsand soldiers with their names ormarks, that it might be known to whomthey did belong; and to this custom theangel in the Revelation is thought toallude: “Hurt not the earth, &c., till wehave sealed the servants of our God intheir foreheads” (Rev. vii. 3): thus againthe retinue of the Lamb are said to “havehis Father’s name written in their foreheads”(chap. xiv. 1). And thus, lastly, inthe same chapter, as Christ’s flock carriedhis mark on their foreheads, so did hisgreat adversary the beast sign his servantsthere also: “If any man shall receive themark of the beast in his forehead, or in hishand,” &c. (ver. 9). Now that the ChristianChurch might hold some analogy withthose sacred applications, she conceived ita most significant ceremony in baptism,(which is our first admission into theChristian profession,) that all her childrenshould be signed with the cross on theirforeheads, signifying thereby their consignmentup to Christ; whence it isoften called by the ancient Fathers, the“Lord’s signet” and “Christ’s seal.”—Wheatly.

The true sense and intention of theChurch of England in appointing this signappears from Dr. Burgess’s sense of thematter, which was accepted by King Jamesthe First, and affirmed by the archbishopof Canterbury [Bancroft] to be the senseof the Church. His words are these whichfollow:—“I know it is not made any partof the sacrament of baptism, which is acknowledgedby the canon to be completewithout it, and not perfected or betteredby it.

“I understand it not as any sacramental,or operative, or efficacious sign265bringing any virtue to baptism, or thebaptized.

“Where the book says, ‘and do sign himwith the sign of the cross in token,’ &c.,I understand the book not to mean, thatthe sign of the cross has any virtue in it toeffect or further this duty; but only tointimate and express by that ceremony, bywhich the ancients did avow their professionof Christ crucified, what the congregationhopeth and expecteth hereafter fromthe infant; namely, that he shall not beashamed to profess the faith of Christcrucified, into which he was even now baptized.

“And therefore also when the 30th canonsaith, that the infant is ‘by that sign dedicatedunto the service of Christ,’ I understandthat dedication to import, not a realconsecration of the child, which was donein baptism itself; but only a ceremonialdeclaration of that dedication, like as thepriest is said to make clean the leper,whose being clean he only declared.”

The Church’s use of the sign of the crossand her expressions concerning it, are fairlycapable of this construction; and so authentica declaration is sufficient to satisfyany sober inquirer, that this sense notonly may be, but ought to be, received.—Dr.Bennet.

The heathens were wont to deride theChristians, and to speak disdainfully ofthem, as worshippers of a malefactor crucified.To encounter which reproach, andto show that they “gloried in the cross ofChrist,” (Gal. vi. 14,) taking it to be anhonour, not an ignominy; they assumedthis ceremony of signing themselves withthe cross, both in baptism, and at severalother times. And this sign being significantof a duty to be elicited by futurepractice, good reason had our Church tocontinue it.—L’ Estrange.

It is, in brief, a mark, by which we, asthe primitive Christians did, declare ourreligion, and no more than that, wherewithwe conclude all our prayers and thanksgivings,when we say through Jesus Christour Lord and Saviour.—Clutterbuck.

Upon the whole, the ceremony is exceedingproper, and very innocent; usedby most Christians; approved by all theancients, and by some of the most eminentreformed divines expressly; and condemnedby no Church: so that, if this ceremony berejected by any, they ought to consider thatthe fault is in themselves, not in the thing,at which offence is taken, but none justlygiven, if the Church be but rightly understood.—DeanComber.

CRUCIFIX. A cross upon which asculptured or carved image of the bodyof our Lord is fastened. It is much usedby the Romanists and the Lutheran Protestants,to excite in their minds a strongidea of our Saviour’s passion. It hasnever been used in the Church of Englandsince the Reformation, on the ground ofits having been abused to superstition andidolatry.

CRUSADE. A name given to theChristian expeditions against the infidels,for the recovery of the Holy Land out oftheir hands, because they who engagedthemselves in the undertaking wore a crosson their clothes, and had one in theirstandards. There were eight crusades.The first, in 1096, at the solicitation ofthe Greek emperor and patriarch of Jerusalem.Peter the Hermit, who was thepreacher of this crusade, was made generalof a great army, a thing that did not verywell agree with his profession, being apriest; and all the princes,—Hugo theGreat, count of Vermandois, brother toPhilip I. king of France; Robert, duke ofNormandy; 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 greatnumber of other lords, took different waysto meet at Constantinople. The first whomarched his troops was the famous Godfreyde Bouillon, who had a greater sharethan any of the rest in this undertaking,though not the command of the wholearmy. He commenced his march Aug. 15,1096, with 10,000 horse and 70,000 foot;and before the other princes were come toConstantinople, passing the Hellespont,besieged Nice, which, notwithstanding thedouble-dealing of the Greek emperorAlexis, after six weeks’ siege, was surrenderedto him; after which he victoriouslyentered Syria and took Antioch. Jerusalemwas taken in 1099, and Godfrey ofBouillon chosen king; a little after whichthe Christians gained the famous battle ofAscalon against the sultan of Egypt; whichvictory put an end to the first crusade;for the princes and lords, with those whofollowed them, believing they had fully accomplishedthe vow they had made, tooktheir leave of Godfrey, and returned totheir respective countries.

The second crusade was in 1144, andthis was headed by the emperor Conrad III.and Louis VII. of France: the emperor’sarmy was either destroyed by the enemy,or perished through the treachery of theGreek emperor and his brother-in-law;266and the second army, through the unfaithfulnessand treachery of the Christians ofSyria, was forced to quit the siege of Damascus.

The third crusade was in 1188, afterthe taking of Jerusalem by Saladin, sultanof Egypt. The most distinguished personsengaged in this expedition were theemperor Frederick Barbarossa; Frederick,duke of Swabia, his second son; Leopold,duke of Austria; Berthold, duke of Moravia;Herman, marquis of Baden; thecounts of Nassau, Thuringen, Meissen, andHolland, and above sixty more of thechief princes of the empire, with diversbishops. Barbarossa, in spite of the emperorof Constantinople, having got intoAsia Minor, defeated the sultan at Iconium,but, drawing near to Syria, sickenedand died in 1190: however his son Frederickled the army to Antioch, and joinedwith Guy, king of Jerusalem, in the siegeof Ptolemais, but, failing of success, hedied soon after, which proved the ruin ofhis army. Nevertheless, Richard, kingof England, and Philip Augustus, king ofFrance, arriving some months after in theHoly Land, with a great force, compelledPtolemais to surrender, July 12, 1191.After which, Philip returned home in discontent,while the brave King Richardconcluded a peace with Saladin, upon theseconditions,—that all the coast from Joppato Tyre should be left to the Christians,and that Saladin should have all the restof Palestine, except Ascalon, which was tobelong to the party who, at the end of thetruce, obtained possession of it; and that,during the truce, which was to last threeyears, three months, three weeks, and threedays, it should be lawful for the Christiansto go to Jerusalem in small companies, topay their devotions there.

The fourth was undertaken in 1195, bythe emperor Henry VI., after Saladin’sdeath: his army started for the Holy Landthree several ways, and, he himself atlength arriving at Ptolemais, the Christiansgained several battles against theinfidels, and took many towns; but thedeath of the emperor compelled them toquit the Holy Land, and return into Germany.

The fifth crusade was published by theartifice of Pope Innocent III. in 1198.Most of the adventurers in this expeditionemployed themselves in taking Zara forthe Venetians, and afterwards in makingwar against the Greek emperor; and thosewho proceeded to Palestine suffered a defeatin 1204.

The sixth crusade began in 1228, inwhich the Christians took the town of Damietta,but were forced to surrender itagain. The emperor Frederick, in 1229,went to the Holy Land, and next yearmade a peace with the sultan for ten years,upon these conditions—that the sultanshould deliver to the Christians the townsof Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Tyre,and Sidon, but the temple of Jerusalemshould be left to the Saracens, to performthe free exercise of their law; after whichthe emperor returned home. About 1240,Richard, earl of Cornwall, and brother toHenry III., king of England, arrived inPalestine, but, finding all efforts useless,while the Templars and Hospitallers continuedtheir disputes and private animosities,he, with the advice of the duke ofBurgundy, the great master of the Hospitallers,and chief persons of the crusade,accepted the advantageous conditions thesultan offered, whereby the Christians wereto enjoy some lands in Palestine, then inthe soldan’s possession. In 1244, the Corasmins,the descendants of the ancientParthians, fell upon the Christians in Palestine,and almost extirpated them.

The seventh crusade was led by St.Louis, king of France, who appeared beforeDamietta, after the feast of Whitsuntide,in 1249. He took it, but after somebattles his army was at last defeated, andhimself taken prisoner; after which a trucewas concluded for ten years, and the Christianswere to keep what they were in possessionof, except Damietta, which was tobe delivered to the sultan for the king’sransom, with a great sum of money; thisdone, the king sailed for Syria, and havingput Acre and other sea-ports in a goodcondition, returned home in 1254.

The same prince put himself at the headof the eighth crusade in 1270, and layingsiege to Tunis without success, died there:but his son, Philip the Bold, and Charles,king of Sicily, afterwards brought the kingof Tunis to agree to a truce for ten years,upon condition that he should set all theslaves of his kingdom at liberty; that heshould give the Dominican and Franciscanfriars leave to preach the gospel in histerritories, and build monasteries, and baptizeall those that should desire it, besidesa sum of money to be paid Charles yearly.About this time, Prince Edward of Englandarrived at Ptolemais with a small force of300 men. He hindered Benzdoctar fromlaying siege to Ptolemais, but was obligedsoon after to quit the Holy Land on accountof his father’s death, and his consequentsuccession to the crown of England.In 1291 the town of Ptolemais, or Acre,267was taken, and the Christians were drivenout of Syria. Since which time there hasbeen no crusade, though the popes havemore than once attempted to stir up Christiansto the undertaking.

CRYPT. The subterranean vault underany portion of a church. The original useof the crypt seems to have been to increasethe number of places for altars; they werealso sometimes used as places of burial,not as being set apart for that purpose, butthat persons would desire to be buried beforethis or that altar, or in some particularplace in the crypt, as they chose anypart of the church for the same purpose.

The crypt is generally found under theeast end of the church, and it is often theoldest part of it, and, as such, full of interestto the student of ecclesiastical architectureand antiquities. It often containsevidence of the form and extent of thechurch in its original condition, whichwould elsewhere be sought in vain. Themost remarkable crypts in England arethose of Canterbury, Gloucester, and Rochester.At Wrexham and Ripon portionsof the Saxon remains are retained in thecrypt, and at York the size and form of theNorman choir is displayed in the olderportion of the crypt.

CULDEES. [Kelidei, or Colidei.] Thename Culdee is derived from the GaelicGille De, (or Irish Ceile De,) which signifiesGod’s servant. There is an evidentaffinity between this and the cultores Deiof the Latin: and the same affinity hasbeen remarked between many of the Latinand Gallic words. There seems every reasonfor believing that the name of Culdeeswas bestowed on the indigenous clergyof the country from the time it was Christianized.—Lyon’sHist. of St. Andrews.

As to the Culdees, it is very certainthat there was a sort of monks, and ofsecular priests also, who went under thatappellation, not only among the Scots, butamong the Britons and Irish, and even alsoamong the northern English, who werefirst converted by the Scots, particularlyin the cathedral of York.—Goodall, PreliminaryDissert. prefixed to Bp. Russell’sedition of Keith’s Scottish Bishops.

The Culdees were, as far as antiquarianscan discover, the first order of monks thatsettled in the British Isles; and whereverthe Celtic language was used, whether inScotland, Ireland, or Wales, the name ofCuldee was given to every one, who, relinquishingthe temporal pursuits of life,joined an association of a religious character,for the purpose of fasting, meditation,and prayer.—Bishop Russell’s Supplementto the above Dissertation.

The name was not exclusively appliedto the followers of St. Columba at Iona,but establishments of the Culdees werefounded by Columba, a native of Ireland,in 563, and for a long period remainedindependent of the see of Rome, and freefrom the corruptions of that Church.The abbot of Iona was their head; notthat he assumed episcopal authority (forthe superiority of bishops, quoad spiritualia,was acknowledged even by Columbahimself, who refused to consecrate theeucharist, as we are told by Adamnan inhis Life of that abbot, in the presence ofa bishop); but because he exercised fullauthority over his monks quoad civilia.—SeeLyon’s Hist. of St. Andrews.

The Colidei, or Culdees in general, (asappears from the old authorities, andfrom Ware,) were in fact the ancient collegiateclergy of Ireland and Scotland; includingthose who led a monastic life, thatis, under vows of celibacy; yet includingcommunities of cathedral canons, whowere frequently married, though living togethernear their cathedral, with an abbotor prior at their head. In Scotland theCuldees constituted the chapter of severalcathedrals, and elected the bishop, as Mr.Goodall shows from charters and documentsstill extant. At St. Andrew’s theywere the sole chapter and electors of thebishop till 1140, when canons regular wereintroduced, who shared the privileges ofthe Culdees till 1273. Great jealousy subsistedbetween these ancient communities,and the interior secular canons and monks;who in the course of time expelled or supersededthe Culdees. There was no differenceof doctrine however between them;for the Culdees, though originally independentof Rome, adopted Roman systems,like the other clergy. The causes of disputewere those differences in discipline, andthose jealousies which have ever prevailedamong rival communities. The Culdeeshad in many instances a kind of hereditarysuccession to their benefices.

Ware (Antiq. of Ireland, chap. xxxvi.sect. 4, ed. Harris) states, that there weresome secular priests, called Colidei, whoserved in the cathedral church of Armagh,and their president was called Prior of theCollege of the Colidei; and was in thenature of a chanter to that church: electedby Colidei, and confirmed by the archbishop.(Harris adds, that it was a body corporate,and had considerable estates, till these fellto the Crown on the abdication of the communityafter the Reformation.) Ware268gives other instances in Ireland. The ministersof York cathedral were called Colideiin the time of Athelstan.

In a fine MS. Antiphonary anciently belongingto Armagh cathedral, and now inthe library of Trinity College, Dublin,there are several entries of the obits of theColidei of Armagh.

Some derive the name from Cylle, whichsignifies in Gaelic a cell, and tee, or dee, ahouse. But the derivation given aboveseems the most consistent with history andtradition.

CUP. (See Communion in one Kind.)The sacred vessel in which the consecratedwine in the Lord’s supper is conveyed tothe communicant, distinguished from theflagon, in which the wine is brought tothe altar, and in which, if more than thecup will conveniently hold is required, itis consecrated. The rubric directs that itshall be delivered to each communicant.

Rubric. “When the priest, standingbefore the table, hath so ordered the breadand wine, that he may with the more readinessand decency break the bread beforethe people, and take the cup into his hands,he shall say the prayer of consecration, asfolloweth.” And in the prayer of consecration,“Here he is to take the cup intohis hand,” and, “Here to lay his hand uponevery vessel (be it chalice or flagon) inwhich there is any wine to be consecrated.”

“The minister that delivereth the cupto any shall say, The Blood of our LordJesus Christ,” &c.

Article 30. “The cup of the Lord isnot to be denied to the lay people; forboth the parts of the Lord’s sacrament,by Christ’s ordinance and commandment,ought to be ministered to all Christian menalike.”

This article is directed against theRomish custom of denying the cup to thelaity, concerning which it may be enoughto say, that it is clearly and confessedlycontrary to the custom of the Church;that for twelve centuries there was no instanceto be adduced of any receiving inone kind at the public celebration of theeucharist; and that it was even accountedsacrilege to deprive any of either part ofour blessed Lord’s ordinance.—See Bingham,xv. 5, and xvi. 6–27.

It appears from the unanimous testimonyof the Fathers, and from all the ancientrituals and liturgies, that the sacrament ofthe Lord’s supper was, in the early agesof the Church, administered in both kinds,as well to the laity as to the clergy. Thepractice of denying the cup to the laityarose out of the doctrine of transubstantiation.The belief that the sacramentalbread and wine were actually convertedinto the body and blood of Christ, naturallyproduced, in a weak and superstitiousage, an anxious fear lest any part of themshould be lost or wasted. To preventanything of this kind in the bread, smallwafers were used, which were put at onceinto the mouths of the communicants bythe officiating ministers; but no expedientcould be devised to guard against theoccasional spilling of the wine in administeringit to large congregations. Thebread was sopped in the wine, and thewine was conveyed by tubes into themouth, but all in vain; accidents stillhappened, and therefore it was determinedthat the priests should entirely withholdthe cup from the laity. It is to be supposedthat a change of this sort, in so importantan ordinance as that of the Lord’ssupper, could not be effected at once. Thefirst attempt seems to have been made inthe twelfth century; it was gradually submittedto, and was at last established bythe authority of the Council of Constance,in the year 1414; but in their decree theyacknowledged that “Christ did institutethis sacrament of both kinds, and that thefaithful in the primitive Church did receiveboth kinds; yet a practice being reasonablyintroduced to avoid some dangers andscandals, they appoint the custom to continueof consecrating in both kinds, and ofgiving to the laity only in one kind,” thuspresuming to depart from the positivecommands of our Lord respecting themanner of administering the sign of thecovenant between himself and mankind.From that time it has been the invariablepractice of the Church of Rome to confinethe cup to the priests. And it was againadmitted at the Council of Trent, that theLord’s supper was formerly administeredin both kinds to all communicants, but itwas openly contended that the Church hadpower to make the alteration, and thatthey had done it for weighty and justcauses. These causes are not stated in thecanon of the council. The reformedchurches, even the Lutheran, which maintainsthe doctrine of consubstantiation, restoredthe cup to the laity. In a convocationheld in the first year of Edward theSixth’s reign, it was unanimously votedthat the sacrament of the Lord’s suppershould be received in both kinds by thelaity as well as the clergy; and thereforeit is remarkable that there was nothing onthis subject in the articles of 1552: boththis and the preceding article [the 29th]were added in 1562.—Bp. Tomline.

269Wherever the institution of the Lord’ssupper is mentioned, there is not the leasthint that the clergy are to receive it in onemanner, and the laity in another. And ifone part of this sacrament be more necessarythan the other, it seems to be the cup;since it represents the blood of Christ, towhich remission of sins and our redemptionare more often ascribed in Scripture thanto his body. It is trifling in the Romaniststo say that the blood is with the body:since in the eucharist we commemorate,not the life of our Lord, but his death, inwhich the blood was separated from hisbody; (see 1 Cor. xi. 26; Luke xxii. 19,20;) and to represent his blood, thus separatedfrom his body, the cup was consecratedapart by him. Christ himself alsoseems to have guarded designedly againstthis piece of sacrilege of denying the cupto the laity, by commanding that “all”should drink of the cup. (Matt. xxvi. 27.)And in Mark xiv. 23, it is said, that “alldrank of it;” which is nowhere expresslysaid of eating the bread. See also 1 Cor.xi. 26–28, in all which verses the Corinthiansin general are expressly required to“drink of that cup.”—Archdeacon Welchman.Veneer.

There is not any one of all the controversiesthat we have with the Church ofRome, in which the decision seems moreeasy and shorter than this. And, as thereis not any one in which she has acted morevisibly contrary to the gospel than in this, sothere is not any one that has raised higherprejudices against her, that has made moreforsake her, and has possessed mankindmore against her, than this. This has costher dearer than any other.—Bp. Burnet.

For the material of the cup, see Chalice.

CURATE. The person who has thecure of souls in a parish. In this sense theword is used in the Prayer Book, “allbishops and curates,” as the word is stillemployed in France, Spain, &c.

The word is, in common parlance, usedto denote the minister, whether presbyteror deacon, who is employed under thespiritual rector or vicar, as assistant tohim in the same church, or else in a chapelof ease within the same parish, belongingto the mother church. Where there is ina parish neither spiritual rector nor vicar,but a clerk employed to officiate there bythe impropriator, this is called a perpetualcuracy, and the priest thus employed theperpetual curate. The impropriator, bythe terms of his sacrilegious gift, is boundto “maintain” the priest: how far this iscomplied with by those lay impropriatorswho allow the same stipend now that wasgiven 200 or 300 years ago, we need notwait to inquire. The appointment of acurate to officiate under an incumbent, inhis own church, must be by such incumbent’snomination of him to the bishop.To every one of these several kinds ofcurates, the ordinary’s licence is necessarybefore he shall be admitted to officiate.

For by Canon 41, “No curate or ministershall be permitted to serve in any placewithout examination and admission of thebishop of the diocese, or ordinary of theplace having episcopal jurisdiction, underhis hand and seal, having respect to thegreatness of the cure, and meetness of theparty.”

And by the same canon, “If the curatesremove from one diocese to another, theyshall not be by any means admitted toserve without testimony in writing of thebishop of the diocese, or ordinary of theplace having episcopal jurisdiction, fromwhence they came, of their honesty, ability,and conformity to the ecclesiastical laws ofthe Church of England.”

By Canon 36, “No person shall be sufferedto preach, to catechize, or to be alecturer, in any parish church, chapel, orother place, except he be licensed eitherby the archbishop or by the bishop of thediocese, and except he shall first subscribeto the three articles specified in the saidcanon, concerning the king’s supremacy,the Book of Common Prayer, and theThirty-nine Articles of religion.”

And by Canon 37, “None who hathbeen licensed to preach, read, lecture, orcatechize, and shall afterwards come to residein another diocese, shall be permittedthere to preach, read, lecture, catechize, oradminister the sacraments, or to executeany other ecclesiastical function, by whatauthority soever he be thereunto admitted,unless he first consent and subscribe tothe three articles before mentioned, in thepresence of the bishop of the diocesewherein he is to preach, read, lecture,catechize, or administer the sacraments asaforesaid.”

He must also, within two months, or atthe time when he reads the morning andevening prayers as aforesaid, (on the likepain of deprivation ipso facto,) read andassent to the Thirty-nine Articles, if it be aplace with cure. (13 Eliz. c. 12. 23 Geo.II. c. 28.)

A curate not licensed may be removedat pleasure; but, if licensed, he can be removedonly by the consent of the bishop,or where the rector or vicar does the dutyhimself.

By the 76th section of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106,270it is enacted as follows: “And be it enacted,that in every case where a curate is appointedto serve in any benefice uponwhich the incumbent either does not reside,or has not satisfied the bishop of hisfull purpose to reside during four monthsof the year, such curate shall be requiredby the bishop to reside within the parishor place in which such benefice is situate,or if no convenient residence can be procuredwithin such parish or place, thenwithin three statute miles of the church orchapel of the benefice in which he shall belicensed to serve, except in cases of necessity,to be approved of by the bishop, andspecified in the licence, and such place ofresidence shall also be specified in thelicence.”

By the 81st section of the same act it isenacted as follows: “And be it enacted,that every bishop to whom any applicationshall be made for any licence for a curateto serve for any person not duly residingupon his benefice, shall, before he shallgrant such licence, require a statement ofall the particulars by this act required tobe stated by any person applying for alicence for non-residence; and in everycase in which application shall be made toany bishop for a licence for any stipendiarycurate to serve in any benefice, whetherthe incumbent be resident or non-resident,such bishop shall also require a declarationin writing, to be made and subscribed bythe incumbent and the curate, to the purportand effect that the one bonâ fide intendsto pay, and the other bonâ fide intendsto receive, the whole actual stipendmentioned in such statement, without anyabatement in respect of rent or considerationfor the use of the glebe house, andwithout any other deduction or reservationwhatever.”

By the 83rd section of the same act it isenacted as follows: “And be it enacted,that it shall be lawful for the bishop ofthe diocese, and he is hereby required,subject to the several provisions and restrictionsin this act contained, to appointto every curate of a non-resident incumbentsuch stipend as is specified in thisact; and every licence to be granted to astipendiary curate, whether the incumbentof the benefice be resident or non-residentthereon, shall specify the amount of thestipend to be paid to the curate; and incase any difference shall arise between theincumbent of any benefice and his curatetouching such stipend, or the paymentthereof, or of the arrears thereof, thebishop, on complaint to him made, mayand shall summarily hear and determinethe same, without appeal; and in case ofwilful neglect or refusal to pay such stipend,or the arrears thereof, he is herebyempowered to enforce payment of suchstipend, or the arrears thereof, by monition,and by sequestration of the profits ofsuch benefice.”

The following papers are to be sent tothe bishop by a curate applying to belicensed:—

1. A nomination by the incumbent.

The following form of nomination is intendedto serve where the incumbent isnon-resident.

“To the Right Reverend —— Lord Bishopof ——.

“I, G. H. of ——, in the county of ——,and your lordship’s diocese of ——, dohereby nominate E. F., bachelor of arts, (orother degree,) to perform the office of acurate in my church of —— aforesaid;and do promise to allow him the yearlystipend of ——, to be paid by equal quarterlypayments, [as to amount of stipend, see1 & 2 Vic. c. 106, and the latter part of thisarticle,] with the surplice fees, amountingto —— pounds per annum, (if they are intendedto be allowed,) and the use of theglebe house, garden, and offices which heis to occupy (if that be the fact; if not,state the reason, and name where and atwhat distance from the church the curatepurposes to reside): and I do hereby stateto your lordship, that the said E. F. doesnot serve any other parish, as incumbentor curate; and that he has not any cathedralpreferment or benefice, and does notofficiate in any other church or chapel (ifhowever, the curate does serve another churchas incumbent, or as curate, or has any cathedralpreferment, or a benefice, or officiatesin any other church or chapel, the samerespectively must be correctly and particularlystated): that the net annual value ofmy said benefice, estimated according tothe act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, ss. 8 & 10,is ——, and the population thereof, accordingto the latest returns of populationmade under the authority of parliamentis ——; that there is only one churchbelonging to my said benefice (if there beanother church or chapel, state the fact);and that I was admitted to the said beneficeon the —— day of ——, 18—.

271Declaration to be written at the foot of theNomination.

“We the before-named G. H. and E. F.do declare to the said Lord Bishop of ——, asfollows: namely, I the said G. H. dodeclare, that I bonâ fide intend to pay, andI the said E. F. do declare that I bonâ fideintend to receive, the whole actual stipendmentioned in the foregoing nomination andstatement, without any abatement in respectof rent, or consideration for the useof the glebe house, garden, and offices,thereby agreed to be assigned, and withoutany other deduction or reservation whatsoever.

The following form of nomination isproposed 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 residein the said parish, in a house (describe itssituation so as clearly to identify it) distantfrom my church —— mile (if E. F. doesnot intend to reside in the parish, then stateat what place he intends to reside, and itsdistance from the said church); and thatthe said E. F. does not serve any otherparish as incumbent or curate; and thathe has not any cathedral preferment orbenefice, and does not officiate in any otherchurch or chapel (if, however, the curatedoes serve another parish, as incumbent oras curate, or has any cathedral prefermentor a benefice, or officiates in any other churchor chapel, the same respectively must be correctlyand particularly stated).

Declaration to be written at the foot of theNomination.

The declaration to be signed by the incumbentand curate is to be in the sameform as that given above, so far as theword “statement;” after which, proceedas follows: “Without any deduction orreservation whatsoever.

2. Letters of orders, deacon and priest.

3. Letters testimonial to be signed bythree beneficed clergymen, in the followingform:

“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 ——, inthe county of ——, hath been personallyknown to us for the space of[A] three yearslast past; that we have had opportunitiesof observing his conduct; that during thewhole of that time we verily believe thathe lived piously, soberly, and honestly, norhave we at any time heard anything to thecontrary thereof; nor hath he at any time,as far as we know or believe, held, written,or taught anything contrary to the doctrineor discipline of the United Church ofEngland and Ireland; and, moreover, webelieve him in our consciences to be, as tohis moral conduct, a person worthy to belicensed to the said curacy.

To be countersigned, if all or either ofthe subscribers to the testimonial are notbeneficed in the diocese of the bishop towhom it is addressed, by the bishop of thediocese wherein their benefices are respectivelysituate.

On receipt of these papers, the bishop,if he be satisfied with them, will either appointthe clergyman nominated to attendhim, to be licensed, or issue a commissionto some neighbouring incumbent.

Before the licence is granted, the curateis to subscribe the Thirty-Nine Articles,and the three articles in the 36th canon;to declare his conformity to the liturgy ofthe 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 trueand canonical obedience to the Lord Bishopof —— in all things lawful and honest.So help me God.”

The licence will be sent by the bishop272to the registry-office, and from thence itwill be forwarded to the churchwardens.

Within three months after he is licensed,the curate is to read in the church thedeclaration appointed by the Act of Uniformity,and also the certificate of hishaving subscribed it before the bishop.

By the 106th section of the ResidenceAct, (1 & 2 Vict. c. 106,) it is enacted thatno spiritual person shall serve more thantwo benefices in one day, unless in caseof unforeseen and pressing emergency, inwhich case he shall forthwith report thecircumstance to the bishop.

The directions as to notices to be givenfor the curate to give up the cure, are containedin the 95th section of the said act,and for his quitting the house of residencein the 96th section; and as to notice of thecurate’s intention to relinquish the cure, inthe 97th section; and power is given tothe bishop, by the 98th section, to revokeany licence to a curate, (after having givenhim sufficient opportunity to show reasonto the contrary,) subject to an appeal tothe archbishop of the province within onemonth after service of revocation.

(1.) Form of notice by a new incumbent toa curate to quit curacy, or to give uppossession of house of residence.

“I, A. B., clerk, having been duly admittedto the rectory of ——, in the countyof ——, and diocese of ——, do hereby, inpursuance of the power and authority forthis purpose vested in me by virtue of theact of parliament passed in the first andsecond years of her present Majesty’s reign,intituled ‘An Act to abridge the holdingof benefices in plurality, and to makebetter provision for the residence of theclergy,’ give notice to and require you,C. D., clerk, to quit and give up the curacyof —— aforesaid [the following to be addedwhere applicable, and to deliver up possessionof the rectory house of —— aforesaid,and the offices, stables, gardens, and appurtenancesthereto belonging, and (if any)such part of the glebe land as has beenassigned to you] at the expiration of sixweeks from the giving of this notice toyou.

(2.) Form of notice by an incumbent, withconsent of the bishop, to a curate to quitcuracy, or to give up house of residence.

“I, A. B., clerk, rector of ——, in thecounty of ——, and diocese of ——, inpursuance of the power and authority forthis purpose vested in me by virtue of theact of parliament passed in the first andsecond years of her present Majesty’s reign,intituled ‘An Act to abridge the holdingof benefices in plurality, and to makebetter provision for the residence of theclergy,’ do hereby, with the permission ofthe Right Reverend —— Lord Bishop ofthe diocese of —— aforesaid, signified bywriting under his lordship’s hand, givenotice to, and require you, C. D., clerk, mylicensed curate of —— aforesaid, to quitand give up the said curacy of —— [thefollowing to be added where applicable, andthe rectory house of —— aforesaid, andthe offices, stables, gardens, and appurtenancesthereto belonging, and (if any)such part of the glebe land as has beenassigned to you] at the expiration of sixcalendar months from the giving of thisnotice to you.[5]

Form of bishop’s permission to an incumbentto give his curate notice to quitcuracy, or give up possession of house ofresidence.

(Applicable to notice No. 2. only.)

“I, ——, Lord Bishop of ——, do hereby,on the application of A. B., clerk, rectorof ——, in the county of ——, and mydiocese of ——, signify my permission forhim to require and direct C. D., clerk, hislicensed curate at —— aforesaid, to quitand give up the said curacy [the followingto be added where applicable, and to deliverup 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 ashas been assigned to the said C. D., as suchcurate] upon six calendar months’ noticethereof being given to such curate.

Note.—The notice No. 1. applies only toan incumbent newly admitted to a benefice,and must be given within six months aftersuch admission.

The notice No. 2. applies to every othercase of an incumbent requiring his curateto quit the curacy. The consent of thebishop is required only in the latter case.

The 112th section of the act referredto in the notices contains directions asto the mode in which the notice is to be273served; and it directs that “it shall beserved personally upon the spiritual persontherein named, or to whom it shall be directed,by showing the original to him andleaving with him a true copy thereof, or,in case such spiritual person cannot befound, by leaving a true copy thereof athis usual or last known place of residence,and by affixing another copy thereof uponthe church door of the parish in whichsuch place of residence shall be situate.”The notice must, immediately after theservice thereof, be returned into the ConsistorialCourt, (or the Court of Peculiars,in the case of an archbishop’s or bishop’speculiar; see sect. 108,) and be there filed,together with an affidavit of the time andmanner in which the same shall have beenserved.

The stipends to be paid to curates bynon-resident incumbents must be in strictconformity with the directions of the actof parliament 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106. Clergymenwho were incumbents of beneficesbefore July 20th, 1813, cannot be compelled(see sect. 84) to pay more than £75per annum as a stipend to the curates ofsuch benefices, but the bishop may add tothat sum £15 in lieu of a house.

Non-resident incumbents admitted tobenefices after the above date, are to allowstipends according to the following scale,prescribed by the 85th section:

or the whole value of the benefice, if itdoes not exceed these sums respectively.Where the net yearly income of a beneficeexceeds £400, the bishop may (by sect. 86)assign a stipend of £100, notwithstandingthe population may not amount to 300;and if with that income the populationamounts to 500, he may add any sum notexceeding £50 to any of the stipends payableby the last-mentioned incumbent,where the curate resides within the benefice,and serves no other cure. Where thepopulation exceeds 2000, the bishop mayrequire the incumbent to nominate twocurates, with stipends not exceeding togetherthe highest rate of stipend allowedto one curate.

Incumbents who have become incapableof performing their duties from age, sickness,or other unavoidable cause, (and towhom, from these or from any other specialand peculiar circumstances, great hardshipwould arise if they were required to paythe full stipend,) may (by sect. 87) be relievedby the bishop, with the consent ofthe archbishop of the province.

The bishop may (by sect. 89) direct thatthe stipend to a curate licensed to servetwo parishes or places shall be less for eachby a sum not exceeding £30 per annumthan the full stipend.

All agreements for payment of a lessstipend than that assigned by the licenceare (by sect. 90) declared to be void; andif less be paid, the remainder may be afterwardsrecovered by the curate or his representatives.When a stipend, equal tothe whole value of a benefice, is assignedto the curate, he is (by sect. 91) to beliable to all charges and outgoings legallyaffecting the benefice; and (by sect. 94)when such a stipend as last mentioned isassigned, and the curate is directed to residein the glebe house, he is to be liableto the taxes, parochial rates, and assessmentsof the glebe house and premises;but in every other case in which the curateshall so reside by such direction, the bishopmay, if he shall think fit, order that theincumbent shall pay the curate all or anypart of such sums as he may have beenrequired to pay, and shall have paid, withinone year, ending at Michaelmas day nextpreceding the date of such order for anysuch taxes, parochial rates, or assessments,as should become due at any time after thepassing of the act.

For other particulars as to curates’ stipendsand allowances, &c., see the act 1 &2 Vict. c. 106, from sect. 75 to 102, bothinclusive.

CURE. The spiritual charge of a parish,or, in a larger sense, the parish itself.When Christianity was first planted in thisnation, the bishops were constantly residentat their cathedrals, and had severalclergymen attending them at that place,whom they sent to preach and convert thepeople, where there was the greatest probabilityof success; and the persons thussent either returned or continued in thoseplaces, as occasion required, having nofixed cures or titles to particular places;for being all entered in the bishop’s registry,(as the usual course then was,) theycould not be discharged without his consent.Afterwards, when Christianity prevailed,and many churches were built, thecure of souls was limited both as to placesand persons. The places are those whichwe now call parishes, the extent whereof274is certainly known, and the boundaries arenow fixed by long usage and custom. Theparsons are the ministers, who, by presentation,institution, and induction, are entitledto the tithes and other ecclesiasticalprofits arising within that parish, and havethe cure of souls of those who live and residethere: and this the canonists call a cure Inforo interiori tantum; and they distinguishit from a cure of souls, In foro exteriori, suchas archdeacons have, to suspend, excommunicate,and absolve, and which is Sinepastorali cura: and from another cure,which they say is In utroque simul, that is,both In exteriori et interiori foro: and suchthe bishop has, who has a superintendentcare over the whole diocese, intermixedwith jurisdiction.

CUSPS. (In church architecture.) Theprojecting points from the foliation ofarches or tracery. Cusping first appearedin the Geometric period, and was continuedso long as Gothic architecture wasemployed. Besides the more obvious differencesarising from the number of cusps,which, however, it is needless to particularize,there is one very great peculiarityof the earlier cusping which ought to beclearly understood. Let the tracery barconsist of three planes, a the wall, b thechamfer, and c soffit plane (the latter ofcourse not being visible in the two largerdiagrams, which, being elevations, show noline at right angles to the wall). In themore common cusping, the cusp is formedby carrying out the whole of the soffit andpart of the chamfer plane, and leaving anunpierced hollow, or eye, in the tracerybar, as at A A, fig. I; A A in the sectionanswering to A A in the elevation, and E E toE E. In the Earlier or Geometrical cusping,the tracery bar is completed all round, andthe cusp carries with it no part either ofthe soffit or of the chamfer, but is let intothe soffit, always in appearance, sometimesin fact, as a separate piece of stone, as atB D, fig. II. Here, too, the cusp leavesa free space between itself and the tracerybar, as at B B B in elevation, and sectionII. D D D, representing the place of departureof the cusp from the tracery bar.This is generally called soffit cusping, fromits springing exclusively from the soffitplane.

DAILY PRAYERS. “All priests anddeacons are to say daily the morning andevening prayer, either privately or openly,not being let by sickness or some otherurgent cause. And the curate that ministerethin every parish church or chapel,being at home, and not being otherwisereasonably hindered, shall say the samein the parish church or chapel where heministereth, and shall cause a bell to betolled thereunto a convenient time beforehe begin, that the people may come to hearGod’s word, and pray with him.”—Prefaceto the Book of Common Prayer. As thisis not only a direction of the Church, butalso part of an act of parliament, anyparishioners desirous of attending dailyprayers might compel the clergyman toofficiate, by bringing an action againsthim, as well as by complaining to thebishop. For this, of course, there canseldom be any necessity, as most of theclergy would be too happy to officiate, ifthey could secure the attendance of two orthree of their parishioners. By the generalpractice of the clergy it seems to be decided,that they are to say the morning andevening prayer in private, if they cannotobtain a congregation; though, even underthose circumstances, the letter of the rubricseems to direct them to say the officesat church, if possible. It is a cheering signof the times, that the number of instancesin which the daily prayers are duly said inchurch is rapidly on the increase.

DALMATIC, was formerly the characteristicdress of the deacon in the administrationof the holy eucharist. It was alsoworn by the bishop at stated times; andin the Latin Church still forms part of theepiscopal dress, under the chasuble. It isa robe reaching below the knees, and openat each side for a distance varying at differentperiods. It is not marked at theback with a cross like the chasuble, but inthe Latin Church with two narrow stripes,the remains of the angusti clavi worn onthe old Roman dress. In the Greek275Church it is called colobion, is covered witha multitude of small crosses, and has nosleeves. The dalmatic is seen on theeffigies of bishops on monuments, and insome old brasses, over the alb and the stole,the fringed extremities of which reach justbelow it. It has received its name frombeing the regal vest of Dalmatia. It isthe same as the tunicle, which is directedto be worn according to the rubrics ofKing Edward VI.’s First Prayer Book, bythe priests and deacons who may assist thepriest at the holy communion. Like allthe other ecclesiastical vestures, it wascurtailed by the corrupt practice of laterages in the West, so as not to reach furtherthan the knees.—Jebb.

DAMNATORY CLAUSES. (SeeAthanasian Creed.)

DANIEL (THE BOOK OF). A canonicalbook of the Old Testament.Daniel descended from the royal house ofthe kings of Judah, and was contemporarywith Ezekiel. (An. 606, before Christ.)He was of the children of the captivity,being carried to Babylon when he wasabout eighteen years of age. His name isnot prefixed to his book; yet the manypassages in which he speaks in the firstperson, are a sufficient proof that he wasthe author of it. The style of Daniel isnot so lofty and figurative as that of theother prophets: it is clear and concise, andhis narrations and descriptions simple andnatural; in short, he writes more like anhistorian than a prophet.

He was a very extraordinary person, andwas favoured of God, and honoured ofmen, beyond any that had lived in histime. His prophecies concerning the comingof the Messiah, and the other greatevents of after-times, are so clear and explicit,that Porphyry objected to them,that they must have been written after thefacts were done.—Prideaux, Connect. P. I.b. iii. Ann. 534. Hieron. in Proœm. adCom. in Dan.

The Jews do not reckon Daniel amongthe prophets; and the reason they assignis, because he rather lived the life of acourtier, in the palace of the king of Babylon,than that of a prophet. They add,that, though he had Divine revelationsgiven to him, yet it was not in the propheticway, but by dreams and visions ofthe night, which they look upon as themost imperfect way of revelation, and belowthe prophetic. But Josephus, one ofthe ancientest writers of that nation, reckonshim among the greatest of the prophets,and says further of him, that he conversedfamiliarly with God, and not only foretoldfuture events, as other prophets did, butdetermined likewise the time when theyshould 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 originallywritten in the Chaldee language; that is,from the fourth verse of the second chapterto the end of the seventh chapter; and thereason was, because, in that part, he treatsof the Chaldean or Babylonish affairs. Allthe rest of the book is in Hebrew.—Hieron.in Præf. ad Dan. The Greek translation,used by the Greek Churches throughoutthe East, was that of Theodotion. In theVulgar Latin Bible, there is added, in thethird chapter, after the twenty-fourthverse, the Song of the Three Children,and, at the end of the book, the History ofSusanna, and of Bel and the Dragon: theformer is made the thirteenth, and thelatter the fourteenth chapter of the book,in that edition. But these additions werenever received into the canon by the Jews;neither are they extant in the Hebrew orthe Chaldee language, nor is there anyproof that they ever were so.

The first six chapters of the book ofDaniel are a history of the kings of Babylon,and what befell the captive Jewsunder their government. In the last six,he is altogether prophetical, foretelling,not only what should happen to his ownChurch and nation, but events in whichforeign princes and kingdoms were concerned;particularly the rise and downfalof the four secular monarchies of the world,and the establishment of the fifth, or spiritualkingdom of the Messiah.

It is believed that Daniel died in Chaldea,and that he did not take advantageof the permission granted by Cyrus to theJews of returning to their own country.St. Epiphanius says he died at Babylon,and herein he is followed by the generalityof historians.

“Amongst the old prophets,” says thegreat Sir Isaac Newton, “Daniel is mostdistinct in order of time, and easiest to beunderstood; and therefore, in those thingswhich relate to the last times, he must bemade the key to the rest. His propheciesare all of them related to one another, asif they were but several parts of one generalprophecy. The first is the easiest tobe understood, and every following prophecyadds something new to the former.”—Observationson Daniel, pp. 15, 24.

276DATARY. An officer in the pope’scourt. He is always a prelate, and sometimesa cardinal, deputed by his Holinessto receive such petitions as are presentedto him, touching the provision of benefices.By his post, the datary is empowered togrant, without acquainting the pope therewith,all benefices that do not produceupwards of twenty-four ducats annually;but for such as amount to more, he isobliged to get the provisions signed by thepope, who admits him to audience everyday. If there be several candidates forthe same benefice, he has the liberty ofbestowing it on which of them he thinksproper, provided he has the requisitequalifications. The datary has a yearlysalary of two thousand crowns, exclusiveof the perquisites, which he receives fromthose who apply to him for any benefice.This office has a substitute, namedthe sub-datary, who is likewise a prelate,and has a yearly pension of a thousandcrowns: but he is not allowed to conferany benefice, without acquainting thedatary therewith. When a person hasobtained the pope’s consent for a benefice,the datary subscribes his petition with anannuit sanctissimus, i. e. the most holy fatherconsents to it. The pope’s consent is subscribedin these words, Fiat ut petitur, i. e. Beit according to the petition. After the petitionhas passed the proper offices, and is registered,it is carried to the datary, who datesit, and writes these words—Datum Romæapud, &c.: Given at Rome in the pontificalpalace, &c. Afterwards the pope’s bull,granting the benefice, is despatched by thedatary, and passes through the hands ofmore than a thousand persons, belongingto fifteen different offices, who have alltheir stated fees. The reader may fromhence judge how expensive it is to procurethe pope’s bull for a benefice, and whatlarge sums go into the office of the datary,especially when the provisions, issued fromthence, are for bishoprics, and other richbenefices.—Broughton.

DEACON. (See Bishop, Presbyter,Priest, Orders, Clergy.) The name Διάκονοι,which is the original word for deacons, issometimes used in the New Testamentfor any one that ministers in the service ofGod: in which large sense we sometimesfind bishops and presbyters styled deacons,not only in the New Testament, but inecclesiastical writers also. But here wetake it for the name of the third order ofthe clergy in the Church. Deacons arestyled by Ignatius, “ministers of the mysteriesof Christ,” adding that they are “notministers of meats and drinks, but of theChurch of God.” In another place hespeaks of them as “ministers of JesusChrist,” and gives them a sort of presidencyover the people, together with thebishops and presbyters. Cyprian speaksof them in the same style, calling them“ministers of episcopacy and the Church,”and referring their origin to the Acts ofthe Apostles; and he asserts that theywere called ad altaris ministerium, to theministry and service of the altar. Optatushad such an opinion of them as to reckontheir office a lower degree of the priesthood.At the same time it is to be observed,that in this he was singular. Bythose who regarded them as a sacred order,they were generally distinguished frompriests by the name of ministers and Levites.The ordination of a deacon differedin the primitive Church from that of apresbyter, both in the form and manner ofit, and also in the gifts and powers thatwere conferred by the ordinance. In theordination of a presbyter, the presbyterswho were present were required to join inimposition of hands with the bishop. Butthe ordination of a deacon might be performedby the bishop alone, because, as the[fourth] Council of Carthage words it, hewas ordained not to the priesthood, butto the inferior services of the Church:“quia non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministeriumconsecratur.” It belonged to thedeacons to take care of the holy table andall the ornaments and utensils appertainingthereto; to receive the oblations of thepeople, and present them to the priest; insome churches, to read the Gospel both inthe communion service and before it also;to minister the consecrated bread and wineto the people in the eucharist; in somechurches, to baptize; to act as directors tothe people in public worship, for whichpurpose they were wont to use certainknown forms of words, to give notice wheneach part of the service began, and to excitepeople to join attentively therein; topreach, with the bishop’s licence; in extremecases to reconcile the excommunicatedto the Church; to attend upon thebishop, and sometimes to represent himin general councils. Deacons seem alsoto have discharged most of the officeswhich now devolve upon churchwardens.—Bingham.

The Church of England enjoins that“none shall be admitted a deacon excepthe be twenty-three years of age, unless hehave a faculty;” and she describes theduties of a deacon in her office as follows:“It appertaineth to the office of a deacon,in the church where he shall be appointed277to serve, to assist the priest in Divine service,and specially when he ministereth theholy communion, and to help him in thedistribution thereof, and to read HolyScripture and homilies in the church; andto instruct the youth in the catechism;in the absence of the priest to baptize infants,and to preach, if he be admittedthereto by the bishop. And, furthermore,it is his office, where provision is so made,to search for the sick, poor, and impotentpeople of the parish, to intimate theirestates, names, and places where theydwell, unto the curate, that by his exhortationthey may be relieved with the almsof the parishioners, or others.”

In the rubric after the sentences of theOffertory, it is ordered, that “while thesesentences are in reading, the deacons,churchwardens, or other fit persons appointedfor that purpose, shall receive thealms for the poor,” &c.

The deacon cannot pronounce the absolution,or minister at the holy communion,except as an assistant. And if the rubricsbe strictly construed according to the letter,neither can he read the versicles beforethe Psalms, or after the Lord’s Prayer,(at its second occurrence,) nor the latterpart of the Litany, beginning at the Lord’sPrayer; nor any part of the CommunionService, except the Gospel, (not accordingto the rubric, however, but in virtue of thelicence in the Ordination Service,) theCreed, and the confession. He is permittedto baptize only in the absence of thepriest; and perhaps the same remark mayapply to the other occasional offices.

DEACONESS. A woman who servedthe Church in those offices in which thedeacons could not with propriety exercisethemselves. This order was also appointedin the apostolic age. They were generallywidows who had been only oncemarried, though this employment wassometimes exercised by virgins. Theiroffice consisted in assisting at the baptismof women, in previously catechizing andinstructing them, in visiting sick personsof their own sex, and in performing allthose inferior offices towards the femalepart of the congregation, which the deaconswere designed to execute for the men.St. Paul (Rom. xvi.) speaks of Phœbe asservant, or deaconess, of the church atCenchrea, which was a haven of Corinth.Deaconesses appear to be the same personsas those whom Pliny, in his famousletter to Trajan, styles “ancillæ quæ ministrædicebantur;” that is, “female attendants,called assistants, ministers, or servants.”It appears, then, that these werecustomary officers throughout the churches;and when the fury of persecution fell onChristians, these were among the first tosuffer. They underwent the most crueltortures, and even extreme old age wasnot spared. It is probable that they wereblessed by the laying on of hands, but itis certain they were not permitted to executeany part of the sacerdotal office.This order continued in the Greek Churchlonger than in the Latin. It was generallydisused in the Western Church in thefifth century, but continued in the EasternChurch until the twelfth. The deacon’swife appears sometimes to have beencalled a deaconess, as the presbyter’s wifewas styled presbytera, and the bishop’swife episcopa.

DEAD. (See Burial of the Dead.) Ifall our prayers and endeavours for ourfriend prove unavailable for the continuanceof his life, we must with patiencesubmit to the will of God, “to whom theissues of life and death belong:” andtherefore, after recommending his soul toGod, which immediately upon its dissolutionreturns to Him, it is fit we should decentlydispose of his body, which is left toour management and care. Not that thedead are anything the better for the honourswhich we perform to their corpses(for we know that several of the ancientphilosophers cared not whether they wereburied or not; and the ancient martyrs ofthe Christian Church despised their persecutorsfor threatening them with the wantof a grave). But those who survive couldnever endure that the shame of natureshould lie exposed, nor see the bodies ofthose they loved become a prey to birdsand beasts. For these reasons, the veryheathens called it a Divine institution, anda law of the immortal gods. And theRomans especially had a peculiar deity topreside over this affair. The Athenianswere so strict, that they would not admitany to be magistrates, who had not takencare of their parents’ sepulture, and beheadedone of their generals after he hadgotten a victory, for throwing the deadbodies of the slain, in a tempest, into thesea. And Plutarch relates, that, beforethey engaged with the Persians, they tooka solemn oath, that, if they were conquerors,they would bury their foes; thisbeing a privilege which even an enemyhath a right to, as being a debt which isowing to humanity.

2. It is true, indeed, the manner offunerals has varied according to the differentcustoms of several countries; butall civilized nations have ever agreed in278performing some funeral rites or other.The most ancient manner was by “buryingthem in the earth;” which is, indeed, sonatural, that some brutes have been observed,by mere instinct, to bury theirdead with wonderful care. The body, weknow, was formed of the dust at first, andtherefore it is fit it should “return to theearth as it was” (Gen. iii. 19; Eccles. xii.7); insomuch that some heathens have,by the light of reason, called burying inthe earth the being “hid in our mother’slap,” and the being “covered with herskirt.” And that “interment,” or enclosingthe dead body in the grave, was usedanciently by the Egyptians and other nationsof the East, is plain from the accountwe have of the embalming, and from theirmummies, which are frequently found tothis day whole and entire, though some ofthem have lain above three thousand yearsin their graves. That the same practiceof burying was used by the patriarchs, andtheir successors the Jews, we have abundanttestimony from the most ancientrecords in the world, the books of Moses;by which we find, that their funerals wereperformed, and their sepulchres providedwith an officious piety (Gen. xxiii. 4;xxv. 9; xxxv. 29; xlix. 31); and that itwas usual for parents to take an oath oftheir children, (which they religiously performed,)that they should bury them withtheir fathers, and carry their bones withthem, whenever they quitted their landwhere 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, itbecame a custom in some places to burnthe bodies of the dead; which was owingpartly to a fear that some injury might beoffered them if they were only buried, bydigging their corpses again out of theirgraves; and partly to a conceit, that thesouls of those that were burnt were carriedup by the flames to heaven.

3. But though other nations sometimesused interment and sometimes burning,yet the Jews confined themselves to theformer alone. There is a place or two indeedin our translation of the Old Testament,(1 Sam. xxxi. 12; Amos vi. 10,)which might lead us to imagine that therite of burning was also used by themsometimes. But upon consulting the originaltexts, and the customs of the Jews,it does not appear that the burnings therementioned were anything more than theburning of odours and spices about theirbodies, which was an honour they usuallyperformed to their kings. (2 Chron. xvi.14; xxi. 19; Jer. xxxiv. 5.) So that, notwithstandingthese texts, we may safelyenough conclude, that interment, or burying,was the only rite with them; as itwas also in after-times with the ChristianChurch. For wherever Paganism was extirpated,the custom of burning was disused;and the first natural way of layingup the bodies of the deceased entire in thegrave obtained in the room of it.

4. And this has always been done withsuch solemnity, as is proper to the occasion.Sometimes, indeed, it has been attendedwith an expensive pomp, that is unseemlyand extravagant. But this is no reasonwhy we should not give all the expressionsof a decent respect to the memory of thosewhom God takes from us. The descriptionof the persons who interred our Saviour,the enumeration of their virtues, and theeverlasting commendation of her who spentthree hundred pennyworth of spikenard toanoint his body to the burial, have alwaysbeen thought sufficient grounds and encouragementsfor the careful and decentsepulture of Christians. And, indeed, ifthe regard due to a human soul, renderedsome respect to the dead a principle thatmanifested itself to the common sense ofheathens, shall we think that less care isdue to the bodies of Christians, who onceentertained a more glorious inhabitant,and were living temples of the HolyGhost? (1 Cor. vi. 19;) to bodies whichwere consecrated to the service of God;which bore their part in the duties of religion;fought the good fight of faith andpatience, self-denial and mortification; andunderwent the fatigue of many hardshipsand afflictions for the sake of piety andvirtue;—to bodies which, we believe, shallone day be awakened again from theirsleep of death; have all their scatteredparticles of dust summoned together intotheir due order, and be “fashioned like tothe glorious body of Christ” (Phil. iii. 21;see also 1 Cor. xv. 42–44); as being madepartakers of the same glory with their immortalsouls, as once they were of the samesufferings and good works. Surely bodiesso honoured here, and to be so glorifiedhereafter, and which too we own, even inthe state of death, to be under the care ofa Divine providence and protection, arenot to be exposed and despised by us asunworthy of our regard. Moved by theseconsiderations, the primitive Christians,though they made no use of ointmentswhilst they lived, yet they did not thinkthe most precious too costly to be usedabout the dead. And yet this was so farfrom being reproached with superstition,279that it is ever reported as a laudable custom,and such as had something in it soengaging, so agreeable to the notions ofcivilized nature, as to have a very considerableinfluence upon the heathens, whoobserved and admired it; it becoming instrumentalin disposing them to a favourableopinion at first, and afterwards to theembracing of the Christian religion, wherethese decencies and tender regards to deceasedfriends and good people, were soconstantly, so carefully, and so religiouslypractised.—Dean Comber. Wheatly.

Christ’s Church, that is, the wholenumber of the faithful, is usually dividedinto two parts; namely, the Church militant,and the Church triumphant. By theChurch militant, or in a state of warfare,we mean those Christians who are atpresent alive, and perpetually harassedwith the temptations and assaults of theworld, the flesh, and the devil, and whoselife is consequently a continual warfareunder the banner of our blessed Saviour.By the Church triumphant, we mean thoseChristians who have departed this life inGod’s true faith and fear; and who nowenjoy in some measure, and after the dayof judgment shall be fully possessed of,that glory and triumph, which is the fruitof their labours, and the reward of thosevictories which they obtained over theirspiritual adversaries, during the time oftheir trial and combat here upon earth.—Dr.Bennet.

After the Offertory in the eucharist issaid, and the oblations of bread and wine,with the alms for the poor, are placedupon the table, the minister addresses thisexhortation to the people: “Let us pray forthe whole state of Christ’s Church militanthere in earth.” The latter part ofthis sentence is wanting in Edward’s FirstBook. The words “militant here in earth,”which were designed expressly to excludeprayer for the dead, were inserted in theSecond Book, in which that part of thisprayer, which contained intercession forthe dead, was expunged. It was theintention of the divines who made this alteration,to denote that prayers are not tobe offered up for the dead, whose spiritualwarfare is already accomplished; but forthose only who are yet “fighting the goodfight of faith,” and are consequently in acapacity of needing our prayers.—Shepherd.

Although the doctrine of purgatory bea comparatively modern doctrine, yetprayers for the justified dead, for the increaseof their happiness, and for our reunionwith them, were introduced earlyinto the Church. But it can be proved:

First. That, the prayers of the primitiveChurch for the dead, being especiallyfor those who were accounted saints parexcellence, and including even the BlessedVirgin and the Holy Apostles, prayer tothe departed saints, whoever they may be,as it is practised by the churches underthe Roman obedience, must be contraryin theory, as it is in fact, to the primitivepractice; since it were impossible to prayto and for the same persons.

Secondly. That it was not for the releaseof the spirit of the departed frompurgatory that the Church supplicatedAlmighty God. For this also were incompatiblewith prayer for the BlessedVirgin, and other eminent saints, of whichthere was never any doubt but that theywere already in Abraham’s bosom, oreven, as in the case of martyrs, in heavenitself.

Thirdly. That works of supererogationformed no part of the system of primitivetheology; since all were prayed for asrequiring the mercy of God, though itwas not declared to what particular end.

Fourthly. That the use of hired massesfor the dead, who may have been personsof exceeding criminality, and have diedin mortal sin, is utterly at variance withthe practice of the Church of old.—SeeArchbishop Usher and Bingham.

DEADLY SIN. We pray in the Litanyto be delivered from “all deadly sin.” Inthe strict sense of the word every sin isdeadly, and would cause eternal death ifit were not for the intervention of ourblessed Saviour. Even what are calledinfirmities and frailties, are in this sensedeadly. But persons under grace havefor these offences “an Advocate with theFather, Jesus Christ the righteous, andhe is the propitiation for our sins.” (1 Johnii. 2.) Their infirmities and frailties,therefore, if they are trying to overcomethem, are not deadly to persons undergrace, or baptized persons justified byfaith, although, if persevered in, and uncorrected,they may terminate in deadlysin; and they consequently require continualrepentance, lest they should growinto such a fearful burden. But even topersons under grace we learn, from 1 Johnv. 16, 17, that there are “sins unto death,”—whichmust mean sins that put us outof a state of grace, and this is done byany wilful sin persevered in. By deadlysin in a Christian is meant wilful sin,persevered in, which deprives us of allChristian privileges. (See Sin.)

DEAN. Of deans there are two sorts;1st, the dean of a cathedral, who is an280ecclesiastical magistrate, next in degree tothe 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 tenmonks.

The dean represents the Archpresbyter,or Protopapas, who all the world over,from the most ancient times, was foundunder one denomination or another in theprincipal church of the diocese, to whicha body of clergy was uniformly attached.Notre Dame at Paris had a dean as earlyas 991 at least. There was a dean of Bangorin 603; of Llandaff in 612; at Canterburyfrom 825 to 1080, then the nameof Prior was substituted. Salisbury hadits dean in 1072; Lincoln, 1092. In conventualcathedrals, the head was generallyprior, the bishop being virtually abbot.The dean was the first dignitary of thecathedral; the head of the corporation;and, in subordination to the bishop, has,according to the statutes of more ancientcathedrals, the cure of souls over the membersof the cathedral, and the administrationof the corrective discipline of theChurch. He has also duties in the choir andthe 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 datein the Church of England, long prior tothe Reformation, as it has been throughoutEurope, and which many of thebishops are now reviving. Their chiefduty is to visit a certain number of parishes,and to report their condition to thebishop. (See Rural Dean.) The deanwas not always head of the chapter abroad;the provost being sometimes the superior.But he had always the administration ofthe discipline in spirituals, [curam animarum,as it is expressly called in statutesboth of home and foreign Churches,] theprovosts often concerning themselvesmerely in temporals, and he had the superintendenceof the choir, or cathedral body.(See Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique,Lyons, 1787, voce Doyen.) They were, infact, very much like the deans in our colleges,though more strictly limited adsacra. The Dean of Faculty, in mostancient and some modern universities,presided over the meetings of their respectivefaculties, and maintained the academicaldiscipline.

DEAN AND CHAPTER. This is thestyle and title of the governing body of acathedral. A chapter consists of the dean,with a certain number of canons, or prebendaries,heads of the church—capitaecclesiæ. The origin of this institution isto be traced to a remote antiquity. Amissionary bishop, when converting ourancestors, would take his position in somecentral town, with his attendant priests:these, as opportunity offered, would go tothe neighbouring villages to preach thegospel, and administer the other offices ofthe Church. But they resided with thebishop, and were supported out of hisrevenues. By degrees parochial settlementswere made; but still the bishoprequired the attendance of certain of theclergy at his cathedral, to be his council;(for the bishops never thought of actingwithout consulting their clergy;) and alsoto officiate in his principal church or cathedral.These persons, to qualify themselvesfor their office, gave themselves upto study, and to the maintenance and decorationof their sanctuary; the servicesof which were to be a model to all thelesser churches of the diocese. Forming,in the course of time, a corporation, theyobtained property, and ceased to be dependentupon the bishop for a maintenance.And being considered the representativesof the clergy, upon them devolvedthe government of the diocese whenvacant; and they obtained the privilege,doubtless on the same principle, of choosingthe bishop, which originally belongedto the whole clergy of the diocese, in conjunctionwith the bishops of the province.In this privilege they were supported bythe kings of the country, who perceivedthat they were more likely to intimidatea chapter into the election of the royalnominee, than the whole of the clergy ofa diocese. But still the deans and chapterssometimes acting independently, anact was passed under Henry VIII., bywhich a dean and chapter refusing to electthe king’s nominee to the bishopric becomeindividually outlawed, lose all theirproperty, and are to be imprisoned duringpleasure. Since that time these corporationshave always succumbed to the royalwill and pleasure. The great object ofthe institution, it will be perceived, is, 1st,To provide the bishop with a council;2nd, To make provision for a learned bodyof divines, who, disengaged from parochialcares, may benefit the cause of religionby their writings; 3rd, To makeprovision, also, that in the cathedralchurch of each diocese the services shallbe performed with rubrical strictness, andwith all the solemnity and grandeur ofwhich our services are capable.

281It is not to be denied, that, during thelast century, this institution was greatlyabused. Patrons made use of it to enrichtheir own families or political partisans;and the cathedral clergy, instead of givingthemselves up to learned labours, dweltchiefly on their livings, coming merely fora short time to their cathedrals: as theirestates advanced in value, they expendedthe income on themselves, instead of increasingthe cathedral libraries, and renderingthe choirs more efficient, by raisingthe salaries of the choristers, and doublingor trebling their number: finally, beingforgetful of the command of the Church,that, “in cathedral and collegiate churchesand colleges, where there are many priestsand deacons, they shall all receive thecommunion with the priest, every Sundayat the least,” many deans and chaptershave, most unjustifiably, discontinued theweekly communion. Whether individualmembers of chapters consider these observancessuperstitious or not, it is on theseconditions they enjoy their property; andif they cannot conscientiously keep theconditions, they ought conscientiously toresign their places. These things requiredreform; and forecasting men, seeing nosymptoms of improvement, expected thatthe arm of the Lord would be made barefor vengeance; and the Lord made use ofthe secular government of England as hisinstrument of chastisement. The Britishlegislature, acting on the precedent ofCardinal Wolsey and Henry VIII., hasseized a large portion of the property belongingto the deans and chapters, andhas reduced the number of canons. Maythis be a warning to the deans and chaptersas they now exist! May patrons makethe cathedral close the abode of men oflearning, and may the members of chapterssacrifice even their private property torender their cathedral choirs what theyought to be! May they have strength ofmind to sacrifice all they have in theworld, rather than elect as a bishop an unworthynominee of the Crown, if, peradventure,the Crown nominate a Sabellian,or an Arian, or a Socinian heretic. (SeeChapters, Canons, and Prebendaries.)

DECALOGUE. The ten precepts, orcommandments, delivered by God to Moses,and by him written on two tables of stone,and delivered to the Hebrews, as the basisand foundation of their religion. Thehistory of this great event, together withthe ten commandments themselves, are recitedat large in the 19th and 20th chaptersof the book of Exodus.

The Jews called these commandments,by way of excellence, the ten words, fromwhence they had afterwards the name ofDecalogue. But it is to be observed, thatthey joined the first and second into one,and divided the last into two. They understandthat against stealing to relate tothe stealing of men, or kidnapping, alleging,that the stealing of another’s goodsor property is forbidden in the last commandment.—DeLegib. Hebr. lib. i. c. 2.

“Most divines,” says the learned Spencer,“seem to have been of opinion, thatGod gave the Decalogue, to be a generalrule of life and manners, and as it were asummary, to which all other precepts,either of the law or the gospel, may bereduced. Hence they rack their brains,to fix so large and extensive a meaningon all these commands, that all duties, respectingGod or our neighbour, may beunderstood to be contained in them. Butno one, who duly considers the matter,can think it probable, that the Decaloguewas therefore given, that it might be akind of compendium of all the other lawsof the Pentateuch; since those eminentprecepts of the law, ‘Thou shalt love theLord 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 commandsquite foreign to the natural senseof the words, and subjecting them to anarbitrary interpretation. To give my opinionin a few words; the chief scope andintent of the Decalogue was to root outidolatry and its more immediate effects,and to add force and authority to theother laws contained in the Pentateuch.For who can persuade himself, that Godwould have collected together, into theone little system of the Decalogue, thoseten precepts, which have scarce any connexionwith each other, had they not allnaturally tended to destroy idolatry andits primary effects?” The author thenproceeds to confirm the truth of this assertionby a distinct consideration of eachprecept of the two tables.

It has been a question, and even matterof admiration, why God, in delivering lawsto the Hebrews, kept precisely to the numberten. This question is answered by theabove-cited author, (Id. ib. § 2,) who assignsthe following reasons for this proceeding.“First, the number ten exceedsall others in perfection and capacity: forin it are comprehended all the diversitiesof numbers and their analogies, and allthe geometrical figures which have anyrelation to numbers. Secondly, A Decadseems to have been in most esteem and282use, among all nations, from the earliesttimes. Thirdly, As the number ten comprehendsin it all others, so the Decaloguewas to be a kind of representative of allthe other laws of Moses, which were toonumerous to be distinctly and separatelyrehearsed from Mount Sinai. Lastly, Thenumber ten was a sacred number, andmost frequently applied to the things mentionedin the Law: as will be evident tothose, who carefully read over the institutesof Moses.”

The Samaritans, to raise and maintainthe credit of their temple on Mount Gerizim,forged an eleventh command or precept,which in their Pentateuch they addedat the end of the Decalogue, both inExodus and Deuteronomy. It was this:“When the Lord thy God shall havebrought thee into the land of Canaan,whither thou goest to possess it, thoushalt erect to thyself large stones, andshalt write on them all the words of thisLaw. And, after thou shalt have passedover Jordan, thou shalt place those stones,which I command thee this day, on MountGerizim, and shalt build there an altar tothe Lord thy God, an altar of stone,” &c.

DECLARATION. (See Conformity.)

DECORATED. The style of architecturewhich succeeded the Geometricalabout 1315, and gave place to the Perpendicularabout 1360.

The most obvious characteristic of thisstyle is the window tracery (see Tracery);but all the parts and details have alsotheir appropriate features. The doorwayis no longer divided by a central shaft.The windows are larger than in the formerstyle, and their mullions have in generalfewer subordinations of mouldings. Thecorner buttresses are usually set diagonallyinstead of in pairs, and the buttresses generallyare of considerable projection, andmuch enriched with pediments and niches.The piers consist generally of four shaftswith intervening hollows, set lozengewise;and the detached shaft is wholly discontinued.The triforium, which had begunto lose its relative importance in the Geometrical,is in this style generally treatedas a mere course of panelling at the baseof the clerestory windows, which are proportionallyenlarged. Arcading begins tobe superseded by panelling. Foliage, andother carving, is treated with less forceand nature than in the preceding style;and heraldry begins to appear. Thevaulting (see Vaulting) is more intricate.One or two mouldings and decorations arealmost peculiar to this style, especially theogee in all its forms and in every position.The ball-flower and the scroll moulding, ithas in common with the Geometrical, butfar more frequently. (See Moulding.) Thebroach spire is still used, but begins togive way to the parapet and spire.

DECRETALS. The name given tothe letters of popes, being in answer toquestions proposed to them by some bishopor ecclesiastical judge, or even particularperson, in which they determined business,as they thought fit. In the ninth centurythere appeared a collection of decretalletters ascribed to more than thirty popes,succeeding each other in the first threecenturies. The author is unknown, butthey are generally ascribed to a certainIsidore Mercator, and pass usually underhis name. Their uniform tendency is toexalt papal power, and exactly on thosepoints for which no sanction can be allegedfrom Scripture, or from the early periodsof any genuine Church history; such assupreme authority over bishops, the receivingappeals from all parts of the world, andthe reservation of causes for the hearingof the Roman see. In the words of Fleury,“They inflicted an irreparable wound onthe discipline of the Church, by the newmaxims which they introduced in regardto the judgment of bishops and the authorityof the pope.” Dr. Barrow mentionsthem among the chief causes by which thepower of the bishop of Rome has beenadvanced: “The forgery of the decretalepistles (wherein the ancient popes aremade expressly to speak and act accordingto some of his highest pretences, devisedlong after their times, and which theynever thought of, good men) did hugelyconduce to his purpose; authorizing hisencroachments by the suffrage of ancientdoctrine and practice.” “Upon these spuriousdecretals,” (writes the historian of themiddle ages,) “was built the great fabricof papal supremacy over the different nationalChurches: a fabric which has stoodafter its foundation crumbled beneath it;for no one has pretended to deny, duringthe last two centuries, that the impostureis too palpable for any but the most ignorantages to credit.” Their effect was, todiminish the authority of metropolitansand provincial synods, by allowing to anaccused bishop, not only the right of appeal,but the power also of removing anyprocess into the supreme court at Rome.And on this account it has been supposedthat the decrees were forged by somebishop who desired to reduce the power ofhis immediate superior. But whoever mayhave been the author, and whatever theorigin, there is no doubt that the popes283became, from the first, their most strenuousdefenders.

The best account of these forgeries is tobe found in the posthumous work of VanEspen, Commentarius in Jus Novum Canonicum,part ii. diss. 1, p. 451–475. Seealso De Marca, De Concord. iii. c. 4, 5, p.242; Natalis Alexandri Hist. Eccles. sæc.i. diss. 13, p. 213; Coci Censura quorundamScriptorum, &c., passim.—Sanderson.Robins, Evidence of Scripture against theRoman Church.

DEDICATION, FEAST OF. Thewake or customary festival for the dedicationof churches signifies the same asvigil or eve. The reason of the name isthus assigned in an old manuscript: “Yeshall understand and know how the evenswere first founded in old times. In the beginningof Holy Church it was so, that thepeople came to the church with candlesburning, and would wake and come withlights towards night to the church in theirdevotions: and after, they fell to lechery,and songs, and dances, harping and piping,and also to gluttony and sin; and so turnedthe holiness to cursedness. Whereforethe holy Fathers ordained the people toleave that waking, and to fast the even.But it is still called vigil, that is, wakingin English: and it is also called the even,for at even they were wont to come tochurch.” It was in imitation of the primitiveἀγάπαι, or love feasts, (see Agapæ,)that such public assemblies, accompaniedwith friendly entertainments, were firstheld upon each return of the day of consecration,though not in the body ofchurches, yet in the churchyards, and mostnearly adjoining places. This practice wasestablished in England by Gregory theGreat; who, in an epistle to Mellitus theabbot, gives injunctions to be delivered toAugustine the monk, a missionary to England;amongst which he allows the solemnanniversary of dedication to be celebratedin those churches which were made out ofheathen temples, with religious feasts keptin sheds or arbours, made up with branchesand boughs of trees round the said church.But as the love feasts held in the place ofworship were soon liable to such greatdisorders, that they were not only condemnedat Corinth by St. Paul, but prohibitedto be kept in the house of God bythe 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 continueof feasting in the churches orchurchyards; but strangers and inhabitantspaid the devotion of prayers and offeringsin the church, and then adjourned theireating and drinking to the more properplace of public and private houses. Theinstitution of these church encœnia, orwakes, was, without question, for good andlaudable designs: at first, thankfully tocommemorate the bounty and munificenceof those who had founded and endowedthe church; next, to incite others to thelike generous acts of piety; and, chiefly, tomaintain a Christian spirit of unity andcharity, by such sociable and friendlymeetings. And therefore care was takento keep up the laudable custom. The lawsof Edward the Confessor gave peace andprotection in all parishes during the solemnityof the day of dedication, and thesame privilege to all that were going toor returning from such solemnity. In acouncil held at Oxford, in the year 1222,it was ordained, that among other festivalsshould be observed the day of dedicationof every church within the proper parish.And in a synod under Archbishop Islip,(who was promoted to the see of Canterburyin the year 1349,) the dedicationfeast is mentioned with particular respect.This solemnity was at first celebrated onthe very day of dedication, as it annuallyreturned. But the bishops sometimes gaveauthority for transposing the observance tosome other day, and especially to Sunday,whereon the people could best attend thedevotions and rites intended in this ceremony.Henry VIII. enjoined that allwakes should be kept the first Sunday inOctober.

This laudable custom of wakes prevailedfor many ages, till the Puritans began toexclaim 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 BaronWalter and Baron Denham made an orderfor suppression of all wakes. And alike order was made by Judge Richardsonfor the county of Somerset, in the year1631. But on Bishop Laud’s complaintof these innovations, the king commandedthe last order to be reversed; which JudgeRichardson refusing to do, an account wasrequired from the Bishop of Bath andWells, how the said feast days, churchales, wakes, and revels, were for the mostpart celebrated and observed in his diocese.On the receipt of these instructions,the bishop sent for and advised withseventy-two of the most orthodox and ableof his clergy; who certified under theirhands, that, on these feast days, (whichgenerally fell on Sundays,) the service ofGod was more solemnly performed, and284the church much better frequented, bothin the forenoon and afternoon, than onany other Sunday in the year; that thepeople very much desired the continuanceof them; that the ministers did in mostplaces the like, for these reasons, viz. forpreserving the memorial of the dedicationof their several churches, for civilizing thepeople, for composing differences by themediation and meeting of friends, for increaseof love and unity by these feasts ofcharity, and for relief and comfort of thepoor. On the return of this certificate,Judge Richardson was again cited to thecouncil table, and peremptorily commandedto reverse his former order. After whichit was thought fit to reinforce the declarationof King James, when perhaps this wasthe only good reason assigned for that unnecessaryand unhappy licence of sports:“We do ratify and publish this our blessedfather’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 notonly of ordinary meetings, but of the feastsof the dedication of churches, commonlycalled wakes.” However, by such a popularprejudice against wakes, and by theintermission of them in the confusions thatfollowed, they are now discontinued inmany counties, especially in the east andsome western parts of England, but arecommonly observed in the north and inthe midland counties.

DEFENDER OF THE FAITH. (FideiDefensor.) A peculiar title belonging tothe sovereign of England; as Catholic tothe king of Spain, and Most Christian tothe king of France. These titles weregiven by the popes of Rome. That of FideiDefensor was first conferred by Pope LeoX. on King Henry VIII., for writingagainst Martin Luther; and the bull for itbears date quinto idus Octobris, 1521. Itwas afterwards confirmed by Clement VII.On Henry’s suppression of the monasteries,the pope of Rome deprived him of thistitle, and had the presumption and absurdityto depose him from his crown. Thereforethe title was conferred by a higherauthority than the pope, the parliament ofEngland, in the thirty-fifth year of Henry’sreign. By some antiquarians it is maintainedthat the bull of Leo only revived atitle long sustained by the English kings.

DEGRADATION is an ecclesiasticalcensure, whereby a clergyman is deprivedof the holy orders which formerly he had,as of a priest or deacon; and by the canonlaw this may be done two ways, eithersummarily or by word only, or solemnly,as by divesting the party degraded of thoseornaments and rights which were the ensignsand order of his degree.

Collier thus describes the form of degradationof 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 followingmanner:

After this, his ecclesiastical tonsure wasobliterated, and the form of his degradationpronounced by the archbishop; andbeing thus deprived of his sacerdotal character,and dressed in a lay habit, he wasput into the hands of the secular court,with the significant request, that he mightbe favourably received.

The ancient law for degradation is setforth in the sixth book of the Decretals;and the causes for degradation and deprivationare enumerated by Bishop Gibson.—SeeGibson’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 andthe dean, (if they may conveniently be had,)and some of the prebendaries, if the courtbe kept near the cathedral church; or ofthe archdeacon, if he may be had conveniently,and two other at the least graveministers and preachers to be called by thebishop, when the court is kept in otherplaces.”

DEGREE. Psalms or Songs of Degreesis a title given to fifteen psalms,which are the 120th and all that follow tothe 134th inclusive. The Hebrew textcalls them a song of ascents. Junius andTremellius translate the Hebrew, by asong of excellencies, or an excellent song,because of the excellent matter of them,as eminent persons are called men of highdegree. (1 Chr. xvii. 17.) Some call thempsalms of elevation, because, say they, theywere sung with an exalted voice; or becauseat every psalm the voice was raised:but the translation of psalms of degreeshas more generally obtained. Some interpretersthink, that they were so called becausethey were sung upon the fifteensteps of the temple; but they are notagreed about the place where these fifteensteps were. Others think they were socalled, because they were sung in a gallery,which they say was in the court of Israel,285where sometimes the Levites read the law.But others think, that the most probablereason why they are called songs of degrees,or of ascent, is, because they werecomposed and sung by the Jews on theoccasion of their going up to Jerusalem,after the deliverance from the captivityof Babylon, whether it were to implorethis deliverance from God, or to returnthanks for it after it had happened: others,that they were severally composed notonly upon this, but upon other remarkableoccasions when they made their ascent tothe temple.

DEGREES in the universities denotea quality conferred on the students ormembers thereof, as a testimony of theirproficiency in the arts and sciences, andentitling them to certain privileges. Theywere first instituted by Pope Eugenius III.at the suggestion of Gratian, the celebratedcompiler of the canon law, in 1151;but were limited to the faculty of canonlaw, for the encouragement of which theywere instituted; and consisted of the ranksof bachelor, licentiate, and doctor. Shortlyafter Peter Lombard instituted similardegrees in theology in the university ofParis. In the course of time degrees weregiven in other faculties, those of arts andmedicine being added. In many of theforeign universities, theology and canonlaw have each their three classes of degreesas above stated; medicine has generallybut two, bachelor and doctor; andarts two, bachelor and master. The designationof doctor in philosophy is verymodern. The English universities haveonly two degrees, bachelor and doctor inthe superior faculties; master and bachelorin arts. The student of civil law is not,properly speaking, a graduate. Formerlyseparate degrees were given in England(as abroad) in canon and civil law; butthe distinction ceased in the 17th century.Oxford has for some time ceased to conferdegrees in utroque jure, (i. e. civil and canonlaw,) but only in civil law. Henceher graduates are D. C. L. and B. C. L., andnot L. L. D. and L. L. B., as at Cambridgeand Dublin. The three ancientuniversities of England and Ireland conferdegrees in music. Anciently degrees ingrammar, doctorate, mastership, and baccalaurentiwere given at Oxford or Cambridge.But they fell into disuse in the17th century.

DEISTS. Those who deny the existenceand necessity of any revelation, andprofess to acknowledge that the being of aGod is the chief article of their belief.The term Deist is derived from the Latinword Deus, God. The same persons arefrequently called infidels, on account oftheir incredulity, or want of belief in theChristian dispensation of religion.—ConsultBoyle’s Lectures, Leland’s View ofDeistical Writers, Leslie’s Short and EasyMethod with the Deists, Watson’s Apologyfor the Bible.

Dr. Clarke, (Evidences of Nat. and Rev.Rel. Introd.,) taking the denomination in itsmost extensive signification, distinguishesdeists into four sorts. The first are, suchas pretend to believe the existence of aneternal, infinite, independent, intelligentBeing; and who, to avoid the name of EpicureanAtheists, teach also, that this SupremeBeing made the world; though, atthe same time, they agree with the Epicureansin this, that they fancy, God doesnot at all concern himself in the governmentof the world, nor has any regard to,or care of, what is done therein.

The second sort of deists are those, whobelieve, not only the being, but also theprovidence of God, with respect to the naturalworld; but who, not allowing anydifference between moral good and evil,deny that God takes any notice of themorally good or evil actions of men; thesethings depending, as they imagine, on thearbitrary constitution of human laws.

A third sort of deists there are, who,having right apprehensions concerning thenatural attributes of God, and his all-governingprovidence, and some notion ofhis moral perfections also; yet, being prejudicedagainst the notion of the immortalityof the human soul, believe, that menperish entirely at death, and that one generationshall perpetually succeed another,without any future restoration or renovationof things.

A fourth, and the last sort of deists, aresuch, as believe the existence of a SupremeBeing, together with his providence in thegovernment of the world, as also all theobligations of natural religion; but so faronly as these things are discoverable bythe light of nature alone, without believingany Divine revelation.

These, Dr. Clarke observes, are the onlytrue deists: but, as the principles of thesemen would naturally lead them to embracethe Christian revelation, he concludes,there is now no consistent scheme of deismin the world. “The heathen philosophers,those few of them, who taught and livedup to the obligations of natural religion,had indeed a consistent scheme of deismso far as it went. But the case is not sonow. The same scheme is not any longerconsistent with its own principles, if it286does not now lead men to believe and embracerevelation, as it then taught them tohope for it. Deists, in our days, who rejectrevelation when offered to them, arenot such men as Socrates and Cicero were;but, under pretence of deism, it is plain,they are generally ridiculers of all that istruly excellent in natural religion itself.Their trivial and vain cavils; their mockingand ridiculing, without and before examination;their directing the whole stressof their objections against particular customs,or particular and perhaps uncertainopinions, or explications of opinions, withoutat all considering the main body ofreligion; their loose, vain, and frothy discourses;and, above all, their vicious andimmoral lives; show plainly and undeniably,that they are not really deists, butmere atheists; and consequently not capableto judge of the truth of Christianity.”

“We are fallen into an age, (says anotherlearned author, Jenkyns, Reasonableness ofChrist. Relig. in the Preface,) in which thereare a sort of men, who have shown sogreat a forwardness to be no longer Christians,that have catched at all the littlecavils and pretences against religion—butthey both think and live so ill, that it isan argument for the goodness of any causethat they are against it. It was urged asa confirmation of the Christian religion byTertullian, that it was hated and persecutedby Nero, the worst of men: and I amconfident, it would be but small reputationto it in any age, if such men should befond of it. They speak evil of the thingsthey understand not, and are wont to talkwith as much confidence against any pointof religion, as if they had all the learningin the world in their keeping, when commonlythey know little or nothing of whathas been said for that against which theydispute.”

Prateolus (Elench. Hæres.) mentions asect of deists (as they were called) whichsprung up in Poland, in the year 1564.They were a branch of the Lutherans, and,coming into France in 1566, settled atLyons. Their leader (he tells us) was oneGregorius Pauli, a minister of Cracow.They boasted, that God had bestowed onthem much greater gifts than on Lutherand others, and that the destruction ofAntichrist was reserved for them. Theyasserted, that there is one nature, or Deity,common to the Father, Son, and HolyGhost, but not one and the same essence;and that the Father alone is the one onlytrue God.

These deists (as Prateolus calls them)ought rather to be denominated Arians.

DELEGATES. The court of delegateswas so called, because these delegates satby force of the king’s commission underthe great seal, upon an appeal to the kingin the court of Chancery, in three causes:1. When a sentence was given in any ecclesiasticalcause by the archbishop or hisofficial: 2. When any sentence was given inany ecclesiastical cause in places exempt:3. When a sentence was given in the admiral’scourt, in suit civil and marine, bythe order of the civil laws. And thesecommissioners were called delegates, becausethey were delegated by the king’scommission 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 maritimecauses, are transferred to her Majesty incouncil; which transfer is further regulatedby the 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 41, and by 7 & 8Vict. c. 69. This act does not extend toIreland.

The Judicial Committee of the PrivyCouncil, consists of

No matter is to be heard unless in thepresence of at least four members of thecommittee; and no report or recommendationmade to the Crown, unless a majorityof the members present at thehearing shall concur in such report orrecommendation.

DEMIURGE. (From δημιουργὸς, an artificer.)The name given by some Gnosticsects to the Creator of the world, who, accordingto them, was different from thesupreme God. (See Gnostics.)

DEMONIACS. Persons possessed ofthe devil. That the persons spoken of inthe New Testament as possessed of thedevil, were not simply lunatics, is clear287from a mere perusal of the facts recorded.The devils owned Christ to be the Messiah;they besought him not to tormentthem; they passed into the swine anddrove them into the sea. The manner inwhich our Lord addressed the demoniacsclearly shows that they were really such:he not only rebuked the devils, but calledthem unclean spirits, asking them questions,commanding them to come out, &c.We find also that, for some time, in theearly ages of the Church, demoniacs existed,as there was a peculiar service appointedin the Church for their cure. (SeeEnergumens.)

DENARII DE CARITATE. (Lat.)Customary oblations, anciently made tocathedral churches, about the time ofPentecost, when the parish priests, andmany of their parishioners, went in processionto visit their mother-church. Thiscustom was afterwards changed into asettled due, and usually charged upon theparish priest, though at first it was but agift of charity, or present, towards thesupport and ornament of the bishop’s see.

DENOMINATIONS, THE THREE.The general body of dissenting ministersof London and Westminster form an associationso styled, which was organizedin 1727. The object of the associationappears to be political. The Three Denominationsare, the Presbyterian, (nowSocinian,) Independent, and Baptist.

DEO GRATIAS. (Lat.) God bethanked. A form of salutation, ancientlyused by Christians, when they accostedeach other. The Donatists ridiculed theuse of it; which St. Augustine defended,affirming, that a Christian had reason toreturn God thanks when he met a brotherChristian. It is at present used only inthe sacred offices of the Romish Church.We have something like it in the CommunionService of our own Church, in whichthe minister says, Let us give thanks untoour Lord God.

DEPOSITION. (See Degradation.)

DEPRECATIONS. (See Litany.)

DEPRIVATION is an ecclesiasticalsentence, whereby a clergyman is deprivedof his parsonage, vicarage, or other spiritualpromotion or dignity.

By Canon 122. Sentence against a minister,of deprivation from his living, “shallbe pronounced by the bishop only with theassistance of his chancellor and the dean,(if they may conveniently be had,) andsome of the prebendaries, if the court bekept near the cathedral church; or of thearchdeacon, if he may be had conveniently,and two other at the least grave ministersand preachers to be called by the bishop,when the court is kept in other places.”

The causes of deprivation may be reducedto three heads, viz. to want ofcapacity, contempt, and crimes. Nonconformityis thus specially punished by1 Eliz. c. 2, 13 Eliz. c. 12, 14 Car. II. c. 4.Dilapidation used to be held a good causeof deprivation, yet that it has ever beeninflicted as a punishment of dilapidationdoes not appear, either by the books ofcommon or canon law. In all causes ofdeprivation, where a person is in actualpossession of an ecclesiastical benefice,these things must concur: 1st, A monitionor citation of the party to appear: 2nd,A charge given against him by way oflibel or articles, to which he is to give ananswer: 3rd, A competent time must beassigned, for proofs and interrogatories:4th, The person accused shall have theliberty of counsel to defend his cause, toexcept against witnesses, and to bringlegal proofs against them: and 5th, Theremust be a solemn sentence, read by thebishop, after hearing the merits of thecause, or pleadings on both sides. Theseare the fundamentals of all judicial proceedingsin the ecclesiastical courts, inorder to a deprivation. And if thesethings be not observed, the party has ajust cause of appeal, and may have a remedyin a superior court.

By 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 31, spiritualpersons trading contrary to the provisionsof that act, may be, for the third offence,deprived.

DESK. This is the name usually givento the pulpit or pew in which morningand evening prayers are sung or said inthe English churches. The using of thispulpit for prayer is peculiar to the EnglishChurch, and has a very unpleasant effect.The First Prayer Book of Edward VI.ordered “the priest, being in the choir, tobegin the Lord’s Prayer, called PaterNoster, (with which the morning and eveningservices then began,) with a loudvoice:” so that it was at that time thecustom for the minister to sing or say themorning and evening prayer, not in adesk or pulpit, but at the upper end ofthe choir or chancel, near the altar, towardswhich, whether standing or kneeling,he always turned his face in the prayers.This gave great offence, however, thoughit had been the custom of the Church ofEngland for many hundred years, to somesuperstitious weaker brethren, who so farforgot their charity as to call it anti-Christian.The outcry, however frivolousand vexatious, prevailed so far, that when,288in the fifth year of King Edward, thePrayer Book was altered, the followingrubric appeared instead of the old one,viz. “The morning and evening prayersshall be used in such places of the church,chapel, or chancel, and the minister shallso 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 appointthe place.” This caused great contentions—themore orthodox kneeling in the oldway, and singing or saying the prayers inthe chancel, and the innovators, or ultra-Protestants,adopting new forms, and performingall the services in the body of thechurch. In the reign of Elizabeth, therubric was brought to its present form:“that the morning and evening prayersshall be used in the accustomed place inthe church, chapel, or chancel,” by whichwas clearly meant the choir or chancel,which had been for centuries the accustomedplace; and it cannot be supposedthat the Second Book of Edward, whichlasted only one year and a half, couldestablish a custom. A dispensing power,however, was left with the ordinary, whomight determine it otherwise, if he sawjust cause. Pursuant to this rubric, themorning and evening services were again,as formerly, sung or said in the chancel orchoir. But in some churches, owing to thetoo great distance of the chancel from thebody of the church, in others owing to theultra-Protestant superstition of the parishioners,the ordinaries permitted theclergy to leave the chancel, and readprayers from a pew in the body of thechurch. This innovation and novelty,begun first by some few ordinaries, andrecommended by them to others, grew bydegrees to be more general, till at lastit came to be the universal practice; insomuchthat the convocation, in the beginningof King James the First’s reign,ordered that in every church there shouldbe a convenient seat made for the ministerto read service in. In new churches,where there can be no complaint of thesize of the chancels, there seems to be noreason why the ordinaries should not nowremove the desk, and send the clergyback to their proper place, to sing or saythe prayers in the chancel. At all events,they might get rid of that unsightly nuisance,a second pulpit instead of a readingpew. If the prayers are to be preachedto the people, as well as the sermon, onepulpit might suffice. It is gratifying toknow, that since the article was written inthe first edition of this work, this disfigurementof our churches has been very generallyremoved. It is to be observed, thatthe word does not once occur in the PrayerBook.

DEUS MISEREATUR. The Latinname for Psalm lxvii., which may be usedafter the second lesson at evening prayers,instead of the Nunc Dimittis, except onthe twelfth day of the month, when it occursamong the psalms of the day. It wasfirst inserted in our service in the SecondBook of King Edward VI.

DEUTERONOMY. A canonical bookof the Old Testament. The word impliesa second law, the principal design of itbeing, a repetition of the laws already delivered;which was a necessary thing, inasmuchas the Israelites, who had heard itbefore, were dead in the wilderness, andthere was sprung up another generation ofmen, 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 fromthe tree in the evening; the making ofbattlements on the roofs of houses; theexpiation of an unknown murder; thepunishment to be inflicted upon a rebelliousson; the distinction of the sexesby apparel; the marrying a brother’s wifeafter his decease: as also, orders and injunctionsconcerning divorce; laws concerningmen-stealers; concerning unjustweights and measures; concerning themarrying of a captive woman; concerningservants that desert their master’s service;and several other laws, not only ecclesiasticaland civil, but also military. Thereare inserted likewise some transactions,which happened in the last year of thetravels of the Israelites through the wilderness.

Deuteronomy is the last book of thePentateuch, or five books of Moses; thoughsome have questioned whether it waswritten by that legislator, because, in thelast chapter, mention is made of his deathand burial, and of the succession of Joshuaafter him. But this only proves that thelast chapter was not written by Moses, butadded by some other person; most probablyby Ezra, when he published an editionof the Holy Scriptures. (See Pentateuch.)

DEVIL. From Διάβολος, which signifiesan accuser, or calumniator. The twowords, Devil and Satan, are used in Scriptureto signify the same wicked spirit, whowith many others, his angels or under-agents,is fighting against God; and whohas dominion over all the sons of Adam,except the regenerate; and who is, in his289kingdom of this world, the nearest imaginableapproximation, at infinite distance indeed,to the omnipotence of the Godhead.

DIACONATE. The office or order ofa deacon. (See Deacon.)

DIACONICUM. (Gr. and Lat.) Thisword has different significations in ecclesiasticalauthors. Sometimes it is takenfor that part of the ancient church in whichthe deacons used to sit during the performanceof Divine service, namely, at therails of the altar; sometimes for a buildingadjoining to the church, in which the sacredvessels and habits were laid up; sometimesfor that part of the public prayerswhich the deacons pronounced. Lastly, itdenotes an ecclesiastical book, in which arecontained all things relating to the dutyand office of a deacon, according to therites of the Greek Church.

DIAPER. In church architecture, adecoration of large surfaces with a constantlyrecurring pattern, either carved orpainted. Norman diapers are usually eitherfretted or zigzag lines, or imbrications ofthe masonry; and not only plain surfaces,but pillars, and small shafts, and evenmouldings, are diapered, as the cablemoulding surrounding the nave at Rochester.In the succeeding styles, flowers andleaves are the most frequent patterns,which, in the Geometrical style, are oftenof extreme beauty and delicacy. Afterthe fourteenth century, diapers are paintedonly, and now even the hollows of mouldingsare thus treated.

DIET. The assembly of the states ofGermany. We shall only notice the moreremarkable of those which have been heldon the affairs of religion.

The Diet of Worms, in 1521, where Alexander,the pope’s nuncio, having chargedLuther with heresy, the Duke of Saxonysaid, that Luther ought to be heard;which the emperor granted, and sent hima pass, provided he did not preach onthis journey. Being come to Worms, heprotested that he would not recant unlessthey would show him his errors by theword of God alone, and not by that ofmen; wherefore the emperor soon afteroutlawed him by an edict.

The first Diet of Nuremberg was heldin 1523, when Francis Cheregat, AdrianVI.’s nuncio, demanded the execution ofLeo X.’s bull, and of Charles V.’s edict,published at Worms, against Luther: butit was answered, that it was necessary tocall a council in Germany, to satisfy thenation about its grievances, which were reducedto a hundred articles, some whereofstruck at the pope’s authority, and thediscipline of the Roman Church: theyadded that, in the interim, the Lutheransshould be commanded not to write againstthe Roman Catholics, &c. All these thingswere brought into the form of an edict,and published in the emperor’s name.

The second Diet of Nuremberg was in1524. Cardinal Cangegio, Pope ClementVII.’s legate, entered the town incognito,for fear of exasperating the people there:the Lutherans having the advantage, itwas decreed that, with the emperor’s consent,the pope should call a council inGermany; but, in the interim, an assemblyshould be held at Spire, to determinewhat was to be believed and practised;and that to obey the emperor, the princesought to order the observance of the edictof Worms as strictly as they could. Charles,angry at this, commanded that edict to bevery strictly observed, and prohibited theassembly at Spire.

The first Diet of Spire was held in 1526.The emperor Charles V. being then held inSpain, named his brother, Archduke Ferdinand,to preside over that assembly, wherethe Duke of Saxony and Landgrave ofHesse demanded a full and free exerciseof the Lutheran religion, so that the Lutheranspreached there publicly againstPopery; and the Lutheran princes’ servantshad 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 nothingelse but the pure word of God.The archduke, not daring to oppose this,proposed two things, the first concerningthe Popish religion, which was to be maintainedin observing the edict of Worms;and the second concerning the aid demandedby Lewis, king of Hungary,against the Turks: the Lutherans prevailingabout the first, it was decreed, thatthe emperor should be desired to call ageneral or national council in Germanywithin a year, and that in the mean timeevery one was to have liberty of conscience,and whilst they were deliberating in vainabout the second, King Lewis was defeatedand slain at the battle of Mohatz.

The second Diet of Spire was held in1529. It was decreed against the Lutherans,that wherever the edict of Wormswas received, it shall be lawful for nobodyto change his opinion; but in the countrieswhere the new religion (as they termedit) was received, it should be lawful tocontinue in it till the next council, if theold religion could not be reestablishedthere without sedition. Nevertheless themass was not to be abolished there, and290no Roman Catholic was allowed to turnLutheran; that the Sacramentarians shouldbe banished out of the empire, and the Anabaptistsput to death; and that preachersshould nowhere preach against the doctrineof the Church of Rome. This decreedestroying that of the first Diet, six Lutheranprinces, viz. the Elector of Saxony,the Marquis of Brandenburg, the two Dukesof Lunenburg, the Landgrave of Hesse, andthe Prince of Anhalt, with the deputies offourteen imperial towns, protested in writing,two days after, in the assembly, againstthat decree, which they would not obey, itbeing contrary to the gospel; and appealedto the general or national council,to the emperor, and to any other unprejudicedjudge. From this solemn protestationcame that famous name of Protestants,which the Lutherans took presently, andthe Calvinists and other reformed Christiansafterwards. They also protestedagainst contributing anything towardsthe war against the Turks, till after theexercise of their religion was free in allGermany. Next year the emperor heldthe famous Diet of Augsburg.

The first Diet of Augsburg was calledin the year 1530, by the emperor CharlesV., to reunite the princes about somematters of religion, and to join themall together against the Turks. Here theElector of Saxony, followed by manyprinces, presented the confession of faithcalled the Confession of Augsburg. Theconference about matters of faith and disciplinebeing concluded, the emperor endedthe Diet by a decree, that nothing shouldbe altered in the doctrine and ceremoniesof the Church of Rome till a council shouldorder it otherwise.

The second Diet of Augsburg was heldin 1547. The electors being divided concerningthe decisions of the Council ofTrent, the emperor demanded that themanagement of this affair should be left tohim, and it was resolved, that every oneshould conform to the council’s decisions.

The third Diet of Augsburg was held in1548, when, the commissioners named toexamine some memoirs about a confessionof faith, not agreeing together, the emperornamed three divines, who drew thedesign of that famous Interim so wellknown in Germany and elsewhere.

The fourth Diet of Augsburg was held in1550, when the emperor complained thatthe Interim was not observed, and demandedthat all should submit to thecouncil, which they were going to renew atTrent; but Duke Maurice, one of Saxony’sdeputies, protested that their master didsubmit to the council on this condition,that the divines of the Confession ofAugsburg not only should be heard there,but should vote also like the Roman Catholicbishops, and that the pope shouldnot preside: but, by plurality of votes,submission to the council was resolved on.

The first Diet of Ratisbon was held in1541, for uniting the Protestants to theChurch of Rome. The pope’s legate havingaltered the twenty-two articles drawn upby the Protestant divines, the emperor proposedto choose some learned divines thatmight agree peaceably upon the articles,and being desired by the Diet to choosethem himself, he named three Papists, viz.Julius Phlugus, John Gropperus, andJohn Eckius; and three Protestants, viz.Philip Melancthon, Martin Bucer, andJohn Pistorius. After an examinationand dispute of a whole month, those divinescould never agree upon more thanfive or six articles, wherein the Diet stillfound some difficulties; wherefore the emperor,to end these controversies, orderedby an edict, that the decision of thosedoctors should be reserved to a generalcouncil, or to the national council of allGermany, or to the next Diet eighteenmonths after; and that, in the mean while,the Protestants should keep the articlesagreed on, forbidding them to solicit anybodyto change the old religion, (as theycalled it,) &c. But to gratify the Protestantsin some measure, he gave themleave, by patent, to retain their religion,notwithstanding the edict.

The second Diet at Ratisbon was held in1546: none of the Protestant confederateprinces appeared; so that it was easily decreedhere, by plurality of votes, that theCouncil of Trent was to be followed, whichyet the Protestant deputies opposed, andthis caused a war against them.

The third Diet of Ratisbon was held in1557: the assembly demanded a conferencebetween some famous doctors of bothparties; which conference, held at Worms,between twelve Lutheran and as manyPopish divines, was soon dissolved by theLutherans’ division among themselves.—Broughton.

DIGNITARY. One who holds cathedralor other preferment to which jurisdictionis annexed.

The dignitaries in British cathedrals are,for the most part, the dean, precentor,chancellor, treasurer, and archdeacon.Sometimes the subdean and succentor canonicorumare so called; and in a fewchurches in Ireland, the provost, and sacrist(or treasurer). The only dignitary in cathedrals291of the new foundation is the dean;as the archdeacon is not necessarily a memberof such chapters. It is a vulgar errorto style prebendaries, or canons residentiary,dignitaries. The prebendaries without dignitywere styled canonici (or prebendarii)simplices.—Jebb.

DILAPIDATION is the incumbent sufferingthe chancel, or any other edifices,of his ecclesiastical living, to go to ruin ordecay, by neglecting to repair the same;and it likewise extends to his committing,or suffering to be committed, any wilfulwaste in or upon the glebe, woods, or anyother inheritance of the church. By theinjunctions of King Edward VI. it is required,“that the proprietors, parsons, vicars,and clerks, having churches, chapels,or mansions, shall yearly bestow on thesaid mansions or chancels of their churches,being in decay, the fifth part of their benefices,till they be fully repaired; and thesame being thus repaired, they shall alwayskeep and maintain them in goodestate.”—See Art. XIII. of Queen Elizabeth’sInjunctions.

By the constitutions of Othobon it isordained, that “all clerks shall take caredecently to repair the houses of their beneficesand other buildings, as need shall require,whereunto they shall be earnestlyadmonished by their bishops or archdeacons;and if any of them, after the monitionof the bishops or archdeacons, shallneglect to do the same for the space oftwo months, the bishop shall cause thesame effectually to be done, at the costand charges of such clerk, out of the profitsof his church and benefice, by the authorityof this present statute, causing somuch thereof to be received as shall besufficient for such reparation: the chancelsalso of the church they shall cause to berepaired by those who are bound thereuntoaccording as is above expressed; alsowe do enjoin, by attestation of the Divinejudgment, the archbishops and bishops,and other inferior prelates, that they dokeep in repair their houses and other edifices,by causing such reparation to bemade as they know to be needful.”—See13 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 ancientChristian Church, they were lettersgranted to the clergy, when they were toremove from their own diocese and settlein another, to testify, that they had thebishop’s leave to depart; whence they werecalled Dimissoriæ, and sometimes Pacificæ.

In the Church of England, dimissoryletters are such as are used when a candidatefor holy orders has a title in one diocese,and is to be ordained in another; inwhich case the proper diocesan sends hisletters, directed to the ordaining bishop,giving leave that the bearer may be ordainedby him.

Persons inferior to bishops cannot grantthese letters, unless the bishop shall, byspecial commission, grant this power to hisvicar-general; or unless the bishop be ata great distance from his diocese, in whichcase his vicar-general in spirituals maygrant such licence as the chapter of acathedral may do sede vacante; or, lastly,when a bishop is taken prisoner by theenemy, for then the chapter exercises thesame rights and powers as if the bishopwere naturally dead.

DIOCESE. The circuit of a bishop’sjurisdiction. The ecclesiastical division inEngland is, primarily, into two provinces,those of Canterbury and York. In Irelandinto two, Armagh and Dublin; till lately,however, into four, Cashel and Tuam, besidesthe two now mentioned. A provinceis a circuit of an archbishop’s jurisdiction.Each province contains divers dioceses, orsees of suffragan bishops; whereof Canterburyincludes twenty, and York five. Armaghand Dublin, five each; though tilllately Armagh had seven, Dublin three,Cashel five, and Tuam three. Though,properly speaking, the Irish diocesesare far more numerous, as most of thebishops have more than one see undertheir jurisdiction; which nevertheless,though thus united as to episcopal government,have their separate chapters,ecclesiastical officers, &c. Every diocesein England is divided into archdeaconries,and each archdeaconry into rural deaneries,and every deanery into parishes.In Ireland, there is but one archdeaconryto each diocese, though in two instances,those of Glendaloch and Aghadoe, thesedioceses have been so long united to theadjacent sees, that their boundaries arenow unknown, and consequently the dioceseof Dublin and Ardfert have apparently,though not really, two archdeaconseach. The division into rural deaneriesand parishes is as in England.

The division of the Church into diocesesmay be viewed as a natural consequenceof the institution of the office of bishops.The authority to exercise jurisdiction, whencommitted to several hands, requires thatsome boundaries be defined within whicheach party may employ his powers; otherwisedisorder and confusion would ensue,and the Church, instead of being benefited292by the appointment of governors, mightbe exposed to the double calamity of anoverplus of them in one district, and a totaldeficiency of them in another. Hence wefind, so early as the New Testament history,some plain indications of the rise ofthe diocesan system, in the cases respectivelyof James, bishop of Jerusalem;Timothy, bishop of Ephesus; Titus, ofCrete, to whom may be added the “angels”or bishops of the seven churches in Asia.These were placed in cities, and had jurisdictionover the churches and inferiorclergy in those cities, and probably in thecountry adjacent. The first dioceses wereformed by planting a bishop in a city orconsiderable village, where he officiated regularly,and took the spiritual charge, notonly of the city itself, but of the suburbs, orregion lying round about it, within theverge of its [civil] jurisdiction; whichseems to be the plain reason of that greatand visible difference which we find in theextent of dioceses, some being very large,others very small, according as the civilgovernment of each city happened to havea larger or lesser jurisdiction.

Thus, in our own Church, there were atfirst only seven bishoprics, and these werecommensurate with the Saxon kingdoms.Since that time our Church has thought fitto lessen the size of her dioceses, and tomultiply them into above twenty; and ifshe thought fit to add forty or a hundredmore, she would not be without precedentin the primitive Church. It is a greatmisfortune to the Church of England thather dioceses, compared with the population,are so extensive and so few. It isimpossible for our bishops to perform alltheir canonical duties, such as visitingannually every parish in the diocese, inspectingschools, Divine service, instruction,&c., besides baptizing, confirming,consecrating. Episcopal extension, as wellas Church extension, is most important.We must seek to add to the number of ourbishops. There will be prejudices anddifficulties for some time to be overcomeon the part of the State, which is not sufficientlyreligious to tolerate an increase inthe number of spiritual peers. An additionto the number of our spiritual peers ishowever not what we seek, but that ourspiritual pastors may be more numerous.

The ancient bishoprics being baronies,the possessors of them might sit in parliament;while the new bishoprics, not havingbaronies attached, might only qualify for aseat in the upper house of convocation.The beginning of a new system was madeon the erection of the see of Manchester,in 1847, since which time the junior bishophas no seat in the House of Lords.

DIOCESAN. A bishop, as he standsrelated to his diocese. (See Bishop.)

DIPPERS. (See Dunkers.)

DIPTYCH. A kind of sacred book, orregister, made use of in the ancient ChristianChurch, and in which were writtenthe names of such eminent bishops, saints,and martyrs, as were particularly to becommemorated, just before oblation wasmade for the dead. It was called diptych(δίπτυχος) from its being folded together;and it was the deacon’s office to recite thenames written in it, as occasion required.Some distinguish three sorts of diptychs:one, wherein the names of bishops onlywere written, such especially as had beengovernors of that particular church; asecond, in which the names of the livingwere written, such in particular as wereeminent for any office or dignity, or somebenefaction and good work, in which rankwere bishops, emperors, and magistrates;lastly, a third, containing the names ofsuch as were deceased in catholic communion.

Theodoret mentions these kind of registersin relation to the case of St. Chrysostom,whose name, for some time, wasleft out of the diptychs, because he diedunder the sentence of excommunication,pronounced against him by Theophilus,bishop of Alexandria, and other Easternbishops, with whom the Western Churchwould not communicate until they hadreplaced his name in the diptychs; for,to erase a person’s name out of thesebooks was the same thing as declaring himto have been an heretic, or some way deviatingfrom the faith.—Bingham.

DIRECTORY. A kind of regulationfor the performance of religious worship,drawn up by the Assembly of Divines inEngland, at the instance of the parliament,in the year 1644. It was designed to supplythe place of the Liturgy, or Book of CommonPrayer, the use of which the parliamenthad abolished. It consisted only of somegeneral heads, which were to be managedand filled up at discretion; for it prescribedno form of prayer or circumstancesof external worship, nor obliged the peopleto any responses, excepting Amen. Theuse of the Directory was enforced by anordinance of the Lords and Commons atWestminster, which was repeated August3rd, 1645. By this injunction, the Directorywas ordered to be dispersed and publishedin all parishes, chapelries, donatives,&c. In opposition to this injunction, KingCharles issued a proclamation at Oxford,293November 13th, 1645, enjoining the use ofthe Common Prayer according to law, notwithstandingthe pretended ordinances forthe new Directory.

To give a short abstract of the Directory:It forbids all salutations and civil ceremonyin the churches. The reading theScripture in the congregation is declaredto be part of the pastoral office. All thecanonical books of the Old and New Testament(but none of the Apocrypha) are tobe publicly read in the vulgar tongue.How large a portion is to be read at onceis left to the minister, who has likewise theliberty of expounding, when he judges itnecessary. It prescribes heads for theprayer before sermon; among which partof the prayer for the king is, to save himfrom evil counsel. It delivers rules formanaging the sermon; the introduction tothe text must be short and clear, drawnfrom the words or context, or some parallelplace of Scripture; in dividing the text,the minister is to regard the order of thematter more than that of the words; heis not to burden the memory of hisaudience with too many divisions, nor perplextheir understandings with logicalphrases and terms of art; he is not tostart unnecessary objections; and he is tobe very sparing in citations from ecclesiastical,or other human writers, ancient ormodern.

The Directory recommends the use ofthe Lord’s Prayer, as the most perfectmodel of devotion. It forbids private orlay persons to administer baptism, and enjoinsit to be performed in the face of thecongregation. It orders the communiontable at the Lord’s supper to be so placedthat the communicants may sit about it.The dead, according to the rules of theDirectory, are to be buried without anyprayers or religious ceremony.

The Roman Catholics publish an annualDirectory for their laity, which serves thepurpose of a book of reference in mattersof ceremonial as settled by their communion.—Broughton.

DISCIPLE, in the first sense of theword, means one who learns any thingfrom another. Hence the followers of anyteacher, philosopher, or head of a sect, areusually called his disciples. In the Christiansense of the term, disciples are thefollowers of Jesus Christ in general;but, in a more restrained sense, it denotesthose who were the immediate followersand attendants on his person. The namesdisciple and apostle are often used synonymouslyin the gospel history; but sometimesthe apostles are distinguished from disciples,as persons selected out of the numberof disciples, to be the principal ministersof his religion. Of these there weretwelve; whereas those who are simplystyled disciples were seventy, or seventy-two,in number. There was not as yetany catalogue of the disciples in Eusebius’stime, i. e. in the fourth century. TheLatins kept the festival of the seventy orseventy-two disciples on the 15th of July,and the Greeks on 4th of January.

DISCIPLINE, ECCLESIASTICAL.The Christian Church being a spiritualcommunity or society of persons professingthe religion of Jesus, and, as such, governedby spiritual or ecclesiastical laws, herdiscipline consists in putting those laws inexecution, and inflicting the penalties enjoinedby them against several sorts ofoffenders. To understand the true natureof church discipline, we must consider howit stood in the ancient Christian Church.And, first,

The primitive Church never pretendedto exercise discipline upon any but suchas were within her pale, in the largestsense, by some act of their own profession;and even upon these she never pretendedto exercise her discipline so far as to cancelor disannul their baptism. But the disciplineof the Church consisted in a powerto deprive men of the benefits of externalcommunion, such as public prayer, receivingthe eucharist, and other acts of Divineworship. This power, before the establishmentof the Church by human laws, was amere spiritual authority, or, as St. Cyprianterms it, a spiritual sword, affecting thesoul, and not the body. Sometimes, indeed,the Church craved assistance fromthe secular power, even when it was heathen,but more frequently after it was becomeChristian. But it is to be observed,that the Church never encouraged themagistrate to proceed against any one formere error, or ecclesiastical misdemeanour,further than to punish the delinquent bya pecuniary mulct, or bodily punishment,such as confiscation or banishment; andSt. Austin affirms, that no good men inthe Catholic Church were pleased thatheretics should be prosecuted unto death.Lesser punishments, they thought, mighthave their use, as means sometimes to bringthem to consideration and repentance.

Nor was it a part of the ancient disciplineto deprive men of their natural orcivil rites. A master did not lose hisauthority over his family, a parent overhis children, nor a magistrate his office andcharge in the state, by being cast out ofthe Church. But the discipline of the294Church being a mere spiritual power, wasconfined 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 asfell into great and scandalous crimes afterbaptism, whether men or women, priestsor people, rich or poor, princes or subjects.That princes and magistrates fell underthe Church’s censures, may be proved byseveral instances; particularly St. Chrysostomrelates, that Babylas denied communionto one of the Roman emperors onaccount of a barbarous murder committedby him: St. Ambrose likewise denied communionto Maximus for shedding the bloodof Gratian; and the same holy bishop absolutelyrefused to admit the emperorTheodosius the Great into his church, notwithstandinghis humblest entreaties, becausehe had inhumanly put to death 7000men at Thessalonica, without distinguishingthe innocent from the guilty.

DISPENSATION. The providentialdealing of God with his creatures. Wethus speak of the Jewish dispensation andthe Christian dispensation. (See Covenantof Redemption.)

In ecclesiastical law, by dispensation ismeant the power vested in archbishops ofdispensing, on particular emergencies, withcertain minor regulations of the Church,more especially in her character as anestablishment.

DISSENTERS. Separatists from theChurch of England, and the service andworship thereof, whether Protestants orPapists. At the Revolution a law wasenacted, that the statutes of Elizabeth andJames I., concerning the discipline of theChurch, should not extend to ProtestantDissenters. But persons dissenting wereto subscribe the declaration of 30 Car. II.c. 1, and take the oath or declaration offidelity, &c. They are not to hold theirmeetings until their place of worship iscertified to the bishop, or to the justices ofthe quarter sessions, and registered; alsothey are not to keep the doors of theirmeeting-houses locked during the time ofworship. Whoever disturbs or molests themin the performance of their worship, on convictionat the sessions, is to forfeit £20 bythe statute of 1 W. & M.—Broughton.

At the present time there are in England34 dissenting communities or sects; 26 nativeor indigenous, 9 foreign.

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.

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 Divinethings; theology; a title of the Godhead.(See Theology.) In strictness, meaning thatdepartment of sacred knowledge which hasmore peculiar reference to the attributesand essence of God.

DIVORCE. A separation of a marriedman and woman by the sentence of an ecclesiasticaljudge qualified to pronouncethe same.

Among us, divorces are of two kinds, àmensâ et thoro, from bed and board; andà vinculo matrimonii, from the marriage tie.The former neither dissolves the marriage,nor debars the woman of her dower, norbastardizes the issue; but the latter absolutely295dissolves the marriage contract,making it void from the very beginning.The causes of a divorce à mensâ et thoroare 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 thechildren, if any begotten, bastardized. Ona divorce for adultery, some acts of parliamenthave allowed the innocent person tomarry again.

DOCETÆ. Heretics, so called ἀπὸτοῦ δοκέειν (apparere), because they taughtthat our Lord had only a seeming body,and that his actions and sufferings werenot in reality, but in appearance. Therewas in the second century a sect whichespecially bore this name; but the Doceticerror was common to many kinds of Gnostics.(See Gnostics.)

DOCTOR. One who has the highestdegree in the faculties of divinity, law,physic, or music. (See Degree.)

DOCTRINE. A system of teaching.By Christian doctrine should be intendedthe principles or positions of the HolyCatholic and Apostolic Church.

DOGMA. A word used originally toexpress any doctrine of religion formallystated. Dogmatic theology is the statementof positive truths in religion. The indifferenceof later generations to positive truthis indicated, among other things, by thedifferent notion which has come to beattached, in common discourse, to thesewords. By a dogma is now generallymeant too positive or harsh a statement ofuncertain or unimportant articles; and theepithet dogmatic is given to one who isrude or obtrusive, or overbearing in thestatement of what he judges to be true.

DOMINICAL or SUNDAY LETTER.In the calendar, the first seven letters ofthe alphabet are applied to the days of theweek, the letter A being always given tothe 1st of January, whatsoever that daymay be, and the others in succession to thefollowing days. If the year consisted of364 days, making an exact number ofweeks, it is evident that no change wouldever take place in these letters: thus, supposingthe 1st of January in any givenyear to be Sunday, all the Sundays wouldbe represented by A, not only in that year,but in all succeeding. There being, however,365 days in the year, the first letteris again repeated on the 31st of December,and consequently the Sunday letter for thefollowing year will be G. This retrocessionof the letters will, from the samecause, continue every year, so as to makeF the dominical letter of the third, &c.If every year were common, the processwould continue regularly, and a cycle ofseven years would suffice to restore thesame letters to the same days as before.But the intercalation of a day, every bissextileor fourth year, has occasioned avariation in this respect. The bissextileyear, containing 366 instead of 365 days,will throw the dominical letter of the followingyear back two letters, so that if thedominical letter at the beginning of theyear be C, the dominical letter of the nextyear will be, not B, but A. This alterationis not effected by dropping a letter altogether,but by changing the dominical letterat the end of February, where theintercalation of a day takes place. In consequenceof this change every fourth year,twenty-eight years must elapse before acomplete revolution can take place in thedominical letter, and it is on this circumstancethat the period of the solar cycle isfounded.

DOMINICAN MONKS. The religiousorder of Dominic, or friars preachers;called in England Black friars, and inFrance Jacobins.

Dominic de Guzman was born in the year1170, at Calaruega, a small town of the dioceseof Osma, in Old Castile. According tothe Romish legend, his mother, being withchild of him, dreamed she was delivered ofa little dog, which gave light to all theworld, with a flambeau in his mouth. Atsix years of age he began to study humanityunder the direction of his uncle, whowas archpriest of the church of Gumyelde Ystan. The time he had to spare fromhis studies was spent in assisting at divineoffices, singing in the churches, and adorningthe altars. At thirteen years of age,he was sent to the university of Palencia,in the kingdom of Leon, where he spentsix years in the study of philosophy anddivinity. From that time he devoted himselfto 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 thebishop of Osma, resolving to reform thecanons of his church, cast his eyes uponDominic for that purpose, whom he invitedto take upon him the habit of a canonin the church of Osma. Accordingly,Dominic astonished and edified the canonsof Osma by his extraordinary humility,mortification, and other virtues. Sometime after, Dominic was ordained priestby the bishop of Osma, and was madesub-prior of the chapter. That prelate,making a scruple of confining so great atreasure to his own church, sent Dominic296out to exercise the ministry of an evangelicalpreacher; accordingly, he wentthrough several provinces, as Galicia, Castile,and Aragon, converting many, till, inthe year 1204, the bishop of Osma, beingsent ambassador into France, took Dominicwith him. In their passage through Languedoc,they were witnesses of the desolationoccasioned by the Albigenses, andobtained leave of Pope Innocent III. tostay some time in that country, and labouron the conversion of those heretics. Here itwas that Dominic resolved to put in executionthe design he had long formed, of institutinga religious order, whose principalemployment should be, preaching the gospel,converting heretics, defending thefaith, and propagating Christianity. Bydegrees he collected together several persons,inspired with the same zeal, whosenumber soon increased to sixteen. PopeInnocent III. confirmed this institution, atthe request of Dominic, who went to Romefor that purpose. They then agreed toembrace the rule of St. Augustine, to whichthey added statutes and constitutions whichhad formerly been observed either by theCarthusians, or the Premonstratenses. Theprincipal articles enjoined perpetual silence,abstinence from flesh at all times, wearingof woollen, rigorous poverty, and severalother austerities.

The first monastery of this order wasestablished at Toulouse, by the bounty ofthe bishop of Toulouse, and Simon earl ofMontfort. From thence Dominic sent outsome of the community to several parts, tolabour in preaching, which was the maindesign of his institute. In the year 1218he founded the convent of Dominicans atParis, in the Rue St. Jaques, from whencethey had the name of Jacobins. At Metz,in Germany, he founded another monasteryof his order; and another, soon after, atVenice. At Rome, he obtained of PopeHonorius III. the church of St. Sabina,where he and his companions took thehabit which they pretended the BlessedVirgin showed to the holy Renaud ofOrleans, being a white garment andscapular, to which they added a blackmantle and hood ending in a point. In1221, the order had sixty monasteries,being divided into eight provinces, thoseof Spain, Toulouse, France, Lombardy,Rome, Provence, Germany, and England.St. Dominic, having thus settled and enlargedhis order, died at Bologna, August4th, 1221, and was canonized by PopeGregory IX., July 13th, 1234.

The order of the Dominicans, after thedeath of their founder, made a very considerableprogress in Europe and elsewhere.They therefore erected four new provinces,namely, those of Greece, Poland, Denmark,and the Holy Land. Afterwards the numberof monasteries increased to such a degree,that the order was divided into forty-fiveprovinces, having spread itself into allparts of the world. It has produced a greatnumber of martyrs, confessors, bishops, andholy virgins: there are reckoned of thisorder 3 popes, 60 cardinals, 150 archbishops,800 bishops, besides the mastersof the sacred palace, who have always beenDominicans.

There are nuns of this order, who owetheir foundation to St. Dominic himself,who, whilst he was labouring on the conversionof the Albigenses, was so muchconcerned to see that some gentlemen ofGuienne, not having wherewith to maintaintheir daughters, either sold or gavethem to be brought up by heretics, that,with the assistance of the archbishop ofNarbonne, and other charitable persons,he laid the foundation of a monastery atProuille, where those poor maids might bebrought up, and supplied with all necessariesfor their subsistence. The habitof these religious was a white robe, atawny mantle, and a black veil. Theirfounder obliged them to work at certainhours of the day, and particularly to spinyarn and flax. The nuns of this orderhad above 130 houses in Italy, 45 inFrance, 50 in Spain, 15 in Portugal, 40 inGermany, and many in Poland, Russia, andother countries. They never eat flesh,excepting in sickness; they wear no linen,and lie on straw beds; but many monasterieshave mitigated this austerity.

In the year 1221, Dominic sent Gilbertdu Fresney, with twelve brothers, intoEngland, where they founded their firsthouse at Oxford the same year, and soonafter another at London. In the year1276, the mayor and aldermen of the cityof London gave them two streets by theriver Thames, where they had a very commodiousmonastery; whence that place isstill called Black Friars. They had monasterieslikewise at Warwick, Canterbury,Stamford, Chelmsford, Dunwich, Ipswich,Norwich, Thetford, Exeter, Brecknock,Langley, and Guildford.

The Dominicans, being fortified with anauthority from the court of Rome to preachand take confessions, made great encroachmentsupon the English bishops and theparochial clergy, insisting upon a libertyof preaching wherever they thought fit.And many persons of quality, especiallywomen, deserted from the parochial clergy,297and confessed to the Dominicans, insomuchthat the character of the secular clergywas greatly sunk thereby. This innovationmade way for a dissoluteness of manners;for the people, being under no necessity ofconfessing to their parish priest, brokethrough their duty with less reluctancy, inhopes of meeting with a Dominican confessor,those friars being generally in atravelling motion, making no stay wherethey came, and strangers to their penitents.—Brouqhton.

DONATISTS. Schismatics, originallypartisans of Donatus, an African by birth,and bishop of Casæ Nigræ, in Numidia.A secret hatred against Cecilian, electedbishop of Carthage, notwithstanding theopposition of Donatus, excited the latterto form one of the most pernicious schismsthat ever disturbed the peace of the Church.He accused Cecilian of having deliveredup the sacred books to the Pagans, andpretended that his election was therebyvoid, and all those who adhered to himheretics. Under this false pretext of zealfor the Church, he set up for the head ofa party, and about the year 312, taughtthat baptism, administered by heretics,was null; that the Church was not infallible;that it had erred in his time; andthat he was to be the restorer of it. Buta council, held at Arles in 314, acquittedCecilian, and declared his election valid.

The schismatics, irritated at this sentence,refused to acquiesce in the decisionsof the council; and the more firmly to supporttheir cause, they thought it better tosubscribe to the opinions of Donatus, andopenly to declaim against the Catholics:they gave out, that the Church was becomeprostituted; they rebaptized the Catholics;they trod under foot the eucharistconsecrated by priests of the Catholic communion;they overthrew their altars, burnedtheir churches, and ran up and downdecrying the Church. (See Circumcellians.)They had chosen into the place of Cecilianone Majorinus; but he dying soon after,they brought in one Donatus, differentfrom him of Casæ Nigræ.

This new head of the cabal used somuch violence against the Catholics, thatthe schismatics took their name from him.But as they could not prove that theycomposed a true Church, they sent one oftheir bishops to Rome, who secretly tookupon him the title of bishop of Rome.This bishop being dead, the Donatists appointedhim a successor. They attemptedlikewise to send some bishops into Spain,that they might say, their Church beganto spread itself everywhere; but it wasonly in Africa that it could gain any considerablefooting, and this want of diffusionwas much insisted on by their opponentsas an argument against their pretensions.

After many vain efforts to crush thisschism, the emperor Honorius assembleda council of bishops at Carthage, in theyear 410; where a disputation was heldbetween seven of each party. Marcellinus,the emperor’s deputy, who presided inthat assembly, decided in favour of theCatholics, and ordered them to take possessionof all the churches, which theDonatist bishops had seized on by violence,or otherwise. This decree exasperatedthe Donatists; but the Catholicbishops used so much wisdom and prudence,that they insensibly brought overmost of those who had strayed from thebosom of the Church. It appears, however,that the schism was not quite extincttill the 7th century.—Broughton.

DONATIVE. A donative is when theking, or any subject by his licence, foundsa church or chapel, and ordains that itshall be merely in the gift or disposal ofthe patron, and vested absolutely in theclerk by the patron’s deed of donation,without presentation, institution, or induction.This is said to have been ancientlythe only way of conferring ecclesiasticalbenefices in England; the method of institutionby the bishop not being establishedmore early than the time of ArchbishopBecket 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 conferredby the patron only: this howevershows what was then the common usage.Others contend, that the claim of thebishops to institution is as old as the firstplanting of Christianity in this island; and,in proof of it, they allege a letter from theEnglish nobility to the pope in the reignof Henry III., recorded by Matthew Paris,(A. D. 1239,) which speaks of presentationto the bishop as a thing immemorial. Thetruth seems to be that, where a beneficewas to be conferred on a mere layman, hewas first presented to the bishop, in orderto receive ordination, who was at libertyto examine and refuse him: but wherethe clerk was already in orders, the livingwas usually vested in him by the soledonation of the patron; until about themiddle of the twelfth century, when thepope endeavoured to introduce a kind offeudal dominion over ecclesiastical benefices,and, in consequence of that, began298to claim and exercise the right of institutionuniversally as a species of spiritualinvestiture.

By the act 14 & 15 Vict. c. 97, sec. 9,the right of perpetual nomination of anincumbent may be acquired by the personor body, their heirs, &c., who shall procurea church to be erected and endowed.

DONNELLAN LECTURES. Mrs.Anne Donnellan, in the last century, bequeatheda sum of £1243 to the collegeof Dublin, for the encouragement of religion,learning, and good manners; theapplication of the sum being intrusted tothe provost and senior fellows; who, consequently,in 1794, resolved, that a lecturershould be annually appointed to preachsix lectures in the college chapel: thesubject of the lectures for each year beingdetermined by them. The other regulationsare analogous to those of the BamptonLectures at Oxford. Many distinguishedworks have been the fruits of this Lecture:among them may be mentioned Dr.Graves’s Lectures on the Pentateuch, ArchbishopMagee on Prophecy, &c.

DORMITORY, DORTOR, or DORTURE.The sleeping apartment in a monasticinstitution.

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 thesaints, which for the present repose in theirgraves, shall arise, or awake. But it mustbe borne in mind, that the word has referenceto the sleep of the body, and not ofthe soul, which latter was never an articleof the Christian faith.

DORT. The Synod of Dort was convenedto compose the troubles occasionedby the celebrated Arminian controversy.

Arminius, professor of divinity at Leyden,had received his theological educationat Geneva. After much profound meditationon the abstruse subject of predestination,he became dissatisfied with Calvin’sdoctrine of the absolute decrees of God,in respect to the salvation and perdition ofman; and, while he admitted the eternalprescience of the Deity, he held, with theRoman Catholic Church, that no mortal isrendered finally unhappy, by an eternaland invincible decree; and that the miseryof those who perish comes from themselves.Many who were eminent for theirtalents and learning, and some who filledhigh situations in Holland, embraced hisopinions; but, apparently at least, a greatmajority sided against them. The mostactive of these was Gomar, the colleagueof Arminius in the professorship. Unfortunately,politics entered into the controversy.Most of the friends of Arminiuswere of the party which opposed the politicsof the Prince of Orange; while, generally,the adversaries of Arminius werefavourable to the views of that prince.Barneveldt and Grotius, two of the mostrespectable partisans of Arminius, werethrown into prison for their supposedpractices against the state. The formerperished on the scaffold; the latter, by hiswife’s address, escaped from prison. Whilethese disturbances were at the highest,Arminius died.

On his decease, the superintendence ofthe party devolved to Episcopius, whowas, at that time, professor of theology atLeyden, and universally esteemed for hislearning, his judgment, and his eloquence.The Arminian cause prospering under him,the opposite party took the alarm, and, in1618, a synod was called at Dort, by thedirection, and under the influence, ofPrince Maurice. It was attended by deputiesfrom the United Provinces, and fromthe 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. Itscanons were published under the title of“Judicium Synodi nationalis reformatarumecclesiarum habiti Dordrechti anno1618 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’sConfession of Faith.

DOXOLOGY. (See Gloria Patri.) Ahymn used in the Divine service of Christians.The ancient doxology was only asingle sentence, without a response, runningin these words: “Glory be to theFather, and to the Son, and to the HolyGhost, world without end. Amen.” Partof the latter clause, “As it was in the beginning,is now, and ever shall be,” wasinserted some time after the first composition.The fourth Council of Toledo, inthe year 633, added the word “honour” toit, and read it, “Glory and honour be tothe Father,” &c., because the prophetDavid says, “Bring glory and honour tothe Lord.” It is not easy to say at whattime the latter clause was inserted. Someascribe it to the Council of Nice, and supposeit was added in opposition to theArians. But the first express mentionmade of it is in the second Council of Vaison,an. 529, above two centuries later.

There was another small difference in299the use of this ancient hymn; some readingit, “Glory be to the Father, and tothe Son, with the Holy Ghost;” others,“Glory be to the Father, in (or by) theSon, and by the Holy Ghost.” This differenceof expression occasioned no disputesin the Church, till the rise of theArian heresy: but, when the followers ofArius began to make use of the latter, andmade it a distinguishing character of theirparty, it was entirely laid aside by theCatholics, and the use of it was enough tobring any one under suspicion of heterodoxy.

This hymn was of most general use, andwas a doxology, or giving of praise toGod, at the close of every solemn office.The Western Church repeated it at theend of every psalm, with some few exceptions;and omitted it on the three daysbefore Easter, and in offices of the dead;and the Eastern Church used it only atthe end of the last psalm. Many of theirprayers were also concluded with it, particularlythe solemn thanksgiving, or consecration-prayerat the eucharist. It wasalso the ordinary conclusion of their sermons.

There was likewise another hymn, ofgreat note in the ancient Church, called thegreat doxology, or angelical hymn, beginningwith those words, which the angelssung at our Saviour’s birth, “Glory be toGod on high,” &c. This was chiefly usedin the Communion Service. It was alsoused daily in men’s private devotions. Inthe Mozarabic liturgy it is appointed to besung before the lessons on Christmas day.St. Chrysostom often mentions it, and observesthat the Ascetics, or Christians whohad retired from the world, met togetherdaily to sing this hymn. Who first composedit, adding the remaining part to thewords sung by the angels, is uncertain.Some suppose it to be as ancient as thetime of Lucian, about the beginning of thesecond century. Others take it for theGloria Patri; which is a dispute as difficultto be determined, as it is to find outthe first author and original of this hymn.

Both these doxologies have a place inthe liturgy of the Church of England, theformer being repeated after every psalm,the latter used in the Communion Service.

As the ancient doxology of “Glory tothe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” was,among the Christians, a solemn professionof their belief in the Holy Trinity, so theMohammedans, by their doxology, “Thereis but one God,” (to which they sometimesadd, “and Mohammed is his prophet,”)which they use both in their public andprivate prayers, and in their acclamations,sufficiently show their disbelief of a Trinityof persons in the Godhead.—Bingham.

DRIPSTONE. In church architecture,the projecting moulding which crownsdoors, windows, and other arches, in theexterior of a building.

DULCINISTS. Heretics, so denominatedfrom one Dulcinus, a layman, of Novarain Lombardy, who lived in the beginningof the 14th century. He pretendedto preach the reign of the Holy Ghost;and while he justly enough rejected thepope’s authority, he foolishly made himselfto be the head of that third reign, saying,that the Father had reigned from thebeginning of the world to the coming ofChrist; and the Son’s reign began then,and continued until the year 1300. Hewas followed by a great many people to theAlps, where he and his wife were taken andburnt by the order of Clement IV.

DULIA. (Δουλεία.) The worship paidby Romanists to saints and angels, and toimages. Not denying that all these aremade by them objects of worship, the Papistsinvent a distinction of many kindsand degrees of worship, and very accuratelyassign to each object of worship itsproper amount of reverence. The lowestdegree is the dulia, which is given to saintsand angels. Hyperdulia (ὑπερδουλεία) isreserved for the Blessed Virgin alone: andLatria (λατρεια) is given to the Lord himself,and to each person in the ever blessedand glorious Trinity. Images of either ofthese receive a relative worship of the sameorder. An image of a saint or angel, relativeDulia: an image of the Blessed Virgin,relative hyperdulia: an image of eitherperson of the Blessed Trinity, relativeLatria. (See Idolatry, Images, Invocationof Saints.)

DUNKERS, or DIPPERS. A sect ofBaptists, originating (1724) in the teachingof one Conrad Peysel or Beissel, a German,in Philadelphia, one of the American states.They are distinguished not only by theiradherence to the rite of baptism with trineimmersion, which, like other Baptists, theyof course confine to adults, but also bytheir rigid abstinence from flesh, excepton particular occasions; by their living inmonastic societies, by their peculiar garb,like that of the Dominican friars, and bytheir scruples with regard to resistance,war, slavery, and litigation. Their greatsettlement is at a place which they callEuphrata, in allusion to the lament of theHebrews in their captivity, which theyused to pour forth to their harps as theysat on the banks of the Euphrates.

300EAGLE. A frequent, and the mostbeautiful, form of the lectern for readingthe lessons from in churches. It has probablysome reference to the eagle, whichis the symbolical companion of St. John,in ecclesiastical design. The eagle is frequentlyemployed in foreign churches, butgenerally for the chanting of the service,not for the lessons. Sometimes it is employedfor the reading of the Epistles andGospels, and there are instances of onebeing on each side of the choir or chancel.Several of the cathedrals and colleges inour universities have this kind of lecterns.Before the civil wars in 1651, therewas in the cathedral of Waterford, a“great standing pelican to support theBible, a brazen eagle,” and other ornaments.—Ryland’sWaterford. Winchesterand St. John’s College, Cambridge, have oflate years been provided with eagle lecterns.The “Lecterna” or Bible eagle atPeterborough was given by Abbot Ramsayand 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 mergingin the Geometrical about 1245. The Lancetwindow is the principal characteristicof this style; but it has, besides, various peculiarities,(see Arcade, Capital, Moulding,Vaulting,) among which are the following:—Thedoorways are frequently divided bya central shaft. As compared with the precedingstyle, the buttresses have a considerable projection,and they usually terminate in a plain pediment. The flyingbuttress becomes frequent. Gables are ofvery high pitch; the parapet usually retainsthe corbel-table. Piers consist of acircular or octagonal shaft, surrounded byfour or eight smaller ones, which standfree, except that, when of great length, theyare generally banded in the centre. Purbeckor Petworth marble is often used bothfor the central, which is really the bearingshaft, and the smaller ones; but in this casethe marble of the bearing shaft is laid asin the quarry, while the smaller shafts areset upwards, for the sake of greater length.The triforium still maintains its importance,though hardly so lofty as in the Normanstyle: it is usually of two smallerbehind a principal arch, or of four smallerbehind two principal arches. The clerestoryis generally of the three Lancets, thecentral one much more lofty than the twoothers. The carving is extremely sharpand good, and very easily recognised, whenit contains foliage, by the stiff stalks endingin crisped or curled leaves. Panelsare often used to relieve large spaces ofmasonry, either blank or pierced; andsometimes in window-heads, and in triforiumarcades, approach very nearly tothe character of tracery. They are alsooften filled with figures. The dog-tooth,which had made its appearance in theTransition, is now extremely abundant,often filling the hollows of the mouldingsin two or three continuous trails. Thespires are almost invariably broach-spires.

EAST. (See also Bowing and Apostles’Creed.) In the aspect of their churches,the ancient Christians reversed the orderof the Jews, placing the altar on the east,so that in facing towards the altar in theirdevotions they were turned to the east.As the Jews began their day with thesetting sun, so the followers of Christbegan theirs with the rising sun. Theeye of the Christian turned with peculiarinterest to the east, whence the day-springfrom on high had visited him. There themorning star of his hope fixed his admiringgaze. Thence arose the Sun of righteousnesswith all his heavenly influences.Thither, in prayer, his soul turned withkindling emotions to the altar of his God.And even in his grave, thither still he directedhis slumbering eye, in quiet expectationof awakening to behold in the samedirection the second appearing of his Lord,when he shall come in the clouds of heavento gather his saints.

In the ancient Church it was a ceremonyalmost of general use and practice, theturning the face to the east in their solemnadorations, which custom seems derivedfrom the ceremonies of baptism, when itwas usual to renounce the devil with theface to the west, and then turn to theeast and make the covenant with Christ.Several reasons were given by the Fathersfor this. First, As the east, the place ofthe day-spring from darkness, was thesymbol of Christ, “the Sun of righteousness.”2ndly, As it was the place of paradise,lost by the fall of the first Adam, andto be regained by the second Adam.3rdly, That Christ made his appearanceon earth in the east; there ascended intoheaven; and thence will again come atthe last day. And, 4thly, That the east,as the seat of light and brightness, was themost honourable part of the creation, andtherefore peculiarly ascribed to God, thefountain of light, and illuminator of allthings; as the west was ascribed to thedevil, because he hides the light, and bringsdarkness on men to their destruction.

When we repeat the creed, it is customaryto turn towards the east, that so,301whilst we are making profession of ourfaith in the blessed Trinity, we may looktowards that quarter of the heavens whereGod is supposed to have his peculiar residenceof glory.—Wheatly.

Turning towards the east is an ancientcustom,—as indeed in most religions, menhave directed their worship some particularway. And this practice being intendedonly to honour Christ, the Sun of righteousness,who hath risen upon us, to enlightenus with that doctrine of salvationto which we then declare our adherence, itought not to be condemned as superstition.—Secker.

Most churches are so contrived, thatthe greater part of the congregation facesthe east. The Jews, in their dispersionthroughout the world, when they prayed,turned their faces towards the mercy-seatand cherubim, where the ark stood. (2Chron. vi. 36–38.) Daniel was foundpraying towards Jerusalem, (Dan. vi. 10,)because of the situation of the temple.And this has always been esteemed a verybecoming way of expressing our belief inGod.—Collis.

EASTER. A festival of the Christiansobserved in the memory of our Saviour’sresurrection. The Latins, and others, callit Pascha, an Hebrew word, which signifies“passage,” and is applied to the Jewishfeast of the Passover, to which theChristian festival of Easter corresponds.This festival is called, in English, Easter,from the Saxon Eostre, an ancient goddessof that people, worshipped with peculiarceremonies in the month of April.

Concerning the celebration of this festival,there were anciently very great disputesin the Church. Though all agreedin the observation of it in general, yet theydiffered very much as to the particulartime when it was to be observed; somekeeping it precisely on the same stated dayevery year; others, on the fourteenth day ofthe first moon in the new year, whateverday of the week it happened on; andothers, on the first Sunday after the firstfull moon. This diversity occasioned agreat dispute, in the second century, betweenthe Asiatic Churches and the restof the world; in the course of which PopeVictor excommunicated all those Churches.But the Council of Nice, in the year 324,decreed, that all Churches should keepthe Pasch, or festival of Easter, on one andthe same day, which should be always aSunday. This decree was afterwards confirmedby the Council of Antioch, in theyear 341. Yet this did not put an end toall disputes concerning the observation ofthis festival; for it was not easy to determineon what Sunday it was to be held,because, being a movable feast, it sometimeshappened, that the Churches of onecountry kept it a week, or a month, soonerthan other Churches, by reason of theirdifferent calculations. Therefore the Councilof Nice is said to have decreed further,that the bishops of Alexandria shouldadjust a proper cycle, and inform the restof the world, on what Sunday every yearEaster was to be observed. Notwithstandingwhich, the Roman and Alexandrianaccounts continued to differ, and sometimesvaried a week, or a month, from eachother; and no effectual cure was foundfor this, till, in the year 525, DionysiusExiguus brought the Alexandrian canon,or cycle, entirely into use in the RomanChurch. Meantime, the Churches ofFrance and Britain kept to the old Romancanon, and it was two or three ages after,before the new Roman, that is, the Alexandriancanon was, not without some struggleand 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 differedas to the time of celebrating Easter,yet they all agreed in showing a peculiarrespect and honour to this festival. GregoryNazianzen calls it the Queen of Festivals,and says, it excels all others as faras the sun exceeds the other stars. Hence,in some ancient writers, it is distinguishedby the name of Dominica Gaudii, i. e. the“Sunday of joy.” One great instance ofthe public joy was given by the emperors,who were used to grant a general releaseto the prisons on this day, with an exceptiononly to such criminals as were guiltyof the highest crimes. The ancient Fathersfrequently mention these Paschal indulgences,or acts of grace, and speak of themwith great commendations. It was likewiseusual at this holy season for privatepersons to grant slaves their freedom ormanumission.—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 maybe added, that the Christians were ambitious,at this time especially, to show theirliberality to the poor. They likewise keptthe whole week after Easter day, as partof the festival; holding religious assembliesevery day, for prayer, preaching, andreceiving the communion. Upon whichaccount the author of the Constitutionsrequires servants to rest from their labour302the whole week. All public games wereprohibited during this whole season; asalso all proceedings at law, except in somespecial 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, wasadministered only at certain stated timesof the year.

The eve, or vigil, of this festival wascelebrated with more than ordinary pomp,with solemn watchings, and with multitudesof lighted torches, both in thechurches and in private houses, so as toturn the night itself into day. This theydid as a prodromus, or forerunner of thatgreat light, the Sun of righteousness, whichthe next day arose upon the world.—Greg.Naz. Orat. ii. in Pasch.

The paschal canon, or rule, of Dionysiushaving become the standing rule, for thecelebration of Easter, to all the WesternChurches, it will be proper briefly to explainit. The particulars of it are as follows:viz. That Easter be always on theSunday next after the Jewish Passover;that, the Jewish Passover being always onthe fourteenth day of the first vernal moon,the Christian Easter is always to be thenext Sunday after the said fourteenth dayof that moon; that, to avoid all conformitywith the Jews in this matter, if thefourteenth day of the said moon be on aSunday, this festival is to be deferred tothe Sunday following; that the first vernalmoon is that, whose fourteenth day iseither upon the day of the vernal equinox,or the next fourteenth day after it; thatthe vernal equinox, according to the Councilof Nice, is fixed to the twenty-first dayof March; that therefore the first vernalmoon, according to this rule, is that, whosefourteenth day falls upon the 21st of March,or the first fourteenth day after; that thenext Sunday after the fourteenth day ofthe vernal moon (which is called the paschalterm) is always Easter day; that,therefore, the earliest paschal term beingthe 21st of March, the 22nd of March isthe earliest Easter possible; and the 18thof April being the latest paschal term, theseventh day after, that is, the 25th ofApril, is the latest Easter possible; thatthe cycle of the moon, or golden number,always shows us the first day of the paschalmoon, and the cycle of the sun, or dominicalletter, always shows us which is thenext 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 andaltars are changed from black to white;and the paschal taper is placed in a greatcandlestick made in the shape of an angel.On the morning of Easter Sunday, matinsare said before day-break, because ourSaviour rose at that time. When the popeofficiates, two cardinal deacons are placedon the right and left of the altar, dressedin white robes, to represent the two angelswho watched our Saviour’s sepulchre.—SacraCerem. Eccl. Rom. lib. ii.

In the Greek Church, it is usual, onEaster day, upon meeting their friends, togreet them with this salutation, “JesusChrist is risen from the dead;” to whichthe person accosted replies, “He is risenindeed.” On Good Friday, two priestscarry in procession, on their shoulders, thepicture or representation of a tomb, inwhich the crucified Jesus, painted on aboard, is deposited. On Easter Sunday,this sepulchre is carried out of the church,and exposed to public view, when the priestsolemnly assures the people, that Christis risen from the dead, and shows themthe picture turned on the other side, whichrepresents Jesus Christ rising out of thesepulchre. The whole congregation embraceeach other, and, in transports of joy,shoot off pistols.—Tournefort’s Voyages,Letter III. Broughton.

The anniversary festival appointed inremembrance of the resurrection of ourblessed Saviour from the state of death,to which he had subjected himself as anatonement for the sins of men. It is statedby Venerable Bede, that this name wasgiven to this festival at the time whenChristianity was first introduced amongour Saxon ancestors in this island. Thosepeople, says Bede, worshipped an imaginarydeity, called Eostre, whose feast theycelebrated every year at this season; thename remained when the worship wasaltered. Others conceive the name to bederived from an old Saxon word importingrising; Easter day thus signifying the dayof resurrection. Easter Sunday is notstrictly the anniversary day of our Saviour’sresurrection, but is the day appointedby the Church to be kept in remembranceof that event. After greatdifference of opinions, it was decided inthe Council of Nice that Easter day shouldbe kept on the Sunday following the Jewishfeast of the Passover, which Passover iskept on the 14th day, or full moon, of theJewish month Nisan. At the same time,to prevent all uncertainty in future, it wasmade a further rule of the Church, that303the full moon next to the vernal (or spring)equinox should be taken for the full moonin the month Nisan, and the 21st of Marchbe accounted the vernal equinox. EasterSunday, therefore, is always the Sundayfollowing the full moon which falls on, ornext after, the 21st of March. Easter isthus observed with reference to the feastof the Passover, on account of the typicalquality of that day; the annual sacrificecommanded by the Jewish law being regardedas a type of the greater sacrifice ofChrist for our redemption, and the deliveranceof the Israelites out of Egypt asa type of our deliverance from sin and deathby his merits.

This was the birthday of our Saviourin his state of glory and exaltation, as hisnativity was his birthday to his state ofhumiliation. It was anciently called the“great day,” and “the feast of feasts;”being by eminence “the day which theLord hath made,” (Ps. cxviii. 24,) for theFathers unanimously expound that passageof this day, and therefore with them, aswith us, that psalm was always part of theoffice of the day. For the antiquity of theobservation of this day innumerable authorsmight be produced; but the matteris not at all controverted.—L’Estrange.

This is the highest of all feasts, saithEpiphanius: this day Christ opened tous the door of life, being the first-fruits ofthose that rose from the dead: whose resurrectionwas our life; for he rose againfor our justification. (Rom. iv. 25.)—Bp.Sparrow.

In the primitive times the Christians ofall Churches on this day used this morningsalutation, “Christ is risen;” to whichthose who were saluted answered, “Christis risen indeed;” or else thus, “and hathappeared unto Simon;” a custom still retainedin the Greek Church. And ourChurch, supposing us as eager of the joyfulnews as they were, is loth to withholdfrom us long the pleasure of expressing it;and therefore, as soon as the absolution ispronounced, and we are thereby renderedfit for rejoicing, she begins her office ofpraise with anthems proper to the day,encouraging her members to call upon oneanother “to keep the feast; for thatChrist our Passover is sacrificed for us,and is also risen from the dead, and becomethe first-fruits of them that slept,”&c.—Wheatly.

The first lesson in the morning is thetwelfth chapter of Exodus, in which ismentioned the institution of the Passover,proper for this day, the feast of the Passover:for, as St. Augustine observes, “wedo in this feast not only call to mind thehistory of our Saviour’s resurrection, butalso celebrate the mystery of ours.” Thatas Christ this day rose again from deathto life, so by Christ, and the virtue of hisresurrection, shall we be made alive, andrise from death to life eternal. Christ istherefore our true Passover, whereof theother was a type: the lesson then is properfor the day. So is the first lesson for theevening, (Exod. xiv.,) for it is concerningthe Israelites’ deliverance out of Egypt, atype of our deliverance from hell this dayby Christ’s glorious resurrection. Asthat day Israel saw that great work, whichthe Lord did upon Egypt, (ver. 31,) sothis day we see the great conquest overhell and death finished by Christ’s triumphantresurrection from the dead. Thesecond lessons are plain. The Gospel givesus the full evidence of Christ’s resurrection;the Epistle tells us what use weshould make of it, “If Christ be risen,seek those things that are above,” &c. Thecollect prays for grace, to make the use ofit which the Epistle directs.

Thus holy Church is careful to teach andinstruct all her children in the matter ofthe feast, preaching Christ’s resurrectionto us, both in the type and prophecy outof the Old Testament, and in the historyof it out of the New. And she does notonly teach us to know what God hathdone for us this day, but also she is carefulthat we may do our duty to God for thishis marvellous goodness, commanding anddirecting us to pray for grace to do ourduty, prescribing us excellent forms ofadoring and blessing God for his mercythis day, such methods as the Holy Ghosthath set down, in which we may be sure topray and praise God by the spirit.—Bp.Sparrow. On this day, as on Christmasday, there were formerly [in the First Bookof King Edward VI.] two communions,whereof we have retained the former Epistleand Gospel.—Bp. Cosin.

Easter day is a scarlet day at the universitiesof Cambridge and Oxford. Inchoirs, the Responses and Litanies used tobe 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 areappointed to be said or sung. At the lastreview the first two verses now used wereprefixed, and the authorized translationadopted. In the First Book of KingEdward VI., these anthems were appointedto be said or sung “afore matins, the304people being assembled in the church;”and were followed by the following Versicleand Response.

Priest. Show forth to all the nations theglory of God.

Answ. And among all people his wonderfulworks.

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 circumcisedChristians, who had retired from Jerusalemto Pella, during the war between theJews and Romans, and made their firstappearance after the destruction of Jerusalem,about the time of Domitian, or alittle before.

Ebion, the author of the heresy of theEbionites, was a disciple of Cerinthus, andhis successor. He improved upon theerrors of his master, and added to themnew opinions of his own. He began hispreaching in Judea: he taught in Asia,and even at Rome: his tenets infected theisle of Cyprus. St. John opposed bothCerinthus and Ebion in Asia; and it isthought that this apostle wrote his Gospel,in the year 97, particularly against thisheresy.

The Ebionites held the same errors asthe Nazarenes. They united the ceremoniesof the law with the precepts of thegospel: they observed both the JewishSabbath and the Christian Sunday. Theycalled their place of assembling a synagogue,and not a church. They bathedevery day, which was the custom of theJews. In celebrating the eucharist, theymade use of unleavened bread, but nowine.

They added to the observance of the lawdivers superstitions. They adored Jerusalemas the house of God. Like theSamaritans, they would not suffer a personof another religion to touch them. Theyabstained from the flesh of animals, andeven from milk: and, lest any one shouldobject to them that passage of the Gospel,where our Lord says he desires to eat ofthe passover, they corrupted it. Whenthey were sick, or bitten by a serpent, theyplunged themselves into water, and invokedall sorts of things to their assistance.

They disagreed among themselves in relationto our Lord Jesus Christ. Someof them said he was born, like other men,of Joseph and Mary, and acquired sanctificationonly by his good works. Others ofthem allowed that he was born of a virgin,but denied that he was the Word of God,or had a pre-existence before his humangeneration. They said he was indeed theonly true prophet, but yet a mere man,who, by his virtue, had arrived at beingcalled Christ and the Son of God. Theysupposed that Christ and the devil weretwo principles, which God had opposedthe one to the other.

Though the Ebionites observed the law,yet they differed from the Jews in manypoints. They acknowledged the sanctityof Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron,and Joshua; but they laughed at all thosewho came after them. They rejected someparts of the Pentateuch; and when theywere too closely pressed by these books,they entirely abandoned them.

Of the New Testament, they acknowledgedonly the Gospel of St. Matthew,that is, that which was written in Hebrew,and which they called the Gospel accordingto the Hebrews. But they took from it thetwo first chapters, and corrupted otherpassages of it. They absolutely rejectedSt. Paul as an apostate, and an enemy ofthe law, and published several calumniesagainst him. They had likewise false Actsof the Apostles, in which they mixed agreat many fables.

As to their manner of life, they imitatedthe Carpocratians, the most infamous of allheretics. They rejected virginity and continence:they obliged children to marryvery young: they allowed married personsto separate from each other, and marryagain, as often as they pleased.

St. Justin, St. Irenæus, and Origen,wrote against the Ebionites. Symmachus,author of one of the Greek versions of theScriptures, was an Ebionite.

ECCLESIASTES. A canonical bookof the Old Testament. It is called “Thewords 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 “thepreacher.” The design of it is to showthe vanity of all sublunary things, in orderto which the author enumerates the severalobjects upon which men place theirhappiness in this life, and then discoversthe emptiness and insufficiency of allworldly enjoyments, by many various reflectionson the evils of human life. Theconclusion of the whole is, in the words ofthe preacher, “Fear God, and keep hiscommandments, for this is the whole dutyof man.” St. Jerome observes, that thispious inference prevented the Jews fromsuppressing this whole book of Ecclesiastes,which they had thoughts of doing, (as wellas many other writings of Solomon, whichare now lost and forgotten,) because it305asserts that the creatures of God are vain,and all things as nothing; it was alsothought to contain some dangerous opinions,and some particular expressionsthat might infuse doubts concerning theimmortality of the soul.

The word Ecclesiastes, which is Greek,signifies a preacher. The Hebrews call itCoheleth, which literally signifies a collector,because it is supposed to be a sermon ordiscourse delivered to an assembly. TheTalmudists will have King Hezekiah to bethe author of it. Kimchi ascribes it toIsaiah, and Grotius to Zorobabel; but thebook itself affords no foundation for theseconjectures. On the contrary, as observedby Mr. Holden, “The author is expresslystyled in the initiatory verse, the son ofDavid, king in Jerusalem: and in the 12thverse he is described as king over Israel,in Jerusalem. These passages are foundin every known MS., and in all the ancientversions; and Solomon, as is well known,was the only son of David who everreigned in Jerusalem. The book has beenthus admitted into the sacred canon as theproduction of Solomon, to whom it hasalso been ascribed by a regular and concurrenttradition. A collateral proof arisesfrom the contents of the work itself, inwhich the author is stated to have excelledin wisdom beyond all who were beforehim in Jerusalem, and to have composedmany proverbs: circumstances descriptiveof Solomon, and of no other personagewhose name is recorded in the Holy Scriptures.The writer is likewise representedas abounding in wealth and treasure, &c.,extremely applicable to Solomon.” Mr.Holden, and Mr. Desvœux, in their verylearned and exhaustive dissertations, completelyrefute the really shallow objectionsof Grotius, Dathe, Eichhorn, and others,as to Solomon’s authorship. They do not,however, quite agree as to the scope ofthe book. Mr. Desvœux (to whom Dr.Graves, in his Lectures on the Pentateuch,assents) states that his object is to provethe immortality of the soul, or rather thenecessity of another state after this life,from such arguments as may be affordedby reason and experience. Mr. Holdenabides by the generally received opinion,that it is “an arguing into the summumbonum, or chief good: not however merelyas regarding happiness in this life, butthat which in all its bearings and relationsis 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 recommendits acquirement.” So BishopGray: “he endeavours to illustrate theinsufficiency of earthly enjoyment; notwith design to excite in us a disgust tolife, but to influence us to prepare for thatstate where there is no vanity.” Ecclesiastesmay justly be considered as a sequelto the Book of Proverbs. Ecclesiastes, accordingto a modern author, is a dialoguein which a man of piety disputes against alibertine who favoured the opinions of theSadducees; his reason is, because there aresome things in it which seem to contradicteach other, and could not proceed from thesame person. But this may be whollyowing to Solomon’s method of disputingpro and con, and proposing the objectionsof the Sadducees, to which he replies.

The generality of commentators believethis book to be the product of Solomon’srepentance, after having experienced allthe follies and pleasures of life; notwithstandingwhich, some have questionedwhether Solomon be saved, and his repentanceis still a problem in the Church ofRome.

ECCLESIASTIC. A person holdingany office in the sacred ministry of theChurch. (See Bishop, Priest, and Deacon.)

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIANS.(See Historians.)

ECCLESIASTICUS. An apocryphalbook of Scripture, distinguished by thisname because it was read (in ecclesia) inthe church as a book of piety and instruction,but not of infallible authority; or itis so called, perhaps, to distinguish it fromthe book of Ecclesiastes; or to show thatit contains, as well as the former, preceptsand exhortations to wisdom and virtue.The anonymous preface to this work informsus, that the author of it was a Jew,called Jesus, the son of Sirach, who wroteit in Hebrew; but it was rendered intoGreek by his grandson of the same name.The Hebrew copy of this book, which St.Jerome saw, was entitled Proverbs. Bymany of the ancients it was styled Παναρετος,the book of every virtue: but the mostcommon name among the Greeks is, TheWisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach. Thisbook was written under the high priesthoodof Onias III., and translated in thereign of Ptolemy Euergetes, or Physcon.Some of the ancients have ascribed it toSolomon. The author, no doubt, had inhis view the subject and thoughts expressedin the Proverbs of that king, and hasfollowed his method of teaching moralityby sentences or maxims. This book beginswith an exhortation to the pursuit of306wisdom; after which follow many maxims ofmorality to the forty-fourth chapter, wherethe author begins to rehearse the praises offamous men, such as the patriarchs, prophets,and the most illustrious men of theJewish nation. The Latin version ofEcclesiasticus has more in it than theGreek, several particulars being inserted inthat, which are not in the other. These,Dr. Prideaux observes, seem to have beeninterpolated by the first author of thatversion; but now, the Hebrew being lost,the Greek, which was made from it by thegrandson of the author, must stand for theoriginal; and from that the English translationwas made.

Parts of Ecclesiasticus are strikingly likethe style of Solomon, and truly Hebraicin their cast, as has been remarked byBishop Lowth in his 24th Prelection; whosubjoins a translation of the 24th chapterinto Hebrew. He recognises however aconsiderable difference between its styleand that of Solomon.

ECLECTICS. A sect which arose in theChristian Church towards the close of thesecond century. They professed to maketruth the only object of their inquiry, andto be ready to adopt from all the differentsystems and sects such tenets as theythought agreeable to it; and hence theirname, from ἐκλεγω, to select. They preferredPlato to the other philosophers, andlooked upon his opinions concerning God,the human soul, and things invisible, asconformable to the spirit and genius of theChristian doctrine. One of the principalpatrons of this system was AmmoniusSaccas, who at this time laid the foundationof that sect, afterwards distinguishedby the name of the New Platonists, in theAlexandrian School.—Broughton.

ECONOMICAL. The economical methodof disputing was that in which thedisputants accommodated themselves, asmuch as possible, to the taste and prejudicesof those whom they were endeavouringto gain over to the truth. Some ofthe early Christians carried this condescensiontoo far, and abused St. Paul’s example.(1 Cor. ix. 20.) The word isderived from οἰκονομία, dispensatio rei familiaris,the discretionary arrangement ofthings in a house according to circumstances.

ECONOMIST. (Œconomus.) An officerin some cathedrals of Ireland, chosen periodicallyby the chapter out of their ownbody, whose office is to manage the commonestate of the cathedral, to see to thenecessary repairs, pay the church officers,&c.—Jebb.

ECONOMY ESTATE, or FUND. Insome Irish cathedrals the common fund,for the support of the fabric, the paymentof the inferior church officers, and sometimescertain members of the choir, is socalled. It is not divisible among the cathedralbody themselves. About half thecathedrals in Ireland are destitute of anycommon or corporate fund whatever.—Jebb.

ECUMENICAL. (From οἰκουμένη, theworld.) A term applied to general councilsof the Church, to distinguish themfrom provincial and diocesan synods. (SeeCouncils.)

EDIFICATION. Literally, a buildingup; and in the figurative language of theNew Testament, a growing in grace andholiness, whether of individuals or of theChurch.

A pretence of greater edification hasbeen a common ground of separation fromthe Church; but most absurdly, for “edification,”says Dean Sherlock, in his resolutionof some cases of conscience whichrespect Church communion, is buildingup, and is applied to the Church, consideredas God’s house and temple; and it is anodd way of building up the temple of God,by dividing and separating the parts of itfrom each other. The most proper significationof the word which our translatorsrender by “edification,” is a house or building;and this is the proper sense whereinit belongs to the Christian Church: “ye areGod’s husbandry, ye are God’s building,”that is, the Church is God’s house orbuilding. Thus the same apostle tells usthat in Christ, “the whole building” (thatis, the whole Christian Church) “fitly framedtogether, groweth unto an holy temple inthe Lord.” (Ephes. ii. 21.) Hence the governorsof the Church are called builders,and the apostles are called “labourers togetherwith God,” in erecting this spiritualbuilding; and St. Paul calls himself a“master builder.” Hence the increase,growth, and advances towards perfectionin the Church, is called the building oredification of it. For this reason, St. Paulcommends prophecy, or expounding theScriptures, before speaking in unknowntongues without an interpreter, because bythis the Church receives building or edification.

All those spiritual gifts, which were bestowedon the Christians, were for thebuilding and edifying of the Church. Theapostolical power in Church censures was“for edification, not for destruction” (2Cor. x. 8); to build, and not to pull down;that is, to preserve the unity of the Church307entire, and its communion pure. And wemay observe, that this edification is primarilyapplied to the Church: “that theChurch may receive edifying;” “that yemay excel to the edifying of the Church;”“for the edifying of the body of Christ.”(1 Cor. xiv. 5, 12; Ephes. iv. 12.) And itis very observable wherein the apostleplaces the edification of the body of Christ,viz. in unity and love: “till we all comein the unity of the faith, and of the knowledgeof the Son of God, to a perfect man,unto the measure of the stature of the fulnessof Christ.” (Ephes. iv. 12, 13.) Tillwe are united by one faith unto one body,and perfect man, and “speaking the truthin love, may grow up into him in all things,which is the head, even Christ; from whomthe whole body fitly joined together, andcompacted by that which every joint supplieth,according to the effectual working inthe measure of every part, maketh increaseof the body unto the edifying of itselfin love.” (Ephes. iv. 15, 16.) This is anadmirable description of the unity of theChurch, in which all the parts are closelyunited and compacted together, as stonesand timber are to make one house; andthus they grow into one body, and increasein mutual love and charity, which isthe very building and edification of theChurch, which is edified and built up inlove, as the apostle adds, that “knowledgepuffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor.viii. 1.) This builds up the Church ofChrist; and that not such a commoncharity as we have for all mankind, butsuch a love and sympathy as is peculiar tothe members of the same body, and whichnone but members can have for each other.And now methinks I need not prove thatschism and separation are not for the edificationof the Church; to separate for edificationis to pull down instead of buildingup. But these men do not seem to haveany great regard to the edification of theChurch, but only to their own particularedification: and we must grant that edificationis sometimes applied to particularChristians in Scripture, according to St.Paul’s exhortation, “Comfort yourselvestogether, and edify one another, even asalso ye do.” (1 Thess. v. 11.) And thisedifying one another, without question,signifies our promoting each other’s growthand progress in all Christian graces andvirtues; and so the building and edificationof the Church, signifies the growthand improvement of the Church in allspiritual wisdom and knowledge, andChristian graces. The edification of theChurch consists in the edification of particularChristians; but then this is callededification or building, because this growthand improvement is in the unity andcommunion of the Church, and makesthem one spiritual house and temple.Thus the Church is called the temple ofGod, and every particular Christian isGod’s temple, wherein the Holy Spiritdwells; and yet God has but one temple,and the Holy Spirit dwells only in theChurch of Christ; but particular Christiansare God’s temple, and the HolySpirit dwells in them as living membersof the Christian Church; and thus by thesame reason the Church is edified andbuilt up, as it grows into a spiritual houseand holy temple, by a firm and close unionand communion of all its parts: andevery Christian is edified, as he grows upin all Christian graces and virtues in theunity of the Church. And, therefore,whatever extraordinary means of edificationmen may fancy to themselves in aseparation, the apostle knew no edificationbut in the communion of the Church; andindeed, if our growth and increase in allgrace and virtue be more owing to theinternal assistance of the Divine Spirit,than to the external administrations, asSt. Paul tells us, “I have planted andApollos watered, but God gave the increase;so then, neither is he that planteth anything,nor he that watereth, but God thatgiveth the increase” (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7);and if the Divine Spirit confines his influencesand operations to the unity of theChurch, as the same apostle tells us thatthere is but “one body and one spirit,”(Eph. iv. 4,) which plainly signifies thatthe operations of this one spirit are appropriatedto this one body, as the soul is tothe body it animates;—then it does notseem a very likely way for edification, tocut ourselves off from the unity of Christ’sbody.

ELDERS. (πρεσβύτεροι, hence Presbyterians.)Presbyterian sects havesupposed 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 thosein the Presbyterian sects, but “labouredin the word and doctrine.” In thisplace the apostle means only ministers,when he directs that double honour shouldbe paid to the elders that rule well, especiallythose who labour in the word anddoctrine; and the distinction does not appearto consist in the order of officers, butin the degree of their diligence, faithfulness,308and eminence in laboriously fulfillingtheir ministerial duties. It is said thatCalvin admitted lay-elders into Churchcourts, on what he conceived to be thesanction of primitive practice, and, as aneffectual method of preventing the returnof inordinate power in a superior order ofthe clergy. To this it is answered by Catholics,that neither the name nor office oflay-elder was ever known to any generalor provincial council, or even to any particularChurch in the world, before thetime of Calvin. (See Presbyterians.)

ELECTION. (See Predestination, Calvinism,Armininnism.) There are threeviews taken of election, all parties agreeingthat some doctrine of election is taughtin Holy Scripture,—the Calvinistic, theArminian, and the Catholic.

By the Calvinists, (see Calvinism,) electionis judged to be the election of certainindividuals out of the great mass of mankind,directly and immediately, to eternallife, while all other individuals are eitherpassively left, or actively doomed, to a certaintyof eternal death; and the movingcause of that election is defined to be God’sunconditional and irrespective will andpleasure, inherent in, and exercised in consequenceof, his absolute and uncontrollablesovereignty.

By the Arminians, or Remonstrants, (seeArminianism,) Scriptural election is pronouncedto 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 isasserted to be God’s eternal prevision ofthe future persevering holiness and consequentmoral fitness of the individualsthemselves, who thence have been thuselected.

Election under the gospel or Catholicview denotes, the election of various individualsinto the pale of the visible Church,with God’s merciful purpose, that throughfaith and holiness they should attain everlastingglory, but with a possibility (sinceGod governs his intelligent creatures onmoral principles only) that through theirown perverseness they may fail of attainingit.

Stanley Faber, from whose learned andmost satisfactory work these definitions aretaken, very clearly proves this to be thedoctrine of the reformed Church of England;where, in the seventeenth Article,the Church of England, speaking of predestinationto life, teaches not an election ofcertain individuals, either absolute or previsional,directly and immediately, to eternalhappiness. But she teaches an electionof certain individuals into the Churchcatholic, in order that there, according tothe everlasting purpose and morally operatingintention of God, they may be deliveredfrom curse and damnation, andthus, indirectly and mediately, may bebrought, through Christ, to everlastingglory; agreeably to God’s promises, asthey are generically, not specifically, setforth to us in Holy Scripture.

That such is the real doctrine of theChurch of England—in other words, thatshe teaches a predestination to life, notdirect and immediate, but indirect andmediate—inevitably follows from the circumstancethat, while in her sixteenthArticle she hints at the possibility of theelect individually departing from gracegiven, in her Homilies and in her BurialService, she distinctly states, that the elect,in her sense of the word, may, in their individualcapacity, fall away utterly, andthus perish finally. Now, this statementis palpably incompatible with the tenet ofa direct and immediate predestination ofindividuals to eternal life; for individuals,so predestinated, could not, by the veryterms of their predestination, fall away utterlyand irrecoverably. Therefore, thepredestination to life, mentioned in theseventeenth Article, can only mean an indirectand mediate predestination of individuals;or, in other words, it can onlymean a predestination of individuals toeternal life, through the medium of electioninto the Catholic Church; in God’severlasting purpose and intention indeed;but still, (since God, in executing his purposeand intention, operates upon theminds of his intelligent creatures not physically,but morally,) with a possibility oftheir defeating that merciful purpose andintention, and thence of their finally fallingaway to everlasting destruction.

As the article, in connexion with theother documents of the Anglican Church,must, unless we place them in irreconcilablecollision with each other, be understoodto propound the doctrine of predestinationafter the manner and in the sensewhich has been specified; so it distinctlyenjoins us to receive God’s promises, asthey are generally set forth to us in HolyScripture.

The word generally in this place is notopposed to unusually, but to particularly,and signifies generically. And the otherdocuments of the Church of England agreewith this interpretation of the seventeenthArticle.

We may refer, in the first instance, tothe peculiar phraseology introduced into309the office of Infant Baptism. “Regard, webeseech thee, the supplications of thy congregation:sanctify this water to the mysticalwashing away of sin: and grant thatthis child, now to be baptized therein, mayreceive the fulness of thy grace, and ever remainin the number of thy faithful and electchildren, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Thus, in systematically generalizingphraseology, runs the prayer. Now thesame prayer is recited over every child.Consequently, by the inevitable force ofthe word “remain” as here used, everychild, baptismally brought into the pale ofthe Church, is declared to be, at that time,one of the number of God’s elect.

But the largest charity cannot believethat every child, baptismally brought intothe pale of the Church, is elect in thesense of election as jointly maintained byCalvin and Arminius.

Therefore, agreeably to the tenor of herown explicit phraseology, the idea whichthe English Church annexes to the termelection, can only be that of ecclesiasticalindividual election.

The matter is yet additionally establishedby the parallel phraseology, whichoccurs in the somewhat more modern officeof Adult Baptism.

With the sole requisite alteration of“this person” for “this child,” the prayeris copied verbatim from the older office.Every adult, therefore, who is baptismallyintroduced into the pale of the Church, is,as such, declared to be one of the numberof God’s elect people.

The same matter is still further establishedby the strictly homogeneous languageof the Catechism.

Each questioned catechumen, who, asan admitted member of the Church, hasalready, in the baptismal office, been declaredto be one of the elect, is directed toreply: that, as a chief article of the faithpropounded in the Creed, he has learned“to believe in God the Holy Ghost, whosanctifieth” him “and all the elect peopleof God.”

Now, such an answer plainly makesevery catechumen declare himself to beone of the elect.

But, in no conceivable sense which willharmonize with the general phraseology ofthe Anglican Church, save in that of ecclesiasticalindividual election only, can everycatechumen be deemed one of God’s electpeople.

Therefore the idea which to the Scripturalterm election, is annexed by theChurch of England, is that of ecclesiasticalindividual election.

The matter is also established by theparallel phraseology introduced into theBurial Service.

“We beseech thee, that it may pleasethee, of thy gracious goodness, shortly toaccomplish the number of thine elect, andto hasten thy kingdom; that we, with allthose that are departed in the true faith ofthy holy name, may have our perfect consummationand bliss, both in body andsoul, in thy eternal and everlasting glory,through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

In this prayer, the generic term “we”occurs in immediate connexion with “thenumber of thine elect.”

Therefore the evidently studied arrangementof the words, enforces the conclusionthat every member of the Church, as designatedby the term “we,” must be deemedone 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 liturgyitself.

“Endue thy ministers with righteousness:and make thy chosen people joyful.

“O Lord, save thy people: and blessthine inheritance.”

Now, who are the “chosen people,”whom the Lord is here supplicated to“make joyful?”

Can we reasonably pronounce them, inthe judgment of the Anglican Church, tobe certain individuals of each actuallypraying congregation, who, in contradistinctionto other individuals of the samecongregation, are predestinated, either absolutelyor previsionally, to eternal life?

Assuredly, the whole context forbids soincongruous a supposition; for, assuredly,the whole context requires us to pronounce,that “thy chosen people” areidentical with “thine inheritance.”

But the entire tenor of the liturgy identifies“thine inheritance” with the CatholicChurch.

Therefore, “thy chosen people” and theCatholic Church are terms, in point ofimport, identical. (See Perseverance.)

ELECTION OF BISHOPS. (SeeBishops.)

ELEMENTS. The materials used inthe sacraments, appointed for that purposeby our Lord himself. Thus water is theelement of baptism, and bread and wineare the elements of the eucharist. Withrespect to the elements of the eucharist, itis ordered by the Church of England that,“when there is a communion, the priestshall then place upon the table so muchbread and wine as he shall think sufficient;”Then, that is, after the offertory,310and after presenting the basin with thealms. This rubric being added to ourliturgy at the last review, at the sametime with the word “oblations,” in theprayer following, it is clearly evident, asBishop Patrick has observed, that by thatword are to be understood the elements ofbread and wine, which the priest is tooffer solemnly to God as an acknowledgmentof his sovereignty over his creatures,and that from henceforth they might becomeproperly and peculiarly his. For inall the Jewish sacrifices, of which the peoplewere partakers, the viands or materialsof the feast were first made God’s by asolemn oblation, and then afterwards eatenby the communicants, not as man’s, but asGod’s provisions, who by thus entertainingthem at his own table, declared himselfreconciled, and again in covenant withthem. And therefore our blessed Saviour,when he instituted the new sacrament ofhis own body and blood, first gave thanksand blessed the elements; that is, offeredthem up to God as Lord of the creatures,as the most ancient Fathers expound thatpassage; who for that reason, wheneverthey celebrated the holy eucharist, alwaysoffered the bread and wine for the communionto God upon the altar by this orsome short ejaculation: “Lord, we offerthee thine own out of what thou hastbountifully given us.” After which theyreceived them into the sacred banquet ofthe body and blood of his dear Son.

In the ancient Church they had generallya side table, or prothesis, near thealtar, upon which the elements were laidtill the first part of the communion servicewas over. Now, though we have notalways a side table, and there is no expressprovision for one made in the Church ofEngland, yet in the first Common PrayerBook of King Edward VI., the priest himselfwas ordered, in this place, to set bothbread and wine upon the altar; but at thereview in 1551, this and several otherpious usages were thrown out, in condescensionto ultra-Protestant superstition.(See Credence.) After which the Scotchliturgy was the first wherein we find itrestored; and Mr. Mede having observedour liturgy to be defective in this particular,was probably the occasion, that, in thereview of it after the Restoration, thisprimitive practice was restored, and thebread and wine ordered by the rubric tobe set solemnly on the table by the priesthimself. It appears, indeed, that the traditionalpractice of the immediately precedingtimes maintained its ground inmany places after the alteration of therubric; (see Hicke’s Treatises, i. 127–129,322–324;) but the history of the changegives so marked a character to our presentrubric, that a neglect of it is clearly a violationof the priest’s obligation to conformity.If the priest thus offends the consciencesof the more enlightened members of a congregation,they should point out to himhis mistake, which can only proceed fromtraditional negligence. In the coronationservice of Queen Victoria, after the readingof the sentences in the Offertory, thisrubric occurs. “And first the Queenoffers bread and wine for the communion,which being brought out of King Edward’schapel, and delivered into her hands, thebread upon the paten by the bishop whoread the Epistle, and the wine in thechalice by the bishop that read the Gospel,are by the archbishop received from theQueen, and reverently placed upon thealtar, and decently covered with a fairlinen cloth, the archbishop first saying thisprayer,” &c. (See Oblation and Offertory.)—SeeWheatly.

ELEVATION. In architecture, a representationof a building, or of any portionof it, as it would appear if it werepossible that the eye should be exactlyopposite every part of it at the same time.

ELEVATION OF THE HOST. ThisRomish ceremony, condemned in ourtwenty-fifth Article, is not, comparativelyspeaking, an ancient rite. The Romanritualists, Bona, Merati, Benedict XIV.,Le Brun, &c., acknowledge that there isno trace of its existence before the eleventhor twelfth century in the West. The OrdoRomanus, Amalarius, Walafrid Strabo,and Micrologus, make no mention of therite, though the last of these ritualistslived at the end of the eleventh century.The truth is, that no certain documentsrefer to it until the beginning of thethirteenth century, but it may possiblyhave existed in some places in the twelfth.The synodical constitutions of Odo de Sulli,bishop of Paris, about 1200, appoint thiselevation, and it was probably then firstintroduced into the diocese of Paris. InnocentIII., who wrote on the ceremoniesof the mass at the beginning of the thirteenthcentury, does not speak of it; but,in the time of Honorius III., it had comeinto use, for he mentions it in an epistleto the Latin bishops of the patriarchate ofAntioch, A. D. 1219, where he commandsthat, at the elevation, the people shouldreverently bow. “Sacerdos quilibet frequenterdoceat plebem suam, ut cum incelebratione missarum elevatur hostia salutaris,quilibet reverenter inclinet.” This311was inserted in the decretals (c. sane decelebratione missarum) by Gregory IX.,his successor, and thus became the law ofthe West. It is spoken of by Bonaventure,Durand, and the Council of Lambeth, inthe latter part of the same century; andCardinal Guido is said to have introducedthis rite, or some part of it, at Cologne,about 1265.

We know then, that, in the thirteenthcentury, the host was elevated, and thepeople bowed or knelt at the same time.But if we are to judge by the authoritiesreferred to by the Roman ritualists themselves,the writers of that and the followingages did not always interpret this asdesigned for the adoration of the elements,or even of Christ in the eucharist. Bonaventure(A. D. 1270) assigns eight reasonsfor the elevation, some of which relate tothe duty or dispositions of the people onthe occasion; but he does not notice theadoration of the elements. William, bishopof Paris, about 1220, ordered a bell to berung at the elevation, that the peoplemight be excited to pray: not to worshipthe host. “Præcipitur quod in celebrationemissarum, quando corpus Christielevatur, 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 thepeople should pray for pardon. “Bonamillic consuetudinem instituit, ut ad elevationemhostiæ omnis populus in ecclesiaad sonitum nolæ veniam peteret, sicqueusque ad calicis benedictionem prostratusjaceret.” The synod of Cologne (A. D.1536) explained the people’s duty at theelevation to consist, in remembering theLord’s death, and returning him thankswith minds raised to heaven. “Post elevationemconsecrati corporis ac sanguinisDomini... tum videretur silendum, etab omni populo mortis Dominicæ commemoratiohabenda, prostratisque humi corporibus,animis in cœlum erectis, gratiæagendæ Christo Redemptori, qui nos sanguinesuo lavit morteque redemit.”

On the other hand, Durand, (1286,)Lyndwood, (1430,) the diocesan synod ofAugsburg, (1548,) and Cardinal Hosius,one of the papal legates at the synod ofTrent, understood the prostration of thepeople as designed for the adoration ofChrist as present in the eucharist. Certainlythis has latterly become the commonopinion, but from what has been said aboveit appears that, before the Reformation, andafterwards, many persons at the elevationdirected their worship to God and Christsimply, without any exclusive reference tothe presence of Christ in the eucharist.—Palmer.

EMBER DAYS. These are the Wednesday,Friday, and Saturday, after thefirst Sunday in Lent, the feast of Whitsunday,the 14th of September, and the13th of December, all being fasting days;the Sundays following these days beingthe stated times of ordination in the Church.It is to be remarked, that the Sunday inDecember which begins the Ember weekis always the third Sunday in Advent. Theweek in which these days fall are calledEmber week. But as Sunday begins theweek, the Ember collect is always to beread on the Sunday preceding the Emberdays, not on that which follows them, asis sometimes erroneously done.

The derivation of the name is uncertain.It has been supposed by some to signify“ashes,” and by others “abstinence,” inallusion to the ancient custom connectedwith fasting. The fact that the Emberweeks return at stated periods, has ledothers to trace the name to a Saxon wordsignifying a “course,” or “cycle.” In theWestern Church they were denominated“the Fasts of the Four Seasons:” and fromthis comes another, and perhaps the mostprobable, illustration—the Latin quatuortempora (four seasons) being abbreviatedinto the German quatemper or quatember,and again, into the English ember. Onthese days the design of the Church is tocall her members, by prayer and fasting,to invoke the Divine aid and blessing onthe choice and commission of ministersof the gospel. The deep interest everyChristian heart should feel in a matter ofsuch infinite moment, should secure forthese days the pious observance of themembers of the Church.

EMBLEM. A visible, and usually anornamental, symbol of some spiritual thing;of some great truth concerning the objectof a Christian’s worship, of some object ofhis faith and hope, or of some mystery orprivilege.

The use of emblems, under which thetruths of Christianity were veiled from theheathen, while they were presented vividlyto the minds of the faithful, is probably asold as Christianity itself: and the fancyof pious persons has continued it to thepresent day; many particular emblemshaving been so generally and almost universallyused, as to have been interwovenalmost with the very external habit of theChurch itself. Among the most apt andvenerable may be mentioned, the trinecompass, (as it is called by Chaucer,)

or a circle inscribed within an equilateraltriangle; denoting the co-equality andco-eternity of the three Divine persons inthe ever blessed and undivided Trinity:the hand extended from the clouds in theattitude of benediction, for the first Personin the Trinity: the Lamb triumphant, thefish, (see Piscis,) the pelican woundingher own breast to feed her young, andothers, for the Son of God, Jesus Christour Lord: the dove, for the Holy Ghost.The chalice receiving the blood of thewounded Lamb, for the holy eucharist:the phœnix rising from the flames, for theresurrection: the cross, for the Christian’slife of conflict; the crown, for his hope ofglory. All these are beautifully significant,and are very innocent in their use, as wellas pious in their intention.

It is of the essence of a proper emblemthat it be not, nor pretend to be, a simplerepresentation. It then loses its allusivecharacter, and becomes a mere picture ofthe thing itself. In theology there is anotherreason why this should be avoided:for when we attempt a representation ofany object of Christian worship, we toonearly fall into idolatry. Hence the crossis admissible where the crucifix is not:and the not unfrequent representation ofthe Holy Trinity, in which the Father isrepresented as a man, supporting theLord Jesus on the cross, is shocking tothe reverent eye. For the like reasons therepresentations of the holy eucharist, underthe old figure of a crucifix pouring bloodinto four cups placed to receive it, is veryobjectionable.

With regard to the use of emblems,they still afford very happy ornaments forchurches and church furniture, especiallyperhaps for painted windows. In theprimitive Church, the pious sometimescarried them on their persons. Clementof Alexandria has mentioned some whichwe ought to avoid, and others which wemay employ; of which latter we may namea dove, a fish, a ship borne along by a fullbreeze, and an anchor. As the reason ofthe rule which he gives still holds, we mayrefer to his Pædag. iii. 11.

EMMANUEL, or IMMANUEL. AHebrew word, which signifies “God withus.” Isaiah, (vii. 14,) in that celebratedprophecy, in which he foretells to Ahazthe birth of the Messiah from a virgin,says, This child shall be called Emmanuel,God with us. He repeats this whilespeaking of the enemy’s army, which, likea torrent, was to overflow Judea: “Thestretching of his wings shall fill the breadthof thy land, O Emmanuel.” St. Matthew(i. 23) informs us, that this prophecy wasaccomplished in the birth of Christ, bornof the Virgin Mary, in whom the twonatures, Divine and human, were united;so that he was really Emmanuel, or “Godwith us.”

ENCŒNIA. Festivals anciently kepton the days on which cities were built, orchurches consecrated; and in later times,ceremonies renewed at certain periods, asat Oxford and Cambridge, at the celebrationof founders and benefactors.

ENCRATITES, or CONTINENTS. Aname given to a sect in the second century,because they condemned marriage,forbade the eating of flesh or drinking ofwine, and rejected with a sort of horrorall the comforts and conveniences of life.Tatian, an Assyrian, and a disciple ofJustin Martyr, was the leader of this sect.He was greatly distinguished for his geniusand learning, and the excessive austerityof his life and manners. He regardedmatter as the fountain of all evil, andtherefore recommended in a peculiar mannerthe mortification of the body. Hedistinguished the Creator of the worldfrom the Supreme Being, denied the realityof Christ’s body, and blended theChristian religion with several corrupt tenetsof the Oriental philosophy.

ENERGUMENS, DEMONIACS, fromἐνεργουμένοι, which in the largest sensedenotes persons under the motion or operationof any spirit whatever, good or bad;but, in a restrained sense, is used by ecclesiasticalwriters to denote personswhose bodies are possessed by an evilspirit. Mention is often made in the primitiveChurch, of persons possessed of anevil spirit. The regulations of the Churchbestowed upon them special care. Theyconstituted a distinct class of Christians,bearing some relation both to the catechumensand the faithful; but differing fromboth in this, that they were under thespecial oversight and direction of exorcists,while they took part in some of the religiousexercises of both classes.

Catechumens who, during their probationaryexercises, became demoniacs, werenever baptized until thoroughly healed,except in case of extreme sickness. Believerswho became demoniacs, in theworst stage of their disease, like the weepingpenitents, were not permitted to enterthe church; but were retained under closeinspection in the outer porch. Whenpartially recovered they were permitted,with the audientes, to join in public worship,313but they were not permitted to partakeof the eucharist until wholly restored,except in the immediate prospect of death.In general, the energumens were subjectto the same rules as the penitents.—Bingham.

ENGLAND. (See Church of England.)

ENOCH, THE PROPHECY OF. Anapocryphal book, of which there remainsbut a few fragments.

Enoch was certainly one of the mostillustrious prophets of the first world, sinceMoses says of him, that he “walked withGod.” (Gen. v. 24.) This prophet is famedin the Church for two things: the first is,his being taken up into heaven withoutseeing death (Heb. xi. 5); the second is,his Prophecy, a passage of which St. Judehas cited in his Epistle. (Ver. 14.) Theancients greatly esteemed the Prophecy ofEnoch. Tertullian expresses his concern,that it was not generally received in theworld. That Father, on the authority ofthis book, deduces the original of idolatry,astrology, and unlawful arts, from therevolted angels, who married with thedaughters of men. And it is on the testimonyof this book, that the Fathers of the2nd and 3rd centuries, as Irenæus, Cyprian,Lactantius, received for true this fable ofthe marriage of the angels with thedaughters of men. St. Augustine, who wasless credulous, allows, indeed, that Enochwrote something divine because he is citedby St. Jude; but he says, it was not withoutreason that this book was not insertedin the Canon, which was preserved in thetemple of Jerusalem, and committed to thecare of the sacrificators. St. Augustine sufficientlyinsinuates, that the authority ofthis book is doubtful, and that it cannot beproved that it was really written by Enoch.Indeed the account it gives of giantsengendered by angels, and not by men, hasmanifestly the air of a fable; and the mostjudicious critics believe it ought not to beascribed to Enoch. De Habitu Mulier. c. iii.De Civit. Dei, lib. xv. c. 23.

This apocryphal book lay a long timeburied in darkness; till the learned JosephScaliger recovered a part of it. Thatauthor gives us some considerable fragmentsof it, in his notes on the chronicle ofEusebius; particularly in relation to theabove-mentioned story of the marriage ofthe angels with the daughters of men.

Scaliger, Isaac Vossius, and other learnedmen, attribute this work to one of thoseJews, who lived in the times between theBabylonish captivity and our SaviourJesus Christ. Others are of opinion, itwas written after the rise and establishmentof Christianity, by one of those fanatics,with whom the primitive Church wasfilled, who made a ridiculous mixture of thePlatonic philosophy and the Christian divinity:such as the authors, or forgers, of theSibylline Oracles, the Dialogues of HermesTrismegistus, and the like. The reasons ofthis opinion are these. 1. The original ofthe book is Greek; and therefore it wasnot composed by any Jew, living in Judea,or Chaldea; for they always wrote in Hebrew,or in some of its dialects. 2. It isevident the author was a Christian, becausehe makes perpetual allusions to the textsof 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. Judehimself, it is probable he cites what concernsthe general judgment, not fromany book then subsisting under the nameof 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 orthrone in his cathedral.

A distinction is sometimes made betweenthe enthronisation of an archbishop and abishop, the latter being called installation:but this appears to be a mere refinement ofthe middle ages, of which we have manysuch.—Jebb.

EPACT. In chronology, and in thetables for the calculation of Easter, anumber indicating the excess of the solarabove the lunar year. The solar yearconsisting, in round numbers, of 365 days,and the lunar of twelve months, of twenty-nineand a half days each, or 354 days,there will be an overplus in the solar yearof eleven days, and this constitutes theEpact. In other words, the epact of anyyear expresses the number of days fromthe last new moon of the old year (whichwas the beginning of the present lunaryear) to the first of January. In the firstyear, therefore, it will be 0; in the second11 days; in the third twice 11 or 22; andin the fourth it would be 11 days more, or33; but 30 days being a synodical month,will in that year be intercalated, makingthirteen synodical months, and the remainingthree is then the epact. In the followingyear, 11 will again be added, makingfourteen for the epact, and so on to theend of the cycle, adding 11 to the epact ofthe last year, and always rejecting thirty,by counting it as an additional month.The epact is inserted in the table of moveablefeasts in the Prayer Book.

EPHOD, a sort of ornament or uppergarment, worn by the Hebrew priests.314The word אפוד, ephod, is derived fromאפד, aphad, which signifies to gird, or tie,for the ephod was a kind of girdle which,brought from behind the neck, and overthe two shoulders, and hanging downbefore, was put cross upon the stomach;then carried round the waist, and madeuse of as a girdle to the tunic. Therewere two sorts of ephods, one of plainlinen for the priests, and another embroideredfor the high priest. As therewas nothing singular in that used by commonpriests, Moses does not dwell uponthe description of it, but of that belongingto the high priest he gives us a large andparticular account. (Exod. xxviii. 6, &c.)It was composed of gold, blue, purple,crimson, and twisted cotton: upon thatpart of it which passed over the shoulderswere two large precious stones, one oneach shoulder, upon which were engraventhe names of the twelve tribes, six uponeach stone; and, where the ephod crossedupon the high priest’s breast, there was asquare ornament called the pectoral, orbreastplate.

St. Jerome observes, that the ephod waspeculiar to the priesthood; and it was anopinion among the Jews, that no sort ofworship, true or false, could subsist withouta priesthood and ephod. Thus Micah,having made an idol and placed it in hishouse, did not fail to make an ephod for it.(Judges xvii. 5.) God foretold by Hosea,(iii. 4,) that the Israelites should be for along time without kings, princes, sacrifices,altar, ephod, and teraphim; and Isaiah,speaking of the false gods who were worshippedby the Israelites, ascribes ephodsto them.

The ephod is often taken for the pectoralor breastplate, and for the Urim andThummim, which were fastened to it, becauseall this belonged to the ephod, andmade but one piece with it. Though theephod 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.) AndDavid, in the ceremony of removing theark from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem,was girt with a linen ephod. (2 Sam.vi. 14.) The Levites regularly were notallowed to wear the ephod; but in thetime of Agrippa, as we are told by Josephus,a little time before the taking of Jerusalemby the Romans, the Levites obtained ofthat prince permission to wear the linenstole as well as the priests. The historianobserves, that this was an innovation contraryto the laws of their country, whichwere never struck at with impunity.

Spencer and Cunæus are of opinion,that the Jewish kings had a right to wearthe ephod, because David coming to Ziglag,and finding that the Amalekites hadplundered the city, and carried away hisand the people’s wives, ordered Abiatharthe high priest to bring him the ephod,which being done, David inquired of theLord, saying, “Shall I pursue after thistroop?” &c. (1 Sam. xxx. 8); whencethey infer that David consulted God byUrim and Thummim, and consequentlyput on the ephod. The generality ofcommentators believe, that David did notdress himself in the high priest’s ephod,and that the text signifies no more thanthat the king ordered Abiathar to put onthe ephod, and consult God for him.

The ephod of Gideon is remarkable forhaving become the occasion of a new kindof idolatry to the Israelites. (Judges viii.27.) What this consisted in, is matter ofdispute among the learned. Some authorsare of opinion that this ephod, as it is called,was an idol; others, that it was only atrophy in memory of that signal victory;and that the Israelites paid a kind of Divineworship to it, so that Gideon was theinnocent cause of their idolatry; in likemanner as Moses was, when he made thebrazen serpent, which came afterwards tobe worshipped.

EPIGONATON. An appendage of alozenge shape, somewhat resembling asmall maniple, worn on the right side, dependingfrom the girdle. It is consideredto represent the napkin with which ourblessed Lord girded himself at the lastsupper, and has embroidered on it either across or the head of our Lord. In theRomish Church its use is confined to thepope. In the Greek Church it is used byall bishops. The epigonaton does not occurin the sacerdotal vestments of theEnglish Church.—Palmer.

EPIPHANY. The epiphany, or manifestationof Christ to the Gentiles, iscommemorated in the Church on the 6thof January, and denotes the day on whichthe wise men came from the East to worshipthe infant Jesus. (Matt. ii. 2.) Letus be thankful for the light of the gospel,which on that day began to shine on thosewho sat in darkness. (Isa. ix. 2; Matt.iv. 16.)

The word epiphany is derived from thecompound verb ἐπιφαίνω, which signifiesto manifest or declare. The Epiphany isobserved as a scarlet day at the universitiesof Cambridge and Oxford.

The feast of Epiphany was not, originally,a distinct festival, but made a part of315that of the nativity of Christ; which beingcelebrated twelve days, the first and lastof which, according to the custom of theJews in their feasts, were high or chiefdays of solemnity, either of these mightfitly be called Epiphany, as that word signifiesthe appearance of Christ in theworld.

This festival was, in one respect, moretaken notice of, in the Greek Church, thanthe Nativity itself, being allowed as one ofthe three solemn times of baptism, whichthe Nativity was not; a privilege which itwanted in the Latin Church. St. Chrysostomtells us, that, this being likewise theday of our Saviour’s baptism, it was usualto carry home water, at midnight, from thechurch, and that it would remain as freshand uncorrupt for one, two, or three years,as if immediately drawn from the spring.—Homil.24, de Bapt. Christi.

Theodosius the Younger gave this festivalan honourable place among those days,on which the public games were not allowed;and Justinian made it a day ofvacation from all pleadings at law, as wellas from popular pleasures. It is to be observed,likewise, that those to whom thecare of the Paschal cycle, or rule for findingEaster, was committed, were obliged,on or about the time of Epiphany, to givepublic notice when Easter and Lent wereto 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 ofChurch government, consisting in the superintendencyof one over several otherchurch officers. Bishops were always allowedto be of an order superior to presbyters;and, indeed, having all the powersthat presbyters have, and some more peculiarto themselves, they must be of adifferent order necessarily. It is their peculiaroffice to ordain, which never wasallowed to presbyters; and, anciently, thepresbyter acted in dependence upon thebishop in the administration of the Lord’ssupper and baptism, and even in preaching,in such manner that he could not do it regularlywithout the bishop’s approbation.

Our Church asserts, in the preface tothe Ordinal, that the order of bishops was“from the apostles’ time;” referring us tothose texts of Scripture occurring in thehistory of the Acts, and the apostolicalEpistles, which are usually urged for theproof of the episcopal order. And of agreat many which might be alleged theseare some. In the short history which wehave of the apostles, we find them exercisingall the peculiar offices of the episcopalorder. They ordain church ministers:“And when they had prayed they laidtheir hands on them.” (Acts vi. 6.) Theyconfirm baptized persons: “Who, whenthey were come down, prayed for them,that they might receive the Holy Ghost”(viii. 15). They excommunicate notoriousoffenders, as the incestuous person. (1 Cor.v. 5.) The like episcopal powers we findin Scripture committed to others, whom,from the tenor of Scripture, and the testimonyof antiquity, we judge to have beenadvanced to that order. Not only a powerof ordination, but a particular charge inconferring it, is given to Timothy; namely,that he “lay hands suddenly on no man.”(1 Tim. v. 22.) That he caution the presbytersunder him “that they teach noother doctrine” (i. 3). Rules are givenhim how he should animadvert on anoffending presbyter: “Against an elderreceive not an accusation but before twoor three witnesses,” (v. 19,) and to whatconduct he should oblige the deacons(iii. 8). The same episcopal powers arecommitted to Titus, to “ordain elders inevery city,” (Tit. i. 5,) and to excommunicateheretics after the first or secondadmonition (iii. 10). Now these are verygood proofs to all reasonable men thatdiligently read the Holy Scriptures, thatthe order of bishops was inclusively “from,”that is, in, “the apostles’ time.”

But to all diligent and impartial readersof ancient writers the case is yet more outof doubt. The earliest ecclesiastical writerextant is Clemens Romanus, who wrote hisfirst epistle to the Corinthians within fortyyears after our Saviour’s ascension. Andhe speaks not only of presbyters and deacons,but of bishops likewise, as an orderin use in his time, clearly distinguishingalso between the two orders of bishops andpresbyters. In the epistles of Ignatius,who was bishop of Antioch seventy yearsafter Christ, in which he continued fortyyears, being martyred in the year of ourLord 108, just seven years after St. John’sdeath, all the three orders are clearly andexactly distinguished. Of lower authoritiesthe instances are innumerable. Clementof Alexandria wrote in the latter endof the second century; and he mentionsthe three orders as the established use ofthe Church in his time. Origen, who livedat the same time, uses corresponding language.Tertullian likewise mentions thesethree orders as established ranks of thehierarchy. And so infinite other authorsmake these three orders perfectly distinct.—Dr.Nicholls.

316Of the distinction among the governorsof the Church there was never in ancienttimes made any question; nor did it seemdisputable in the Church, except to onemalcontent, Aërius, who did indeed get aname in story, but never made much noise,or obtained any vogue in the world. Veryfew followers he found in his heterodoxy.No great body even of heretics could findcause to dissent from the Church in thispoint. But all Arians, Macedonians, Novatians,Donatists, &c. maintained the distinctionof orders among themselves, andacknowledged the duty of the inferiorclergy to their bishops. And no wonder;seeing it standeth upon so very firm andclear grounds; upon the reason of the case,upon the testimony of Holy Scripture,upon general tradition, and unquestionablemonuments of antiquity, upon the commonjudgment and practice of the greatestsaints, persons most renowned for wisdomand piety in the Church.

Reason doth plainly require such subordinations.This all experience attesteth;this even the chief impugners of episcopalpresidency do by their practice confess,who for prevention of disorders have beenfain, of their own heads, to devise ecclesiasticalsubordination of classes, provinces,and nations; and to appoint moderators,or temporary bishops, in their assemblies.So that reason hath forced the dissentersfrom the Church to imitate it.

The Holy Scripture also doth plainlyenough countenance this distinction. Fortherein we have represented one “angel”presiding over principal churches, whichcontained several presbyters, (Rev. ii. 1,)&c.: therein we find episcopal ordinationand jurisdiction exercised: we have onebishop constituting presbyters in diverscities of his diocese, (Tit. i. 5; 1 Tim. v.1, 17, 19, 20, 22,) &c.; ordering all thingstherein concerning ecclesiastical discipline;judging presbyters; rebuking “withall authority,” or imperiousness, as itwere, (Tit. ii. 15,) and reconciling offenders,secluding heretics and scandalous persons.

In the Jewish Church there were an highpriest, chief priest, a sanhedrim, or senate,or synod.

The government of congregations amongGod’s ancient people, which it is probablewas the pattern that the apostles,no affecters of needless innovation, did followin establishing ecclesiastical disciplineamong Christians, doth hereto agree; forin their synagogues, answering to ourChristian churches, they had, as their eldersand doctors, so over them an ἀρχισυνάγωγος,the head of the eldership, and president ofthe synagogue.

The primitive general use of Christiansmost effectually doth back the Scripture,and interpret it in favour of this distinction,scarce less than demonstrating it constitutedby the apostles. For how otherwiseis it imaginable, that all the Churchesfounded by the apostles in several mostdistant and disjointed places, at Jerusalem,at Antioch, at Alexandria, at Ephesus, atCorinth, at Rome, should presently conspirein acknowledgment and use of it?How could it, without apparent confederacy,be formed, how could it creep in withoutnotable clatter, how could it be admittedwithout considerable opposition, ifit were not in the foundation of thoseChurches laid by the apostles? How is itlikely, that in those times of grievous persecution,falling chiefly upon the bishops,when to be eminent among Christiansyielded slender reward, and exposed toextreme hazard; when to seek pre-eminencewas in effect to court danger andtrouble, torture and ruin, an ambition ofirregularly advancing themselves abovetheir brethren should so generally prevailamong the ablest and best Christians?How could those famous martyrs for theChristian truth be some of them so unconscionableas to affect, others so irresoluteas to yield to, such injurious encroachments?And how could all the holy Fathers,persons of so renowned, so approvedwisdom and integrity, be so blind as not todiscern such a corruption, or so bad as toabet it? How indeed could all God’sChurch be so weak as to consent in judgment,so base as to comply in practice, withit? In fine, how can we conceive, that allthe best monuments of antiquity downfrom the beginning, the acts, the epistles,the histories, the commentaries, the writingsof all sorts, coming from the blessedmartyrs and most holy confessors of ourfaith, should conspire to abuse us; thewhich do speak nothing but bishops; longcatalogues and rows of bishops succeedingin this and that city; bishops contestingfor the faith against pagan idolaters andheretical corrupters of Christian doctrine;bishops here teaching, and planting ourreligion by their labours, their suffering,and watering it with their blood?—Dr.Isaac Barrow.

It was so well known that a bishop wasof a superior order to a presbyter, that itwas deemed sacrilege by the fourth generalcouncil to thrust a bishop down from thefirst to the second degree. So that, howeverpersecution and dire necessity may317perhaps excuse some late Churches, forbeing forced to mix the two first orders,and to have only priests and deacons; yetwe, who have a prescription of above 1600(now 1700) years for us, even from theapostles’ time, have the right of our side,and must never depart therefrom.—DeanComber.

EPISTLE. The Scriptural Epistles areletters which were addressed by the inspiredapostles 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.

But by the Epistle in the liturgy we meanthe first lesson in the Communion Service,which is so styled because it is generallytaken from the Epistles of the holy apostles.Sometimes, however, it is taken from theActs, and occasionally from the prophets.Almost all the lessons now read as Epistlesin the English liturgy have been appointedto their present place, and used by ourChurch, for many ages. They are foundin all the liturgies of our Church usedbefore the revision, in the reign of EdwardVI., and they also appear in all the monumentsof the English liturgy, before theinvasion of William the Conqueror. It is,in fact, probable that they are generally asold as the time of Augustine, A. D. 595.In this view, the lessons entitled Epistlesin our liturgy have been used, with somealterations, for 1200 years by the Churchof England. We must consider this moreas a subject of interest and pleasure thanof any great importance, since all Scriptureis given by inspiration of God. Yet wemay remark, that the extracts read fromthe Epistles are generally devotional andpractical, and, therefore, best adapted forordinary comprehension and general edification.

EPISTOLER. In the 24th canon, andin the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, wefind that a special reader, entitled an epistoler,is to read the Epistle in collegiatechurches, vested in a cope. The canonand the injunctions here referred to willbe found under the head Cathedral.

Epistolers are still statuteable officers inseveral cathedrals of the new foundation;though in most it has fallen into desuetude.It is retained at Durham. The epistolerand gospeller are sometimes called deaconand subdeacon, in the cathedral statutes.The epistoler, according to our presentrubric, strictly interpreted, must be a priest.In the Roman Church he is a subdeacon.But by Archbishop Grindal’s Injunctionsin 1571, it was required that parishclerks should be able to read the first Lessonand Epistle.—Jebb.

EPOCH. A term in chronology signifyinga fixed point of time from which thesucceeding years are numbered. The firstepoch is the creation of the world, which,according to the Vulgate Bible, ArchbishopUsher fixes in the year 710 of theJulian periods, and 4004 years beforeJesus 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 reckonedin sacred history: the building of thetower of Babel; the calling of Abraham;the departure of the Israelites out ofEgypt; the dedication of the temple; theend of the Babylonish captivity; and thebirth of Jesus Christ. In profane historyare reckoned four epochs: the æra of Nabonassar,or death of Sardanapalus; thereign of Cyrus at Babylon; the reign ofAlexander 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, wasonly persuasive, like that of a professor ofscience over his students, without anypower of the keys annexed. The Lord’ssupper, and other ordinances of the gospel,were to be free and open to all. Theminister might dissuade the vicious andunqualified from the communion, butmight not refuse it, or inflict any kind ofcensure; the punishment of all offences,either of a civil or religious nature, beingreferred to the civil magistrate.

ESDRAS, the name of two apocryphalbooks of Scripture, which were always excluded318the Jewish canon, and are tooabsurd to be admitted as canonical by theRomanists themselves. They are supposedto have been originally written in Greek,by some Hellenistical Jews, though someimagine that they were first written inChaldee, and afterwards translated intoGreek. It is uncertain when they werecomposed, though it is generally agreedthat the author wrote before Josephus.

The First Book of Esdras is chiefly historical,and gives an account of the returnof the Jews from the Babylonish captivity,the building of the temple, and the establishmentof Divine worship. The truth itcontains is borrowed from the canonicalbooks of Ezra (or Esdras, as the Greeksand Latins call him, and thence term thesebooks, the Third and Fourth Book of Esdras);the rest is exceeding fabulous andtrifling: this book however is by theGreeks allowed to be canonical. The SecondBook of Esdras is written in the propheticalway, and pretends to visions andrevelations, but so ridiculous and absurd,that the Spirit of God could have no concernin the dictating of them. The authorbelieved that the day of judgment was athand, and that all the souls both of goodand bad men would be delivered out ofhell after the day of judgment. He speaksof two monstrous animals created by Godat the beginning of the world, in order tomake a feast with them for all the elect,after the resurrection. He says, that theten tribes are gone into a certain country,which he calls Arseret; that Ezra repairedthe whole body of the Holy Scriptures,which were entirely lost; and hespeaks of Jesus Christ and his apostles inso clear a manner, that the gospel itself isnot more express.

The Books of Esdras are not read in theservice of the Church of England. In thelist of apocryphal books in the 6th Article,these are called the Third and Fourth Booksof Esdras, because Ezra and Nehemiah wereformerly joined in one book; and whenthey were separated, the book of Nehemiah,being considered as a continuationof the book of Ezra, was called by hisname.—Bishop Tomline.

ESPOUSE, ESPOUSALS. A ceremonyof betrothing, or coming under obligationfor the purpose of marriage. Itwas a mutual agreement between the twoparties, which usually preceded the marriagesome considerable time. The distinctionbetween espousals and marriageought to be carefully attended to, asespousals in the East are sometimes contractedfor years before the parties cohabit,and sometimes in very early youth. Thiscustom is alluded to figuratively, as betweenGod and his people, (Jer. ii. 2,) towhom he was a husband. (Jer. xxxi. 32.)The apostle says that he acted as a kindof assistant (pronuba) on this occasion(2 Cor. xi. 2.): “I have espoused you toChrist,” that is, I have drawn up thewritings, settled the agreements, givenpledges, &c., of that union. (See Isa. liv.5; Matt. xxv. 6; Rev. xix.)

ESSENES. A very ancient sect, whichwas spread abroad through Syria, Egypt,and the neighbouring countries. Theymaintained that religion consisted whollyin contemplation and silence. Some ofthem 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 ofpropagating the species, and not to satisfythe demands of lust. Some of them heldthe possibility of appeasing the Deity bysacrifices, though different from that of theJews; and others maintained that no offeringwas acceptable to God but that ofa serene and composed mind, addicted tothe contemplation of divine things. Theylooked upon the law of Moses as an allegoricalsystem of spiritual and mysterioustruths, and renounced, in its explication,all regard to the outward letter.

ESTABLISHMENT. By a religiousestablishment is generally meant, in thepresent day, the religion, whether Christianor not, which is recognised by theState. Thus Presbyterianism is the establishmentof Scotland, Mahomedanism thatof Turkey. In England and Ireland theCatholic Church is the establishment. Ithas not been endowed by the State, whichhas rather robbed than enriched it; norhas it been established, like Presbyterianismin Scotland, by an act of the legislature.But being endowed by individual piety, itwas for many ages the only community inthis country which even pretended to bethe Church: as such it was recognised bythe State, and when in process of time theCatholic Church in this country assertedits independence of Rome, and reformedthe abuses which had crept into it, it continuedto be, as it always was, the religiouscommunity connected with theState; although, in the reign of QueenElizabeth, a sect in communion with Romewas founded in England, and arrogatedto itself the name and titles which belongto our ancient Church, and to her alone.A slight reference to history will showwhat is meant. Soon after Augustine hadbeen consecrated, in France, the first archbishop319of Canterbury, his see was endowedwith large revenues by King Ethelbert,who likewise established, at the instance ofthe archbishop, the dioceses of Rochesterand London. The other kings of theheptarchy erected bishoprics equal to thesize of their kingdoms. And the examplewas followed by their nobles, who convertedtheir estates into parishes, erecting fitplaces of worship, and endowing them withtithes. (See Church of England.)

Thus was the Church established. Formany years there appears to have continueda good understanding between thecivil and ecclesiastical authorities, thepowers of which were, in most respects,as in these days, blended. But, after themoral world had been subdued, and papaltyranny had been established by the marvellousenergies of Hildebrand, his craftysuccessors, the popes of Rome, soon perceivedthat, in order to secure their dominion,it was important, as far as possible,to sever the alliance which had hithertosubsisted between the Church and theState. Representing the Church as independent,they regarded the king as thehead of the State, and the pope as supremeover the Church. No sectarian of the presentday can be more hostile to the alliancebetween Church and State than were thosedivines, who in the middle ages weredevoted to the popedom. Although thepope, however, had here in England, aselsewhere, many creatures and advocates,yet many and manful were the repulses hemet with from our clergy, our kings, andthe people. His authority, indeed, was, inthis realm, a mere assumption, for he wasnever elected by any synod of our Churchas its head. Still, assuming rights to whichhe could lay no lawful claim, his usurpationswere continued until, in the reign ofHenry VIII., the clergy, the monarch, andthe people, could bear the tyranny nolonger, but, throwing off the yoke, declaredthat the pope was not the head of theChurch of England, but that, in theserealms, the king is, as in times past he was,over all persons, and in all causes, ecclesiasticalas well as civil, in these his dominions,supreme. This is the fact, andthe history of the fact. The property ofthe Church remains with those who havedescended in an unbroken line from theclergy to whom it was originally granted.If our title be disputed, it devolves uponthe adversary to establish a prior claim.This the Protestant dissenter does notattempt to do; and, with respect to theRoman Catholic dissenters, we know, thatinstead of being descended from the originalgrantees, their line of successionbegan at Rome scarcely more than twocenturies ago. Nor can they claim on theground of greater similarity of doctrine, fortransubstantiation, the worship of saintsand images, half communion, constrainedcelibacy, &c., the doctrines and practiceswhich distinguish the modern Romanists,were unknown to the Anglo-Saxon Church.Admitting, then, that we may differ insome particulars of practice from our ancestors,yet certainly we do not differfrom them so much as the modern Romanists.

ESTHER. The Book of Esther is acanonical book of Scripture, containing thehistory of Esther. There has been somedispute whether it was a canonical bookamong the Jews. St. Jerome and otherChristian writers maintain the affirmative,but St. Athanasius and some others inclineto the opposite conclusion. It has,however, been received as canonical by theChurch. The last six chapters, beginningat the fourth verse of the tenth chapter,are not in the Hebrew text. These areprobably a composure of several piecescollected by the Hellenistical Jews, andare therefore deservedly thrown out of thecanon of the sacred books by the ProtestantChurch; but the Latin and GreekChurches hold them canonical. As to theauthor of the Book of Esther, there isgreat uncertainty. Many of the Christianfathers attribute this history to Ezra.Eusebius believes it to be more modern.Others ascribe it to Joachim the highpriest, the grandson of Josedec. Mostconceive Mordecai to have been the authorof it, and join Esther with him in the compositionof it. M. Du Pin conjectures,that the great synagogue, to preserve thememory of this remarkable event, and toaccount for the original of the feast ofPurim, ordered this book to be composed,which they approved and placed in thecanon of their sacred books. It has beenremarked, as a singular circumstance, thatthe Divine name does not once occur inthis book.

ETERNITY. That mysterious attributeof God which implies his existence, aswithout end, so without beginning. Theself-existent Being, observes Dr. Clarke,must of necessity be eternal. The ideas ofeternity and self-existence are so closelyconnected, that, because something mustof necessity be eternal, independently andwithout any outward cause of its being,therefore it must necessarily be self-existent;and, because it is impossible butsomething must be self-existent, therefore320it is necessary that it must likewise beeternal. To be self-existent, is to existby an absolute necessity in the nature ofthe thing itself. Now this necessity beingabsolute, and not depending upon anythingexternal, must be always unalterablythe same, nothing being alterable but whatis capable of being affected by somewhatwithout itself. That being, therefore,which has no other cause of its existencebut the absolute necessity of its own nature,must, of necessity, have existed fromeverlasting, without beginning, and must,of necessity, exist to everlasting, withoutend.

As to the manner of this eternal existence,it is manifest it herein infinitelytranscends the manner of the existence ofall created beings, even of such as shallexist for ever; that whereas it is not possiblefor their finite minds to comprehendall that is past, or to understand perfectlyall things that are present, much less toknow all that is future, or to have entirelyin their power anything that is to come,but their thoughts, and knowledge, andpower, must, of necessity, have degreesand periods, and be successive and transientas the things themselves: the eternal,supreme cause, on the contrary, mustof necessity have such a perfect, independent,unchangeable comprehension of allthings, that there can be no one point orinstant of his eternal duration, wherein allthings that are past, present, and to come,will not be as entirely known and representedto him in one single thought orview, and all things present and future beas equally and entirely in his power anddirection, as if there was really no successionat all, but all things were actuallypresent at once.

This is, in reality, the most incomprehensibleof the Divine attributes. God iswithout beginning; the Father, always aFather, without beginning; the Son, alwaysthe only begotten of the Father,without beginning; the Holy Ghost, alwaysproceeding from the Father andthe 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 thingsvisible and invisible; and in the unity ofthis Godhead, there be Three Persons, ofone substance, power, and eternity, theFather, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”—ArticleI.

EUCHARIST. (From εὐχαριστία, givingof thanks.) (See Communion, Lord’s Supper,Elements, Consecration of the Elements,Sacrament, Sacrifice, Real Presence.) Sacramentumeucharistiæ is the name givento the Lord’s supper in our Latin articles,signifying, properly, thanksgiving or blessing,and fitly denoting this holy service asa sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Itoccurs in Ignatius, Irenæus, Clemens ofAlexandria, Origen, and others; and wasadopted into the Latin language, as maybe seen from Tertullian and Cyprian inmany places.—Waterland. We have, however,an earlier allusion to the liturgy, underthe title of eucharistia, or thanksgiving,in the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians;where, in forbidding and reasoningagainst the practice of some persons,who used the miraculous gift oftongues in an improper manner, namely,by celebrating the liturgy in an unknownlanguage, he says, “When thou shalt blesswith the Spirit, how shall he that occupieththe room of the unlearned say Amenat thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandethnot what thou sayest?” (1 Cor.xiv. 16.) ἐπεὶ, εἂν εὐλογήσῃς τῷ πνεύματι, ὁἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου πῶς ἐρεῖτὸ ἀμὴν ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστιᾳ; ἐπειδὴ, τίλέγεις, οὐκ οἶδε. The meaning of this passageis obvious: “If thou shalt bless thebread and wine in an unknown language,which has been given to thee by the HolySpirit, how shall the layman say Amen,‘so be it,’ at the end of thy thanksgivingor liturgy, seeing he understandeth notwhat thou sayest?” It is undeniable thatSt. Paul in this place uses exactly thesame expressions to describe the supposedaction as he has employed a short timebefore in designating the sacraments ofChrist’s body and blood, and describingour Lord’s consecration at the last supper.Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶκοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χοιστοῦ ἐστι; “Thecup of blessing which we bless, is it notthe communion of the blood of Christ?”(1 Cor. x. 16.) Ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶᾖ παρεδίδοτο, ἔλαβεν ἄρτον, καὶ εὐχαριστήσαςἔκλασε. (1 Cor. xi. 23.) “The Lord Jesus,in the same night in which he was betrayed,took bread, and when he had giventhanks, he brake it.” The language ofSt. Paul also in the passage under consideration,as well as the action which hedescribes, is perfectly conformable to thedescription given by Justin Martyr of thecelebration of the eucharist. “Then breadand a cup of water and wine is offered tothe president of the brethren; and he,taking them, sends up praise and glory tothe Father of all, in the name of the Son321and of the Holy Ghost, and makes avery long thanksgiving, because God hasthought us worthy of these things. Andwhen he has ended the prayers and thanksgiving,all the people that are present signifytheir approbation, saying, Amen. ForAmen in the Hebrew language signifies‘so be it.’” Here we observe the “president”corresponding to the person who“blesses,” according to St. Paul, and performsthe “thanksgiving.” The “people”corresponding to the “unlearned person”(or layman, as Chrysostom and Theodoretinterpret the word) of St. Paul, and replyingAmen, “so be it,” at the end of thethanksgiving in both passages. If we referto all the ancient and primitive liturgiesof the East and of Greece, the peculiarapplicability of St. Paul’s argument to theChristian liturgy will appear still more.In the liturgy of Constantinople or Greece,which has probably been always used atCorinth, the bishop or priest takes bread,and “blesses” it in the course of a verylong “thanksgiving,” at the end of whichall the people answer, “Amen.” The samemay be said of the liturgies of Antiochand Cæsarea, and, in fine, of all the countriesof the East and Greece through whichSt. Paul bare rule or founded Churches.It may be added, that there is, we believe,no instance in the writings of the mostprimitive fathers, in which the Amen isever said to have been repeated at the endof an office containing both blessing andthanksgiving, except in the liturgy of theeucharist.

All this shows plainly that the argumentof St. Paul applies immediately and directlyto the celebration of this sacrament.Whether we regard his own previous expressions,the language and the words ofthe earliest fathers, or the customs of theprimitive Church exhibited in the ancientliturgies, we see the accurate coincidencebetween the case which he refers to, andthe celebration of the eucharist.—Palmer’sOrigines Liturgicæ, p. 114. We virtuallyadopt this word, when in the prayer aftercommunion, we pray to God to accept thisour sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

EUCHARISTIC. Belonging to the serviceof the holy eucharist; or, in a largersense, having the character of thanksgiving.

EUCHELAION. (Gr.) The oil ofprayer. To such penitents (in the GreekChurch) as are conscious of the guilt ofany mortal sin, as adultery, fornication, orpride, is administered the sacrament of τὸεὐχέλαιον, Euchelaion, which is performedby the bishop, or archbishop, assisted byseven priests, and begins with this prayer,“O Lord, who with the oil of thy mercieshast healed the wounds of our souls, dothou sanctify this oil, that those who areanointed therewith may be freed from theirinfirmities, and from all corporeal andspiritual evils.” This oil of prayer is pureand unmixed oil, without any other composition;a quantity whereof, sufficient toserve for the whole year, is consecrated,on Wednesday in the Holy Week, by thearchbishop, or bishop. The Euchelaion ofthe Greek answers to the Extreme Unctionof the Romanists.

In the administration of this oil ofprayer, the priest dips some cotton at theend of a stick, and therewith anoints thepenitent, in the form of a cross, on theforehead, on the chin, on each cheek, andon the backs and palms of the hands:after which he repeats this prayer—“HolyFather, physician of souls and bodies, whohast sent thine only Son Jesus Christ,healing infirmities and sins, to free usfrom death; heal this thy servant of corporealand spiritual infirmities, and givehim salvation and the grace of thy Christ,through the prayers of our more than holylady, the mother of God, the eternal Virgin,through the assistance of the glorious,celestial, and incorporeal powers, throughthe virtue of the holy and life-giving cross,of the holy and glorious prophet, the forerunner,John the Baptist, and of the holyand glorious apostles.”—Ricaut.

EUCHOLOGION. (From εὐχὴ, preces,and λόγος, sermo.) The name of a liturgicalbook of the Greek Church, containinga collection of Divine services for theadministration of the sacraments, conferringof orders, and other religious offices:it is properly their ritual, containingeverything relating to religious ceremonies.Father Simon observes, thatseveral of the most considerable divinesof that Church, in Europe, met at Romeunder Pope Urban VIII., to examine theEuchologion: Morinus, who was one of thecongregation, mentions this ritual in hisbook De Congregationibus: the greatestpart of the divines, being influenced bythe sentiments of the schoolmen, werewilling to reform this Greek ritual by thatof the Church of Rome, as if there hadbeen some heresies in it, or rather somepassages which made the administrationof the sacraments invalid; but some, whomore perfectly understood the controversy,opposed the censure of the Euchologion:they proved this ritual was agreeable tothe practice of the Greek Church beforethe schism of Photius, and that for this322reason it could not be condemned, withoutcondemning all the old Eastern communion.

EUDOXIANS. Certain heretics in thefourth century, whose founder was Eudoxius,bishop of Antioch, and afterwardsof Constantinople. They adhered to theerrors of the Aëtians and Eunomians,affirming the Son to be differently affectedin his will from the Father, and made ofnothing.

EULOGIÆ. (Gr.) So the GreekChurch calls the Panis benedictus, or bread,over which a blessing is pronounced, andwhich is distributed to those who areunqualified to communicate. The nameEulogiæ was likewise anciently given tothe consecrated pieces of bread which thebishops and priests sent to each other forthe keeping up a friendly correspondence:those presents likewise, which were madeout of respect or obligation, were calledEulogiæ.

St. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, about theend of the fourth century, having sent fiveEulogiæ at one time to Romanian, speaksto him in these terms: “That I may notbe wanting in the duties of brotherly love,I send you five pieces of bread, of the ammunitionof the warfare of Jesus Christ,under whose standard we fight, followingthe laws of temperance and sobriety.”

EUNOMIANS. A sect, so called fromEunomius, who lived in the fourth centuryof Christianity; he was constituted bishopof Cyzicum, and stoutly defended theArian heresy, maintaining that the Fatherwas of a different nature from the Son,because no creature could be like hiscreator: he held that the Son of God didnot substantially unite himself to thehuman nature, but only by virtue and hisoperations; he affirmed blasphemouslythat he knew God as well as God himself;and those that were baptized in the nameof the Holy Trinity he rebaptized, andwas so averse to the mystery, that heforbade the trinal immersion at baptism.Upon divulging his tenets, he was expelledCyzicum and forced also to leave Samosata,where he was also obtruded by the Arianfaction. Valens restored him to Cyzicum,but being again expelled by the people,he applied himself to Eudoxius at Constantinople.

EUSTATHIANS. A denomination inthe fourth century, who derived theirname from Eustathius, a monk. Thisman was the occasion of great disordersand divisions in Armenia, Pontus, and theneighbouring countries; and, in consequence,he was condemned and excommunicatedby the Council of Gangra, whichwas held soon after that of Nice.

EUTYCHIANS. Heretics in the fifthcentury, the followers of the error ofEutyches, who being a Constantinopolitanabbot, and contending against Nestorius,fell into a new heresy. He and his followersaffirmed that Christ was one thing,the Word another; they denied the fleshof Christ to be like ours, but said he hada celestial body, which passed throughthe Virgin as through a channel; thatthere were two natures in Christ beforethe hypostatical union, but that, after it,there was but one, compounded of both;and thence concluded that the Divinityof Christ both suffered and died. Beingcondemned in a synod at Constantinople,he appealed to the emperor: after which,by the assistance of Dioscorus, bishop ofAlexandria, he obtained a synod at Ephesus,called Latrocinium, or the assembly ofthieves and robbers, wherein he got hisheresy to be approved: however, in thefourth general council, under Marcian,A. D. 451, his errors were a second timecondemned.

EVANGEL. (From εὐ, bene, and ἀγγελία,nuncius.) The gospel of Christ. Therevealed history of our blessed Lord’slife.

EVANGELICAL. Agreeable to thegospel, or “evangel.” The term is usedby that class of dissenters whose privatejudgment leads them to regard as Scripturalthe facts of our Lord’s Divinity andatonement, to distinguish them from anotherclass of dissenters, whose privatejudgment leads them to hold these sacredtruths as unscriptural. (See the EvangelicalMagazine.) The name is sometimesgiven to those persons who conform to theChurch, but whose notions are supposedmore nearly to coincide with the opinionsof dissenters than with the doctrines ofthe Church; thereby most unjustly insinuatingthat the principles of all consistentmembers of the Church are not accordingto the gospel. The use of terms of distinctionamong members of the Church ismuch to be reprobated: among sects itcannot be avoided. In the strict andproper sense of the words, he who is trulyevangelical must be a true member of theChurch, and every true member of theChurch must be truly evangelical.

EVANGELISTS. Persons chosen bythe apostles to preach the gospel. It beingimpracticable for the twelve only topreach the gospel to all the world, Philip,among others, was engaged in this function.As for their rank in the Church,323St. Paul places them after the apostlesand prophets, but before the pastors andteachers, (Eph. iv. 11,) which makes Theodoretcall them apostles of the secondrank: they had no particular flock assigned,as bishops or ordinary pastors, but travelledfrom one place to another, accordingto their instructions received from theapostles, to whom they returned after theyhad executed their commission, so that, inshort, this office, being extraordinary, expiredwith the apostles.

The title of Evangelists is now moreparticularly given to those four holy personswho wrote the history of our Saviour.

EVENS, or VIGILS. The nights orevenings before certain holy-days of theChurch. Vigils are derived from theearliest periods of Christianity. In thosetimes of persecution Christians held theirassemblies in the night, in order to avoiddetection. On these occasions they celebratedthe memory of Christ’s death inthe holy mysteries. When persecutionhad intermitted and finally ceased, althoughChristians were able to celebrateall their rites, and to minister the sacramentsin the day-time, yet a custom whichhad commenced from necessity was retainedfrom devotion and choice. Thereason why some of the festivals haveevens or vigils assigned, and some havenot, appears to be this, that the festivalswhich have no vigils fall generally betweenChristmas and the Purification, or betweenEaster and Whitsuntide; which were alwaysesteemed such seasons of joy thatthe Church did not think fit to interminglethem with any days of fasting and humiliation.To this rule there are exceptions,which may be severally accounted for, butsuch seems to be the rule: e.g. There isno vigil on St. Michael’s day, because, asDr. Bisse remarks, the saints entered intojoy through sufferings, and therefore theirfestivals are preceded by fasts; which circumstanceis not applicable to the angelsof God. St. Paul’s day commemoratesnot his martyrdom, but his conversion; St.Luke was not an apostle, nor does thecalendar represent him as a martyr. Theholy-days which have vigils may be seen inthe Prayer Book, in the table of the Vigils,Fasts, and Days of Abstinence to be observedin the Year.

The eves are in some respects observedin colleges and choirs as Sundays. Forexample, in those places where the choralservice was not daily, it was neverthelessperformed on Saturday evenings and eves,as is still usual; though in some choirs thecustom has fallen into abeyance. But in allcolleges the regulation of the 17th canon isstill observed, which directs that “all mastersand fellows of colleges and halls, andall the scholars and students in either ofthe universities, shall in their churchesand chapels, upon all Sundays, holy-days,and their eves, at the time of Divine service,wear surplices, according to the order ofthe Church of England; and such as aregraduates, shall agreeably wear with theirsurplices such hoods as do severally appertainto their degrees.” At Oxford, however,except at Christ Church, the rule isnot generally understood as applying toany but foundation members.

It is difficult to determine what analogythese evening services, preceding Sundaysand holy-days, bear to those of theunreformed Church of England. Theservice for the vigil, in the Breviary, is notat vespers. There is a distinct service forthe vigil from matins to nones inclusive,which has collects, &c. different from thatof 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 ourcalendar, therefore, the eve of the Sundayis plainly a different matter from the vigil.Though the collect for the Sunday is uniformlyread on the preceding Saturdayevening, it is not read when the holy-dayhas no vigil or eve. The Saturday eveningservice is to be considered as an introductionto that of Sunday.

Some clergymen doubt whether, in caseof a holy-day with a vigil or eve fallingon a Monday, the collect for that holy-dayis to be read on the Sunday evening oron the Saturday. That the vigil or fastday must be kept on the Saturday, and noton the Sunday, is plain from the calendar.But whether this keeping of the vigil includesthe commemoration of the holy-dayby reading the collect, is not so evident.The question must first be solved, whetherthe service of the preceding evening is avigil service, or the first vespers.—Jebb.

EVEN-SONG. (See Liturgy, CommonPrayer.) Evening prayer, which is appointedto be sung or said. The office ofeven-song, or evening prayer, is a judiciousabridgment of the offices of vespers (i. e.even-song) and compline, as used in ourChurch before the Reformation; and itappears that the revisers of our officesformed the introduction to evening prayerfrom those parts of both vespers and complinewhich seemed best suited to thisplace, and which presented uniformity withthe introduction to morning prayer.

Even-song occurs in the table of Proper324Lessons for Sundays and Holy-days, andProper Psalms. It is in fact the same asthe old word vespers; and only differsfrom the other authorized expression, eveningprayer, in having more special referenceto the psalms and hymns, and the anthem,those holy songs which make up solarge a portion of the service.

EXALTATION OF THE CROSS. Afestival of the Greek and Romish Churchesobserved on the 14th of December. It isfounded on the following legend:

In the reign of Heraclius, Chosroes, kingof Persia, sacked Jerusalem, and, togetherwith other plunder, carried off that part ofthe cross left there in memory of our Saviour,by the empress Helena, which Chosroessent into Persia. After many battles,in which the Persian was always defeated,Heraclius had the good fortune to recoverthe cross. This prince carried it to Jerusalemhimself; and, laying aside his imperialornaments, marched with it on hisshoulders to the top of Mount Calvary,from whence it had been taken. The memoryof this action was perpetuated by thefestival of the re-establishment, or (as it isnow called) the exaltation of the cross.

The latter name was given to this festival,because on this day they exalted orset up the cross in the great church atConstantinople, in order to show it to thepeople.

EXAMINATION FOR ORDERS. ByCanon 35, “The bishop, before he admitany person to holy orders, shall diligentlyexamine him, in the presence of thoseministers that shall assist him at the impositionof hands; and if the bishop haveany lawful impediment, he shall cause thesaid ministers carefully to examine everysuch person so to be ordered.... And ifany bishop or suffragan shall admit any tosacred orders who is not so examined, andqualified as before we have ordained, [viz.in Canon 34,] the archbishop of his province,having notice thereof, and beingassisted therein by one bishop, shall suspendthe said bishop or suffragan so offending,from making either deacons or priestsfor the space of two years.”

Of common right, this examination pertainethto the archdeacon, saith Lyndewood;and so saith the canon law, in whichthis is laid down as one branch of the archidiaconaloffice. Which is also supposedin our present form of ordination, both ofpriests and deacons, where the archdeacon’soffice is to present the persons that areapt and meet. And for the regular methodof examination, we are referred by Lyndewoodto the canon upon that head, insertedin the body of the canon law, viz.When the bishop intends to hold an ordination,all who are desirous to be admittedinto the ministry are to appear on thefourth day before the ordination; andthen the bishop shall appoint some of thepriests attending him, and others skilledin the Divine law, and exercised in theecclesiastical sanctions, who shall diligentlyexamine the life, age, and title of the personsto be ordained; at what place theyhad their education; whether they bewell learned; whether they be instructedin the law of God; and they shall bediligently examined for three days successively;and so on the Saturday, theywho are approved shall be presented tothe bishop.

EXAMINATION BEFORE INSTITUTION.In the first settlement of theChurch of England, the bishops of theseveral dioceses had them under their ownimmediate care, and that of the clergy livingin a community with them, whom they sentabroad to several parts of their dioceses,as they saw occasion to employ them; butby degrees, they found it necessary toplace presbyters within such a compass,that they might attend upon the serviceof God amongst the inhabitants. Theseprecincts, which are since called parishes,were at first much larger; and when lordsof manors were inclined to build churchesfor their own convenience, they found itnecessary to make some endowments, tooblige those who officiated in their churchesto a diligent attendance: upon this, theseveral bishops were very well content tolet those patrons have the nomination ofpersons to those churches, provided theywere satisfied of the fitness of those persons,and that it were not deferred beyondsuch a limited time. So that the right ofpatronage is really but a limited trust;and the bishops are still in law the judgesof the fitness of the persons to be employedin the several parts of their dioceses. Thepatrons never had the absolute disposal oftheir benefices upon their own terms; butif they did not present fit persons withinthe limited time, the care of the places didreturn to the bishop, who was then boundto provide for them.

By the statute Articuli cleri, 9 EdwardII. s. 1, c. 13, it is enacted as follows:—“Itis desired that spiritual persons, whomour lord the king doth present unto beneficesof the Church, (if the bishop will notadmit them, either for lack of learning, orfor other cause reasonable,) may not beunder the examination of lay persons inthe cases aforesaid, as it is now attempted,325contrary to the decrees canonical; butthat they may sue unto a spiritual judgefor remedy, as right shall require.” Theanswer:—“Of the ability of a person presentedunto a benefice of the Church, theexamination belongeth to a spiritual judge;so it hath been used heretofore, and shallbe hereafter.”

“Of the ability of a person presented”—Deidoneitate personæ: so that it is requiredby law, that the person presentedbe idonea persona; for so be the wordsof the king’s writ, præsentare idoneam personam.And this idoneitas consisteth indivers expressions against persons presented:—1.Concerning the person, as ifhe be under age or a layman. 2. Concerninghis conversation, as if he be criminous.3. Concerning his inability todischarge his pastoral duty, as if he beunlearned, and not able to feed his flockwith spiritual food. And the examinationof the ability and sufficiency of the personpresented belongs to the bishop, who isthe ecclesiastical judge; and in this examinationhe is a judge, and not a minister,and may and ought to refuse theperson presented, if he be not idonea persona.

“The examination belongeth to a spiritualjudge;” and yet in some cases, notwithstandingthis statute, idoneitas personæshall be tried by the country, or else thereshould be a failure of justice, which thelaw will not suffer; as if the inability orinsufficiency be alleged in a man that isdead, this case is out of the statute; forin such case the bishop cannot examinehim; and, consequently, though the matterbe spiritual, yet shall it be tried by ajury; and the court, being assisted bylearned men in that profession, may instructthe jury as well of the ecclesiasticallaw in that case, as they usually do of thecommon law.

By a constitution of Archbishop Langton:—“Wedo enjoin, that if any onebe canonically presented to a church, andthere be no opposition, the bishop shall notdelay to admit him longer than twomonths, provided he be sufficient.”

But by Canon 95—“Albeit by formerconstitutions of the Church of England,every bishop hath had two months’ spaceto inquire and inform himself of the sufficiencyand qualities of every minister afterhe hath been presented unto him to beinstituted into any benefice, yet for theavoiding of some inconveniences, we donow abridge and reduce the said twomonths unto eight and twenty days only.In respect of which abridgment we doordain and appoint that no double quarrelshall hereafter be granted out of any ofthe archbishops’ courts, at the suit of anyminister whatsoever, except he shall firsttake his personal oath, that the said eightand twenty days at the least are expiredafter he first tendered his presentation tothe bishop, and that he refused to grant himinstitution thereupon; or shall enter intobond with sufficient sureties to prove thesame to be true; under pain of suspensionof the granter thereof from the executionof his office for half-a-year toties quoties,to be denounced by the said archbishop,and nullity of the double quarrel aforesaidso unduly procured, to all intents andpurposes whatsoever. Always provided,that within the said eight and twentydays, the bishop shall not institute anyother to the prejudice of the said partybefore presented, sub pœna nullitatis.

“Every bishop hath had.”—The canonmentions bishops, only because institutionbelongeth to them of common right; butit must also be understood to extend toothers, who have this right by privilege orcustom, as deans, deans and chapters, andothers who have peculiar jurisdiction.Concerning whom it hath been unanimouslyadjudged, that if the archbishopshall give institution to any peculiar belongingto any ecclesiastical person orbody, it is only voidable; because theybeing not free from this jurisdiction andvisitation, the archbishop shall be supposedto have a concurrent jurisdiction,and in this case only to supply the defectsof the inferiors, till the contrary appears.But if the archbishop grant institution toa peculiar in a lay hand, it is null and void;because he can have no jurisdiction there.

“To inquire and inform himself.”—Inanswer to an objection made, that thebishop ought to receive the clerk of himthat comes first, otherwise he is a disturber,Hobart saith, the law is contrary;for as he may take competent time toexamine the sufficiency and fitness of aclerk, so he may give convenient time topersons interested, to take knowledge ofthe avoidance, (even in case of death, andwhere notice is to be taken and not given,)to present their clerks to it.

Canon 39. “No bishop shall instituteany to a benefice, who hath been ordainedby any other bishop, except he first showunto him his letters of orders; and bringhim a sufficient testimony of his formergood life and behaviour, if the bishopshall require it; and, lastly, shall appearupon due examination to be worthy of hisministry.”

326“Except he first show unto him hisletters of orders.”—And by the 13 & 14Charles II. c. 4, no person shall be capableto be admitted to any parsonage,vicarage, benefice, or other ecclesiasticalpromotion or dignity whatsoever, beforesuch time as he shall be ordained priest,and bring a sufficient testimony of hisformer good life and behaviour. By theancient laws of the Church, and particularlyof the Church of England, the fourthings in which the bishop was to havefull satisfaction in order to institution,were age, learning, behaviour, and orders.And there is scarce any one thing whichthe ancient canons of the Church moreperemptorily forbid, than the admittingclergymen of one diocese to exercise theirfunction in another, without first exhibitingthe letters testimonial and commendatoryof the bishop by whom they were ordained;and the constitutions of the ArchbishopsReynolds and Arundel show thatthe same was the known law of the EnglishChurch, to wit, that none should be admittedto officiate (not so much as a chaplainor curate) in any diocese in which hewas not born or ordained, unless he bringwith him his letters of orders, and letterscommendatory of his diocesan.

And, lastly, “shall appear, upon dueexamination, to be worthy of his ministry.”—Asto the matter of learning, it hathbeen particularly allowed, not only by thecourts of the King’s Bench and CommonPleas, but also by the High Court of Parliament,that the ordinary is not accountableto any temporal court, for the measureshe takes or the rules by which heproceeds, in examining and judging (onlyhe must examine in convenient time, andrefuse in convenient time); and that theclerk’s having been ordained (and so presumedto be of good abilities) doth nottake away or diminish the right which thestatute above recited doth give to thebishop to whom the presentation is madeto examine and judge.

EXARCH. An officer in the GreekChurch, whose business it is to visit theprovinces allotted to him, in order to informhimself of the lives and manners ofthe clergy; take cognizance of ecclesiasticalcauses; the manner of celebratingDivine service; the administration of thesacraments, particularly confession; theobservance of the canons; monastic discipline;affairs of marriages; divorces, &c.

The title of exarchs, borrowed from thecivil administration of the empire, wasgiven about the fourth century to the chiefbishops of certain large provinces; as thebishops of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and ofEphesus.

EXCOMMUNICATION is an ecclesiasticalcensure, whereby the person againstwhom it is pronounced is for the time castout of the communion of the Church.

Excommunication is of two kinds, thelesser and the greater: the lesser excommunicationis the depriving the offenderof the use of the sacraments and Divineworship; and this sentence is passed byjudges ecclesiastical, on such persons asare guilty of obstinacy or disobedience, innot appearing upon a citation, or not submittingto penance, or other injunctions ofthe court.

The greater excommunication is thatwhereby men are deprived, not only of thesacraments and the benefit of Divine offices,but of the society and conversation of thefaithful.

If a person be excommunicated generally,as if the judge say, I excommunicatesuch a person, this shall be understood ofthe greater excommunication.

The law in many cases inflicts the censureof excommunication ipso facto uponoffenders; which nevertheless is not intendedso as to condemn any person withouta lawful trial for his offence: but hemust first be found guilty in the propercourt; and then the law gives that judgment.And there are divers provincialconstitutions, by which it is provided, thatthis sentence shall not be pronounced (inordinary cases) without previous monitionor notice to the parties, which also isagreeable to the ancient canon law.

By Canon 65. “All ordinaries shall intheir several jurisdictions carefully see andgive order, that as well those who forobstinate refusing to frequent Divine serviceestablished by public authority withinthis realm of England, as those also (especiallythose of the better sort and condition)who for notorious contumacy, orother notable crimes, stand lawfully excommunicate,(unless within three monthsimmediately after the said sentence of excommunicationpronounced against them,they reform themselves, and obtain thebenefit of absolution,) be every six monthsensuing, as well in the parish church as inthe cathedral church of the diocese inwhich they remain, by the minister, openlyin the time of Divine service upon someSunday, denounced and declared excommunicate,that others may be therebyboth admonished to refrain their companyand society, and excited the rather to procurea writ de excommunicato capiendo,thereby to bring and reduce them into327due order and obedience. Likewise theregistrar of every ecclesiastical court shallyearly, between Michaelmas and Christmas,duly certify the archbishop of the provinceof all and singular the premisesaforesaid.”

By Canon 68. “If the minister refuse tobury any corpse, except the party deceasedwere denounced excommunicated by thegreater excommunication, for some grievousand notorious crime, and no man ableto testify of his repentance, he shall besuspended by the bishop from his ministryfor the space of three months.”

But by the rubric in the Book of CommonPrayer, the Burial Office shall not beused for any that die excommunicate.

EXEAT. The permission given by theauthorities in a college, to persons in statupupillari, to leave their college residencefor a time.

EXEDRÆ, in ecclesiastical antiquity,is the general name of such buildings aswere distinct from the main body of thechurches, and yet within the bounds ofthe Church, taken in its largest sense. ThusEusebius, speaking of the church of Paulinusat Tyre, says, “When that curiousartist had finished his famous structurewithin, he then set himself about the exedræ,or buildings that joined one to anotherby the sides of the church.” Amongthe exedræ, the chief was the baptistery, orplace of baptism. Also the two vestries,or sacristies, as we should call them, stillfound in all Oriental churches; viz. theDiaconicum, wherein the sacred utensils, &c.were kept; and the Prothesis, where theside-table stood, on which the elementsbefore consecration were placed.—Jebb.

EXEMPTION, in the ecclesiasticalsense of the word, means a privilege givenby the pope to the clergy, and sometimesto the laity, to exempt or free them fromthe 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 theirambition, and to discharge themselves fromthe subjection which they owed to the bishops,procured grants from the court ofRome, to be received under the protectionof St. Peter, and to be put immediatelyunder subjection to the pope. This requestbeing for the interest of the court ofRome, inasmuch as it contributed greatlyto the advancement of the papal authority,all the monasteries were presently exempted.The chapters also of cathedralchurches obtained exemptions upon thesame score.

St. Bernard, who lived at the time whenthis invention was first put in practice,took the freedom to tell Pope Eugenius III.that it was no better than an abuse, andthat it was by no means defensible, thatan abbot should withdraw himself fromthe obedience due to his bishop; that theChurch militant ought to be governed bythe precedent of the Church triumphant,in which no angel ever said, “I will notbe under the jurisdiction of an archangel.”

In after ages this abuse was carried sofar, that, for a small charge, private priestsprocured exemption from the jurisdictionof their bishop. The Council of Trentmade a small reformation in this matter,by abolishing the exemption of particularpriests and friars, not living in cloisters,and that of chapters in criminal causes.—Sarpi’sCouncil of Trent.

EXHORTATION. By this generalname the addresses of the minister to thepeople in the liturgy are called. Whilethey are said, the people stand, in sign ofrespectful attention, but do not repeatthem after the minister, since they are notaddresses to the Almighty made in theirname, but addresses to them only.

The ancient Church, indeed, had no suchexhortations as those in our CommunionService; for their daily, or at least weekly,communions made it known that there wasthen no solemn assembly of Christianswithout it, and every one (not under censure)was expected to communicate. Butnow, when the time is somewhat uncertain,and our long omissions have madesome of us ignorant, and others forgetfulof this duty; most of us unwilling, and allof us more or less indisposed for it; it wasthought both prudent and necessary toprovide these exhortations to be read“when the minister gives warning of thecommunion, which he is always to do uponthe Sunday, or some holy-day immediatelypreceding.”

As to the composures themselves, theyare so extraordinary suitable, that if everycommunicant would duly weigh and considerthem, they would be no small helptowards a due preparation. The first containsproper exhortations and instructionshow to prepare ourselves; the latter ismore urgent, and applicable to those whogenerally turn their backs upon those holymysteries, and shows the danger of thosevain and frivolous excuses which men frequentlymake for their staying away. Forwhich reason it is appointed by the rubricto be used instead of the former, wheneverthe minister shall observe that the peopleare “negligent to come.”—Wheatly.

328The service of the Church of Englandis distinguished by the number and fitnessof its exhortations. These are:one at the beginning of Morning andEvening Prayer; two in the CommunionService, when notice is given of the holycommunion; another at the time of celebration.Five in the Baptismal Service;two in the office for receiving those intothe Church who have been privately baptized;and five in the Baptism of those ofRiper 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 theCommination Service; besides those in theOrdination Service. These may be consideredas so many sermons of the Church,which assert her doctrines, and fully showwhat she expects from the faith and practiceof her children.

EXODUS. (From the Greek ἔξοδος,going out; the term generally applied tothe departure of the Israelites from Egypt.)The second book of the Bible is so called,because it is chiefly occupied with the accountof that part of the sacred history.It comprehends the transactions of 145years, 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 inthe Christian churches for the dispossessingof devils. This custom of exorcismis as ancient as Christianity itself, beingpractised by our Saviour, the apostles,and the primitive Church; and the Christianswere so well assured of the prevalencyof their prayers upon these occasions,that they publicly offered the heathens toventure their lives upon the success ofthem.

In the form of baptism, in the liturgy ofthe 2 Edward VI., it was ordered thus:—“Thenlet the priest, looking upon thechildren, say, ‘I command thee, uncleanspirit, in the name of the Father, of theSon, and of the Holy Ghost, that thoucome out and depart from these infants,whom our Lord Jesus Christ hath vouchsafedto call to his holy baptism, to bemade members of his body, and of hisholy congregation; therefore, thou cursedspirit, remember thy sentence, rememberthy judgment, remember the day to be athand wherein thou shalt burn in fire everlasting,prepared for thee and thy angels;and presume not hereafter to exercise anytyranny towards these infants whom Christhath bought with his precious blood, andby this his holy baptism called to be ofhis flock.’”

There was a custom which obtained inthe early ages of the Church, which wasto exorcise the baptized person, or to castSatan out of him, who was supposed tohave taken possession of his body in hisunregenerate state. But because, in processof time, many superstitious and unwarrantablepractices mixed with this ancientrite, especially in the Roman Church,our Reformers wisely thought fit to lay itquite aside, and to substitute in lieu of itthese short excellent prayers: wherein theminister and the congregation put up theirpetitions to Almighty God, that the childmay be delivered from the power of thedevil, and receive all the benefits of theDivine grace and protection, without theancient ceremony attending it.—Dr.Nicholls.

Canon 72. “No minister shall, withoutthe licence of the bishop of the diocese,under his hand and seal, attempt, uponany pretence whatsoever, to cast out anydevil or devils, under pain of the imputationof imposture or cozenage, and depositionfrom the ministry.”

EXORCISTS were persons ordained inthe latter end of the third century, on purposeto take care of such as were demoniacs,or possessed with evil spirits. Inthe first ages of Christianity there weremany persons who are represented as possessedwith evil spirits, and exorcism wasperformed not by any particular set ofmen, but afterwards it was judged requisiteby the bishops to appropriate this officeby ordination. They are still a separateorder in the Church of Rome.

EXPECTATION WEEK. The wholeof the interval between Ascension Dayand Whit Sunday is so called, because atthis time the apostles continued in earnestprayer and expectation of the Comforter.

EXPIATION. A religious act, bywhich satisfaction or atonement is made forsome crime, the guilt removed, and the obligationto punish cancelled. (Lev. xv. 15.)

EXPIATION, THE GREAT DAY OF.An annual solemnity of the Jews, observedupon the 10th day of the month Tisri,which answers to our September. TheHebrews call it Chippur, that is, “pardon,”because the sins of the whole people werethen expiated or pardoned. (Lev. xvi. 29,30.) On this occasion, the high priest laidaside his pectoral and embroidered ephod,because it was a day of humiliation. Heoffered first a bullock and a ram for hisown sins and those of the priests; thenhe received from the heads of the peopletwo goats for a sin offering, and a ram fora burnt offering, to be offered in the name329of the whole multitude. It was determinedby 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, comingout, he sacrificed the goat upon which thelot had fallen. This done, the goat whichwas to be set at liberty being brought tohim, he laid his hands upon its head, confessedhis sins and the sins of the people,and then sent it away into some desertplace.

The great day of Expiation was a dayof rest and strict fasting: they confessedthemselves ten times, and repeated thename of God as often: on this day likewisethey put an end to all differences, andwere reconciled to each other. ManyJews spent the night preceding the day ofExpiation in prayer and penitential exercises.It was customary for the highpriest to separate from his wife seven daysbefore this solemnity. Upon the vigil,some of the elders attended the high priest,and their business was to prevent his eatingtoo much, lest he should fall asleep.He was likewise to swear, that he wouldnot change the ancient rites in any particular.On the day itself, the high priestwashed himself five times, and changedhis habit as often. When the ceremonywas over, the high priest read the law, andgave the blessing to the people.—Buxtorf,Synag. Jud. c. xx. Basnage, Hist. desJuifs, t. v. lib. vii. c. 15.

The modern Jews prepare themselvesfor the great day of Expiation by prayer,and ablution. They carry wax candles tothe synagogue: the most devout have two,one for the body, and the other for thesoul. The women at the same time lightup candles in their houses, from the brightnessof which, and the consistency of thetallow or wax, they form presages. Thewhole day is spent in strict fasting, withoutexception of age or sex. At the conclusionof the solemnity, the high priestgives the blessing to the people; who returnhome, change their clothes, and sitdown to a good meal.

The Jews believe, that Adam repented,and began his penance, on the solemn dayof Expiation; that, on the same day,Abraham was circumcised, and Isaacbound in order to be sacrificed; lastly,that on this day, Moses descended fromMount Sinai, with the new tables of thelaw.

As sacrificing is now impracticable to themodern Jews, in regard that their templeis destroyed, they sacrifice a cock on thisoccasion, instead of the legal victims, inthe manner following. The men take eachof them a cock in their hands, and thewomen a hen. Then the master of thefamily walks into the middle of the room,and repeating several verses out of thePsalms, dashes the cock thrice on the head,pronouncing these words; “Let this cockpass as an exchange for me; let him standin my place; let him be an expiation forme; let death befall this cock, but life andhappiness belong to me, and all the peopleof Israel. Amen.” This prayer is thricerepeated by the master of the family; forhimself, his children, and the strangers ofhis family. Then they proceed to kill thecock, and throw his entrails upon the topof the house, that the crows may comeand carry them away, together with thesins of the family, into the wilderness:this is done by way of resemblance withthe scape goat.

It is of this fast we are to understandthat passage of the Acts, where St. Lukesays, that St. Paul comforted those whowere with him in the ship, “when sailingwas become dangerous, because the fastwas already past.” (Acts xxvii. 9.) Fortempests are very frequent in the monthof 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 ofthe popes after the Clementines. The firstExtravagants are those of John XXIII.,successor to Clement V.; they were sonamed because, at first, they were not digested,nor ranged with the other papalconstitutions, but seemed to be, as it were,detached from the canon law; and theyretained the same name when they wereafterwards inserted into the body of thecanon law. The collection of decretals, in1483, were called the Common Extravagants,notwithstanding they were likewiseembodied with the rest of the canon law.

EXTREME UNCTION. Of extremeunction the Romish Council of Trent asserts,“The holy unction of the sick wasinstituted by our Lord Christ, as trulyand properly a sacrament of the New Testament,as is implied, indeed, in St. Mark;but commended and declared to the faithfulby James, the apostle and brother ofthe Lord. “Is any sick among you? Lethim call for the elders of the Church, andlet them pray over him, anointing himwith oil in the name of the Lord; and theprayer of faith shall save the sick, and theLord shall raise him up, and if he havecommitted sins they shall be forgiven him.””From which words, as the Church hath330learned from apostolic tradition handeddown, she teaches the matter, form, properminister, and effect of this wholesome sacrament;for the Church has understoodthat the matter is oil blessed by the bishop,for unction most aptly represents the graceof the Holy Spirit wherewith the soul ofthe sick man is invisibly anointed: thenthat the form consists of these words, “Bythis anointing,” &c.

The following are the canons upon thesubject passed by that council.

Canon I. If any shall say, that extremeunction is not truly or properly a sacramentinstituted by our Lord Christ, anddeclared 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 theholy anointing of the sick does not confergrace, nor remit sins, nor relieve the sick,but that it has ceased, as if it were formerlyonly the grace of healing; let himbe accursed.

Canon III. If any shall say, that therite and usage of extreme unction, which,the holy Roman Church observes, is contraryto the sentence of the blessed apostleJames, and, therefore, should be changed,and may be despised by Christians withoutsin; let him be accursed.

Canon IV. If any shall say, that thepresbyters of the Church, whom St. Jamesdirects to be called for the anointing ofthe sick, are not priests ordained by thebishops, but elders in age, in any community;and that, therefore, the priest isnot the only proper minister of extremeunction; let him be accursed.

Here the institution of extreme unctionby our Lord is implied by Mark vi. 13,where it is said of the apostles, that “theyanointed with oil many that were sick, andhealed them.” But, by-and-by, (session 22,ch. 1,) we are told that the Christian priesthoodwas not instituted until our Lord’slast supper. Either, then, extreme unctionis no sacrament, or they who are no priestscan administer a sacrament; for the apostleswere not priests, according to theChurch of Rome, at the time spoken of bySt. Mark. But, further, a sacrament is avisible form of invisible grace; but thepassage in St. Mark speaks only of healingthe body; and, therefore, Cajetan, as citedby Catharinus, rejects this text as inapplicableto this sacrament; and Suarez(in part iii. disp. 39, sect. 1, n. 5) says,that “when the apostles are said to anointthe sick and heal them, (Mark vi. 13,) thiswas not said in reference to the sacramentof unction, because their cures had not ofthemselves an immediate respect to thesoul.” Nor will this pretended sacramentderive more assistance from the passage inSt. James, in which they say that the institutionby our Lord is proclaimed anddeclared by that apostle, at least if CardinalCajetan is any authority, who is thuscited by Catharinus in his Annotationes,Paris, 1535, p. 191, de Sacramento UnctionisExtremæ. “Sed et quod scribitB. Jacobus, ‘Infirmatur quis in vobis?’&c., pariter negat reverendissimus ad hocsacramentum pertinere, ita scribens, necex verbis, nec ex effectu, verba hæc loquunturde sacramentali unctione extremæunctionis, sed magis de unctione quaminstituit Dominus Jesus exercendum inægrotis. Textus enim non dicit, Infirmaturquis ad mortem? sed absolutè, Infirmaturquis?” &c. But that this rite,which they now call a sacrament, was originallyapplied chiefly to the healing ofthe body, is manifest from the prayerswhich accompanied it. “Cura quæsumus,Redemptor noster, gratia Spiritüs Sanctilanguores istius infirmi,” and so the directions,“in loco ubi plus dolor imminet, ampliusperungatur.” Let the patient havemost oil applied in the part where the painis greatest.—Sacr. Gregor. by Menard,Paris, 1542, p. 252. From all which wecome to the conclusion, that the allegationsof the Council of Trent on this mattermust be pronounced “not proven.” Which,if it were a mere opinion, would be of nogreat consequence. But when their assertionis supported by anathema, and everycommunicant in their Church bound tobelieve it as necessary to salvation, it servesto show the cruelty of this Roman motherboth to her own children, and to themwhom she reckons strangers. It is invain that the Roman writers attempt tostrengthen their cause by appeals to theGreek mysteries. The Greek mysteriesand the Latin sacraments are not synonymous.And as concerns this of unction,which (as its epithet “extreme,” which theRomans have added, implies) is designedfor persons in articulo mortis, or in exituvitæ, as we have it in the third chapter,this derives as little countenance from theGreek Church as it does from St. James.For, in the Greek Church, the service ofanointing is used to persons in any illness;and is used by them solely for recoveryfrom sickness, as the following prayer atthe application of the oil clearly shows.“O holy Father, the physician of our soulsand bodies, who didst send thine only-begottenSon, our Lord Jesus Christ, to331heal all diseases, and to deliver us fromdeath, heal this thy servant M. from thebodily infirmity under which he nowlabours, and raise him up by the graceof Christ.”—Perceval, Roman Schism.King’s Greek Church.

Now that this miraculous gift (of healingall manner of diseases) is ceased, thereis no reason why the mere ceremony ofanointing with oil should continue; whichyet is still used in the Church of Rome,and made a sacrament; though it signifynothing; for they do not pretend to healmen by it, nay, they pretend the contrary,because they never use it but in extremity,and where they look upon the person aspast 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 houseof Aaron. He was carried captive to Babylonwith Jechoniah. He began to prophesyin the fifth year of this captivity,which is the æra by which he reckons inall his prophecies. He continued to prophesyduring twenty years. He was contemporarywith Jeremiah, who prophesiedat the same time in Judea. He foretoldmany events, particularly the destructionof the temple; the fatal catastrophe ofthose who revolted from Babylon to Egypt;and, at last, the happy return of the Jewsinto their own land. He distinctly predictsthe plagues which were to fall uponthe enemies of the Jews, as the Edomites,Moabites, Ammonites, Egyptians, Assyrians,and Babylonians. He foretells thecoming of the Messiah, and the flourishingstate of his kingdom.—Du Pin, Canon ofScripture, b. i. c. iii. § 20.

The greatest part of this prophecy iseasy, plain, and intelligible, referringchiefly to the manners and corruption ofthat degenerate age. Of all the prophets,Ezekiel abounds the most in enigmaticalvisions. His style (in the opinion of St.Jerome) is neither eloquent nor mean, butbetween both. He abounds in fine sentences,rich comparisons, and shows a greatdeal of learning in profane matters. Thebeginning and end of this book (by reasonof the abstruse mysteries contained inthem) were forbidden to be read by theJews, before thirty years of age.

Ezekiel was called to be a prophet bybeing carried in a vision to Jerusalem, andthere shown all the several sorts of idolatry,which were practised by the Jews in thatplace. This makes the subject of the 8th,9th, 10th, and 11th chapters of his prophecies.At the same time God promisedto those of the captivity, who kept themselvesfrom these abominations, that hewould be their protector, and restore themto the land of Israel. This is his themein the 15th and following chapters. The26th, 27th, and 28th chapters contain thethreatenings of God’s judgments againstTyre, for insulting on the calamitous estateof Judah and Jerusalem. To these wemay add his prophecy concerning thecaptivity of Zedekiah, contained in the12th chapter; and that against PharaohHophra, king of Egypt, in the 33rd. Theseare the principal prophecies of this book.—Prideaux,Connect. p. i. b. i.

It is said, that Ezekiel was put to deathby the prince of his people, because heexhorted him to leave idolatry. It is pretendedlikewise, that his body was depositedin the same cave wherein Shem andArphaxad were laid, on the bank of theEuphrates. His tomb, they say, is still tobe seen: the Jews keep a lamp alwaysburning in it, and boast, that they havethere the prophet’s book, written with hisown hand, which they read every yearupon the great day of Expiation.

The Jewish Sanhedrim, we are told,once took it under their consideration,whether they should not suppress the prophecyof Ezekiel, on account of the obscurityof some parts of it; but that RabbiChananias prevented this design, by offeringto remove all the difficulties. Hisproposal, they say, was accepted, and apresent was made him of three hundredtun of oil for the use of his lamp, while hewas employed in this undertaking. Wemay easily discover, that this is a merefable and an hyperbole of the Talmudists.

EZRA. One of the canonical books ofScripture is called the Book of Ezra.

The book of Ezra was written in thelatter end of the author’s life, and comprehendsthe transactions of about eighty,or, as some say, a hundred years. It includesthe history of the Jews from thetime of Cyrus’s edict for their return, tothe twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus.In this book are recorded thenumber of those Jews who returned fromthe captivity, Cyrus’s proclamation for therebuilding of the temple, the laying of thefoundations thereof, &c. Part of thisbook was written in the Chaldee language,namely, from the eighth verse of the fourthchapter to the twenty-seventh verse of theseventh chapter; all the rest was writtenin Hebrew.

FACULTY COURT belongs to thearchbishop of Canterbury, and his officer332is called the Master of the Faculties. Hispower is to grant dispensation to marry,to eat flesh on days prohibited, to hold twoor 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 SaviourJesus Christ, by Faith, and not forour own works or deservings. Wherefore,that we are justified by faith only is amost wholesome doctrine, and very full ofcomfort, as more largely is expressed inthe Homily of Justification.”—Article XI.

Faith, in its generic sense, either meansthe holding rightly the creeds of the CatholicChurch, or means that very Catholicfaith, which except a man believe faithfully,he cannot be saved. Thus, whenthe priest is directed, in the office for theBaptism of those of Riper Years, to inquireinto the faith of the candidate, he askshis assent to one of the creeds; and, inthe office for the Visitation of the Sick, heis required to use the same test, and thisof course agrees with St. Paul’s statement:“With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,and with the mouth confession ismade unto salvation.”

It should be noted, that we are justifiedby faith, not because of faith; for there isno more “merit” in our faith, than in ourworks. Faith therefore is not the cause,but the condition, of our justification,which is solely to be attributed to thebounty of God, and the merits of Christ.—ArchdeaconWelchman.

I am sensible, says Dr. Waterland, thatsome very eminent men have expresseda dislike of the phrase, of the instrumentalityof faith; and have also justly rejectedthe thing, according to the falsenotion which some had conceived of it. Itcannot, with any tolerable sense or propriety,be looked upon as an instrument ofconveyance in the hand of the efficient orprincipal cause; but it may justly andproperly be looked upon as the instrumentof reception in the hand of the recipient.It is not the mean by which the grace iswrought, effected, or conferred; but itmay be, and is, the mean by which it isaccepted or received: or, to express it alittle differently, it is not the instrumentof justification in the active sense of theword, but it is in the passive sense of it.It cannot be for nothing that St. Paul sooften and so emphatically speaks of man’sbeing justified by faith, or through faithin Christ’s blood; and that he particularlynotes it of Abraham, that he believed,and that his faith was counted to him forjustification; when he might as easilyhave said, had he so meant, that man isjustified 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 handsallowed, that, though St. Paul did not directlyand expressly oppose faith to evangelicalworks, yet he comprehended theworks of the moral law under those workswhich he excluded from the office of justifying,in his sense of justifying, in thosepassages; and further, he used such argumentsas appear to extend to all kinds ofworks: for Abraham’s works were reallyevangelical works, and yet they were excluded.Add to this, that if justificationcould come even by evangelical works,without taking in faith in the meritorioussufferings and satisfaction of a mediator,then might we have “whereof to glory,” asneeding no pardon; and then might it bejustly said, that “Christ died in vain.” Imust further own, that it is of great weightwith me, that so early and so considerablea writer as Clemens of Rome, an apostolicalman, should so interpret the doctrineof justifying faith, so as to oppose itplainly even to evangelical works, howeverexalted. It runs thus: “They (the ancientpatriarchs) were all, therefore, greatlyglorified and magnified; not for their ownsake, or for their own works, or for therighteousness which they themselveswrought, but through his good pleasure.And we also, being called through his goodpleasure in Christ Jesus, are not justifiedby ourselves, neither by our own wisdom,or knowledge, or piety, or the works whichwe have done in holiness of heart, but bythat faith by which Almighty God justifiedall from the beginning.” Here it isobservable, that the word faith does notstand for the whole system of Christianity,or for Christian belief at large, but forsome particular self-denying principle bywhich good men, even under the patriarchaland legal dispensations, laid holdon the mercy and promises of God, referringall, not to themselves or their owndeservings, but to Divine goodness, in andthrough a mediator. It is true, Clemenselsewhere, and St. Paul almost everywhere,insists upon true holiness of heart, andobedience of life, as indispensable conditionsof salvation or justification; and ofthat one would think there could be noquestion among men of any judgment orprobity: but the question about conditionsis very distinct from the other questionabout instruments; and, therefore, bothparts may be true, viz. that faith and obedience333are equally conditions, and equallyindispensable where opportunities permit;and yet faith over and above is emphaticallythe instrument both of receiving andholding justification, or a title to salvation.

To explain this matter more distinctly,let it be remembered, that God may beconsidered (as I before noted) either as aparty contracting with man, on very graciousterms, or as a judge to pronouncejudgment upon him.

Man’s first coming into covenant (supposinghim adult) is by assenting to it, andaccepting of it, to have and to hold it onsuch kind of tenure as God proposes: thatis to say, upon a self-denying tenure, consideringhimself as a guilty man, standingin need of pardon, and of borrowed merits,and at length resting upon mercy. Sohere the previous question is, whether aperson shall consent to hold a privilegeupon this submissive kind of tenure ornot? Such assent or consent, if he comesinto it, is the very thing which St. Pauland St. Clemens call faith; and this previousand general question is the questionwhich both of them determine against anyproud claimants who would hold by amore self-admiring tenure.

Or, if we next consider God as sittingin judgment, and man before the tribunal,going to plead his cause; here the questionis, What kind of plea shall a man resolveto trust his salvation upon? Shallhe stand upon his innocence, and rest uponstrict law; or shall he plead guilty, andrest in an act of grace? If he chooses theformer, 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 hasdecided, is previous to the question, whatconditions even the act of grace itselffinally insists upon? A question whichSt. James in particular, and the generaltenor of the whole Scripture, has abundantlysatisfied; and which could neverhave been made a question by any considerateor impartial Christian. WhatI am at present concerned with is to observe,that faith is emphatically the instrumentby which an adult accepts thecovenant of grace, consenting to hold bythat kind of tenure, to be justified in thatway, and to rest in that kind of plea, puttinghis salvation on that only issue. Itappears to be a just observation whichDr. Whitby makes, (Pref. to the Epist. toGalat. p. 300,) that Abraham had faith(Heb. xi. 8) before what was said of hisjustification in Gen. xv. 6, and afterwardsmore abundantly, when he offeredup his son Isaac; but yet neither of thoseinstances was pitched upon by the apostleas 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 wasimputed to him for righteousness.” Thesum is, none of our works are good enoughto stand by themselves before Him who isof purer eyes than to behold iniquity.Christ only is pure enough for it at firsthand, and they that are Christ’s at secondhand, in and through him. Now, becauseit is by faith that we thus interpose, as itwere, Christ between God and us, inorder to gain acceptance by him; thereforefaith is emphatically the instrumentwhereby we receive the grant of justification.Obedience is equally a condition orqualification, but not an instrument, notbeing that act of the mind whereby welook up to God and Christ, and wherebywe embrace the promises.—Waterland onJustification.

There is not any one word which hathmore significations than this hath in the wordof God, especially in the New Testament.It sometimes signifies the acknowledgmentof the true God, in opposition to heathenism;sometimes the Christian religion, inopposition to Judaism; sometimes the believingthe power of Christ to heal diseases;sometimes the believing that he isthe promised Messias; sometimes fidelityor faithfulness; sometimes a resolution ofconscience concerning the lawfulness ofanything: sometimes a reliance, affiance,or dependence on Christ either for temporalor spiritual matters; sometimes believingthe truth of all Divine relations;sometimes obedience to God’s commandsin the evangelical, not legal sense; sometimesthe doctrine of the gospel, in oppositionto the law of Moses; sometimes itis an aggregate of all other graces; sometimesthe condition of the second covenantin opposition to the first: and other sensesof it also there are, distinguishable by thecontexture, and the matter treated ofwhere the word is used.—Hammond,Practical Catechism.

FAITH, IMPLICIT. (See ImplicitFaith.)

FAITHFUL. This was the favouriteand universal name uniformly used in theprimitive Church, to denote those who hadbeen instructed in the Christian religion,and received by baptism into the communionof the Church. The apostolical Epistlesare all addressed to “faithful men,”that is, to those who formed the visibleChurch in their respective localities; those334who had made profession of the faith ofChrist in holy baptism.

FALD STOOL. A small desk, at whichthe Litany is enjoined to be sung or said.It is generally placed, in those churches inwhich it is used, in the middle of the choir,sometimes near the steps of the altar. Thisword is probably derived from the barbarousLatin, falda, a place shut up, a fold.(See Litany.)

FALDISTORY. The episcopal seat, orthrone, within the chancel; but more particularly,the bishop’s chair, near the altar,mentioned in the Ordination Service, inwhich he sits, while addressing the candidatesfor orders, &c.

FALL OF MAN. (See Original Sin.)The loss of those perfections and that happinesswhich his Maker bestowed on manat his creation, for the transgression of apositive command, given for the trial ofhis obedience. This doctrine may be statedin the language of our ninth Article:—“Originalsin standeth not in the followingof Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk,)but it is the fault and corruption of thenature of every man, that naturally is engenderedof the offspring of Adam, wherebyman is very far gone (the Latin is quamlongissime i. e. as far as possible) fromoriginal righteousness, and is of his ownnature inclined to evil, so that the fleshlusteth always contrary to the Spirit; andtherefore, in every person born into thisworld, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.And this infection of nature dothremain, yea, in them that are regenerated,whereby the lust of the flesh, called inGreek φρόημα σάρχος, which some do expoundthe wisdom, some sensuality, somethe affection, some the desire of the flesh,is not subject to the law of God. Andalthough there is no condemnation forthem that believe and are baptized, yetthe apostle doth confess that concupiscenceand lust hath of itself the nature of sin.”

FAMILIARS OF THE INQUISITION.(See Inquisition.) In order tosupport the cruel proceedings of the Inquisitionin Spain, great privileges werebestowed upon such of the nobility as werewilling to degrade themselves so far as tobecome familiars of the holy office. Theking himself assumed the title, and wasprotector of the order.

The business of these familiars was toassist in the apprehending of such personsas were accused, and to carry them toprison; upon which occasion the unhappyperson was surrounded by such a numberof these officious gentlemen, that, thoughhe was neither fettered nor bound, therewas no possibility of escaping out of theirhands. As a reward of this base employment,the familiars were allowed to committhe most enormous actions, to debauch,assassinate, and kill with impunity. Ifthey happened to be prosecuted for anycrime, the Inquisition took upon itself theprosecution, and immediately the familiarentered himself as their prisoner; afterwhich he was at liberty to go where hepleased, and act in all things as if he werefree.

A gentleman, a familiar of the holy officeat Corduba, having killed a person, the inquisitorswere so strongly solicited againsthim, that they could not help condemninghim pursuant to the laws. But the rest ofthe gentleman familiars getting a horseready for him, and a sum of money, lethim privately out of prison. Another,being put in prison for having disputed onfree-will and grace, (for which any otherperson would have been punished with theutmost severity,) was only admonished notto argue any more upon religion, and presentlyset at liberty.—Broughton.

FANATICISM. When men add toenthusiasm and zeal for the cause whichthey believe to be the cause of truth, ahatred of those who are opposed to them,whether in politics or religion, they fallinto fanaticism, and thus violating the lawof Christian charity, are guilty of a greatsin.

FARSE. An addition, used before theReformation, in the vernacular tongue, tothe Epistle in Latin, anciently used in somechurches, forming an explication or paraphraseof the Latin text, verse by verse,for the benefit of the people. The subdeaconfirst repeated each verse of theepistle or lectio in Latin, and two choristerssang the farse or explanation. Thefollowing is an example from the Epistlewith a farse for new-year’s day. “Goodpeople, for whose salvation God deignedto clothe himself in flesh, and humbly livein a cradle, who has the whole world inhis hands, render him sweet thanks, whoin his life worked such wonders, and forour redemption humbled himself even todeath.”—Lectio Epistolæ, &c. Then followsthe lesson from the Epistle of St. Paulto Titus, and then the farse proceeds. “St.Paul sent this ditty,” &c.—See Burney’sHistory 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 inculcatedat seasons of peculiar penitenceand humiliation, as a valuable auxiliary to335the cultivation of habits of devotion andself-denial. Respecting its usefulness, theredoes not appear to have been much diversityof opinion until late years. Fastingwas customary in the Church of God longbefore the introduction of Christianity, asmay be seen in the Old Testament Scriptures.That it was sanctioned by ourSaviour and his apostles, is equally plain.And that it was intended to continue inthe future Church can scarcely be questioned;for Christ gave his disciples particularinstructions respecting it, and inreprobating the abuses of it among thePharisees, never objects to its legitimateuse. He even declares, that after his ascensionhis disciples should fast: “Thedays will come when the bridegroom shallbe taken away from them, and then theyshall fast in those days.” (Luke v. 35.)Accordingly, in the Acts of the Apostlesoccur several notices of fastings connectedwith religious devotions. St. Paul evidentlypractised it with some degree offrequency. (2 Cor. xi. 27.) He also recognisesthe custom, as known in the CorinthianChurch, and makes some observationsimplying its continuance. From thedays of the apostles to the present time,fasting has been regarded under variousmodifications as a valuable auxiliary topenitence. In former times, Christianswere exceedingly strict in abstaining fromevery kind of food for nearly the whole ofthe appointed fast days, receiving only atstated times what was actually necessaryfor the support of life. At the season ofLent, much time was spent in mortificationand open confession of sin, accompaniedby those outward acts which tend tothe control of the body and its appetites;a species of godly discipline still associatedwith the services of that solemn period ofthe ecclesiastical year.