A Church Dictionary | Project Gutenberg (2024)

*** 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